I
think I need to start by saying I am terribly disappointed by the actions of
some in our great community as of late.
It seems that multiple message boards are overrun by people that believe
they can bully or influence other’s thinking by being rude, obnoxious,
disrespectful, repetitive and lacking of substance, and that is all I’m going
to say on that topic. As I’ve said in ‘Mulling
the Culling’ no minds will be swayed or changed by the institution of childish
and borderline manic/psychotic behavior.
Now,
being that the ‘for’ group seems to hold the most visceral stance on the topic
I counter with this: One of the common
arguments I hear from the ‘for’ culling group is that the ecosystem is being
destroyed. I would be interested to hear
from those that keep repeating this line to explain what they mean by ‘ecosystem
is being destroyed’. Not just repeating
the existing format, but really explaining what is being destroyed and how. It was once vaguely described as underbrush
being eaten to the point of non-existence.
Hmmm. Not sure I buy that
considering that forestry was just recently doing controlled burns to eliminate
underbrush that could cause widespread and sweeping firestorms during drought. If this underbrush is so important to the
ecosystem why would we decimate it through government programs? Is it’s decimation a benefit to our community
and homes to stave off raging wildfires in years of dry weather? Is the deer population promulgating safety in
our community, or does it go back to Man feeling He knows best when dealing
with nature?
Now,
something for the ‘against’ group.
Understanding you don’t wish to see the wildlife harmed because it is a
joy to watch and is truly the splendor of Mother Nature in action; would you
consider a thinning of the herd if it meant longevity and strengthening for the
many should the herd be faced with a disease outbreak?
I
would like to hear your thoughts, comments, etc. Be warned that any ranting or maniacal
comments will be immediately removed. My
blog, my rulesJ You are free, however, to lament these
thoughts and topics on other boards such as…….(sorry, they aren’t worth
naming).
That’s
it for now, time to spend a beautiful day along the Coosawattee River.
Til next time,
Chris
13 comments:
Thank you for the welcome, Mr. G.
I enjoy your blog very much and hope that people who are looking into CRR find it.
I've read your latest entry, and am going to take a day or two to mull over your thoughts and questions, then I'll respond to them. This is another reason I like your blog. You're fair to both sides of this polarizing debate and ask questions that makes me think.
I'll be back in a couple of days.
Please keep up the great work.
Cheers,
Sally Baldwin
Thanks, Sally! Open, fair and balanced communication will always win. Let's face it, as a society, we will never agree on all topics. Sometimes we personally feel a win, and sometimes we have to accept defeat. Defeat doesn't mean our time was wasted or our cause is lost. Defeat just means we stood up for what we believed in, despite the outcome. Many people will not stand up for what they believe in (or just don't care), which makes them a defeated person.
There is no mid-story or understory growth in my area. All of the experts consulted by the original Eco Team pointed this out. Had you attended any of the the public meetings held by the Eco Team, you would have known this.
No brush. No young trees. They are all eaten by the deer before they reach five feet tall. Drive down Newport Drive and look at how many people have surrounded their trees and brush with fencing. Note that there is no other growth similar to this.... Unless it is fenced.
I invite you to hike Bear Creek trail -- only a 30-minute drive from here -- just the first quarter mile of it. Then I dare you to come back and tell people that the north side of CRR is "undamaged".
I never said it was 'undamaged'. I HAVE said that Man does more damage than the critters, but I digress. I gave my views and recommendations to the issue and believe that they are solid cornerstones for beginning to correct the eco system. I try to be fair and balanced in my writings and will continue to do so.
"It was once vaguely described as underbrush being eaten to the point of non-existence. Hmmm. Not sure I buy that considering that forestry was just recently doing controlled burns to eliminate underbrush that could cause widespread and sweeping firestorms during drought. If this underbrush is so important to the ecosystem why would we decimate it through government programs? Is it’s decimation a benefit to our community and homes to stave off raging wildfires in years of dry weather? Is the deer population promulgating safety in our community, or does it go back to Man feeling He knows best when dealing with nature?"
So you are now the expert in how the ecosystem works. When you make statements like this, be prepared to back them up with facts. Your speculation that the deer are somehow doing us a service by keeping our forests completely and continuously devoid of *all* undergrowth is absurd. If your speculation were accurate, the FS would be doing brush burns every year.
Learn the science. Consult with the experts. Then you can talk.
Simply stated, I have never advocated an "extermination" of deer. I and many other intelligent and educated members simply want *a reasonable balance* of deer. When there is a reasonable balance, burns are not needed because the deer prevent an overabundance of brush WITHOUT stripping the land completely bare every year.
You are so very slippery, Chris. You say you never used the word "undamaged" then divert to saying that "Man does more damage than the critters." That's irrelevant to the facts and to the discussion. Yes, Man damages the ecosystem more, and one ow the ways he damages it here in CRR is by allowing and encouraging a deer population that is at least 10 times higher than the land can support.
one of the Wildlife Biologists I spoke with made a very good point... If we simply stopped members from feeding the deer, that alone would correct much of the problem because there isn't anywhere near enough natural forage to support the number of deer here. Stopping artificial feeding *alone* would reduce the population considerably.
You say you support that. But that's all you say -- along with your uneducated and misinformed speculations. ....Like this is supposed to mean you are "impartial"? Hardly. You very obviously are not impartial and are more interested in personal attacks than in establishing a dialogue and coming to mutual agreements.
