WE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!  11/2/10



Please VOTE NO on ISSUE 32

Vote “NO” to keep hunting with deadly weapons out of our neighborhoods by repealing Ordinance 134-09.

If you are not aware of this issue, here are some facts to consider when casting your vote:


·         Ordinance 134-09 allows residents with 5+ acre lots to apply for a permit to hunt deer on their property within city limits with compound bows and crossbows. They can hunt from September through February from dawn to dusk. No background checks will be required of permit applicants.

·         These are deadly weapons that can fire an arrow a distance of over 1,000 yards (correction **** the correct unit of measure is feet- not yards. Our sincerest apologies.) at speeds of 325 ft. per second.

·         Crossbow arrows can penetrate a bullet proof vest and are sometimes referred to as “cross guns”.

·         The number of deer/vehicle accidents in our city has remained steady over the past 10 years according to our own Police Chief. In other words, there has been NO  increase in deer-vehicle accidents, as some have portrayed.

·         The number of deer carcasses picked up on the side of the roadways has actually decreased by over 20% according to our own City Animal Control Officer.                                              

·          Deer killed with arrows do not die instantly and they do not know property lines. When a deer is “hit” with an arrow, it panics and runs off at high speeds. They may run into a neighbor’s yard, over fences, into glass doors or into the street, causing an accident. Worse yet, the ordinance does not require neighboring woods/property to be cleared of playing children or even notification of neighbors that someone is hunting right next door.

·         Bow hunting journals admit that they wound one animal for every one that they kill. This equates to 50% of the animals being wounded and dying a slow, agonizing death, probably on someone else’s property….maybe yours.

·         Wounded deer can take days, weeks or months to die from infections and other disease setting in. This can also attract more coyote to the area.


This ordinance is not a “PRO” or “CON” statement on hunting at all, but rather a question of DO YOU WANT HUNTING OF DEER WITH DEADLY WEAPONS IN YOUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD! To read more on this issue go to www.broadview-deer.com.     



Interesting Letter We Received 7/28/10
" Just an FYI.....I ran into Roy Stewart at a cook out this summer.  He
made me so angry.  He actually told me that this whole deer issue is
costing the city $30,000 to put it on the ballot.    I told him that
that wasn't what I heard, that is was only going to cost about $2000.00
because there were other city issues already on the ballot..  He
stuttered a bit, and then said well, that was what it WOULD have cost if
there weren't other issues.  Typical politician.....

