Protesters gather to fight deer culling in preserves
Deer-culling opponents protested Monday evening at the Messenger Woods entrance off Bruce Road.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at 301 Moved Permanently.
#1 Feb 23, 2011
So, we shall be up to our arses in deer?
#2 Feb 24, 2011
People need to protest! Who came up with this idea? What losers we have in office. The deer killing needs to be stopped!!!!!
#3 Feb 24, 2011
It is a cruel to not thin the deer population. Letting the deer population grow results in dead deer when the carrying capacity of the environment is exceeded. When the food is used up a majority of the deer die. It is our responsibility to maintain a deer population that is small. Man is in charge of his environment not the deer.
Large deer populations also pose dangers of collisions to vehicles. The more deer the more accidents.
Thin the herd.
#4 Feb 25, 2011
I guess they would rather see them die of disease or lack of food. Which apparently to them is much more humane.
#5 Mar 1, 2011
4 large onions, thinly sliced or finely chopped
2 cloves garlic, finely chopped
2 cups vegetable oil or olive oil
2 pounds venison, ground
2 Tbsp. chili powder
2 tsp coriander
1/2 tsp ground cumin
Dash of Tabasco
1 cup water
1/2 cup tomato paste
1 1/2 tsp salt
Saute the onions and garlic in oil until they are limp and golden. Add the ground venison, stirring until browned. Add the rest of the ingredients and blend.
Reduce the heat and simmer for 45 minutes to 1 hour. Taste for seasoning and correct. Add more liquid if the mixture gets too dry. Cook until it is well thickened and rich in flavor. Serve with pinto or kidney beans, and rice. This venison chili recipe Serves 6.
#6 Mar 1, 2011
Here's something from Outdoor Life for you to read as you enjoy your chili
The disease that struck the three hunters is ominously similar to another disease that's spreading in deer and elk in Colorado and Wyoming. This possible connection has some people pointing to deer meat and crying killer.
The accusation could prove true. The disease found in deer and elk is called Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), and it's closely related to Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), which is what killed the hunters. Both CJD and CWD are classified as "transmissible spongiform encephalopathies" (TSE). Diseases don't always make the leap from one species to another, but there is a connection between chronic wasting disease and Creutzfeldt-Jacob that has many scientists concerned: Another TSE-bovine spongiform chronic encephalopathy (BSE)-spread from cattle to humans in the United Kingdom, where it was dubbed "Mad Cow Disease."
#7 Mar 1, 2011
There is a chance for all food bought or hunted to be contaminated not just meat, remember the contaminated spinach not that long ago. That is why they need to let the forest preserve district do their job. I will still be enjoying my chili and venison stew from last years hunt.
#8 Mar 1, 2011
It is unquestionable that diseases transmitted from meat to man come are probobly a million times more likely to come from store bought meats.
Why? How can these disease issues get thru to the consumer?
Because the animals raised specifically for slaughter are kept in the very conditions that the culling is trying to address which is overcrowding and eating from the "same bowl".
The suggestion that protesters pulled out of their butts that the deer herd would be wiped out came right out of their butts and was bred in overwhelming ignorance. Not suprising when you are dealing with persons who view these deer the same as a very popular CARTOON CHARACTER created by Walt Disney in 1942.
Deer are like a wet sponge. If you squeeze the water out on one end or in one area the water from the surrounding cells simply moves to the drier area until the sponge is moistened uniformly.
Also these people haven't even spend the time nor energy to learn of the reproductive abilities of the whitetail deer. Again clear ignorance on display. Nearly every single mature doe is bred and inseminated every fall. The bucks never seem to mind donating their end of this and rare is the doe that doesn't get properly courted. ;)
So if a given area such as Messenger is left with even 20 does, these same does will drop (most commonly) 2 newborns each spring. So that QUICKLY makes 20 does into 40 does if only 1/2 the offspring are female. At the same rate, after only one more year you have 60 does and with these new does getting impregnated too the repopulation of the area's herd goes up IN A HURRY!
