Friends of Sligo Creek Deer Survey Comments

QUESTION 11
How important to you is preserving a rich diversity of plants in Sligo Creek Park, enabling tree saplings to survive and replace our aging trees, and providing habitat for animals such as nesting birds? (Choose the option that most closely reflects your view.)
Preserving biodiversity is a top priority for me.
Biodiversity is important for Sligo, but no more so than opportunities for sports, recreation, picnicing, and driving along the Parkway.
Deer are part of biodiversity and their numbers should be allowed to grow without human interference.
The Park is primarily a place for humans, and so biodiversity is a low priority for me.
Other comments:

We live in the SS area, very close to Brookside Gardens. At first, when the fence was erected, the damage to our gardens, etc. was almost intolerable. The deer ate my young trees, flowers, bushes, etc. Now that culling is used to keep the deer population down, the damage is what I call acceptable. We saw a deer with an 8 rack on him in our yard - this animal should be in the wild, not in the city. i realize that we, humans, caused this problem, so it is up to us to resolve it. Lyme disease is becoming prevelant.

We live in the SS area, very close to Brookside Gardens. At first, when the fence was erected, the damage to our gardens, etc. was almost intolerable. The deer ate my young trees, flowers, bushes, etc. Now that culling is used to keep the deer population down, the damage is what I call acceptable. We saw a deer with an 8 rack on him in our yard - this animal should be in the wild, not in the city. i realize that we, humans, caused this problem, so it is up to us to resolve it. Lyme disease is becoming prevelant.

I have witnessed the extirpation of several plant species in my area because of deer.

The only natural enemy deer have left is the automobile. Since we have eliminated the predators which would otherwise control their population, we have to do it.

I support capture and relocate. More humans intrude on deer habitats than deer on human habitat.

Lyme disease is my biggest concern. Three of us in my family have cronic Lyme disease. We have deer that come into our yard frequently.

I think that many people are still unaware of how much damage the deer do, especially to the young trees that should be coming up to replace existing mature trees in the future.

Biodiversity is important, but it is not clear that deer populations alone are preventing more diversity. The climate, air and water pollution, poor soil, weak park management are also responsible to varying extents. Also, biodiversity is just one of many things Sligo Creek Park needs.

I think the deer and the biodiversity can co-exist by limiting their numbers in a humane way.

Sligo Creek Park and my backyard are not deer petting zoos. The deer need to be controlled.

Our natural diversity is already far below "rich" and it is a sign of how desperately bad it is that we much consider killing deer, as we already kill beavers for similar reasons. Thanks for comment space.

Biodiversity and recreation can go hand in hand; further, managing deer population is ok as long as non-lethal

The deer have started to eat more of our plants and shrubs then in the past and I am concerned about their increasing numbers. I have also been to a retreat center where the deer have decimated all the undergrowth in the forested areas. I fear that will happen here also.

Deer...rats with long legs? There are too many for health and safety reasons.

Biodiversity is important, but plants are no more important than deer.

Health is also of concern: I contacted lyme disease from a deer tick from my backyard. Deer culling could reduce a health risk to my family.

The increase in deer population is negatively affecting the environment. It's getting exponentially worse as the years go on.

The park's roadway and many parks mean it's clearly not "wild" space, but I would love to see FoSC help the park find a better ecological balance by culling the deer. The park is not just for people, but it's also not just for deer. Also, as you know, for those of us who live close to the park, the FOSC policies become the de facto policies for our own land (absent a large fence, anyway!). We've been working to plant native trees and shrubs throughout our yard, only to see the hard work undone by deer. (Heck, they've even sampled some roses?!?)

the overpopulation of deer is preventing the healthy regeneration of the forest. Deer need predators to be kept in check. We have provided deer with ample habitat but no predators other than the car.

The environment in the park has changed over the years. I am not sure that biodiversity is well defined because of this.

why not relocate a percentage and replenish the woods.

Deer are part of biodiversity, too, and we must not kill all the deer. I think we should find ways to make the invasive plant species attractive to the deer for eating.

But I don't believe in culling

Deer browsing of oak and other tree seedlings may prevent the forest from regenerating. When large trees fall during storms or when they die from old age, there will not be a crop of young trees to replace them. Deer damage to the forest and understory is destroying eastern forests.

My husband and I are very concerned about the loss of undergrowth of native plants, including saplings and shrubs, which have been wiped out in recent years in wooded areas around our home, bordering the park. I have seen herds of 5 to 7 deer in our yard. I have had to take antibiotics on 2 occasions from exposure to deer ticks. I strongly believe there is a need to reduce the deer population to maintain the native plants our birds and other fauna depend on.

I would hate to see all of them be killed. Maybe the population needs reduction. This should be done as gently and carefully as possible.

The deer were here before we were. Respect all life.

It's clear that the current state is not sustainable and measures must be taken to reduce the deer population.

More trees and plants should be planted rather than reduce the number of deer. Attempts should be made to vaccinate and sterilize the deer and keep them safe.

None of the above. Other than the first option, the remaining three include unnecessary "caveats" to the options, e.g. the fourth option should simply read: "Biodiversity is a low ..."

It's not just about the biodiversity of the flora. The deer are eating all the available food earlier and earlier each year. This is evidenced by when they begin migrating out of the park and into neighborhoods in search of food. As the herd overpopulates and begins to starve it weakens them as a group. That combined with the high density of deer creates a prime opportunity for them to become even further weakened by disease. The very health of the deer population in imperiled by overpopulation. Culling the herd introduces the thinning of the population that a more "natural" environment (predators) would have. They would be stronger, better fed, and the park's flora might recover.

I think that biodiversity is a bit overblown in a densely populated residental area.

the deer are biodiversity but should be managed.

In my opinion, deer are part of biodiversity BUT their numbers should be controlled through contraception methods and/or sterilization programs.

If the deer population is becoming unsustainable, appropriate remedies include the reintroduction of wolves and the creation of larger areas of deer habitat.

If experts agree too many deer, then cull teh deer if needed. I'm not against use of gun or arrow for this if well managed. Use venison to feed people if feasible. Deer are cute, but just one (voracious) specie in park. And now, have no natural predator.

Just 3 weeks ago there was a dead deer on my property - Flower Avenue and Melbourne - I was definitely shocked to find a deer in my neighborhood - especially dead. I called the County and it was removed the morning I called.

I like the deer. It's why I moved here. I am concerned about their well-being. If we do any population control, it ABSOLUTELY must be non-lethal. I will accept no other alternative.

I don't see that biodiversity and sports/recreation activities are mutually exclusive unless there are plans to greatly expand the picnic and recreation areas.

The park is primarily a place for humans? Where are the deer supposed to live? All of the land has been bulldozed for human activity and the parks are all that is left. It is the human population that is out of control. That is unacceptable. Leave the deer alone. Knock down a mall and replant a forest.

I am interested in reducing the deer herd thru sharpshooting in order to make the Park more healthy, for the benefit of its plants, wildlife (which will return if the understory returns), and our human enjoyment of a healthy landscape. Now, it's sad to walk thru the Park. That's not the experience I'm looking for.

Sligo is a fairly urban park, not a true wilderness. I don't think it's reasonable to think of it as a truly wild and indepent ecosystem. Rather it should be well husbanded as a place that is used and cared for by its community for nature related recreation. Preserving diversity and habitats is part of that stewardship.

