Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, they got their way. Since the "urgent" hunt was OKed, ten days ago, 38 deer were killed by what most agree is the most violent, painful, and slow method - bow hunting. The deer include 5 young male fawns, 5 Does, and 29 male deer. All slaughtered, all for nothing.
Hunters always see death as the solution to any "problem" regarding animals. And helpful, community minded people that they are, they are always ready to take out their expensive, lethal man toys, to cause an animal unnecessary pain and rob them of their life.
I know the usual excuse "they are starving. They need us to put them out of their misery." It was noted many times that the Mill Creek Park deer were not starving. They appeared happy and well fed. They complained that they were eating the leaves of a plant. I hate to break it to anyone, but as herbivores, that is what deer do. Deer are as much a part of the ecosystem of Youngstown's parks as plants are. This is not a formal garden. Mill Creek is rustic and appears untouched.
For us, seeing deer walking around in a city, it such a beautiful sight. They are beautiful, peaceful animals. We always take pictures of them when we see them. We have also seen deer in Cleveland. There are no more deer in NYC. I am guessing that their haven't been for over 150 years, and that the last place they inhabited was probably on the upper west side, and most likely, in the Bronx. Old New Yorkers such as my mother's great grandfather, told her of seeing deer, pheasant and other wildlife. That was probably before the Civil War. The residents of Youngstown are fortunate that their city is still host to these beautiful creatures.
There was no emergency involving these animals. There were less violent and brutal methods available. Birth control was suggested. But then, they wouldn't have their perverse "fun".
I know it's a contentious issue, locally. I'm sorry I have to disagree with you here.
I'm not an expert on the subject, so I don't have all the answers. I don't know why they started out with bow hunting, and I don't have an opinion on whether it's more barbaric than just shooting them. But, I think there were a lot of objections to using firearms, so I'm thinking that's why they started with bow hunting.
Yes, they are healthy and well-fed now. This is the end of the season of plenty. But, when winter arrives, there won't be enough food for the population.
Yes, the parks look green and natural. But, most of what you see within the reach of the deer, (under the browse line, I think is the term) is non-native, invasive plant life that the deer don't like. By eating every new shoot, deer are preventing native groundcovers, and new trees from growing, leaving room for the invasives to take over.
The ecosystem is broken, and the deer are becoming overpopulated, because they no longer have natural predators, like bears and bobcats, (maybe even wolves?) to keep their numbers in check. From what I've been told, Mill Creek Metroparks/Mahoning County is the only place in Ohio that hasn't set up a deer management system, to keep the population under control. So, we have to go through the repeating cycle of doing nothing for 15-20 years, and then have this fight again, when the population becomes unsustainable.
I've read it before, but I don't remember the reason why birth control isn't an option. I do know that it's not used in any other deer management system, because it's not effective, at this time. That's not to say that it couldn't become an option in the future.
Finally, I don't believe this is done just so some hunters can have some fun. For real hunters, this wouldn't be fun at all, because it's like shooting fish in a barrel; the deer are half-tame, because they have had so much exposure to humans, and they are in a relatively confined area.
I know it's a contentious issue, locally. I'm sorry I have to disagree with you here.
I'm not an expert on the subject, so I don't have all the answers. I don't know why they started out with bow hunting, and I don't have an opinion on whether it's more barbaric than just shooting them. But, I think there were a lot of objections to using firearms, so I'm thinking that's why they started with bow hunting.
The gun vs bow hunting debate has gone on ever since people started hunting with firearms. It isn't going to be resolved here or anywhere else. Lots of media pieces devoted to the ethics of both. Some are much more biased than others. Someone who starts out in favor of either option can easily find a bunch of fodder to support the view they began with.
Every hunt situation is different and there are too many variables involved. A well aimed arrow can kill as quickly as a well aimed bullet. And vice versa. It is true that an archer typically needs to get much closer to their target and that requires a higher level of skill than blasting away with a rifle from a distance. But skill takes time to achieve no matter which method the hunter chooses. Wounding happens either way.
Other than effects to the deer, there are a few other things to consider. A stray bullet can travel much, much farther than an arrow potentially causing property damage, injuries or death to livestock and of course, people. For a relatively small hunting area surrounded by development that's no small concern. Depending on the gun, the ammunition, wind and trajectory, a bullet can travel a mile or more. Firearms are very disruptive to other people and/or wildlife. Archery is less so. I would suspect the number of unintended injuries due to loaded firearms is much higher than the number due to a bow. A bow spends the vast majority of its time unloaded. Any idiot is fairly free to pick their poison.
One thing that is fairly certain is that death by starvation due to overpopulation is prolonged and probably worse for the deer. Sure, deer in some park are going to look well fed NOW but take a look at those same deer in January. Winter's the pinch period, the heartless playing field leveler. If the habitat is in fact over browsed and degraded, there will be a big difference.
Last edited by Parnassia; 10-14-2023 at 12:48 PM..
The gun vs bow hunting debate has gone on ever since people started hunting with firearms. It isn't going to be resolved here or anywhere else. Lots of media pieces devoted to the ethics of both. Some are much more biased than others. Someone who starts out in favor of either option can easily find a bunch of fodder to support the view they began with.
Every hunt situation is different and there are too many variables involved. A well aimed arrow can kill as quickly as a well aimed bullet. And vice versa. It is true that an archer typically needs to get much closer to their target and that requires a higher level of skill than blasting away with a rifle from a distance. But skill takes time to achieve no matter which method the hunter chooses. Wounding happens with both methods.