And that brings us to the next step which I believe has been overlooked entirely. This current culling is a temporary fix. The population can AND WILL spring right back and will do so before you know it. There needs to be a long term solution implemented to bring true balance to the herd. A true balance means keeping the herd AT a level that is in agreement with the environment. And that means NOT waiting until the bucket is full and overflowing. A bleed off mechanism (for lack of a better word) needs to be put in place and the only mechanism that seems viable at all is hunting.
Thank you for your time.
#9 Mar 2, 2011
Yeah, sure. Because all hunters are responsible citizens who never act in an irresponsible fashion and because there are no such things as hunting accidents. There are absolutely no cases of hunters mistaking somebody's cow or dog for a deer. Everybody who lives near a Will County Forest Preserve should have absolutely no qualms about letting their kids play out in the backyard while a bunch of armed people of dubious marksmanship ability run around firing away.
#10 Mar 3, 2011
It is apparent that you are quite challenged when it comes to reading comprehension. I am sorry and you probobly are too that you didn't work harder on this in school. But remember that it is never too late to learn.
I realize that I made the post you quoted. I have went back and read it over several times and just can't seem to find anywhere that I brought up any issue regarding hunters conduct, hunting accidents or animals other than the intended being shot. I don't know - maybe it is me that needs to work on the reading comprehension, and if so I apologize.
But as you did bring up the subject of hunting accidents (and children) I would like to point out that hunting is exceedingly safer than other sports children participate in and if a hunter is going to be involved in an injury accident it is most likely a hunter injuring himself or being injured himself. So you should look into this and then be sure to try and put an end to those terrible and so potentially dangerous sports. Oh and BTW bicycles are a leading cause of death in children so you might want to get your campaign started to get the wheels out from under the kids.
Automobiles are a unquestionably a leading cause of injuries and death for all ages. And this is a matter of drivers of dubious driving skill. Are you lining up a campaign to end the use of automobiles, too?
There are many points I would try to make here but I believe what I have put out here today may have already exceeded the daily limit of your comprehension.
For future reference and to avoid personal embarrassment, if you wish to try and present yourself as formidable in any debate or arguement you should prepare yourself with some important winning tools. Tools such as actual knowledge, facts & statistics. Ignorance isn't conductive to winning.
#11 Mar 3, 2011
Listen Shakespeare, if you want to question anyone's reading comprehension, question your own. You posted (if I may paraphrase) that hunting was the best and only solution to managing the deer population in the Will County Forest Preserves. I merely pointed out why the people who live near those forest preserves might not think so.
Hunting is fine in areas designated for hunting far away from urban populations. But it is not a legitimate solution in areas where large numbers of people live. Professional sharpshooters while not ideal either is at least preferable to letting anyone who can plop down $12.50 for a hunting license run around with a gun behind your house.
And if you want to go quoting statistics, you should really learn how they work. The reason more people die in car accidents than in hunting accidents is because more people drive then hunt. Every year more people die in the US than in Iceland, mainly because more people live here. But, by your logic that would mean Iceland is a safer place to live.
I'm not arguing against hunting. I am arguing against hunting in the Will County Forest Preserves. I am arguing against hunting in areas where people who may not share your values or your love of hunting have a right to live without people firing off guns so close to their homes and their children. I am arguing for people's rights not to have wounded deer collapse in their backyards and die in front of their kids.
It's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in one's own home. The pursuit of game should occur only where it will not infringe on other people's rights.
And since you're the one who can't seem to discuss an issue without making personal attacks, I think your the one who needs to reevaluate their debate skills.
#12 Mar 3, 2011
I guess you must be late to the party. Never was the option of any firearm hunting in the preserves being tossed around. It was bowhunting.
What you or anyone else consider too close doesn't matter. There are laws on the books that have been working fine for years and years. These laws establish how far away a firearm or bow may be used from an occupied dwelling.