You know what is also biodiversity? Coyotes! We need to encourage them to live amongst us to help keep the deer in check. So, since you are using a "survey" to proselytize on the evils of deer (and I agree, deer are doing damage), why don't you consider explaining to people that coyotes and humans can co-exist quite peacefully in an effort to de-stigmatize these beautiful creatures.

the number of deer seem to be out of proportion for a balanced biodiverse parkland

The way this issue is being framed in the media bothers me. Here we humans have multiplied way beyond reasonable numbers that would permit the entire panoply of other species to thrive alongside us; it is our own mushrooming habitats that have led to the imbalance of species, with some species thriving on life in human habitat while others wither. Yet no one talks about "culling" humans. It seems that the deer issue is framed in such a way that preserving native plant species in our park is presented as being a supreme value - more important than the lives of these creatures. I challenge that order of priority, that set of assumptions. If the problem can be controlled via birth control, then I'm more or less OK with that. But culling - a euphemism for murder - is abhorrent. It's our fault they've multiplied; the gardeners in our midst plant species that attract the deer and nourish their expansion. Duh. Is your pretty little flower garden or hedge really more important than the life of a fellow creature? I am completelly against the idea that hunters are going to be taking the lives of innocent creatures in my park.

My general opposition to hunting is much outweighed by my concern for the safety of car drivers.

Hunt the deer!

There should have been a middle position between options 1 and 3 (question 12 below is better) -- maybe something like, "Deer are a part of the biodiversity, but their numbers should not be allowed to grow so high as to displace other species"

I am in the park often and have never seen more than 12 dozen deer spread around a four mile section. Diversity is important but reducing to just 5-10 deer seems extreme. I would not be supportive of that drastic of a reduction. Seeing the deer is am important part of my experience in the park.

My concern is for the welfare of the deer. As the number increases, more and more are being hit by cars. I constantly see dead deer along side of the roads. The deer suffer as well as the a danger to the occupants of the car that hit them. How long does the deer suffer after being hit by a car? What is the food supply for them in the winter. As the population grows the food supply gets lower and lower.

When they reintroduced wolves into a western national park, the riverside vegetation grew back and attracted back the small mammals who had disappeared. Getting rid of the deer restored the animal and plant life.

The choices, above, do not allow me the choice that I need. While deer are part of the biodiversity, and while I do not believe there are too many, the population should have some limits. We're just not there yet. Remember, they're not living in our area; we're living in theirs. I accept feasting on my yard plants as a small tax for living in their habitat. People need to get over the us versus them mentality.

What an incomplete and leading set of options! How about biodiversity is important, but is no justification for shooting the "winners".

I would like to see the number of deer reduced and have the deer meat given to soup kitchens. My husband and I both feel this is the best solution.

Use birth control on the deer.

We LOVE all the deer sightings that we get, but realize that keeping things in balance means we need to have fewer deer in the park.

You need a response between the first two. Biodiversity is much more important than some of those other items but not to the point they are excluded as the first item implies.

Our park is much too narrow a corridor to hope for a true unimpacted ecosystem, so it doesn't make any sense to try to take a "pure" position that would alienate many neighbors and recreational users of the park

If we control animal population, why not control human population. They were here first and we have no natural predators left

I feel that that this questionnaire is clearly biased towards "culling". Severe damage to herds has been found with culling, but no mention is made of his, nor of other feasible alternatives, such as birth control, whicn would do less damage to the integrity of the herds. Perhaps we would need more information about how the sharpshooters do there work, how they select their prey, etc., before sending in the guns at ANY time into our heavily used parks. I live on Long Branch park and use that park, and Sligo park's walking trails.

Preserving biodiversity is extremely important but deer are part of that. The problem is loss of habitat and natural preditors. This is a people problem, not a deer problem.

without predators, the deer are out of control, out of balance with nature, and are destroying nature's diversity

I grew up in Vermont where hunting was an annual reality and a necessity for managing the deer population in the absence of significant populations of predators. I cannot see any alternative here, where forested area is all the more scarce. I am concerned that a significant percentage of people in this area are too moved by the "bambi" image and would be against killing large numbers of deer. But it seems the problem has been left unaddressed for too long and the deer will incur irreversible damage if nothing large-scale is implemented SOON to deal with this. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this survey and to comment.

There should be an option reading: biodiversity is important but deer are a part of biodiversity. There numbers must be monitored and regulated when appropriate.

I have several deer visiting my small yard daily, eat and trample everything and are not afraid at all.

Ther are too many deer they should be culled. Venison, anyone.

It is not kind, natural or healthy for the deer to live in such numbers in such a small, urban place with out predators other than cars.

I believe the deer population should not be culled unless there is a clear threat to the human population, or the deer are unable to survive in the area without culling efforts.

I have seen deer in extreme situations AWAY from the Park which had clearly wandered or been driven from cover

The deer are so brazen. Small herds of them graze on the vegetation in Woodside Park. They have actually come on my porch to eat from flower boxes.

Humans caused the problem of "too many deer" because we've taken away their land and pushed out their predators. So to be fair, we should allow the deer to live in what is left to them and design some kind of population control (shooting them with birth control) instead of just shooting them.

Well, I don't really think driving the parkway is important. If, let's say, one day a week the park were closed for recreation in order to improve biodiversity, I wouldn't complain.

What to do? As horrible as it is to contemplate, the only solution may be killing the deer. Unless an efficacious solution can found involving sterilization

deer are part of the biodiversity and so (like it or not) are humans and their activities. Balance is the key and the building of structures ( homes, parking spaces,playgrounds,etc) which infringe on the all ready decreasing places for wildlife is naturally upsetting the fragile balance. I beleive since we (humans) are responsible for upsetting the balance that had been at Sligo we need to be responsible enough to handle the situation humanely and with consideration of our fellow beings.

A square mile can support a deer without it being in a starving state. Tranquilizer darts should be used to remove the deer to less populated areas so that guns and archery will not be use to cull the deer. Starving deer will eat all the vegetation in sight.

I think that the two parts of option 3 do not necessarily go together; I agree with the first phrase, am neutral on the second

This "survey" seems designed to lead people to negative conclusions about the deer.

Re the sense of how many deer - in terms of what I've observed in my 20 months in the neighborhood - not excessive - but the articles I read suggest that there are far too many.

Deer destroy native plants. The current situation is appalling .

I enjoy running across deer once in a while. It rarely happens except in the dead of winter.

clearly the goal of biodiversity is threatened by too many deer

I don't like the way this question is worded--if I check the first response I worry that my answer could be used to defend culling. Biodiversity is very important but I do not support killing in any form.

We're sympathetic to all sides. We can see that the deer are a problem. We're 'weed warriors' and have been out a dozen times pulling vines and things with that group. And we know that the deer are a problem with the native shrubs and plants. But we're also 'animal lovers' and tolerate them. Our house backs up to the park. We have all our hostas covered with chicken wire.

Bio diversity is important, that includes deer. But an over abundance of deer is detrimental for the deer, the people and the plants.

Deer seem to be destroying a number of native plants in the park.

Could the deer be shot with tranquilizers and transported to rural areas where regular hunters can hunt them.

