I'm very disappointed about this bill sponsored by Mr. Huff. First of all, there are legitimate non-lethal means available to control deer population which the DNR has blocked. It is call immuno-contraception and has been effective on Federal properties around the country. For the amount of money the state is paying for the "sharpshooters" in Loch Raven, the deer could have been rendered incapable of reproducing. Also, the uninformed like to use the excuse that deer spread Lyme disease. While the insect is known as the deer tick, the tick is actually carried by squirrels and other rodents which integrate the tick in many more areas frequented by humans than the deer. Wish Mr. Huff would have availed himself of the facts before he sponsored this legislation. He has lost my vote next time.

Thank you, Katie. We can continue to raise awareness and educate about alternatives to hunting.

It is heartbreaking to me when I leave Catonsville Community College's campus at night and see the deer trying to find food. We have invaded their living spaces with huge houses on large tracts of land, we cut down forests to lay more roadway and build more office space and the best anyone can do is sponsor a bill to kill them because they are causing our insurance rates to rise? It seems to me that we humans are a cold, callous self centered bunch and I am sometimes ashamed to say I am one. The DNR should at least try the birth control before slaughter.

Man has been hunting for food since the beginning of time. Deer, cow, big deal. Somebody kill them, please and then somebody eat them. I can count 20 to 30 at a time while driving down Cromwell Bridge Road towards Glen Meadows. There were days when I saw a dead deer on the side of the road every day! I almost hit 3 myself this winter. One being a very large buck. I had my children in the car, I shudder to think what would have happened had I not had time to stop. They've become a problem and we need to take care of it. It's only getting worse. By the way, I have never fired a gun or shot an animal, but I know when enough is enough. Bambi needs to go bye bye. Oh, and I did see one deer get hit and stagger away into the woods. It doesn't seem human to let them starve from over population, and die (sometimes a slow death I am sure) from being ran into with a car.

Sara,

Thanks for shedding some light on how the bulk of our population feels. The uninformed above will use the excuse that contraception has been used in states throughout our country, but the truth is that this has never been successful and has been a waste of time and money throughout our country. Modern day archers, which is what I believe will happen are more ethical and care more for those deer than any activist will ever realize or give credit. You always here... I saw a nice deer with an arrow in it's side in my back yard on almost every post like this. Also, people afraid to walk in the woods during hunting season. The average hunter, not the elite, but even the average hunter takes care in aiming so that they make the best shot they can and make sure of the game before releasing an arrow or a shot. Truth is, a well placed arrow in the side of a deer will be more humane that mother nature is. Nature doesn't care about ethics; if you starve or get injured you die a slow death. While it is true that we have invaded thier space, then we have an obligation to assure that the masses do not starve and become diseased due to over-population. Hunters care about a quick, humane harvest. Hunters also donate tons of food every year to local food banks. Doesn't sound like heartless killers to me. I applaud DNR and Mr Huff in thier concern and efforts to control the deer herds.

Immuno contraception is a great way to control the future deer population. However, the current deer population is out of control. We live near the intersection of York Road and Seminary Ave and we have a small herd of deer that regularly graze and bed down in our yard. That herd consists of several doe and this last year one of them had triplets significantly increasing the size of the population in our small area. Friends of ours have struck and killed deer on Seminary and we regularly see the carcasses on the side of the road. An experienced hunter in a controlled hunt situation is a lot more humane than an animal dying on the side of the road after being struck by a car and a lot safer than the deer causing accidents. Driving along Dulaney Valley Rd we see a lot of deer grazing on the crops of farmers and we regularly see the destruction that the current population is causing. Man has hunted for it's food since the beginning of time and controlling man's hunting habits has caused this massive balloon in the deer populations, now we need to control it in the here and now as well as in the future.

The article is incorrect as respects Todd Huff's status as a non-hunter. Many articles about him during his campaign stated he was a hunter. It's the reason I did not vote for him.