Of course when sharpshooters are utilized the laws, rules and regulations that apply to private citizens are out the window. These are things like night hunting, baiting, spotlighting and use of rifles.(BTW I strongly oppose the use of rifles in this culling)
As to my ability to understand statistics I am right on base here. The stats I consider are per capita. To put it simply what that means is that if you look at just one hunter and one driver, the chances of being injured or killed is far greater for the driver (or bicycle rider, football player, etc)
#13 Mar 3, 2011
Precisely. And those laws you refer to are why they don't allow hunting in forest preserves. Too close to human populations.
Now, I know that you said you don't condone the use of guns in this situation. But you mentioned before that most hunting accidents involve self-inflicted wounds. Intimating that careless hunters are really only risking injury to themselves. But according many studies including a 2004 study in Pennsylvania only 25% of hunting accidents involved self-inflicted wounds, which means 75% of the time they shot somebody else.
You say that hunting is safer than driving. That may be true enough, but then sky diving is safer than hunting. But they don't allow sky diving in the forest preserves either. The point is you make a decision to hunt, you make a decision to sky dive, you make a decision to drive. It's your life you assume the risk. The only point I was trying to make that was by allowing people to hunt with firearms in close proximity to people and houses, you are, in fact, allowing some of that risk to be assumed by people who had no conscious say in the decision.
Sure, good hunters identify their target before firing. But the fact is, not all hunters are good hunters. And not all hunters are safe hunters. While, that may be fine in less populated places in the Will County Forest Preserves it is unacceptable.
As to bowhunting, in a study done by the U.S. Army and Oklahoma Dept. of Fish and Game they found that bow hunters had a 50% wounding rate. Meaning that half of the animals shot were not recovered by the hunters who shot them. Of these, some crawled off to die (nice thing for the kiddies to find in their backyard in the morning or to wander in to traffic) and others recovered not really doing much to reduce the over population problem. In the end, the study determined that bow hunting was less effective in reducing deer population than trained sharpshooters. Isn't it funny how the only real advocates for bow hunting as a good solution are the bow hunters themselves? Gee, I wonder why that is?
#14 Mar 4, 2011
I am sorry Buck Rogers, but 12 inch uh I mean pointer is right. Personally, I would rather have a %50 kill rate using a bow, than one human death from a rifle. Rifles shoot for miles and are meant for killing at a distance. A bow only shoots in the distance of feet. Also, as you pointed out, the area in question is small. Which would mean following the blood trail of a wounded deer would be easier track, thus changing your stats which seem to be based on a larger geographic area than what is in question. Would you rather they poison them? relocate the deer to less populated areas so they could be hunted again (Double jepordy for the deer)? Perhaps using traps? Do you see where I am going with this. The other alternatives can be just as cruel and the meat could be ruined for consumption. I understand your concern about the proximity of homes in the area. However, when the deer start invading backyards and eating up well maintained lawns and gardens, people's opinions will change. Lets not even discuss rutting season and how aggressive bucks get. Yes, deer have attacked and killed people. It is sad that people cannot accept that proactive measure. Thery have to wait for the problems to be visable before they agree something needs to be done.
#15 Mar 4, 2011
Your argument makes perfect sense for using trained sharpshooters. And not just letting any boob with a bow and Hiawatha complex go running around in the forest preserves. But perhaps that is just prejudice on my part since I have a relative who woke up one Saturday morning and was greeted with the scene of a bow hunter finishing off a deer that had collapsed in her backyard. Freaking out both her and her kids for weeks to come.
I don't begrudge you your love for hunting. Go out to the boonies do it to your hearts content. You have a right to practice your hobby but people who don't share your love of hunting have a right not to be exposed to it in there own backyards and neighborhoods. And that includes seeing deer carcasses slung over somebody's hood when they are driving down the road or taking their kids to their neighborhood 7-11.
