Arlington Co. and its deer problem

[Anonymous]

I’m a resident and support whatever they want to do that is cheaper than the insane cost it would require to sterilize enough does to reduce the population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a resident and support whatever they want to do that is cheaper than the insane cost it would require to sterilize enough does to reduce the population.

Feeding them so they don’t devour landscaping and natural vegetation is far cheaper than killing them. And it’s more humane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a resident and support whatever they want to do that is cheaper than the insane cost it would require to sterilize enough does to reduce the population.

Feeding them so they don’t devour landscaping and natural vegetation is far cheaper than killing them. And it’s more humane.

You know that feeding the deer will result in more deer which will need fed which will result in more deer which will need fed which will result in more deer which will need fed which will result in more deer which will need fed which will result in more deer which will need fed which will result in more deer which will need fed which will result in more deer which will need fed which will result in more deer which will need fed which will...

How big is Arlington's budget?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a resident and support whatever they want to do that is cheaper than the insane cost it would require to sterilize enough does to reduce the population.

Feeding them so they don’t devour landscaping and natural vegetation is far cheaper than killing them. And it’s more humane.

How big is Arlington's budget?

It's certainly big enough to allow for not slaughtering innocent wildlife.

[Anonymous]

Whilst planning to exterminate 40% of the deer to save vegetation, Arlington has been using chemicals gorgeous years to defoliate large areas of "non native " vegetation so they can plant native stuff.
The result is ugly bare stream banks and trailsides. With some stuff planted and flagged. It looks a lot worse imo.
Personally I think this is vegetation correctness run rampant and most taxpayers could give a %&@ about the difference.

[Anonymous]

Numerous not gorgeous btw.
One of the arborist squad said not to plant a butterfly bush as non native. Milkweed only.
Huh. The monarchs seem to like the butterfly bush we have has 30+ years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too many deer, cull them all

It would cost too much doe.

A lot of bucks, for sure.

Would cost us deerly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Numerous not gorgeous btw.
One of the arborist squad said not to plant a butterfly bush as non native. Milkweed only.
Huh. The monarchs seem to like the butterfly bush we have has 30+ years.

It’s the Monarch caterpillars, not the adults. The caterpillars need milkweed to feed on. It’s the only plant they can eat. The adults get nectar from all kinds of flowers, but the caterpillars can ONLY eat milkweed.

That’s what that’s about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The library had a program and a book talk. Apparently some culling operations in yards is via nets and bolt guns. Book described the "eee eee eee" cries of fawns being killed. It's not painless.
See The Age of Deer pp 190-194.

I am not supportive of culling 40% of the deer.
But I encourage supporters to be clear just what means are planned. Just sharpshooter and head shots? Or....????

Not in my yard.

You don't headshot a deer. The skull is quite thick and a small target

Actually you do. I’ve done it. It’s essentially close-range shooting, at night.

The way these deer removal programs work is you bait an area where it’s safe to shoot with corn and apples every night for several weeks, and condition the deer to show up there. After a few weeks of steady feeding, the cullers set up and wait for the deer to come in as usual. They’re using highly accurate rifles with thermal scopes which see clearly in the dark. They are typically.308 caliber (about 4x more powerful than an AR15 by comparison) and are at ranges of about 30 yds. The rifles are equipped with suppressors that reduce the sound of the gunshot to a level where it sounds more like fireworks, and they shoot the deer in the head (so they don’t run) and drag them away as soon as they drop. Then they go back to their shooting location and wait for more deer to come to the bait. A good baited spot can yield 20 or more deer in a single night. But there’s a lot of work that has to go in beforehand.

This isn’t “hunting”. This is pest control. If actual hunters shot deer like this, they’d be arrested for poaching. But this isn’t hunting, so poaching techniques are the accepted standard.

Arlington is a little too populated for hunting with night vision. If you miss with 0.308, it's traveling 1000 yards.

Another person without a clue making their contribution


Do you really think they’re going to set up a culling area without taking the backstop into consideration?

I mean, just because you didn’t think of that, doesn’t mean other people are as dumb as you.