The deer must go! We live in the Huntridge development off of Timonium Road and they are quite a nusance. We have to be careful when driving home since they often cross the street at any given time and what's worse, everything I plant in the garden is eaten; hostas, tulips, geraniums, impatiens, nandena...it's their virtual salad bar. I've sprayed Deer-off, Liquid Fence, hung soap, skattered human hair in the garden and installed motion lights to ward them off, but nothing works and I'm tired of the droppings. Actually, after discussing it with several of my friends, we have more deer in our development than they do in Parkton...go figure. My vote is for Todd Huff! Let the hunting begin.

Mr. Feinberg says "I don't know what accident has to happen that will make people think that there really should be an alternative [to hunting],". Well, I say "how many vehicle accidents, including property damage accidents, accidents with injuries, & fatal accidents that are the direct result of collisions with deer, have to occur before people wake up & realise that the only proven effective method of deer population control is a managed hunt.

I'm not an expert on how to control the deer population and therefore can't comment on that. But I do know that if hunters are allowed into parts of Oregon Ridge, Cromwell Valley and Loch Raven---my family's three favorite places to hike---I will be really hesitant to take my kids there anymore, which would be a real shame. I certainly hope that before any legislation passes, all sides of this debate are heard, and a safe and creative solution reached.

This is a really dumb idea. They already are allowed to hunt in Loch Raven. I run the dogs there. One time we came upon a fawn that had been shot and only the two little slices of meat along it's spine were removed and the carcass left to rot. Another time we were hiking by Dulaney Valley Road (the cliffs) and there were three deer carcasses in the water with their heads cut off.
Now I guess we get to experience more of the same at Oregon Ridge.

What Robert Anderson is referring to (carcasses left in the woods) is the result of poachers. It has nothing to do with a managed hunt.

Various contraception techniques, which still require paying a sharpshooter to hit the deer, may be effective, about only for a year or two. The cost over time is far more than killing (and using all the meat to feed the hungry). Besides, one of the contraceptives that some are widely saying is the solution has never been approved for use. Any deer treated with this contraceptive could be shot and eaten soon after.

And remember, this legislation does not cause hunts to occur - it just allows them. The various County agencies and DNR still will have to develop a safe way to do it.

How do you know who left the carcasses there? It's not like they left their name on it.

I know plenty of hunters that kill anything that moves. Buck,doe, fawn it doesn't matter. They just get off on the killing part.

In the some areas of the country people complain about predators because they keep the prey populations healthy, here we complain about prey populations because we have killed the predators and encroached on so much of the land that what left can not support species like deer in anything but relatively small numbers. The probelm is two fold and both are of human making. Seems when with people in the mix, wildlife always loses. What a shame.

Even the predators are starting to rear their heads. I had a coyote eat my cat. The last time my neighbor saw her cat a coyote had it by the neck and was running down the driveway. This is in Baltimore County. Evidently there are coyotes in every county in MD

Indeed, there are, however, coyotes generally do not take prey as large as deer.

In response to Linda Kelly's comments from 3:39pm today, Cromwell Valley Park (CVP) is an organic farm park. The Community Supported Agriculture farmers and now the Therapeutic Alternatives of Maryland (TALMAR) for short don't use pesticides or herbicides in their farm management practices. The fruits, vegetables, and flowers are strickly nourished and grown by organic standards. The deer really are a problem for the farmers. Even with 10-12 foot fences, the deer invariably find a way into the fields. It is a daily challange to keep the deers out of the farmed areas at CVP. If contraception doesn't alter the herds, then controlled and safe deer kills are most likely the next solution. During the last controlled deer kill in Loch Raven Reservoir, the many thousands of pounds of meat was carefully managed and donated to soup kitchens and other places where persons can obtain nourishing and safe protein food source. The idea of poaching is gruesome and should be stopped. If deer are "dressed" in the field, carcasses are left as a food for other carniverous animals. There are many animal species that will use every morsel of protein, sinew, and bone for their particular nutrtional needs, so therefore, in the end other than the outer skin and hair, all other parts of the deer will be consumed by other animals. The dust to dust analogy can be implied here. Thanks for allowing me to respond.
Sharon Childs MS, ANP

Contraceptive methods for deer are expensive to employ and difficult to manage (you have to continue to give them contraceptives right or they'll reproduce sooner or later?).
Sterilization would be expensive, time consuming and ineffective considering the numnbers of animals involved.
Sharpshooters (professional hunters) that could be hired will cost the taxpayers money. Would this then have to become an annual expense??? Of course....