No matter how you want to cloak your bias and ignorance, It won't stand with those of us who can see through you. And -- just like you -- "I will call it as I see it."
"Now, something for the ‘against’ group. Understanding you don’t wish to see the wildlife harmed because it is a joy to watch and is truly the splendor of Mother Nature in action; would you consider a thinning of the herd if it meant longevity and strengthening for the many should the herd be faced with a disease outbreak?"
My answer to this would be "yes", IF a disease were present. I've heard "disease" used as an excuse for having a cull. I think this is a ridiculous reason. My dog "might" develop a disease, but I'm not going to have him put down.
I don't know about where other people live, but where I am, there isn't enough sunshine to get through the trees to allow grass to grow in my backyard, much less undergrowth. The deer can't destroy something I don't have.
When I attended the eco team meeting, the number one complaint I heard was "the deer eat my plants". I don't get it. You deliberately move to an area that has wildlife and then complain about the wildlife. They say that isn't their reason for wanting a cull, but then turn around and complain about their lawn. Reminds me of a "get off my lawn" mentality.
From what little I've read - and yes, I admit I haven't done major studying - culling can actually make the problem worse. Culling can actually INCREASE the deer population. With more food, the does have more babies with a higher survival rate. Also, culls must be repeated over and over again. Culling is not the answer, IMO.
With other options available that cost less and is showing to be more effective and humane, then why are the pro-cull people so dead set against using these options, IF we need to reduce the deer population? I don't believe it's because they are concerned about the deer - I believe it's because they have made this a "win at all costs" subject because the cull didn't happen when they thought it should have. They don't care about the deer...they only care about their ego's.
Mr. Goodson, I understand if this post is too controversial and you delete it. These are my own thoughts and opinions and like you said, this is your blog. Thank you for hearing me out.
Sally Baldwin, you indeed have read very little. You know very little. You have studied nothing and have never experienced nature on an intimate and academic level. You know nothing. No surprises there.
....And yet you believe your ignorance should be as valid as professionals and people highly experienced with ecosystems. Where does your sense of "the entitlement of ignorance" come from?
In an environment with "God's intended density" of deer present, people could grow whatever they wanted with minimal need for protection. You seem to assume that there is no difference between the damage of 20 deer per square mile and 160 deer per square mile. How rational is that? How can you justify this in your mind?
I have spent over $1500 on "deer resistant" plants. Every one was eaten by the deer. Every. One. Even with deer resistant sprays. I went to covering them with animal resistant plastic netting. This worked for a while. This spring, the deer have discovered they can chew through the netting and eat the plants inside.
What planet do you come from, Sally?
Why do you think it is acceptable for you to get *your* definition of nature while my property is chewed to pieces by deer. ...*AND ONLY BECAUSE YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT RECOGNIZE THE DAMAGE THEY CAUSE!" Why does your wish to be entertained by deer "Trump" my right to normal, reasonable enjoyment of my property?
I think it is because you are selfish, arrogant, inconsiderate and incredibly narrow-minded.
Of course you can find people who say that culling increases the deer population. YOU CAN FIND ANY OPINION YOU WANT ON THE INTERNET! If you choose to belive that, it's just because it's what you wish to believe -- and that's the only thing you searched for. For every article you can find saying that culling increases the deer I can find TEN ACADEMIC ARTICLES stating the opposite. Stop being a "selective researcher" and be objective.
You don't want to see the deer hunted. Honestly, neither do I. I love nature more than you do. I wish this were a beautiful Disney-Bambi World. But it isn't. Your "wiffle-world" view of nature is a figment of your imagination. Nature is beautiful, but it is also cruel. Take away predators and hunting and you destroy all of it.
And by the way -- you don't think anyone looks at my blogsite? I installed a view meter just for you. Over 17,000 and rising. Over 200 just in the past two days. I don't think Chis' stats will look like that.
The kind of grossly ignorant comments like Sally's saying that undergrowth doesn't grow because of the canopy of trees overhead....? Is SO WRONG!
Sally obviously has never been to Bear Creek Trail, or the Cohutta Wilderness, or any of dozens of places with canopies as thick as we have in CRR -- That have *MILLIONS* of wildflowers, shrubs, and young trees growing beneath as dense or more than in CRR.
Even the south side of the river in CRR has far more undergrowth than the north side. All Sally knows is what she sees from her trailer window.
People who don't want to see a cull are ignorant - Check
Refuse to consider other options - Check
The deer eat my plants - Check
Win at all cost - Check
Thank you for proving my point, Bryan.
--- You refuse to consider any option involving reducing the deer population.
--- You admit that you know little or nothing about the problem -- but you think your admitted uninformed opinion is just as valid as people who have researched and understand the problem.
--- You insist that there are other options without even knowing what those options may be, how effective they are, and what they will cost.
--- You think that anyone who has researched the issues and found that culling is the only cost-effective way of controlling the problems must be arrogant and wrong -- and that your uneducated opinion is superior to their actual research.
-- You think your right to be entertained by a destructive overabundance of deer is more important than my right to reasonably enjoy and maintain the value of my property.
What you have proven, Sally, is that I'm actually being kinder to you than you deserve.
Thank you for proving MY point...
No, Bryan. You have decided that's what I think without KNOWING what I think. Those are YOUR words, not mine. You couldn't even read the blog correctly without jumping to conclusions. You can't even admit you were wrong about that.
This is the last time I will respond to you here, Bryan, so have the last word. I know you will, because your obsession will force you to.
10, 9, 8...
Post a Comment