I've shot deer, so I have some idea about how to do it. I just don't see a need to hunt at night, with a thermal scope, taking head shots. The deer around here aren't afraid of people and they are out during the day, particularly if you set up a "bait station." A salt lick would be fine and it wouldn't attract other vermin.

Because this isn’t hunting. It’s pest control. You’re thinking about this like a hunter, not an exterminator. Stop thinking like a hunter, planning on one shot on one deer to fill a tag. Think about it like a poacher who gets paid by the carcass. The more deer killed, the more $$$ you make.

They shoot at baited stations with suppressed rifles with thermal scopes in the middle of the night to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of people like the snowflakes on this thread who are clutching their pearls at the very idea of shooting deer in (gasp!!!) north Arlington.


This has nothing to do with being sporting or fair chase or hunting ethics. This is about killing as many deer in as few man-hours as possible.

If it were up to me, I’d just poison them instead of shooting them. It would take them longer to die, and they’d suffer, but then I at least wouldn’t have to listen to bleating idiots like the ones on this thread prattling on about how “dangerous” shooting them is.

Yes we already know that you are a bad person. That’s why we are arguing with you. Good thing you aren’t involved in any deer control around here.

Meh. You have no idea how bad a person I’ve had to be. I’ve killed people on your behalf. I’m not sure how many, and I don’t worry about it anymore. Deer? Deer are of zero emotional concern to me.

Please get the help that you need. Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The library had a program and a book talk. Apparently some culling operations in yards is via nets and bolt guns. Book described the "eee eee eee" cries of fawns being killed. It's not painless.
See The Age of Deer pp 190-194.

I am not supportive of culling 40% of the deer.
But I encourage supporters to be clear just what means are planned. Just sharpshooter and head shots? Or....????

Not in my yard.

You don't headshot a deer. The skull is quite thick and a small target

Actually you do. I’ve done it. It’s essentially close-range shooting, at night.

The way these deer removal programs work is you bait an area where it’s safe to shoot with corn and apples every night for several weeks, and condition the deer to show up there. After a few weeks of steady feeding, the cullers set up and wait for the deer to come in as usual. They’re using highly accurate rifles with thermal scopes which see clearly in the dark. They are typically.308 caliber (about 4x more powerful than an AR15 by comparison) and are at ranges of about 30 yds. The rifles are equipped with suppressors that reduce the sound of the gunshot to a level where it sounds more like fireworks, and they shoot the deer in the head (so they don’t run) and drag them away as soon as they drop. Then they go back to their shooting location and wait for more deer to come to the bait. A good baited spot can yield 20 or more deer in a single night. But there’s a lot of work that has to go in beforehand.

This isn’t “hunting”. This is pest control. If actual hunters shot deer like this, they’d be arrested for poaching. But this isn’t hunting, so poaching techniques are the accepted standard.

Arlington is a little too populated for hunting with night vision. If you miss with 0.308, it's traveling 1000 yards.

Another person without a clue making their contribution


Do you really think they’re going to set up a culling area without taking the backstop into consideration?

I mean, just because you didn’t think of that, doesn’t mean other people are as dumb as you.

I've shot deer, so I have some idea about how to do it. I just don't see a need to hunt at night, with a thermal scope, taking head shots. The deer around here aren't afraid of people and they are out during the day, particularly if you set up a "bait station." A salt lick would be fine and it wouldn't attract other vermin.

Because this isn’t hunting. It’s pest control. You’re thinking about this like a hunter, not an exterminator. Stop thinking like a hunter, planning on one shot on one deer to fill a tag. Think about it like a poacher who gets paid by the carcass. The more deer killed, the more $$$ you make.

They shoot at baited stations with suppressed rifles with thermal scopes in the middle of the night to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of people like the snowflakes on this thread who are clutching their pearls at the very idea of shooting deer in (gasp!!!) north Arlington.


This has nothing to do with being sporting or fair chase or hunting ethics. This is about killing as many deer in as few man-hours as possible.

If it were up to me, I’d just poison them instead of shooting them. It would take them longer to die, and they’d suffer, but then I at least wouldn’t have to listen to bleating idiots like the ones on this thread prattling on about how “dangerous” shooting them is.

Yes we already know that you are a bad person. That’s why we are arguing with you. Good thing you aren’t involved in any deer control around here.