Allowing managed hunts (specific dates/areas within a park) by HUNTERS would be the most effective, cost efficient method available. Hunters pay license fees to the state, contribute money to the local economies, enjoy their sport and would play a role in the future management of the herds. All of this costing the Maryland taxpayer nothing.

The management method (gun, archery) could be debated but at the minimum archery hunting should be allowed.

The only data out there supports the fact that managed hunts in county/state parks have been successful and safe.
Baltimore County Parks need to be added to that ever growing list.

In 1999 The National Safety Council did a study looking at injuries related to different sports. Football was the most dangerous and guess what was the least? Yep - hunting. Ping pong actually had more injuries per 100,000 participants than hunting did. :)

The obvious difference being most "sports" injuries are not deadly. Afterall, how many ping pong injuries result in the death of an innocent bystander?
We are the cause and therefore we should be the solution. Killing wildlife that we deem excessive is short sighted. Any real or lasting change will come from a change in our own behaviour. A responsible solution will include wildlife corridors and wildlife buffers. These allow for natural movement and mirgration to food and water sources, breeding and nesting sites for wild creatures. There is no one easy solution. Managed hunts are every bit as short sighted as some (not me) feel contraceptive and sterilization programs.

Tammy - I think you've missed the point of what a managed hunt is. Learn more about them!
Loch Raven is a perfect example of a yearly managed hunt over the course of the hunting season.
Hunting areas are clearly marked both at the park and on the internet with maps. Pretty Boy and Liberty are also prime examples of well managed hunts with great safety and success stories.

"Killing wildlife that we deem excessive is short sighted" - If hunting was not allowed to cull over populations where do you suggest putting them all, who cares for them and who pays for it? Thats right - put them in the wildlife buffers. See below.
"A responsible solution will include wildlife corridors and wildlife buffers" - unfortunately this isn't the US of the 1700's . In case you haven't noticed, land development in most counties has been expanding at an exponential rate over the last 10-15 years as more people are moving out of the cities and into the suburbs. The amount of land required for your corridors to match the needs of the animal population is trememdous and not possible to obtain in the state. Secondly, who would pay for it even if available? The State? I doubt it . They have enough budgetary issuss as it is. AND if money is going to be spent, how about on education, cleaning up the Bay or improving social services (how about providing contraceptives for all the welfare recicpients that suck the system dry by continuing to have children and can't afford them?)

Thank you for explaining that managed hunts take place continuously, year after year, which is exactly my point. It is not a solution, it does not treat a problem, but a symptom. Thank you also for pointing out the reason for the problem as apparently I was not clear. Poorly planned land use. I’m not sure what we are debating as apparently we agree there is a problem, we agree why that problem exists and we agree that so far no lasting solution has been found.

Yes I agree Maryland, and in this case Baltimore County, has a deer problem and it needs to be managed appropriately.
The goal of the councilmen promoting this bill simply want to manage the herd to a healthy,balanced, sustainable size for the given area (which is shrinking in size).

You do not have any realistic solutions to the problem.

Hunting/hunters are the best tool to help keep the manage the herd and keep populations in check.

"Poorly planned land use" - lets be realistic here too - you have not control over this (maybe only on your own personal property). What you suggested earlier is a management plan that would needed to have been implemented decades (centuries?) ago that probably never would have happened.

I suggest you follow this link and get some of the facts about hunting and hunting as a management tool.
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Hunt_Trap/deer/deer_management/deerhuntastool.asp

You seem to be an intelligent woman based on your bio. Remove the emotion and look at the facts. Then re-evaluate your stance on hunting and realize that it is a safe, effective management tool.
You don't have to like it or participate but have the fortitude to at least admit that currently there isn't a better way to do it.