Don't kill the deer. If there are too many to be safe for the park's biodiversity then have a fund drive to move them elsewhere or spay or neuter them. I am especially concerned about lethal culling because I don't want anyone with guns anywhere near my house!

Some sports, recreation, and picnicing are not attractive activities when there is the fear of lyme disease.

My answer is really between choice one and two. Biodiversity is important and should be managed as well as possible while allowing people to use the park.

Back to top

QUESTION 12
With this in mind, do you think the Montgomery County Parks Dept. should consider cullng deer in Sligo, in order to prevent further damage to Sligo's natural resources? (Choose the answer that most closely matches your view.)
Yes, I believe the County should immediately institute culling of deer in Sligo in order to prevent further damage to our woodlands.
Yes, but I believe the County must first take steps to better inform and involve the wider Sligo community in presenting the problem and possible solutions.
No, I believe the County should wait to see if more effective birth control techniques might be developed for use in suburban parks, even if it means a long period of further damage to plant and animal life in the Park.
No, the County should not consider killing deer in Sligo.
Not sure, or no opinion, or I need more information to make an informed decision.
What other types of information would be helpful?:

Other comments:

What other types of information would be helpful?:

As I mentioned before, the culling of deer is the solution to our problems. The dead deer that I see on the side of the road is worse than culling. The shooting is done when the park is closed to the public and at a time that most people are asleep. The sharpshooter is very careful.

As I mentioned before, the culling of deer is the solution to our problems. The dead deer that I see on the side of the road is worse than culling. The shooting is done when the park is closed to the public and at a time that most people are asleep. The sharpshooter is very careful.

Safety concerns of those who live near area that would be culled.

County should not write-off the downcounty areas of the park.

I am very uncomfortable with killing them unless all other options have failed. What about fencing? spraying? Moving them? When will birth control be ready to use? Are there any native predators that would be safe to import? Killing should be last resort.

Maybe the County could mail fliers like they do about recycling - also could do one about cleaning up after dogs

Police sharp shooters or hunters could shoot downward from tree stands - so, if they miss, te bullet goes into the ground inmstead of someone's home.

Culling is the only solution to the problem - nothing else is practical in the long run.

Emphasize the donation of the deer meat as food to food banks. It might help mitigate people's squeamishness over "killing Bambi."

I think the neighbors need to be aware of this being done. will the park be off limits while this is happening?

I'm all in favor of a combined approach of humane hunting, with the meat from non-diseased animals to be consumed by humans who eat deer meat. This needs to be combined with birth control since the situation has gotten beyond control by one single method.

I think extensive education about why the other alternatives don't work would be helpful. I fear people will resist culling because they feel the county wants to take the easy way out.

predators are necessary for prey animals to be at their optimal health. Many of the deer are having twins and multiple drops/year. They would not do that if they were malnourished. There are 10X as many deer / mile as biologists indicate is the carrying capacity of a landscape to support. We need more coyotes, bobcats and other natural predators to keep them in check if we do not hunt them out.

The general public is ignorant about native biodiversity and threats to it, espeically threats imposed by invasive species (including deer). I think it would help for people to know what a "normal" biodiverse forest looks like, including an age-structured tree community.

are there any other alternatives - i.e. possible to move the deer to unpopulated areas?

I would prefer that the deer be sterilized, regardless of how it impacts the budget in the short-term. It would help much over the long-term.

Information on the types of biodiversity that we are preserving, the efforts that are made to plant important species, and the birds and other species that are benefitting--as well as the rate of increase in those other species.

i like the deer

Unbiased information re: all the alternatives. I opposed to killing deer; unless there are truly no other viable alternatives and the animal population is suffering as well (e.g., lack of food and habitate)

It does not matter that the County has "determined" that it does not want to pursue appropriate remedies. The job of FOSC is to insist that the County do the right thing.

It has come to my attention that some jurisdictions on Cape Cod Massachussetts and Eastern Shore of Maryland hunt deer and sell the food to food banks. I believe Sligo should find a method of doing this without exposing bypassers to accidental shootings, or adding pollutants to the watershed

Hold a "town hall" meeting to present ideas to the public.

More non-lethal population control. Even if it costs more. Take my taxes from schools that benefit children I never had and if I had them, they would be well past school age.

Keep an open mind.

Very clear communication about What will take place and When it will take place.

Not anti deer but I think protection of the plant life, both in the park and neighboring areas, is more important. Deer can quickly multiply. The plant life cannot.

The single dose immunocontraception is close to being ready. There are plenty of good groups like Geese Peace willing to fund non-lethal methods.

There will always be people in the community that decry the killing of deer. If we accomodate them because we won't act without consensus, we will all regret the lack of young trees, having to deal with an overabundance of invasive plant species, and the decline of many other types of wildlife. We've already lost many bird species that would be found here if there were a healthier understory.

How much damage to plants in the park can be attributed to the deer? How much biodiversity has been lost? Wouldn't it be possible to give newly planted trees stronger protection from deer? If so, at what cost?

I'd like to know what the county thinks. What caused the decision to cull the Wheaton Regional herds? Do we have the same conditions? If so then the same policy should apply.

I do not believe that the alternatives are not affordable or practical. The County blows money away on sports complexes and deals with the Live Nation. The parks and the animals and birds, etc., who live there are my top priority. Education for children is a tie. Pedestrian safety is also critical, given the death rate.

1) What is the extent of plant and other ecosystem damage? 2) What is the role of predators, if any, in resolving the problem? I guess there may be some coyotes in the area now, or if not there probably will be some in the future.

It would be helpful to know how "unhelpful" the other methods are -- my guess is that they do help some; this might reduce, albeit likely not eliminate, the need for sharpshooter killing of deer, which would be a good thing.

Past history of safety in culling deer in narrow creek parks would be useful.

Assuming that there are huge signs and notices so people aren't in the park while the culling operation occurs.

Sligo is used a lot by people, all the time - I have concerns about safety. I do like the idea of the killed deer being given to food banks. Part of the problem is that we have gotten rid of their natural predators.

The county would be wasting money on culling deer. It may decrease the population for a moment, but it is not a long-term solution and is not effective at decreasing deer-related accidents/problems. I believe the money that would go towards culling deer should be put towards research of other methods, such as contraception, etc. The plants will come back once we have an effective measure. Killing deer year after year has proven to be ineffective, so why not try something we haven't before. The plants are STILL dying while we kill these deer- so let's do something else for a change. Let's set an example the rest of the counties can follow.

See above. Smithsonian and other sources have published research findings critical of the culling of herd animals. It would be good to avoid tilting this effort toward the most expedient method, expecially without providing an unbiased accounting of the effects, good and bad, actual financial and other costs of culling.

I think your explanation of how culling is actually done needs to be publicized as I was familiar with it being done in Wheaton and at county golf courses but had not heard how. It will help people understand that is is safer than they might expect since the shooters are pointing down.

I think that allowing the shooting of deer is cruel and dangerous in such a densely populated area. This is nuts!

I'd like to hear in detail from those who oppose culling and especially those who propose alternatives to reducing the deer population.

I need more information on the long term/side effects of the birth control techniques on humans (ie., water supply, etc.) and the deer themselves (ie., permanent infertility.)

