I've hit at least three deer driving in my life, but in the eight
years I have been in Rochester Hills, I have not hit one deer.
Numerous times, I've slowed to let them pass or to watch them in the
woods in my neighborhood.
My daughter, who is 4, is optimistic that a deal can be struck,
suggesting that the deer will agree not to eat to people's plants and
then the city won't shoot them (actually, it's Oakland County
Sheriff's deputies doing the shooting). I told her that might work
out, but we'd have to wait and see.
Just yesterday, I saw four pass through my backyard. It reminded me
that they do eat the shrubs, but I don't care that much. I have my
dog chase them when I see them out there.
What I don't like is the deer poop under the apple trees that
overhang my yard. But I don't see bullets being an answer to that
problem.
The deer are dumb brutes and how they die does not affect me. I worry
more about my commute home and the time I waste in my car. I've seen
plenty of dead deer on the side of the road, and often I've lamented
that the city doesn't do something or come up with some money or a
program to get these up quicker. (The sheriff in Isabella County used
to take inmates out on deer clean up duty.)
But what I do wonder is what these elected officials were thinking by
getting mixed up in this method of trying to address what might be a
problem. Maybe they are naive or truly ignoring what will drive
people, as the ones inspired enough to comment against the program
far outnumber the ones who comment in favor of shooting deer.
Or maybe, they are brave, ignoring the safe path for reelection and
making the tough choice. I just hope no one gets nicked or shot by
one of these shooters, as they won't need to worry about Geoffrey
Fieger as someone will back the truck up to the city's vault.
It's against the law to hunt or shoot a gun in the city. The reason
is 70,000 people live there. It only takes one mistake. Plus,
residents generally don't like secrecy, especially when it's about
when and where rifles will be fired in the middle of a population
center.
And though the money may come from a grant specific to this problem,
the one thing that truly troubles me about this is that all this
political capital and debate is being spent over deer, a problem that
will exist (and has existed) for years.
What about my roads? They're not plowed. I'm not one to complain if
my street is not plowed. I know they can't get them all. But when
none of the neighborhood streets get plowed, I'm frustrated to hear
council members and the mayor fighting with residents over deer culling.
Perhaps the council could fight with one another in search of
creative ways to get money into the street plowing programs,
something that truly helps every city resident. The neighborhood used
to get plowed (main streets, right after a snow storm) in way that
impressed me, even though my street was last. Now, it's been two days
since it snowed, and all of the streets remain slick and snow-covered.
Common sense for a politician would dictate that the public won't
want to hear about fights over non-essential issues, and because this
culling is not going to solve the deer problem, this fight is, I'm
afraid, a waste of time and effort.
And I hope no one gets shot.