It is a small mind who seeks but one solution. Particularly when that solution is none at all. Managed hunts may be the preference of some, particularly those who take part in them but that they are a reasonable solution is simply not true. We have already established, both you and I, that they are not a solution at all as they do not speak to the cause of the problem. While some may feel killing excess animals is tolerable, some, including me do not. I ask you to please not make the assumption that my views are based on emotion, or for that matter a lack of information as you would be incorrect on both counts and further I would show you no such disrespect. I simply hold a different view based on my value system and lifetime’s body of work. It is fully my right to do so, just as your view based on your value system and your knowledge is your right.

I never said it was a soloution - I said "Hunting/hunters are the best tool to help manage the herd and keep populations in check".
Obviously the most effective "solution" would be to kill every deer. Problem solved right? No one wants that though - hunters included.
Once again you still don't have a realistic solution or even a hint of a suggestion to help manage the overpopulation of animals we are currently dealing with. Anything of substance to offer?
You turn the discussion to points that have no concrete substance for the issue at hand which is the management of overpopulations of deer.

Have you ever heard of the Pittman Robertson Act?
The Pittman-Robertson Act n 1937 created a 10% excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition. A few years later the tax became 11%.
The tens of millions of dollars generated by Pittman-Robertson each year are mandated to go back into state and local organizations to increase game populations, expand habitat and train hunters.
Numerous species including migratory birds (ducks and geese), elk, deer, antelope, wild turkey and many other species were rescued from the endangered list and are now not only surviving, but thriving. Pittman-Robertson was a rare legislative model for efficiency and a godsend for hunters and animals alike.

How do you contribute to the protection of wildlife and its habitat? Hunters are doing our share and then some!

Linda,
You're big on this contraception thing - it works fine if you've got a known population in a fenced area and alot of money.
Contraceptives require annual booster shots. More time and money. Who pays for all of this? On a large scale the program wouldn't work. Read the link I supplied earlier to the DNR's website.
The NIST program has beeen going on since the 1990's. If contraceptives were a reasonable management tool (I don't want to say solution since Tammy might be reading and BTW it isn't) don't you think it would be incorporated into current management progams across the country?
Contraceptive methods are unproven on a large scale, costly and time consuming to manage.
Hunting on the other hand doesn't cost taxpayers anything and contributes tons of money into the state's/counties economies.
As stated in my response above to Tammy, hunters want to preserve habitat and maintain the species at sustainable, manageable levels so we can continue to enjoy the sport for decades to come. We as a group are motivated to protect the animals and habitat.
Once again, if we're going to spend money on contraceptives, lets give them to the welfare recipients that are bleeding our economies dry before we care about keeping a few deer from getting knocked up.
We can't deal with the overpopulation of humans as easily as we can deer. ;)

There are those who are satisfied with tools, I however prefer a solution, I think we have finally hit a difference. There are too many deer in too small an area for a number of reasons, poor land use, heavy human populations and erradication of predators to name a few. The latter two I concede are not likely to change in our region, but we can change the former. In the mean time, I agree with Linda, the USDA has study populations of sterilized deer and elk as well as those on contraceptives in many parts of the country, and yep it is working. Why not strive for a symbiotic relationship with nature?

I have offered perfectly plausible alternatives that are working in other parts of this and other countries. Why do I know that, hmmm, a lifetime of work in the field. Actually being part of some of these solutions and seeing them in action first hand. You happen to prefer a lethal option. That is your right. I happen to not agree with you. That is my right and is based a wealth of knowledge, education and experience. Wait, we have already been down this road. Okay, I have no interest in debating in circles, not that this is much of a debate. Think whatever you like, you clearly are not interested in anything outside of your own view and feel free to have the last word, as I have no intention of continuing this. Go with God, remember the poor.

"Go with God, remember the poor"

And feed them free venison!

John - Great point to bring up - The Maryland Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry (FHFH) provided close to 600,000 meals for the homeless in 2009-10. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Hunt_Trap/pdfs/FHFHfinalreport2009-10.pdf

You still won't answer any direct questions will you Tammy? You don't seem to want to comment on the the various documents supplied during our discussion either.
I like facts and data. You haven't supplied any of that to support your "alternatives". All I see is misdirection and personal feelings. Where's info/data on all of this field work you did and the relevance to the issue at hand - reducing the current deer herd in Baltimore County's park and surrounding neighborhoods and then the ongoing management of that population?
How do you propose to get rid of the current and I'll say it again , CURRENT, overpopulation of deer? Your wildlife corridors, refuges and contraception won't do anything to address that issue.