Culling is critical, but Sligo is so narrow that the process would have to be managed extremely carefully to avoid any danger to humans.

Given the shape of SC park, the sharpshooters don't have much area to work with. How would they adapt their techniques?

I love the deer. They give us great joy to watch and we would not like to see or hear about them being killed. Also we are densely populated in this down county area and culling, even at night, would be very dangerous. I am strongly opposed to "culling".

What efforts -- such as birth control -- are being tried here or elsewhere?

The success of culling in other areas should be presented to the neighborhoods before the measures are started.

How many deer would be killed?

Since Sligo is such a narrow park, with neighborhoods on either side, it makes me nervous to have people shooting deer, even police sharpshooters. I'm not against culling, and think it needs to happen, but I need to understand how it will be done, when it will be done, and what safety precautions will be taken.

signage, leaflets, meetings

I would like to be assured that birth control is not feasible. Also, how the "culling" can be done without endangering humans.

explain why other alternatives will not work (including introducing predators like coyote)

Gotta educate people re: damage to native plants. But killing Bambi is going to upset a lot of people. It's a no-win situation

The deer population has gotten totally out of control. Playing golf at Sligo Golf I have counted herds that exceed 12 deer. Way too many.

would like to know why other methods have been deemed impractical or prohibitively expensive

I live in Woodside Park, and although not that near to Sligo, we have deer on our street, and in our yard, frequently. I have hit a deer while driving on the parkway and think that the situation has gotten very much out of hand.

information and exactly what the county has tried,what other options have been successfully tried elsewhere, what solutions "out of the box" have been initiated, how is it determined that the deer population is increasing (and not that it is a matter of their space dramatically decreasing with no viable alternative in sight) as well as more detailed information on the culling program.

the number of car encounters (wrecks) with deer

I ABSOLUTELY do not believe in killing deer. It is not their fault that development has caused them to move. This goes against everything I believe in and is not suitable in Sligo park.

None. Just remove the deer. We have talked about it enough over the years.

Scenario planning showing what would occur if there is no culling, and what could occur if culling were to take place (increased biodiversity). People don't understand what a healthy woods should look like.

Knowing what we can expect as far as biodiversity rebounding- what is the prediction? Will the deer die quickly? Where exactly will the meat be donated? How will the pelts, antlers and other parts be used in a meaningful way?

Are there other workable solutions, e.g., birth control injections or other forms of limiting the population? If so, this would be preferable. What is the time frame to develop alternatives, and what are the consequences of immediate action vs. waiting?

I hear no mention that overabundance of deer results in their starvation. Along with the other good reasons to cull deer, people need to be informed of this problem.

Culling is beneficial and more humane. Hitting a deer with your car is much less humane.

I hate to have them shot, but I hate to have them starve too. Also, they are killing other creatures, by browsing the nests out from under ground nesting birds, etc., so doing nothing to the deer still results in harm to other creatures.

If the deer are shot, I'm concerned that they don't have a painful death. It should be instant and they shouldn't have to suffer.

what are alternatives for reducing the growth of the deer population BESIDES killing them and especially killing htem with guns?

Other comments to question 12:

I live about 15 blocks south of Sligo Creek (in the TPSS coop neighborhood), but we have had groups of deer wander into our yards and eat our plants for the past several years. If they are coming this far to graze, they must be a very serious problem closer to the park.

We need to get out a bit better the following: deer are at starvation levels now in the parks; the park is in serious danger of loss of all the understory and the implications of this for the future; that about the only thing that survives deer is ivy and that duo is doing in the park.

We need to get out a bit better the following: deer are at starvation levels now in the parks; the park is in serious danger of loss of all the understory and the implications of this for the future; that about the only thing that survives deer is ivy and that duo is doing in the park.

I am happy to see the Audoubon Society is supporting the culling of deer. The deer are earing the plants that our birds need to survive. One day we'll be looking for the song birds, and we'll soon regret, not controlling this situation. I love animals, but just as the Humane Societies have to take care of thousands of unwanted animals because there is no place for them, the County needs to do the same with the deer. I support culling.

I am happy to see the Audoubon Society is supporting the culling of deer. The deer are earing the plants that our birds need to survive. One day we'll be looking for the song birds, and we'll soon regret, not controlling this situation. I love animals, but just as the Humane Societies have to take care of thousands of unwanted animals because there is no place for them, the County needs to do the same with the deer. I support culling.

I won't be bothered by immediate culling, but I know other people might, so additional information wouldn't hurt.

Sell the venison! I'd buy some.

I picked "yes" above but not because of the woodlands. As I said before I am very concerned about the spread of Lyme disease.

There is no dignity in a deer starving, leading a malnourished, diseased life, or getting maimed or killed by a car. Culling by sharpshooters is far more humane than the method by which most meat is killed on the way to our dinner tables.

I believe "culling" would serve several beneficial purposes,including reducing traffic accidents, reducing damage to plant life in the Parks and around people's residences, and providing much needed meat for local low-income residents.

I have watched a fawn wandering around in the park for days until it simply collapsed and died. It died of starvation because the mother had probably been killed. I believe a humane group should be formed to address the issue of better contraception that could perhaps be shot by injection at a distance. This could be achieved with the help of donations from local groups. I personally think that the deer are the greatest asset of the park. They are simply magical...with their wooden antlers and majestic presence, they are like living and moving trees that fill the park with an aura of excitement and mysticism.

I strongly oppose any use of high-powered weapons in our neighborhood. Your introduction to the question is manipulative--clearly you are skewing the matter to support use of weapons.

Good scientific data needs to be shared with the public to show deer population numbers and impacts to park vegetation/wildlife.

I chose the 2nd option, barely over the 1st, assuming that the educational delay is not more than a year.

The deer are very cute and all, but I believe it is more humane to cull them than to allow them to starve over the winter, or leave the park in search of food and get hit by cars on the busy surrounding thoroughfares like Colesville. For this reason, of course, they also create a hazard. I also feel that the fact the meat will go to food banks is a big plus.

I understand that study is currently underway - read on listserve- for birth control.

I really don't like guns.

I would hope part of the process involves looking for deer who are wounded but not killed, so they can then be killed and not left to suffer.

Start culling immediately, but combine that with ongoing information to the community.

I think the deer population should only be culled if they show signs of malnourishment within the park. Deer herds that are venturing into neighborhoods should be relocated or culled as I would assume that means sufficient food is not available in the park?

It is painful to say that deer should be killed. However, we've created an out-of-balance system. We should continue to seek alternative methods that don't involve killing in the longer term.

The deer meat should be eaten and not wasted.

Be creative and find another way.

The longer we wait, the less there will be to preserve and the more work we will have to do to return the natural resources to a healthy state.

Meat from culls should be processed to feed the hungry.

If there is deer culling, the meat should be given to programs that feed homeless or to other charities which need it

why not relocate part of the population?

It's a tough issue, but the deer are not in a natural environment. Our activities allow the herd to reach unsustainable levels.

Knowing that other deer control techniques are not practical, I think it is urgent to institute culling in order to maintain balance in our local ecology -- including a healthier life for the deer that remain.

I would strongly consider the county to look first into birth control for deer, similar to the techniques used by the National Park Service at Assategue Island National Seashore. I am vegetarian and against animal cruelty, but the damage to the park's biodiversity is bad more many more animals and living creatures beyond deer, and would therefore justify culling.