Meh. You have no idea how bad a person I’ve had to be. I’ve killed people on your behalf. I’m not sure how many, and I don’t worry about it anymore. Deer? Deer are of zero emotional concern to me.

Please get the help that you need. Seriously.

I did. Why do think I’m able to say “I don’t worry about it anymore”?

Therapy works.

[Anonymous]

It’s ethical because shooting deer is much better than letting them starve to death or wander into traffic looking further and further for food.

It’s safe because they will block off parts of the park and shoot them at dawn - at least that’s how they do it in Ohio where I grew up. If your children are wandering county parks at dawn alone, you have bigger problems.

The only problem with the plan in Arlington is that we had to spend 2 years doing studies and having meetings before killing a single deer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a resident and support whatever they want to do that is cheaper than the insane cost it would require to sterilize enough does to reduce the population.

Feeding them so they don’t devour landscaping and natural vegetation is far cheaper than killing them. And it’s more humane.

How big is Arlington's budget?

It's certainly big enough to allow for not slaughtering innocent wildlife.

An unchecked deer population is a menace to native plants and trees.
It’s a danger to drivers when they wander in the road.
Deer are not innocent and in need of protection. They are like pigeons or raccoons -only larger. My neighbor has lost use of her small yard for her kids because 4-6 deer have decided it’s theirs to hang out every afternoon and they aren’t scared of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a resident and support whatever they want to do that is cheaper than the insane cost it would require to sterilize enough does to reduce the population.

Feeding them so they don’t devour landscaping and natural vegetation is far cheaper than killing them. And it’s more humane.

How big is Arlington's budget?

It's certainly big enough to allow for not slaughtering innocent wildlife.

An unchecked deer population is a menace to native plants and trees.
It’s a danger to drivers when they wander in the road.
Deer are not innocent and in need of protection. They are like pigeons or raccoons -only larger. My neighbor has lost use of her small yard for her kids because 4-6 deer have decided it’s theirs to hang out every afternoon and they aren’t scared of people.

How have they “lost the use of their yard”? That’s a bit dramatic, isn’t it? They’re still able to go outside. Deer aren’t predators. The children are in no danger at all. Deer couldn’t harm children even if they wanted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a resident and support whatever they want to do that is cheaper than the insane cost it would require to sterilize enough does to reduce the population.

Feeding them so they don’t devour landscaping and natural vegetation is far cheaper than killing them. And it’s more humane.

How big is Arlington's budget?

It's certainly big enough to allow for not slaughtering innocent wildlife.

An unchecked deer population is a menace to native plants and trees.
It’s a danger to drivers when they wander in the road.
Deer are not innocent and in need of protection. They are like pigeons or raccoons -only larger. My neighbor has lost use of her small yard for her kids because 4-6 deer have decided it’s theirs to hang out every afternoon and they aren’t scared of people.

How have they “lost the use of their yard”? That’s a bit dramatic, isn’t it? They’re still able to go outside. Deer aren’t predators. The children are in no danger at all. Deer couldn’t harm children even if they wanted to.

Deer ticks are a thing. But Arlington could just get the deer treated. Maybe kids could have a fun educational outing treating deer for ticks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a resident and support whatever they want to do that is cheaper than the insane cost it would require to sterilize enough does to reduce the population.

Feeding them so they don’t devour landscaping and natural vegetation is far cheaper than killing them. And it’s more humane.

How big is Arlington's budget?

It's certainly big enough to allow for not slaughtering innocent wildlife.

An unchecked deer population is a menace to native plants and trees.
It’s a danger to drivers when they wander in the road.
Deer are not innocent and in need of protection. They are like pigeons or raccoons -only larger. My neighbor has lost use of her small yard for her kids because 4-6 deer have decided it’s theirs to hang out every afternoon and they aren’t scared of people.

How have they “lost the use of their yard”? That’s a bit dramatic, isn’t it? They’re still able to go outside. Deer aren’t predators. The children are in no danger at all. Deer couldn’t harm children even if they wanted to.

Deer ticks are a thing. But Arlington could just get the deer treated. Maybe kids could have a fun educational outing treating deer for ticks.

Buck that!