I remember the poor everytime I donate a deer for FHFH.

I look forward to hunting in my own county more often.

Tammy,
You are very outspoken about this subject but pitifully closed minded and mis informed. There are alot of effective population control programs out there. Unfortunately, the herd in MD has been allowed to grow to such a large level all of the politically correct methods will be ineffective. Yes I have hunted in the past. I am a "meat" and not a "trophy" hunter. You mentioned headless carcass in lock raven. Someone said it was poacher activity. That is ABSOLUTELY TRUE! There are programs in place that if a deer is taken legally, that CANNOT happen. Like any other sport, there are always a few bad apples. However, all hunters are not bad. A controled hunt is a win win situation. It will bring in extra revinue to the state and reduce the herd. The reason the herd is at such an unmanagable level is because of people like you. Humans are the sole reason the population is so high. We move into the country, reduce the size of the habitat and then complain that your shrubs are being eaten. Any hunting harvest is 100 fold more humane than letting the deer starve to death, or be hit by a car and lay in the forest for days waiting to die...

Do you people not realize that there is no possible way that a hunter with a bow and arrow is going to mistakenly shoot a hiker, runner, bike rider, or any other person? Do you also not realize that deer meat is responsible for feeding many families in this state and across the country and that the meat from the deer can be/is donated to the Maryland Food Bank to help feed the homeless and less fortunate families of the state? Birth control for deer is a ridiculous solution when there are thousands of people in the state without their own land who would be thrilled to be given the opportunity to do what most people in this small, mid Atantic state will never be able to do due to lack of public land opened up to hunters. No, heaven forbid you self righteous people let that happen. It's much better if you hit them with your hybrid driving down 795 in the morning.

"no possible way"??

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/oct/02/fairfield-man-dies-in-bowhunting-accident/

Why do they want to give the kill away? These Freak-O's are in it just to kill things. They get some kind of perverse pleasure from it.

Robert,
How old are you? Calling someone a freak- O?
You don't want to start name calling now do you?
Just shows your immaturity and childness.
When you have something of substance to contribute, I'm all ears.

Tammy, Linda and you continue to evade the real issue at hand - the CURRENT overpopulation of deer in Baltimore County. All you do is use misdirection, emotion and avoidance when making comments.

Linda, I eat the deer I shoot or donate them. Venison is much healthier for you than beef and pork - leaner, no hormones or antibiotics in it. I'm not sure where all of these pesticides are coming from that you say the deer are eating. You do realize that they eat the same crops (corn, soy, alfalfa) that end up in our cereals, breads, etc. Shouldn't you be concerned about humans as well? The other natural vegetation they eat is in the woods/fields that are in areas that wouldn't be sprayed anyway. Do you have some comparison DATA showing pesticide content of different meat and venison indicating its safer to eat one more than another? Didn't think so...

Keep trying - your feeble atteempts arguing against a needed/required action continue to be quite amusing.

What are you talking about. Beef and pork is inspected by the FDA. Venison isn't. Venison is full of nasty stuff and has been linked to Creutzfeld Jakob disease. Then there is this:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Deer+meat+as+the+source+for+a+sporadic+case+of+Escherichia+coli...-a087104049

Robert,
How many deaths/ilnessses have been attributed to beef, pork and chicken products that ARE regulated by the USDA?
Linda and you don't have to eat it now do you?

Linda, give me a break - "I care about humans because I am a NURSE. As a healthcare professional, are you?. OMG - Linda is the only one that cares about the human race.! Stop the presses.
There are studies out there looking at pesticide residue in venison and the levels are below the maximum thresholds allowed if detected at all. I'll let you find them since I already did. I've got to make you work a little bit.

Do yoou eat striped bass? What about tuna/crabs? All have been shown to have some type of heavy metal/pesticide/PCB contamination. Levels vary based on age/size/location. There are guidelines set forth on the number of recommended meals/week/month/year. Everything is ok to eat as long as its done in moderation. Being a nurse, you should know some of this right Linda?