The deer were here before we were. Respect all life.

We have allowed the deer to become pests by feeding them (directly and indirectly) and eliminating their predators. It is our responsibility to manage this unnatural herd we have created.

Notify neighborhood where culling taking place when armed sharpshooters will be firing weapons for public safety purposes. Neighbors have right to know when these activities take place near their homes.

This is a hot subject and likely to bring a LOT of opinion. However, facts are facts. A life of near or real starvation is no fun for the deer!

The answers to this question are overtly biased in favor of deer culling. I don't think it's appropriate to frame an answer as "wait and see," when in fact deer culling is not the only immediate response. Culling is inhumane considering we started the deer population problem in the first place.

How about importing a couple of wolves? Just kidding.

My house borders Sligo Creek Park, and deer have become constant visitors to our yard. I would be willing to coexist and do not begrudge them my plants (well, mostly), but I am convinced that their overpopulation is harmful to the ecosystem and to the deer themselves, so have concluded that culling is the best option. I would support culling south of Colesville, too, if an effective public education campaign were carried out and appropriate safeguards were put up to keep people out of the park during the hunt.

I think birth control and sterilization has been effective in certain jurisdictions and I believe these methods should be funded and implemented as soon as possible. If we have $150,000 to spend on a local golf course then we should provide funding to help a fellow creature survive sustainably by using humane methods.

Regardless of how this issue is presented, there are people on both sides who will react very strongly, especially those against killing the deer.

I am not convinced that culling in the Sligo would be safe for residents. It is too dense of an urban area and would cause too many dangerous situations.

would the meat be used?

I understand culling with bow and arrow is safer for all than shooting.

Let's not get too worked up about a few deer. Cull if need be.

I would like to see references to government and Audubon reports about the failure of reintroducing predators.

I like the wildlife in SCP. So far, I've only seen two deer in six months. That's not enough.

My answer is really both one and two above. I think the County should take steps immediately to cull the herd (and continue to cull the herd each year as needed), BUT the County should first inform/educate the Sligo community of the current situation, the need to cull the deer population, how it plans to do this, and what residents need to know about the police shootings. Some of the data you present in this survey is interesting and new to me, such as the number of deer in Sligo Creek over the past few years, and the information about alternatives to culling and how these have proven ineffective or are cost prohibitive. It would be good to share this type of information widely in an education campaign, prior to the County announcing that it will be culling the herd. Also, the communication messaging from the County will be important -- I am happy to hear that the proposal includes targeted killing that happens only by police, occurs at night, with police high in the trees to eliminate stray bullets, and that the meat is donated to local food shelters. All of this information should be widely shared in order to mitigate citizens' fears and to address any potential opposition to the culling. Given the area, we might have a number of people who are opposed to any killing of animals, but if they knew that the meat will be donated to shelters, or that by culling the deer population it allows other animals to thrive (like birds), it may soften their opposition. In short, communication is key!!

The claims you make on this page are often innacurate and limited. You have no citations for your claims. Do you expect intelligent people to just believe what you are spoonfeeding them. Don't insult me.

This position is a little strong but it's the best of the options. I think the county should stay on top of the situation and apply whatever policies they're using elsewhere. I don't really see why we need to get involved except that there do seem to be more deer than is reasonable. Is the County being actively lobbied against culling, or are they ignoring the data they've collected or what?

I think that baiting and killing animals is the very last resort and, overall, shows a lack of respect for life and a lack of applied intelligence.

Your survey is soooo ludicrously biased towards culling it's not even funny. Thing is, I support culling. Culling is good -- once -- but is as fruitless as the other methods when the replacement deer move in, and this should be clearly communicated to the communities that will be listening to gun fire in the parks at night. Again, educate the public about coyotes. Coyotes won't take down the big deer, but all new offspring will fall. And coyotes self-regulate their populations to meet the food supply. For example, if they eat all the deer, a female coyote will not give birth during that particular season or will give birth to a litter of one pup. Don't believe it? Look it up!

with the venison going to food banks, and an overpopulated park, controlled hunts seem like a win-win proposition

I feel conflicted about this issue, as I would definitely prefer not to have deer killings, but the imbalance in the deer population seems to be a real problem.

It's time to stop talking and cull the herd. Use the meat at Shepard's Table or other food pantry.

Yes but not to the degree as described above. 5-10 is too few in my opinion.

I am a vegetarian, but there are too many deer. Sorry, we can't give 'em birth control, so culling is the most viable solution.

This is a national problem. Culling is the most immediate solution, but other solutions need to be developed. Besides introducing wolves.

I am much more aware of the deer problem in Rock Creek Park, through which I frequently commute in the dark. I am aware of the overpopulation of deer in the urban/suburban Silver Spring area. I feel strongly that deer need to be culled for their own sake as well as to reduce the threat to motorist and the damage to our parks and yards.

bow hunting should be encouraged, providing high grade protein for food banks and other charitable uses

The meat goes to food banks? That's awesome! I whole-heartedly support it!

Why not simply give the deer other food to eat, so they'll stay away from the undergrowth?

I don't think the number of deer merits culling yet.

I firmly believe that culling is called for in a world with no natural predators, however I recognize the volatility of the issue. Not sure education and engagement will make much difference though, since people are so polarized. The county may need to hold its nose, plug its ears, and do what is needed.

The "hunting for hungry" is not a great operation. I do not support it.

I have spent thousands of dollars on my yard only to have it destroyed by deer. A yearly hunting season in our area should be allowed. We are not helping the deer by letting them starve to death.

In a recent article in the Silver Spring Gazette, the county requested $150,000 to cull 365 deer. Thats $5000 per deer. Many hunters would do it for much less.

I'd like to remind those who put together this questionnaire that many people have encountered foxes, healthy and rabid, racoons, healty and rabid, feral and "at large" domesticated cats, etc., in our parks. One might say there are many hungry beasts out there eating song birds, or threatening the wellbeing of plants and animals of all kinds. We do not hear of efforts to track rabid animals or to request that at least the domesticated cats be "watched" and their time outdoors limited, to protect the birds. (There are studies measuring the effects of cats on songburd populations locally, but this is a different matter from that at hand). Only to day that Animal Control is HELPLESS at handling, eg, capturing rabid animals effectively.

Just yesterday, I had to stop while a male deer took his time crossing Dale Dr, the road I live on. This was ONE mile from downtown Silver Spring! For the last two years all of the Hostas in my yard have been eaten by deer. THE SITUATION IS OUT OF CONTROL! Does someone have to be killed by a deer crashing into their car before The Parks Dept does something about this!!

I am concerned that people who are adamant that culling should not be done would attempt to block via protests when the culling is to occur. I hope this does not divide the community.

i would like to see the killed animals processed for meat donated to food banks and the like.

I do think that the County should increase its information outreach so citizens understand why the culling, but I do not think it should wait to take action. I am very pleased to know that the meat would go to local food banks.

I'm pleased to learn that venison -- excellent meat -- is not going to waste and is being donated to food banks. What a delicacy!! What about the hides? Apparently, most good American deerskin is shipped to France for gloves, bags, etc. Why can't a local market be developed for the hides and antlers? There are enough crafts people who would be interested in these materials.