Other than effects to the deer, there are a few other things to consider. A stray bullet can travel much, much farther than an arrow potentially causing property damage, injuries or death to livestock and of course, people. For a relatively small hunting area surrounded by development that's no small concern. Depending on the gun, the ammunition, wind and trajectory, a bullet can travel a mile or more. Firearms are very disruptive to other people and/or wildlife. Archery is less so. I would suspect the number of unintended injuries due to loaded firearms is much higher than the number due to a bow. A bow spends the vast majority of its time unloaded.
One thing that is fairly certain is that death by starvation due to overpopulation is prolonged and probably worse for the deer. Sure, deer in some park are going to look well fed NOW but take a look at those same deer in January. Winter's the pinch period, the heartless playing field leveler. If the habitat is in fact over browsed and degraded, there will be a big difference.
They are not starving. Local studies have shown that. Are you from the area?
Bow hunting is a horrible way to die.
The idea of giving contraceptives is a good one. Why was it rejected? No hunting involved. That's what it seems.
On the positive side, hunting as a sport is being rejected by an increasing number of younger people. Most guns in the US are owned by the same people, in the same states.
It's a dying pastime, embraced by only a few fanatics.
They are not starving. Local studies have shown that. Are you from the area?
Bow hunting is a horrible way to die.
The idea of giving contraceptives is a good one. Why was it rejected? No hunting involved. That's what it seems.
On the positive side, hunting as a sport is being rejected by an increasing number of younger people. Most guns in the US are owned by the same people, in the same states.
It's a dying pastime, embraced by only a few fanatics.
It's easy to make sweeping broad brush statements like those. It's a lot harder to find impartial data to back them up. Especially for someone who's food gathering experience probably extends to picking the right package off some supermarket shelf. The whole topic is highly charged and emotional. Emotions are not a great basis for any argument. If you want to find out why the authorities didn't opt for contraception ask them, don't rant about it here. Lots of media pieces about pros and cons of contraception. I'll leave you to find them yourself.
Yes, hunting is declining in the US. It has been for decades. No grand epiphany about that, but the reasons are much more nuanced than "younger people rejecting sport hunting". How ironic that one of the side effects from the decline in hunting is overpopulation of some game species; DEER in particular. Which can in turn lead to the culling hunts you object to so much. Next time you scream about how high your state taxes are, consider what part contraception for park deer might play into that.
Of course, the reason the deer population in many parts of the US is unsustainably large isn't just due to a decline in hunting. Humans create habitats that favor deer. The agriculture, the backyard gardens, the suburb greenspaces, road and infrastructure maintenance, forestry practices, on and on. Don't forget predator eradication. No one wants their livestock, lapdog Fifi, or old Aunt Martha to get picked off by a large predator so they gotta go.
As for gun ownership, shame on you. You should know better than to toss out that horrible little can of worms and claim its due to hunting trends! As for people in different states hunting more or less, or owning fewer or more guns, why on earth should someone in Ohio get to judge what's appropriate in MT? AK? NM? TX? or any other place?
As for hunters being rare fanatics, you're spouting biased garbage to suit yourself. Pretty much everyone I have known or worked with for the past 40+ years, both men and women, hunts. And I'm just one pretty ordinary person. If these killers are in fact hunting fanatics, they've done a pretty good job hiding it. They mostly prefer to put healthy game meat on the family's table instead of inhumanely mass-produced domestic livestock pumped full of questionable antibiotics, hormones, fertility enhancers, anti-virals, or who knows what else.
As for what is inhumane, be careful. It can cut both ways.
That's enough. Go ahead and believe whatever you want, no matter how ill-informed.
Deer and Turkey were actually locally extinct in Ohio in the early 1900s, and they weren't as common before European settlers started to cut down the forests. They've made quite the comeback with somewhere between 600-900,000 deer statewide. In part due to an intentional effort to restock them for hunting.
I don't hunt, but the hunters I know seem to have a great deal of respect for the animals, and want to hunt while creating the least amount of pain and suffering possible. They are not blood lusted animal abusers. It seems preferable to the mass operations that most meat comes from.
Even our national park acknowledges there is a problem and has their own deer culling program.
Contraception is an option, but it has drawbacks. It costs more, takes a few years to see any significant drop in population, and can be ineffective if not enough deer are treated (as is easy to occur if the deer population isn't isolated). I think it's also debatable whether it creates its own sort of suffering.
I think there's very little chance that you'll stop seeing deer in Ohio.
Although it isn't mentioned in the article, many times when these types of hunts are organized, the deer are butchered and the meat is given to homeless shelters at no cost. Another benefit for the community.
They’ve been having to cull deer from the Cuyahoga Valley National Park for years. DH was raised in Sagamore Hills and he’s in his 70s. Even then the deer were overpopulated.
Now it’s a county wide effort in Cuyahoga Co, according to this article.
Although it isn't mentioned in the article, many times when these types of hunts are organized, the deer are butchered and the meat is given to homeless shelters at no cost. Another benefit for the community.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's easy to make sweeping broad brush statements like those. It's a lot harder to find impartial data to back them up. Especially for someone who's food gathering experience probably extends to picking the right package off some supermarket shelf. The whole topic is highly charged and emotional. Emotions are not a great basis for any argument. If you want to find out why the authorities didn't opt for contraception ask them, don't rant about it here. Lots of media pieces about pros and cons of contraception. I'll leave you to find them yourself.
