The Maplewood Township Council voted last night to continue the deer slaughter in the South Mountain Reservation. The Council voted 4 in favor, 1 opposed.
The story might have ended there, but for a very ill conceived and ill created communication on the part of the Dennis Percher, Chairman of the Board of the South Mountain Conservancy.
His first mistake was sending an email on a sensitive subject, and sending it to a large group of people.
His second mistake was assuming that people supporting the Conservancy and appreciating the Reservation would necessarily be in favor of the slaughter.
His third mistake was using highly volatile language, calling those who oppose the slaughter "zealots" and belittling their efforts to protect the deer.
Additionally, his accusation that the West Orange Township Council was manipulated in some way to reject the slaughter is completely off target. Those Council members did not buy the slate of "evidence" presented by the County and the Conservancy. They took a more conservative and higher path: they are to be highly praised, not subtly ridiculed.
His fourth mistake was letting that derisive email, created to rally his troops, get into the hands of his adversaries.
Those campaigning to halt the kill were not happy to see Percher's strategies and "successes" in lobbying the Maplewood council spelled out so clearly. This was particularly troubling when these same council members literally shut the door in the face of others hoping to present the opposite side of this issue.
I think I may represent many people opposed to this kill.
We all work and have families and friends and neighbors and enjoy the outdoors. Most of us have pets whom we love and take care of, in sickness and in health. Not one of us think that violence is a solution of any kind.
And none of us want to see perfectly healthy animals killed when we believe that there is a better way to thin the deer population, if indeed, that is necessary. We are repulsed by the idea of the deer being wounded and left to die in some one's back yard. There probably isn't a person among us who would, however, physically harm those asking for the kill, authorizing the kill or implementing the kill.
Zealots? Hardly.
I think other than being outspoken on this issue, and for good reason, we are pretty ordinary. Not zealots. Not fanatics. Not militants.
What makes us a little different perhaps, is that we hate injustice.
Killing the deer in the fashion created last year is injustice.
Dismissing our own evidence regarding studies that refute those of the County and the Conservancy is injustice.
And besmirching our good intentions with bad names is injustice.
So, should Mr. Percher or Mr. DiVincenzo ever read this blog post, please keep in mind that your arrogance and dismissive attitude are creating a monster.
Where there there were 20 of us, next time there will be 200. Where there were 200, there will be 2000. And so on. You have re-dedicated us to our cause. You have refreshed a deep distrust for you, and all you stand for.
And you have galvanized a few dissenting thinkers into an army of dissenting voters.
4 comments:
you oppose the deer reduction for exactly what reason?
you rather have them starve to death because of overpopulation.
it's people that slaughtered ALL their natural predators. ALL OF THEM.
except for the auto, nothing else is keeping the herds the right size.
I eat meat, lots of it. and I enjoy it. but I don't kill for fun, I do it for food.
We are not all out there killing animals for fun, so lighten up about that pov.
The reasons are many. I don't believe that the herd, after last year's killing spree, needs any more thinning. I don't believe that we can't wait until the immunocontraceptive to come out to scientifically reduce the population. I don't believe that shooting does and their fawns from trees, only wounding them in many instances, is humane. I don't believe that the deer are the only or even major reason for the defoliation of the South Mountain Reservation.
This blog is not talking about deer hunts, though that is a debateable issue as well.
The blog is talking about the slaughter of deer in this effort to thin the herd in South Mountain Reservation.
We are all entitled to our pov. I have mine and you have yours.
When deer are killed, the remaining deer respond by reproducing dramatically. Sport hunting as a management tool has resulted in an ever-increasing number of deer in this country; killing is not a solution to the problem, but a commitment to a permanent problem. Even big-game texts admit, "Harvesting . . . gets the population into its most productive range . . . this ensures that many animals will be produced."
Deer did not proliferate before state wildlife agencies began regulating hunting for the "maximum sustained yield ". Wildlife agencies deliberately propagate wildlife for the recreation of hunters. Hunting is sadistic recreation, to be sure.
But, Alex, enjoy the venison. Did you know that a Bismarck physician and hunter, alerted health officials after he conducted his own tests on venison using a CT scanner and found lead most samples? The North Dakota Health Department confirmed the results on samples of venison destined for food pantries.
"This isn't just a food pantry problem. This is a nationwide problem," said the physician.
The venison could also have chronic wasting disease.Meat from one of the infected New York deer was fed to people at a fire department fund-raiser.
A lot of interesting points are brought out here. Do we have a right to hunt? If we eat meat is there a conflict in opposing hunting?
Although this blog is specific to the South Mountain Reservation deer kill, we are all entitled to our pov as previously stated.
After reading this current post, however, I would certainly refrain from wild game even if I did eat meat.
Post a Comment