The food bank need alone justifies culling.

The deer population is severely out of control, yet I am reluctant to agree to sharpshooters in our nearby parks. I awaken most summer mornings to find 3-5 deer in my yard, and my home does NOT back to the woods.

Because our property abuts the park, we see many deer regularly. We are always thrilled when they walk across our property. We would be sad to see them less. As I'm sure you know, people's lives will be jeopardized by people with guns in the park, even if they are sharpshooters working at night.

DNR should do it i can't imagine the park service has enough money and the deer are not only in the park.

Culling, to me, is about saving the forest and birds, reducing dangerous (even fatal) car accidents, minimizing damage to plantings and preventing the starvation of deer.

Citizens culling the deer with our automobiles is not the way to go, unfortunately we are the only predator of deer in Sligo.

I am not against culling the deer population however, I believe that shooting deer in Sligo Creek Park would be dangerous. The park is too narrow and close to houses to safely shoot the deer. Accidents happen with guns no matter how well trained the sharp shooters may be. We know that homeless persons live in the park as well as teenagers that drink in the woods. I would be afraid that someone could be shot by mistake. My huaband cuts across the park on his walk home from the metro. How would his saftey be guaranteed? Neighbors of the park as well as people who use the park need more information about how the county plans to control the deer population before the shooting begins.

For better or worse, urban/suburban parks are human-built and human-maintained environments. We have an obligation to maintain them as best as possible. I have no issue with managed hunting. (Trophy and sport hunting are another matter.) Especially if the by-product is useful food that can help those in need, I see no reason that culling should not begin ASAP.

I have almost hit deer while riding my bicycle along the paths at dusk. Dangerous!

This is a difficult issue, because I have enjoyed seeing additional deer around. But I do recognize that it is an unnatural situation for there to be so many deer without natural predators, and feel that in the absence of natural predators, we must take steps to restore balance.

A square mile can support a deer without it being in a starving state. Tranquilizer darts should be used to remove the deer to less populated areas so that guns and archery will not be use to cull the deer. Starving deer will eat all the vegetation in sight. Cull the deer to the point that there is only one per square mile.

I am a true animal lover. Seeing a deer gives me joy. This is a very difficult and emotional decision for me. I do find some relief in knowing deer will die quickly and the meat will be used. I can only hope that both are promises.

There is already a very effective 5-year contraceptive vaccine, 90% in the 1st year. To say contraceptives are impractical is simply not true.

In the absence of natural predators, it seems more humane to cull deer than allow their starvation.

My wife almost hit a deer on Sligo Creek Parkway this evening and I saw a deer near University with a broken foreleg. This is likely a result of a collision. This deer will likely die.

I'm glad the meat is not wasted; that helps.

I would happily support a birth control solution however. What's more, there are simply too many people and points of access to hunt safely.

We are VERY against hunting with bow and arrows! I've read how they maim the animals and inflict a great deal of pain and trauma on them.

I expect to see venison in the markets.

Our son contracted lyme disease this past summer ( he is 12). It ruined our summer, though he made a full recovery. We are not sure where/how he contracted the disease. I know a number of neighbors who have had lyme disease, with serious complications. This is a very serious problem and a complex disease that can defy effective treatment ( we were lucky). I am hearing that lyme is very widespread locally. Local deer management is now a public health issue. While I view myself as a reasonable person, serious deer population reduction is imperative. Deer culling must be discussed within the context of lyme disease impacts on people.

Is there a way the venison could be distributed to private citizens as well. I come from a family of hunters.

I am intellectually fine with the culling of deer in this way but can't emotionally vote yes because I would never shoot a deer. Probably not too helpful to this survey but it is what it is.

Back to top

QUESTION 14
Culling with police sharpshooters has been carried out in other suburban parks, such as Wheaton Regional and Rock Creek Parks, for years, without incident. With this in mind, do you have safety concerns about deer culling with sharpshooters in Sligo Creek Park (which would be done only north of Colesville Road)?
I have no concerns
I am concerned that, despite the track record, there would be some risk to public safety.
I object to the killing of animals no matter how it is done.
Other comments:

I'd like to see it tried below Colesville if it's successful above.

Obviously anytime someone has a gun in the park precautions should be taken, I am not blaise about this. But I am assuming Park Police will take adequate measures to prevent any incidents.

Public should be informed widely about schedule for sharpshooters.

I am concerned about safety. But as long as the process is transparent, and appropriate safety precautions and public notice are provided, it should be fine.

I am concerned about firearms - a missed shot may travel far before hitting - what? the wrong thing. But if sharpshooters are positioned so that missed shots will go into the ground rather than off into the air (and further), I think it's fine to shoot them.

see above

My only concern is why not do it south of Colesville?!?

My risk from sharpshooters is less than my risk from Lyme or Collisions

Informing the public is key to maintaining a safe culling operation

They can sit on our roof!

Have to cull or we loose biodivbersity and the deer will eventually starve and there will soil erosian from the bare ground polluting the Creek, the Anacostia,Potomac,& the Bay.

I saw a park police shoot a rabid racoon and he was very careful about his use of a firearm in the park.

Sligo Park is very narrow, with homes very close to the woods. In addition, the path is used at all times. Again, why are you being so manipulative in the introduction to the question?

Much of Sligo Creek Park has a narrow footprint, with human habitation closer, and is more densely used than the above mentioned parks.

My house backs on Sligo Creek Park. guess I'd like to be informed when and where shooting would occur.

"without incident"? except to the deer.

My only concern is noise. How loud is the shooting and will people who live near the park be disturbed by the shooting at night?

My yard is unfenced and I have young children that play there. I really don't want bullets flying around where they play thank you very much

I'd want lots of public notice so there's no possibility of people wandering through the park when this happens.

Isn't there a similar need for culling SOUTH of Colesville Road?

I have no concerns as long as the sharpshooters utilize elevated stands so that all shots are into the ground rather than shots from vehicles that can much more dangerous since bullets from high powered rifles can travel several miles.

And I am EXTREMELY concerned about the safety!

I have complete faith in these efforts. My only concern is that they would NOT be conduced south of Colesville where I live. e.g. I want culling down parkwide and not just in the north.

I would also allow bow-and-arrow hunters to hunt.

Please consider whether culling deer north of Colesville will just push the deer population further south into the park. I see deer at my house regularly, and often in herds of 4 to 6.

Sligo is quite narrow near me. Wheaton and Rcok Creek are quite wide so no comparison can be rationally made.

This question would be better if there were 5 options. My true response would be "I have some concerns, but these concerns do not change my opinion that it must be done"

Many local residents, including myself, take their children to the park for walks and playgrounds. I would like to know when the culling would take place so that we would be sure not to be around. Ideally, it would be on a weekday.

The deer were here before we were. Respect all life.

Allow bowhunting as well. Let private citizens qualify to do it.

I believe that culling can be safe, but want assurance that adequate measures will be taken to assure that appropriate precautions will be taken.

I volunteer for another park where culling has become necessary. Unfortunately, our human existence has made deer in our urban area parks much like rats in our buildings.

I cycle through the park at night. I was not allowed to pass through Wheaton Regional Park at night during culling periods. This adversely affects my commute.

