Replies

When liberals prevent proper measures being taken in a timely manner the result is nearly always that a more drastic solution results.
No doubt this measure was delayed by bunny hugger eco-nuts, making it even more necessary in the long run.

Left to themselves the deer in this situation would starve, and still may if the article is accurate.
Some would starve to death, slowly and painfully.
Starving deer lose their Resistance to disease, which can spread beyond the local deer population and wreak havoc among the general deer population.

The deer should have been removed when their numbers were still small. Before, or shortly after, the gates were closed.

I will never consider slow starvation and disease more humane than a quick kill!
A rifle or shotgun is arguably more "humane" than a bow, but probably not practical due to the location.

The damage to the habitat will take longer to repair than the reduction in deer numbers, particularly if the numbers are not reduced sufficiently, then allowed to increase again as the article indicates.

Nothing I saw in the article mentioned "sport", it does not say if the hunters were drawn from the public, or paid professionals doing a job.

Put some blame on the people who try to adopt wild game animals as pets, they exaggerate these problems, while forming irrational attachments to wild animals.

In MANY states such feeding of wildlife is illegal, it tends be bad for the wildlife in a variety of ways.

Very true. My Father worked for the forest service and I am very familiar with the hunt quotas and such. What poeple fail to understand is that hunting is one of the few government regulated activities that people gladly pay for. The deer need to be thinned and the government has taken responsibility for maintaining the forest and wildlife. Those deer were going to be thinned one way or the other for wildlife managment reasons. Better to have citizens pay for the privledge than to have tax payers dollars going to pay professionals to do the job.