10 Parts

Posted by

Let’s start at the beginning.

Part 1

The Kansas article describes how it is happening on a community level.  There is a park–open space, many acres–adjacent or nearby a city or suburb.  The situation with deer begins there and spreads; unlike the way it is often characterized, it isn’t because people took over the deer habitat but mostly it is the other way around.  The park and the people living nearby has created a safe, food-rich environment and the deer population has swelled.  Eventually, the deer become habituated–not afraid of people  and more and more fond of and dependent on the human-enhanced food supply.  Landscaping, watering, and perhaps fertilizing take place in the park and in the surrounding yards and gardens.  Many people like to see the deer (or elk), and this is true especially for visitors from the park who may not be accustom to seeing them.  People living nearby may enjoy them too, or maybe not.

The debate is complex and potentially contentious and, regardless of one’s personal views, is here to stay.  Hunting is not everyone’s favorite activity and, regardless too, it is absent.  Environmentalists, humanitarians, or just plain loud-voiced citizens will cry foul.  Weak, ineffectual, politicized, and cowardly government staffers will do nothing.  Most homeowners will not understand the situation and will make it worse.  The situation is here to stay.  As the local resident stood up and said in the town meeting referenced in the Kansas article, “Let’s not have this same discussion next year.”  More profound words were never said:  They will.




Leave a Reply