Not enough responses. Of course I'm concerned if there are firearms in use in my neighborhood, but I trust that all necessary precautions are being taken to insure the safety of the residents.

Any time you have firearms in heavily used parks, there is a safety issue. That being said, there should be ways to manage the risk. Public information is also critical to let people know what is happening and what precautions have been taken.

The public safety concern is not a major issue, but the risk has to be acknowledged.

I have been told by park rangers/workers that there have been some "near misses" in other parks.

While concerned, I still support culling. Getting detailed information to the community would reduce my concern.

I will not tolerate gun shots anywhere near my home. Too many pets, kids, and pedestrians. We can control the deer population without killing deer. There is science behind that.

the lower sligo/long branch area has a coupla' of secluded areas where there's no small amount of partying going on. You'll have to clear out the drunks behind Takoma Academy before any sharpshooter comes into the park.

I have no concerns so long as the park is clearly closed off during those periods when the police are shooting, and that the signage is extremely visible and has been in place well in advance (at least 2 weeks) prior to the culling.

We don't want the Sligo Creek cull to have any problems, so public safety should always be at the forefront of the County.

With proper warnings to the public, there are wide areas of the park south of Collesville, and even Wayne that could be culled. At least several deer bed down near the bridge north of Hartford Avenue and roam across Dale Drive into our gardens.

The worst method is bow hunting, so at least you are not that cruel, but you need to remember that life is not safe. The car accident fear has been dramatized to persuade people to be in favor of killing the deer. The flora of the forest is damaged by humans, not deer. All of your other excuses for killing are petty.

These sharpshooters know exactly what they're doing; there is no public safety risk and we should not let this issue hijack an otherwise science-based management program.

I understand there are programs in the county that use crossbows instead of rifles: I imagine this would increase safety? True?

You must be kidding. I have to keep track of the hunting season "permissions" when I plan weekend outings. Now, I have to worry about macho sharpshooters getting off on killing tame deer if I walk at night? Please!

I don't trust the MoCo and Park Police. They have been failures at communicating in our neighborhoods about routine crimes and break-ins, so how do we really know whether there have been no incidents in the previous culling efforts? We also know that the cover-up mentality amongst MoCo police is rampant, given their looking out for each other as they blatantly disregard traffic laws on our roads (including getting excused for speed camera violations) and the number of medical disability claims filed by cops in MoCo.

Kill the deer. Save our natural environment.

Any time there are bullets there are risks ... small risks, we hope.

I have no concerns with safety, but would be very sad emotionally if I heard those gunshots from my home knowing that the deer I see everyday on my walks and Jogs are being killed.

But, it is a pain that the park (Wheaton) was closed in the evenings. The timing of the hunt should be tighter, so as to impose less burden on evening users.

Well, Sligo Creek is a pretty narrow strip, unlike Wheaton and Rock Creek. There should be a safety plan based on experience in similar environments.

My husband often walks in the park, and sometimes it is dark before he returns.

With a home right on the park and two young children - I like the deer, respect them but think there are too many. However, with young kids in the house, not a big fan of them potentially being exposed (or me) to stray bullets and/or arrows.

There is an inherent risk to having sharpshooters cull deer, but I think it could be minimized with good information to residents about when they'd be in the Park.

I assume that the time of the event will be widely advertised in the interest of public safety.

But I'm willing to be educated...

Please reread my commnets above regarding a fair accounting of the costs and benefits of culling, and presentationof other possible methods considered to be cost effective (they are aour there!)

Concern is based on the population density and confined space.

I object to killing animals to make up for the dumb development decisions of people.

make sure it's done correctly, mionitored.

I would expect the risk to be very low, considering (assuming) the sharpshooting would take place at night. However, I assume there would be some risk of community members being out and in the park at night. It would be very important to include specific safety information in all outreach materials.

I'd like to know more about when and how the culling is done to protect the public, as deer are often in very public areas.

Where there are guns, there is always a risk. Also, I have concerns about educating children about what is being done and why.

Wheaton is a large wide area; Sligo is a long skinny area. Culling sounds challenging in that situation.

However, please inform the public when culling will take place.

I actually would like to know what areas to avoid when culling is taking place. So my children and I will not be harmed.

THere's always safety concerns

make sure public is well aware of when they'll be doing this.

As I said before, Sligo is a very narrow park, much narrower than Wheaton, or Rock Creek.

I attended a meeting last year in which the safeguards were described. Residents are notified. The shooters are in a high place and shoot down which does not endanger people. I think that the shooting is done in the early morning, when the deer feed.

There is always an element of risk when a gun is involved.However the risk is minute and it could be posted when this would be done to advise caution. The benefit to our beautiful park (I have lived here for 37 years) would be tremendous. I have sadly watched it creep downhill. I have heard potential homeowners voice their concern about living where the deer are such a problem. This will eventually effect real estate values negatively.

The risk to humans depends on the methods and on how much of the deer population they plan to affect. We also do enjoy seeing some deer so wouldn't want to see them mostly eliminated.

Either we cull with sharpshooters or people hit the deer with their cars. The sharpshooter strategy is more humane.

The posted park hours clearly indicate that it is not to be used after dark, and it sounds like the deer culling would take place at night, so I'm not sure what possible safety concerns there could be.

Killing should always be the last option and there is always a risk.If the culling initiative is chosen it should be one that is reviewed annualy with an eye open always to oyher options.

Colesville runs NE to SW. How can one be north of Colesville Road? How about in all of the Sligo Creek stream valley?

I assume we would be warned of the dates this would be carried out.

it needs to be done. I have almost hit deer while riding my bicycle because they are near the path. A friend hit a deer once and it snapped his femur in two. He had to rehab for over two months.

Should also do bow hunting below Colesville. I'll give permission to come on my property - abutting the park.

Deer/car collisions have already killed people and that is a much worse track record than the sharpshooters.

I have concerns, but still think deer culling is in order.

We know it's a problem...and we don't have a solution...but the killing bothers us.

I am heartsick at the idea of killing those lovely animals, especially since man is the cause of their appearance. But the prospect of contracting Lyme disease is so nasty that I approve of culling.

I do not know if people walk in the park at night - but some kind of patrol at the park entry points from neighborhoods and streets would be important I think at times when the culling is taking place.

My only concern is that the deer don't suffer a painful death.

I trust there will be extreme caution, that safety of people and other animals will be the highest priority.

I'm sure that the police sharpshooters are experts at what they do and that there is not any serious risk to people. My husband got lymes disease in our home so reducing the risk of this serious disease is necessary.

I support culling, with plenty of warning to the public (in multiple languages)

Back to top

QUESTION 15
With this in mind, do you believe that the Friends of Sligo Creek should lobby the County to pursue culling of deer in the Park? (Mark the choice that best reflects your opinion.)
Yes, I believe it is FOSC's duty as a steward of the Park's natural habitats to independently advocate with the County for a culling program to begin as soon as possible.
Yes, but not without the clear support of the neighborhood associations that border the Park nearest to where the culling would take place.
No, I believe that the other activities of FOSC — such as the clean-ups, water quality monitoring, stormwater control, advocacy, and nature outings — are too valuable to allow them to be undermined by controversy if it advocated for deer culling.
No, I believe that FOSC has no place in advocating for the killing of deer in the Park.
Other comments:

If we're going to have ANY park left to protect in 50 years (other than grassland), I think FOSC should weigh in on this issue. They should be stressing the severity of the situation to the local neighborhood associations to help bring them on board, rather than taking an ambivalent or "no" position. Silence is complicency, and if we don't speak up/do something, nothing will change!