Do you really think that multiple states health departments would allow donated venison programs for the poor if the health of the individuals would be compromised? Or if the processors didn't meeet certain standards? What about the individuals that have been eating veniosn for decades with no effects?

Once again this issue is about reducing the current deer population and managing the size of the future herd in Baltimore county.
Let's hear some comments that actually deal with the issue.

E Douglas - Linda, Tammy, you and others continue to offer no substantial alternatives on dealing with the problem this proposed bill addresses - the CURRENT overpopulation of deer in Baltimore county, the thinning of the herd and its future management.

At the end of the day your venison/pesticide argument is mute. Fine - don't give it to the shelters - let the hunters eat it all. It won't affect you or any other immune compromised person than will it?
As I asked above - do you eat crabs/tuna/stripeed bass? They all have been shown to have contaminants as well yet we continue to eat them don't we? There are guidelines for the numbers of meals allowed per day/week ,etc. Same could hold true for venison.

"At least Linda saves lives, where you kill defenseless animals for fun, so who does society the greater good" - Don't preach to me and make assumptions about who I am as a person. You probably wouldn't want to hear my evaluation of you based on your PETA like comments would you?

Stick to facts and fixing the problem - but that's right, you don't have one do you?

I have been hunting since i was a child. Every year i donate at least
2 deer to the Hunters feeding the Homeless and Hungry program. (that
may not be the exact name of it now) That equates to around 175
pounds of food. The deer are suffering due to the over population and
limited food supply. The best, and most humane method to protect
them, is to effectively manage them, and the harvest of the deer.
This will produce healthier deer and protect not only the deer, but
those that drive in heavily populated deer areas where hunting is not
allowed. It is my feeling that if this were to be allowed to hunt in
the parks, it should be properly managed, the park could be closed on
a weekday when the visitor numbers are at the lowest point. Also, any
deer harvested should be donated to the homeless and needy families in
Maryland. I am an "ETHICAL" hunter. what that means to me is
something I am teaching my children who want to hunt. I do not want
any animal to suffer, ethical hunting takes years of practice. To
kill an animal as efficiently as possible so the animal does not
suffer is very important to me. This is ethical hunting.
If the parks were to open to hunting, I would PROUDLY stand in line to
help feed hungry people in Maryland and to do my part to help protect
drivers from hitting the deer, possibly injuring and causing undue
suffering to the animal.

Charles Dibley

Why can't they do hunting in double rock park?stemmers run connects too other watersheds and double rock park is one of the main places where the deer have been going.We can have controlled hunts with the help of dnr and only use bow for the saftey of the public.Limes disease is now terrible because of the rising deer populations in the park.also I am starting to see them on the highway and that could be a serious problem for the public.The crops in the garden area are devastated from this problem.You are more likley to hit a deer than get shot by a hunter.we can have hunts only when the park is closed.There is no point of steralization they will only populate from a different area and cause more problems.So this is how we should control this problem.It would also put more meat on the table.we cant keep ignoring this problem.It will only get worse.

I would rather have my daughter spend her time afield learning about our natural world than sitting in front of a video monitor hacking away at a keyboard. None of my family members or friends are slob hunters. WE are the stewards of the land and the wildlife that inhabits it. We are the ones who help others learn about the woods, the water, and the wildlife. The fees we are charged pay park rangers and DNR biologist. Another thing that the un-informed may not know is that "managed" hunts are managed for safety and control. I will admit that there are criminals who break laws and steal from all of us.
I have a proposal to make to help the whitetail population. Lets introduce a tax to be paid by every Maryland citizen who doesn't purchase a hunting license to go into the DNR's budget towards paying for the non-lethal methods. That will give the DNR the money to fund the program and everyone will be happy.

LOL "Stewards of the land" What a bunch of phony baloney! A real steward of the land wouldn't be all about killing the largest or the oldest of the breed just for the size of the rack. A steward of the land would leave it to breed other strong stock.
A real steward of the land wouldn't kill does or fawns either.

If you want to control the whitetail population you must control the fertile doe population, not the buck population. Does outnumber males, and when a buck is "removed" naturally or otherwise, another takes over the breeding responsibilities.