Ridgefield, Connecticut to Vote on Deer Hunting Tonight

I have reported to you a few times (scroll for links to previous stories) about the ongoing debate in the affluent town of Ridgefield, Connecticut. Ridgefield is a small New England town located in the southwestern part of the state. A definate suburb of New York.

The town has an existing ordinance banning the hunting of deer anywhere within the town boundaries. Deer are overrunning the property, devastating the vegetation and Ridgefield now boasts the highest deer/vehicle collision rate anywhere in the Constitution State.

The Board of Selectmen in 2004 formed a committee to study what could be done about the deer problem. The committee returned saying the most effective and feasible way to deal with it is to open town property to hunting – mostly if not completely with bow and arrow hunting. A vote is necessary to overturn the town ordinance banning hunting.

And of course there are opponents to any kind of hunting and the debate and politics have raged since the announcement of the intent to open lands to hunting.

Tonight, Wednesday, May 31, 2006, voters will gather at the Veterans Park auditorium at 8 p.m. They will decide whether hunting will be allowed.

Proponents of the hunt are saying that the threat of the spread of disease is very high, that the costs to car owners and insurance companies is too high and that the deer are leveling expensive landscaping.

This is what the opponents have to say about hunting:

Opponents say that deer hunting is cruel, that bow and arrow hunting verges on the barbaric, and that hunting deer is not an effective way to reduce Lyme disease, which is carried by ticks that feed on a variety of mammals besides deer.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and they have the protection of the Constitution to voice them as well. Their reasoning is skewed and hypocritical. They say hunting is cruel. Really? Watching deer starve to death isn’t cruel? Seeing deer collide with a human(s) in an automobile causing suffering injuries to both animal and human, isn’t cruel? Being witness to a member of your family suffering from Lyme disease spread by an over population of deer, isn’t cruel?

They say that hunting by bow and arrow verges on the barbaric. Really? Most people who spend more time, money and energy fighting more for the rights of animals than humans, also believe that abortion is an acceptible thing in our society. And that’s not barbaric? Progressive liberals often times have children or themselves for that matter, adorn themselves with tatoos and pierce their bodies with studs, chains and rings often in places I don’t want to mention. And that’s not barbaric? The very wealthy residents of Ridgefield hire butlers and nannies to raise their children. And that’s not barbaric?

Opponents say that reducing numbers of deer isn’t an effective way to reduce the threat of Lyme disease. Really? Statistics overwhelmingly show us that hunting to manage game populations, is the only long term effective way. Management of game populations, including deer, is essential to good health for the animals. How is this cruel, barbaric and not effective?

I’ll bring you the results of the vote tomorrow. In the meantime, if you are a resident of Ridgefield, crank up that giant SUV and get on over to the Veterans Park auditorium and vote.

*Previous Posts*

When Politics Rules Deer Management

Connecticut Town to Decide on Deer Hunt

Tom Remington