What concerns me is how many other people has he told that story to that
just don't know any better. "
FYI: The actual cost to correct council not listening to the majority of Broadview Ht residents is $250.00 - NOT $30,000.00 or $2000.00. (PLEASE see our Referendum Cost section)
*****UPDATE April 2, 2010, 1864 signatures were verified by the Board of Elections!!!!
This is more than sufficient to go to the November 2010 election!!!!!
In 25 days we collected
2,111 signatures -
almost 50% more than we needed.
3/22/10:  79 petitions were submitted to Sandy Hudack
today.  We asked Broadview Heights if an issue as contentious
as hunting in our neighborhoods should be decided directly by
the residents.
Broadview Hts answered "YES!!!!"
Something Pet Owners Must Consider
The Geauga county law director Jim Gillette stated in the December 10, 2009 issue of the Geauga County Maple Leaf under the heading "Dog Killer Won't Be Charged",  that:
"... hunters have a right to hunt free from the interference of domestic animals and have the legal right to kill said animals."
 This decision was made even though there are several Ohio Revised Code laws to the contrary.  Please be aware it's not what you know, but who you know. Thank you, and yes it was my dog that was killed just because it got in some psychopath's way.   Robert Phillips
A sincere "THANK YOU!" from Broadviewdeer to council members Mahnic, Boldt and Price for  supporting the wishes of the majority of residents and voting against this ordinance.  We know this was not an easy position given other council members' and the mayor's desire to allow residential hunting.   If the mayor wishes to support the majority also, he will use his veto authority and stop this ordinance.   
Not Over Yet
Our next step is to ask for residents who are opposed to call the Mayor, at 526-4357, and make your wishes clear that he exercise his veto power on this ordinance. If he chooses to impose this liability on residents, with no data that shows its effectiveness or data that shows there is a problem, we intend to pursue a legal option that may include a referendum by petition.  
We will need a number of registered voters to help circulate petitions for signatures.  Please let us know if you are able to help in this effort.
Many of us come to this group from different perspectives.  We include animal rights activists and hunting enthusiasts, but mostly we are just residents who are concerned about safety and good problem-solving.  
We are also concerned about the animal cruelty aspects of bow-hunting, and that culling is of questionable value where there might be a problem.  We find it difficult to see the sport in killing a tame deer in your backyard. 
Proponents have not produced data to justify claims of a deer problem.  There is no baseline population density study that might show the effect of residential hunting.  Deer-vehicle accidents have been at a steady state for the last 10 years.  Deer carcasses were down 24% last year.   Claims that for some reason people "just aren't reporting" DVA's are baseless, self-serving and intellectually dishonest. 
We can find no reason to legalize residential hunting when it has been illegal here for decades.  In fact, Broadview Heights is far more densely populated than it was 40 years ago when in the interest of safety, this became illegal.
There has not been a council meeting yet that the majority has not spoken out in opposition.  We welcome your support and ask for your help.
Thank you!
Please contact us at broadviewdeer@yahoo.com if you wish to assist with the petition drive!
From The Plain Dealer 2/16/10 
From Sun Star Courier 2/11/10
"Most of those who’ve spoken during public comment session at meetings have expressed opposition to the legislation." Again, HOW can council vote for this ordinance if they are representing their constituents???
The Mayor stated that he has been receiving many emails from people, including those through a PETA website.  The Mayor also stated that the residents' emails were about 60-40 against the ordinance.
HOW can any council member vote in favor of this ordinance if they wish to truly represent their constituents???


We are interested in the facts - Without substantive data that makes a compelling case for hunting within the city limits,  we feel it would be irresponsible of our leaders to impose the risks inherent to hunting upon our community.  So we are trying to understand the position of the hunting proponents by asking questions.  We have learned the following;



  • According to the BVH police chief, over the last 9 years DVA's (deer vehicle accidents) have averaged 24 incidents per year.  In 2009 there were 23 DVA's.  This indicates a steady state in DVA’s through at least this past decade.   With this data we find it hard to understand the claims of hunting proponents that DVA’s are an increasing problem.


  • 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.


To attempt to serve the democratic process we will continue to distribute yard signs and ask concerned residents to sign our on-line petition.  Let your voice be heard.
From The Plain Dealer 1/5/2010


Please email us at broadviewdeer@yahoo.com  with your comments and we will post it here, anonymously if you wish. 
Broadview-Deer.com is a website built and managed by residents of Broadview Heights who are concerned about the potential consequences of bowhunting in our community.  We have had help with the technical aspects of setting up this site and have benefitted from the research done by other communities who are facing the issues that surround living with a white-tail deer population.  This data is accessible to anyone on-line.  We also have contacts across a wide range of organizations including universities, law firms, businesses and animal rights organizations.  We are not sponsored, directed by or funded in any amount by any of these entities.  The links put on our site do not indicate an affilition with other organizations.  These links are intended as source references for those who wish to find additional information.
Linked sites:
League of Humane Voters:  http://www.lohv.org/
Ottawa Hills, Ohio citizens group:  www.villagedeer.com
EPA and FDA approved Deer Contraception Study,  by Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aANcNyYbLpw
Rob Slater,
Oct 13, 2009, 7:10 AM
Rob Slater,
Oct 21, 2009, 9:30 AM
Mar 23, 2010, 12:11 PM