• Also stated by the chief is that the neighboring city of Independence in their two years since allowing deer hunting has seen a 25% decrease in deer carcasses. During this same period of time however, Broadview Heights has seen an approximately 22% decrease in deer carcasses, without the benefit of hunting at all.   This data should give pause to the hunting proponents who claim that hunting produces safer communities, as these correlating decreases indicate a common cause aside from the practice of hunting in Independence.

Again we simply ask, “Where is the data that indicates there is a deer problem?  Whatever we agree the risks of hunting are, why should we accept them in our community?”  We want to know so we can understand.   

• We have anecdotal stories of deer eating landscaping.  Proponents have not provided data that describes the number, location, or cost of these damages over the past year or any past years. 

• No one has provided a population density study that might indicate the deer are unhealthy or starving.  In fact, anyone who has seen these deer can attest that they are healthy, robust animals. 

• We appear to have no baseline of information to determine the success or impact of a hunting initiative.  We are in no better position than our neighbors in Independence to justify our position if we decide to do this.

What we know from bow hunting journals is that 1 out of 2 deer hit with an arrow is actually killed and recovered (harvested, in the politically correct terminology of the bow hunter). The rest flee and either survive crippled or suffer long excruciating deaths from infection.  This is well-documented.  Additionally:

• We think it's shortsighted to think these fleeing deer won't cause car accidents, will always be tracked and recovered, and won’t cause an additional burden for the animal warden and families of children who have to witness this cruelty. 

• We think it is inaccurate to represent that there will be no cost to the city for this program.  There will certainly be increased police overtime, administrative cost, and legal expense.  There may be additional insurance cost.

• We understand that if a wounded, panicked deer runs into my glass patio door, that neither the city nor the hunter are  liable for the damages to my property.  I am liable for those damages.   

• There are numerous university studies showing that culling consistently causes a population rebound equal to or greater than the number of deer culled.  Deer fertility is driven by population density and available resources.  In other words, if you suddenly decrease the herd size, does have more fawns at younger and older ages than they do in non-hunted populations.  This is well-documented.  If there truly is a deer population problem, culling will not resolve it and has the potential to make it worse. 

• The vociferousness of the hunting proponents is difficult to understand in the face of the data gaps described above.  We feel that this issue is being pushed by a vocal minority that does not benefit by seeing  the issue resolved at a general election. Truly if council wants this issue to be resolved democratically and to serve the majority, this is the route to take.

The decision to write this ordinance without supporting data is difficult enough to understand. The choice to not take this issue to the next election, after so much divisiveness, seems irresponsible.