#16 Mar 7, 2011
Whether killed by professional sharp shooter (which tend to be professional hunters) or a weekend hunter, the dead animals will be seen by the public. Most people eat animals. This is a fact of life. So seeing a hunter finish off a deer, should not be hidden from sheltered eyes. Instead people need to see where their food comes from. At least with hunting, when done right, the animal never knows what killed them. In the mass manufactured food processing industry, the animals are kept in poor cramped conditions that breed disease. The animals are kept in a constant state of fear for hours prior to being killed. So, you tell me which is better, the hunter who understands his food source and works to maintain it, or the ignorant consumer who happily eats their chicken, steak, turkey, etc.. without ever giving thought to what the poor animal went through to get on your plate.
#17 Mar 7, 2011
I have always felt that people should know where their food comes from.
Should people including children have to see their steaks, chicken, pork or burger being killed and butchered before every meal? Certainly not. But there is nothing wrong with occasionally seeing it. Even young children can have it explained to them the process of humanly (could be another entire arguing point) killing the animals, the butchering process, the different cuts, meat preservation, spoilage, etc..
There are kids that have no clue and probobly think the steaks at the store come from the same factory that makes the cereal or pop tarts.
So the meat harvested from this culling is a great, healthy and very nutricious benefit to needy families.
The deer population is too high in many of the WC preserves. I saw the numbers and I agree. I see the deer and I agree. There is no intention of wiping out the populations, just bringing them to a level that is more conductive to an overall healthy herd.
Something to reflect upon is Wisconsin's eradication zones implimented to address CWD!
#18 Mar 8, 2011
What profound logic. Most people have sex, too. That is a fact of life. Yet you probably don't think that kids should be able to see that on TV or out in public.
#19 Mar 8, 2011
"I've always felt that people should know where their food comes from"? Really, I'd love to know how many times you've gone out and picked vegetables working with migrant farm workers in the hot, sun for 12 hours a day. Or, perhaps you could regale with stories of your summers spent working in a beef slaughter house or a chicken processing plant? What? You've never done any of that?
Then why don't you tell the truth. When you say, "I've always felt that people should know where their food comes from" what you really mean is "I think people should think exactly the same way I do about hunting."
#20 Mar 9, 2011
Buck Rogers - up until your last two posts, I found debating with you insteresting. However, I can clearly see by your weak counter arguments that you are too close minded see the bigger picture. But, I am going to try to enlighten you anyways.
Many other countries, like France, Russia, China, and Japan do show much more nudity and sexuality on TV than we do and you know what? For the most part, the gereral public does not care. In Russia, news anchors strip to keep the viewers attention. They do not have any more rapists or pedophiles running around than we do. Nor, do they have any more child pregnency's than we do. Americans have let relegious leaders mold the way they think and the way people train our children to think.
Oh and btw I have worked in a chicken slaughter house, Townsends of Arkansas, also worked on a hog farm helping castrate pigs for slaughter (makes their meat taste better), did fur trapping, and planting pine trees alongside migrant laborers in southern Missouri. You see, I am speaking from experience and people do need to see how that steak ended up on their plate. This not knowing where my food comes from way of thinking only weakens our country. What if we experienced another great depression? Will you know how to survive off the land and your own wits? or will you starve like all the rest who never took the time to learn about their food?
Add your comments below
|Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08)||2 min||moshx||1,441,441|
|lyons, il politics (Mar '07)||13 min||Frat Boys Of Lyons||9,235|
|Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08)||17 min||Dreams7741||61,736|
|BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09)||22 min||District 1||227,535|
|All for the "Emperor with no clothes".||23 min||HRC is BHO withPenis||5|
|What really happened to these Clinton aquaintan...||32 min||INVEST in Body Bags||21|
|6 Dr.s & 494 staff for obama 3 day London visit?||43 min||BHO-SezKissMyAZZ||7|
Find what you want!
Search Berwyn Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC