Deer in our backyard

Kevin - you're right, name calling is absolutely not appropriate. These discussions on deer always seem to get so overheated.

I think when you said that you hope this post gets removed by the admins. is when things took a turn for the worst. It came across as 'mean spirited' and perhaps that was not your intent. Please try to see that not everyone shares that view. Feeding deer may be illegal in your state but not in all states. Deer may be a problem for you personally, but for others they are not. Some people do like deer in their garden and will plant just so they come. Others are so tired of the deer eating everything they have planted that they'll do anything to keep them away. And they do cause accidents, and spread disease (just like many other animals of the wild). But, for some, they are just a joy to watch.

I'm just certain that there is a way that those who enjoy them can enjoy discussions about them. That's a hard conversation to hold when someone jumps in and says what you did. Although, it's certainly your right to interject whenever you feel like it, I hope you can understand how and why it was perceived the way it was. Sometimes it's not what we say, but how we say it.

Hoping the thread be removed by admin seems harsh to me. That does not convey a willingness to hear someone's opnion or someone's experiences.

Hi Terry - was I able to answer some of your questions? We posted at the same time.

I can't answer for Kevin, I'll let him. I will say however that this is certainly not the first thread that I've read and participated on where someone has come on and said it needed to be removed. I'm afraid I know of more people who view them as pests than actual wildlife they encourage to come onto their land. I can say with certainty that I know of no one who encourages them, unless they're hunting and that's illegal but I know it happens.

I honestly do not see that as bashing, that was his opinion. And he shared it. And he was called all the names he stated above for doing so. Did he say it the "right" way? How do you say it the right way? Because I've met him and talked with him, I didn't take what he said as being harsh. I could hear him saying it and like I stated above, Kevin's a big sweetheart (sorry Kevin your secret is out). Sometimes you have to read peoples posts to get a feel for the way they communicate. Sometimes, you have to give people the benefit of the doubt and ask them what they mean by what they say. And sometimes you have to know that you're not reading it the way the person intended it. I've done that. I don't think anyone can say they haven't. Sometimes, just sometimes, you might actually be wrong about the person in the other state that frequents DG. I read violets comments to Kevin and I felt they were over the top and above being harsh, but I still gave her the benefit of the doubt. Only one person came on here with both guns blazing and calling people names. Please, go back up and read. Because now, if you feel it was a "bash violet" thread, it's now a bash Kevin thread.

Kristi, do you understand what it is I'm saying?

Yes, I do, Terry. Violet could have definitely handled it without name calling. I would have done it differently. And I agree completely about the 'benefit of the doubt'...that's why I tried to explain that what he said was 'perceived' wrongly by the choice of words. The error was from both sides. Heck, I've made a very good friend with another DG'er who I thought was down right 'mean' when I first met her and she's turned out to be one of the most fabulous persons I've ever spoken with. Perceptions. I don't mean to bash Kevin and I hope that I'm not coming across that way. I think Kevin and I could talk without any disgruntled feelings and have a perfectly good time - I'm just trying to explain what I think happened here and on another deer thread some time ago. Again, I don't mean to step out of line and speak for everyone - these are my general thoughts.

I've read a lot of threads too where someone has said the thread should be removed and generally, it is an opinion. Yes, everyone has a right to their opinion. But I think the frustration here, for the folks that like having deer around (again, I can't speak for everyone) is the fact that they can't converse about it on the 'Gardening for Wildlife' forum without what appears to be animosity for their beliefs. In a sense, from what I have gathered is that there is a feeling of being bullied and why should we have to go somewhere else to enjoy a topic about wildlife and gardening.

I tend to believe that we are all reasonable people and that this is something we need to learn to get past. But I also think it's going to take the efforts of both ends of the wick. There has to be a simple resolution.....I didn't mean to step on the toes of anyone when I tried to come up with a compromise. Baby steps...that's all.

Oh my gawd!

Yes Kristi, I understood that was what you saying regarding Kevin. I'm sorry if it didn't come across that way. I never thought you bashed Kevin, you gave an opinion that was not bashing, and without malice. I think you came up with a very good compromise. I know for myself, it's very rare I visit the wildlife forum because it's all pictures. I don't want pictures, I want the hows and whys people do what they do to attract wildlife. Or the questions regarding which plant is best to attract a certain species of bird.

Equil, oh eloquent speaker you, that's all you can say? Here I thought I'd log on this morning and you'd say things in a way that I couldn't or wasn't expressing.

True Story:

A few years back while cruising along a two lane highway with some friends, on a cold dark night in Northern Wisconsin, we were in the car, watching the silent fog rise off the road and disappear into the frozen pines. It would have been completely silent except the low tones of the radio hummed in the background. It was a long comfortable silence where a person could get lost in their thoughts and enjoy the quiet company of good friends in the car. My friend decided to break the silence by speaking to her husband. She started to get his attention by saying, "Dear,..." Before she could complete her sentence, the car immediately screeched to halt, jolting everyone into a shock. We all were very startled and wondering what the heck was going on ... The driver exclaimed "She said Deer!".


This message was edited Oct 11, 2006 10:26 AM

Sorry Terry, not much more I felt like commenting at the time. It was my understanding the creation of this particular forum was the compromise. If I want to see photo after photo after photo of critters, I go to the original Wildlife forum... where it was made crystal clear that any such talk of deer or cats or House Sparrows being anything but a wonderful addition to the environment was not welcome. The people who shared the belief that deer were out of control were basically systematically and methodically silenced. This new forum provided a means by which those who did not subscribe to the same belief system could do so without the threat of being bullied. Having two forums with a distinctly different focus, minimized the possibility of raising any issues that might be too sensitive for those who just wanted to see heart warming photos. I go to the original Wildlife forum quite frequently as I do thoroughly enjoy most photographs other members are in a position to share. knolan, this would have been before your time so you would not have seen some of the threads that were relocated to more appropriate forums which ultimately led to this forum being created. Truth be known, when there was only one Wildlife forum, clashes in beliefs were considerably more prevalent. I agree with Fly_girl, deleting/removing this thread would do nothing other than exacerbate the situation.

Funny story Joe, I wish I could say that hasn't happened to us before but it has.

I am the one who started the thread asking for a gardening for wildlife forum, where we actually discussed what we've done to our properties to sustain the various critters. Differing opinions would be the norm, not just oohing and ahhing over photos. I was systematically shot down by people who didn't want the original forum to change. Finally, there was enough people that did want a different type of wildlife forum, so this forum was started for the discussion of gardening for wildlife. Where it's really o.k. for others to talk about environmental issues that affect gardening for wildlife. I also go to the original wildlife forum if I want to see photo after photo after photo of critters with no discussion as to what plant brought them in, building a rock pile to bring in snakes, the benefits of having a brush pile etc. Where we discuss the work we've done to sustain different critters, be it birds, butterflies, snakes, frogs, toads and whatever else I'm missing.

This gets old after awhile where the same people try to get rid of any valuable talk that's more than just fluff. I really thought everything would be o.k. once the new forum was created. I kind of believe what Equil does in that this was the compromise by the admins, and I believe others did too.

the deer are coming into the cities because there woods are being taken away no wild places for them they are elimnated lots lots during hunting season. MY daughter was going to work 4 am or 2 that morning and she was just couple miles out town bam she hit deer tore her jeep all up brand new just bought month ago-2007 . bright yellow she did not see deer till hit them.they are looking for food i think.. my relatives in minnes. my dad , brother , nieces, few others all have hit deer.. road hazard like anything else can be.they were put here for reason like all animals.. but its still free speech in our great country .. which is wonderful to.. i love to see them and get pitures usally they are running away.. i have seen coyote's , wolfs, foxes. so whats difference they do damage to.i love to see them to.

have great day all...

the bears in minne. are destroying breaking into cabins ect. now i like to see them to and relatives have pictures of them on there decks, yards tearing up things. but do not put any food them out ever.. they are dangerous.

As a totally uninterested party I'd like to say a couple of things, if you guys don't mind. I don't oppose or support the feeding of wild animals. I do support obeying the law, most of the time. I admit upfront that I cannot spell to save my life, for that I am sorry and hope that you will not find it so distracting that you miss anything of value, if in fact there is anything of value, that I might contribute.


A problem w/ communicating via written word alone is that you cannot see the person's facial expressions or hear the tone of voice. Sometimes we misunderstand what is being communicated, not what is being said, but what is being communicated. It is probably very rare that a person begins a thread or posts a response w/ the SPECIFIC intent of insulting or bashing someone. As you post and as you read you need to know that some people will not understand what you are trying to say/the intent of the post. Some people will feel insulted no matter what or how you post and others will not recognize that they have been "dissed" no matter how clear and obvious you intend to be or how hard you try.

I realize that I am stating the obvious here, but it would appear that this thread became something that no one expected and very, very quickly turned into people feeling slighted, insulted, etc. You cannot force people to be kind to each other and you can't legislate politeness; however, when I am Queen of the Land these politeness and good table manners will be the law of the land. The forums are really meant, IN MY OPINION, to be a friendly exchange of information, ideas, accomplishments, etc. When they become unpleasant you have to ask yourself why you want to participate in something that causes you discomfort. In this particular instance what was the likelihood that any one of you could convince someone w/ an opposing opinion that they were wrong? What was the likelihood that you were going to read the following post, "Gee I never thought of it that way, thanks for pointing out the error of my ways!"? Once you have stated your opposition and responded to the response to that opposition, what value is there in continuing to respond?

I think that Equilibrium's comment was succinct, if not eloquent. "Oh my gawd! " I believe that she was expressing that she finds it hard to believe that the discussion went as far as it did and became as heated as it did. A reasonable suggestion at this point might be that we agree on what we can agree upon, which may only be that "Deer are inarguably magnificent animals" and as for the rest, agree to disagree because that's our right, hope that something that each of you said gives another person something to think about and move on. Some of what was said did impact me and I did review our state's policy on deer and supplemental feeding. For that, thank you. And now, go ahead, take your best shot!

April

Terry & Equilibrium- you know I never ventrue onto this forum, what do you believe the purpose of the forum is- or what is missing? Not trying to incinte anything, just trying to get an idea of what the issues are.

I hesitated to comment but here goes for you April Baby because I was in the process of typing a reply anyway. I love all wildlife, I think most of us do or we wouldn’t be posting in these forums. I love people, considerably more so than wildlife. Currently, it is stated deer take a greater toll on human life than the sum total of rattlesnakes, bears, sharks, and alligators and that’s without Proteinaceous infectious particles replicating to that which could be transmissible to humans. We’re talking about a prion here. Deer are the natural hosts. It isn’t a given that the species barrier will protect us from animal prion diseases. “Conversion of human prion protein by CWD-associated prions has been demonstrated in an in vitro cell-free experiment.” Looks as if somebody out there jumped the species barrier in a lab. This, is the stuff of nightmares but Kevin_5 is far more qualified than I to elaborate. So I ask those who start threads such as this to try hard to be tolerant of those who do risk posting comments that may be viewed as distasteful because it’s really about all of our children and our children’s children to some of us. For every action there is a reaction. We all make choices in our daily lives. For every choice there generally exists a reasonably foreseeable consequence. Unlike with bears mentioned by Hope43, the consequences of artificially choosing to feed deer are not as readily seen or accepted. Consequences of artificially feeding deer might very well be the ultimate compromise of public health and we’re dealing with a little bit more than damage left behind from the wake of a cabin break in.

Prior to European colonization, deer herds were kept in check by predators. Unregulated hunting and loss of habitat due to immigration reduced herds drastically. We’ve come a long way since then and deer have more than rebounded and then some.

Please know that I haven't met a wildlife biologist or game warden or wildlife officer who is not familiar with the profound challenges presented by rapidly multiplying herd numbers so I must question comments made by “Matt” to Violet. I’m not questioning Violet_grower, I’m questioning the man who made the statements to her. Deer are literally stripping our fragile ecosystems of vegetation which eliminates niches for other wildlife and this has been well documented, it’s fact not fiction.

I’d like to share some of the reasons why people who garden for wildlife are vehemently opposed to artificially feeding deer.

Foremost, the threat of CWD (Chronic Wasting Disease). It is believed to be spread deer to deer with direct contact. When we feed them, we encourage them to congregate for extended periods of time which may be contributing to the rapid spread of the disease. In the wild, deer browse an area then move on. When we refill feeders, we bring them back to the same area. Regardless, if not spread by direct contact, then indirect contact might be responsible in which case; we are still bringing them in direct contact with urine, feces, and food that will build up in areas where they are fed. Either way the disease is spread, artificially feeding them defies logic given it may very well be about the equivalent of leading lambs to slaughter given the very feed being provided. To the best of my knowledge, commercially available feeds could contain the infectious agent to CWD and comments such as this made by Violet_grower, “deer pellet stuff they like( looks like pellet horse feed)” are disconcerting. She is not alone in feeding “deer pellet stuff”. If the feed provided contains rendered animal parts, one could be unknowingly infecting all deer at their feeder. Many commercially available feeds specifically state they are not to be fed to ruminants because of the potential risk of spreading CWD yet I have learned that most people are unaware deer and elk are ruminants therefore they are using “deer pellet stuff” at their feeders. I doubt seriously if any person who lovingly chooses to feed deer realizes there exists such a risk. And my question has always been why the heck they don’t print right on the bags, “Don’t feed to deer or elk” in favor of using the word ruminants. We seem to find ways to warn people who don’t even read English and I would think a photo of deer and elk in a circle with an X might do the trick on any feed containing rendered animal parts but what do I know.

Next cause for concern would be the risk of the spread of Bovine Tuberculosis. Once again, when we artificially feed deer we are encouraging them to come in close contact for extended periods of time which increases the likelihood an infected deer would be able to transmit the disease.

Another cause for concern, artificially feeding deer causes more deer to survive than what our ecosystems can handle which will ultimately result in an even greater death toll in the long run.

Next issue would be that it is normal for some deer to starve to death over winter. This was one of the means by which balance was maintained in that the carrying capacity of the land was not overly taxed. When we artificially feed, the weaker deer as well as the stronger deer survive to perpetuate the gene pool which will negatively impact the herds in the long run. Survival of the fittest isn’t occurring because we are interfering therefore the weak are not being “weeded” out naturally.

There are considerably more causes for concern but these stick out like sore thumbs.

This is the Gardening for Wildlife forum. Wildlife to me is a collective term referring to all indigenous fauna on my continent. I believe this forum was created to avoid such conflicts leaving the original “Wildlife” forum as is or rather to thwart “bombardments” where people routinely post photos of how they “attract wildlife to their backyard”. I believe the “Gardening For Wildlife” forum may have been intended for actual creation of habitat in yards as well as in natural areas. There is a big difference between attracting wildlife to our backyards and actual gardening for wildlife and it is only natural for clashes to be perpetuated when expectations aren’t met. Based on other threads, it would be my interpretation the posting of photos of artificially fed deer in this forum is about as appropriate as the posting of a photo of a cat running across one’s yard with a bird hanging out of its mouth on the continent of North America while members refer to it as being a natural occurrence. There is absolutely nothing natural about current deer herd numbers. Deer are doing irreversible damage because there are too many of them. Their herd numbers are out of control and on a collision course with disaster for a multitude of reasons but they are taking other species of flora (plants which sustain wildlife) and fauna (wildlife) down with them. When we artificially feed deer, I believe we tinker with nature and defy God but that truly is a personal opinion.

Although I origninally believed the posts in this thread dictated it be moved to Garden Foes, I currently have no problems with it being here providing each and every one who posts tries their darndest to do so civilly and respectfully. Maybe we could all try really hard to attack the concepts presented when these topics arise in either Wildlife forum not the person presenting them because that’s how we get an opportunity to grow and expand our knowledge base to better enable us to make the best decisions for us. Perhaps we could all just stick to the facts and conscientiously choose not to escalate, engage, or retaliate. It’s about tolerance.

I, for one, just learned a whole lot that I didn't know before. For that, thank you Equil.

I've also got a better prespective now that I know a little bit of history on this forum.

I'm at work so I have to be brief, but I really don't have much else to say except thank you for the eloquent explanation and the very respectful way that you have put it.

Kristi

Sort of odd that passions are so high because I truly believe every last person posting here does love wildlife and my last reply reflects that belief. If you really think about it, what is currently dividing us is the differing means by which we express our love for wildlife. Each person here acts based on their own personal belief system and life experiences. Differences are the spice of life. How utterly boring these forums would be if we all agreed on everything all of the time.

The mere mention of having a feeder up .. has been pounced on and a member verbally ushered to the gallows - needlessly and unjustifiably!

The same rules should apply when someone starts a thread with photos - whether or not (you) have issues with the particular critter.

Geezers, what have some of you just done to someone merely posting the photos of the deer in their own yarden .. that they 'subscribe to' and enjoy, in their pursuits!?! The thread wasn't started to enable nor invite any such snide remarks .. relating to anyone else's personal preferences.

Equil .. those 'threads' of which you mention (to knolan) and the creation of the new forum .. took place in early July: of this year.

What some folks seem to fail to comprehend ...
* The deer had long been visiting .. before any additional plants, salt blocks, or feeders were ever put out for them.
* The deer are gonna migrate and move about where ever they (essentially) please ..
* And, in so doing .. the deer will, thereby, try to cross roads and highways .. no matter where.
* When hunting season is on - the deer will and do behave more erraticly, and much more flighty! (Geez, wouldn't you - if a hunter and/or his dogs were stalking and trailing you!?!
* A vehicle will inevitably make contact with a deer (or several) at any given moment, day or night: sometimes a number of vehicles over a vast range of areas .. nation-wide and elsewhere.
* And whether they were provided feed in my yard, violet_growers, or Mr. Shag-nasty Anonymous' yard - has nothing to do with the problems that the state of Illinois may be reportedly having, or in Kevens or Equils yards, or anyones' - Zilch!

Educational or any informed input is usually requested, and it sure seems that intelligent conversation can in no way be considered .. when the likes of such self-centered issues .. are hastily chunked into the laps of other well-meaning folks, by ..
Furthermore .. considering it being almost three months ago that the photos were posted: sure seems that someone has had a hankering for something/someone to gnash, bash, attack, and tar & feather.

'Clashes' jes don't seem to fit as the correct word to use for those of us that post our critter photos and get our heads bitten off - whether it's on this forum or the other.

However, deliberate 'sabatoge' and 'railroading' seems to be a more applicable and somewhat of the prevailing definitive term to ponder implication in the matter.

It doesn't seem a fair assessment to pawn such behaviors, to it being simply a 'clash of differences' - when it seems somewhat obvious that some are intent on infiltrating other folks' wonderful and well-meaning wildlife threads .. by immediately attempting to secure the manifestion of the other folks feeling reprehensibly irresponsible, wreaking havoc, and/or cause them to shun or abort their own threads!

A whole 'nother thread could've easily been started by Equil/Kevin, etc. .. bringing America to it's knees and enlightening folks to grasp the gosh-awful conditions and threats that (they) feel the deer present, for them. Any of us would be able to resource and read it, at will .. and choose to use the info as we see fit.

Not surprisingly: the apparent explicit engineered intent seems to have proven most successful afterall. The thread is no longer about violet_grower and her wonderful deer visiting: it's about the anti-deer plight of some other individuals .. once more!

Such antics are senseless .. and there needs to be a cease to such avoidable atrocities and blatantly callous disrespect to/of others.

I can only wonder how long the rest of us may have to tolerate such disparaging intimidation tactics being used by some others: on our own threads.

- Magpye

This message was edited Oct 11, 2006 1:07 PM

That's odd, suddenly I hear Charlie Brown's teacher

I think the 'Wildlife' forum is appropriate for us to post our pictures in. The only potential problem...not all newbies to the wildlife forums will know the history and where the appropriate place to post is and someone is inevitably going to post their "share pictures" on this forum. I would have just day before yesterday. So, let's just all be conscious of this and not bark at them if they do. I think it's pretty easy to recognize when someone is just wanting to share their pictures. Generally, there won't be any questions or serious discussion...it tends to be very light hearted dialog.

I have several questions...

Does every post have to be warm, fuzzy and agreeable?

Can people agree to disagree without being personally assaulted and intimidated?

What does one have to do to claim ownership of a thread?

I am flabberghasted by this notion that any dissenting opinions are some type of personal attack. Can mature adults express dissenting opinions while maintaining mutual respect?

Not that I really want to get into clearly touchy subject, but jeez I just can't seem to stop myself.

I will share a brief story, I fed raccoons for many years because I enjoyed their antics. Every year more and more raccoons came to our yard. We loved it, my kids loved it. I can't say that I saw an increase in the number of raccoons that ended up dead but I did begin to think that perhaps some of those critters would not have ended up road kill had they not been tempted to cross the road and eat in my yard. Retrospectively I admitt to feeling selfish at the very least.


When I read Kevin's comments about the illegality of feeding deer I went to my own state's wild life site- you have to understand that I am in TX and I am not a hunter. I had not thought of TX as having many deer but low and behold even we have a lot of deer. If Kevn's intent was to enlighten just one person, he succeeded. That is perhaps all that he was hoping for.

Like I said previously, you don't know the tone of his voice or look on his face, so it is not fair to suggest that he "pounced on ...a member..." or ".. verbally ushered..." anyone "... to the gallows - needlessly and unjustifiably!" In fact that statement is just a little inflammatory and unfair and at the very least qualifies as disparaging and intimidating- though something tells me that that Kevin and Equilibrium will not be so easily intimidated.

This may seem rude and may go over some heads but here goes. Some of us have specific, expert knowledge and as keepers of that knowledge it is imperitive that we share this information. The reader has the right to ignore the knowledge, but as always, does so w/ consequences. For example, I am a Registered Nurse and while I don't know everything, I do know some things that others may not. If I happen to read a post that contains some medically related information that is in error and if I feel that by not providing the correct information some harm may come to the person who posted or an individual who reads the post, I am compelled by the American Nurising Association and the State of Texas as part of my licensure, to correct that information. You may chose to believe some old wives tale as opposed to the empirical data that exists, but it will not be because I have failed. I would suggest that people like Kevin and Equilibrium are simillarly governed. By belittling their efforts and attacking them as individuals you miss the value in their message and you reduce the interaction to a level that diminishes the importance of the wild life we all say that we enjoy and appreciate.

I hope that some of you will take a deep breath and think a little bit about the information that has been given and perhaps why it has been given.

Another eloquent speaker....very well said, April.

So are the majority of us .. by now.
Once more; violet_grower has NOT sought, invited, nor asked .. for any such 'discussion' in the posting of her deer pictures. The posting of any critter photos on any thread .. should not auto-qualify the threads to such opposing input.

Frankly, such input that we're virtually 'gagged' with .. certainly curtails anyone else trying to enjoy the intent of the photos on the threads. There've been several threads that ended up being pulled/removed because of such needless and uninvited debate! And, simply put - by golly, it's just not right!!

* violet_grower and escambiaguy .. those are some wonderful shots you've posted! Hope you'll get around to posting more, soon. *

((huggs))

- Magpye

My opinion, when you post a photo you open the door for discussion on your photo. I don't understand why anybody would think it wouldn't. If you don't want a discussion, then it seems clear to me that you should not post a photo. Why do discussions have to be taken as attacks when clearly there was no attack? I can think of several threads that were removed because the content wasn't to a select fews taste. Remember those Magpye?

Please folks. We don't like pulling threads or scolding adults for behaving badly. (It's never a satisfactory outcome for anyone.)

And while not every post must be warm and fuzzy, there's no license for either side to browbeat the other in the name of education or enlightenment, either.

Let's face it: some issues are emotionally-charged. Politics and religion are the two most obvious examples, but many others are tangential to either or both topics, and thus become "politicized." This is obviously one of them.

It doesn't take much for the battle lines to be drawn and both sides become increasingly entrenched in their position. With these issues, it's evident that neither side is going to change the other side's mind. It's no reflection on anyone's debating skills - it's just that "they" are just as committed to their position as "you" are to yours.

I'm not going to take sides here (my backside is perfectly comfortable riding the fence on this one)

But there's a lot to be said for agreeing to disagree - which generally means that you refuse to engage if this is one of your personal hot buttons. In an online environment, that's VERY easy (at least compared to real life) to do. You can pound out your most fiery, eloquent retort - and then hit "delete" instead of "send."

If you feel your blood pressure rising before you reach the end of a thread, then recognize it's hitting one of your hot buttons, and do the sensible thing: hit your back button, unwatch the thread, and you can ignore it forevermore without appearing the least bit rude.

Perhaps your silence will speak louder than your words.