This was a very comprehensive survey that introduced the facts and provided clear cut questions that eliminated much the myths and emotion that is often associated with this issue.

This was a very comprehensive survey that introduced the facts and provided clear cut questions that eliminated much the myths and emotion that is often associated with this issue.

I am not convinced that non-lethal alternatives are ineffective. I think it's important to exhaust all options before killing these animals.

I do not think that FOSC's support of culling would undermine the other activities. While some may strenuously object and even "quit" FOSC, I don't think this will reduce their participation in activities that are already important to them, like cleanups, WQ monitoring and weed pulls. On the other hand, I think all of these other activities are moot if deer completely denude the park.

It's FOSC's call.

I think Fosc should be actively involved in planning with the county, and looking for other options, but not lobbying for killing yet.

I would say yes to both the first two options (just like the frequency question which for me is "3 times a week"). FoSC should advocate to the county immediately, and also do whatever we can to garner support from the community. Both. Immediately.

If FOSC believes that the evidence demonstrates that deer populations are threatening the long term health of the Park it would be an abdication of its responsibility to decline to take a position out of a desire to avoid "controversy."

I think FOSC must be careful to stay within the legal bounds of nonprofit organizations, vis-a-vis lobbying.

I do believe that deer in a densely populated suburb is not good for the deer and that, like the horses on Chincoteague, they need to be managed. No one likes shooting an a deer but this seems to be the only workable solution. Thank you for this survey.

You absolutely need to get buy-in from the Forest Estates neighborhood association.

Especially since culling has been in done successfully in other Montgomery County parks.

This survey itself sems like an act of advocacy. In any even, I will not support a FOSC that supports culling.

FoSC isn't the steward, MNCPPC is--but we are the best-informed citizens, thus best spokespeople, regarding woodland health and plant diversity. Also, I would gladly try to organize Weed Warriors working in Sligo, and stewards in Sligo, and my local block's listserv--looking for statements in solidarity with the Board's, if collecting local views; FoSC doesn't have a be a single voice, I think.

Actually, I wanted to check "Yes, but..." and "No, I believe that the other.....". So now am regretting that I didn't leave this blank so the comment would be my only response.

I was glad to see FOSC has taken leadership in this issue and appreciate the questionnaire. I will back FOSC on whatever plan you feel is best.

My position doesn't really fit with any of these options -- the Board should do want your organization's members want to do.

Neighborhood associations are not as organized as FOSC and waiting on these associations to agree may take some time. If a neighborhood association is against culling they can voice their opinion separately.

What a terrible choice!

I would certainly not support FOSC if it chooses to support killing deer.

I believe FOSC is in a unique position to advocate for the health of the whole park, not just one animal, and I would be disappointed to see FOSC stop short of advocating culling. Although FOSC has many missions, the missions all support the general health of the park. Allowing the deer to populate unchecked will undermine the primary mission of FOSC. I'd rather FOSC not become Friends of the Deer! Ultimately, I believe FOSC would have to abandon parts of its current roles celebrating and protecting the diversity of the park, promoting natives, and celebrating the idea of an urban natural resource if the deer go unchecked. I'd have to consider resigning my membership if FOSC doesn't speak forcefully about the clear damage deer cause to biodiversity.

Since I am not a member of FOSC, I do not believe that they represent me and should not claim to do so! I am suspect that previous actions of the park service are based upon a FOSC claim of full representation of the park users.

I recently spent $17,000 for high fencing so that I can feel good about investing more energy in food gardening without fear of losing many hours of work to deer.

The MNCPPC, as the governmental organization charged with the stewardship of county natural resources and natural lands, should take more of the lead in controlling deer.

I hope FOSC can become a voice for responsible culling to maintain the woodland environment we love -- and that our native birds and animals depend on for their existence in our park.

not for the protection of the park...to prevent suffering of the deer due to overpopulation

The deer were here before we were. Respect all life.

FOSC's mission is to be an advocate for the park and its ecosystem. Since deer overpopulation is a clear threat, I think you should step up. It's my experience that neighborhood NIMBYs can mobilize to block just about everything, so requiring their support will stymie the effort.

I would like to focus on sterilization of deer.

This is not intended to sound like a threat, but I could not in good conscience maintain my membership in FOSC if you directly advocate for deer culling.

I wish there was another response to the above question. I do believe that the deer have lost all natural predators and that their numbers cannot be supported by the available greenspace. With that in mind I do support culling the population to a manageable number. I don't believe that it's necessary to have 100% support of the neighborhood associations.

i like the deer

I know I for one will no longer associate with the FOSC if they advocate for culling (a euphemism for killing) deer.

Regardless of the logic of the issue, advocating for killing deer will cost FOSC a lot of local support.

The background section above is dishonest. This survey constitutes advocacy for deer culling. A biased opinion pushing survey like this should not have been published.

Take a non-binding sense-of-FOSC vote. Let someone else be the advocate. Many FOSC members are also animal rights people, and frankly there is too much else to do than advocate for culling. Take a non-binding sense of the FOSC membership vote and report the vote count; this way people have a chance to have a say without FOSC having to jump both feet into advocacy of this.

I don't have a strong opinion on this. Certainly FOSC should participate in actively educating people about the deer situation and sharing any information, research, stats etc that are available. That is not controversial. As to whether FOSC should actively advocate for the deer culling and engage in advocacy on this, I don't have a strong feeling. If the board determines that it would be detrimental to FOSC's other activities, then I would hope the board would decide NOT to engage in advocacy on this. However, if the board determines that the impact on FOSC's other activities would be neutral or only very small, then I would hope the board would decide to indeed engage in advocacy here.

I'm sure this is a highly political issue. I wish you success!

Allow FOC should lobby directly, you should make the rounds of the citizens associations to educate them. But we cant let a couple intense naysayers who might exist in any of the associations excercise veto power, especially if the do not live directly adjacent to the park (as we do.)

I object to your assertion that the point of this survey is for education. The real purpose is to persuade people to fear and hate bambi.

If FOSC cares about the future of the Park for the benefit of wildlife and people (which it does), I honestly don't see how you could not advocate for a reduction of the deer herd.

It would be a big mistake to advocate killing deer. There will big a big backlash if you do.

None of the above. I believe it is the responsibility of FOSC to lobby the County for deer culling if/when it is necessary, but based on my current understanding, this does not seem to be necessary at this time. I would not expect FOSC to wait for approval from neighborhood associations before advocating for or against deer culling. Organizations such as FOSC might have very different interests than neighborhood associations, and each should be allowed to express its own opinion.

I think that FOSC should advocate or not based on the opinion of its membership, not other local organizations. If FOSC does not feel that it can advocate then it could consider: not objecting to county plans on the matter or continuing with public awareness campaigns without advocating a position.

yes, but after extensive public awareness regarding the problems associated with the large deer population

Hello! There are other options. For instance, advocate for other workable means of diminishing the deer population and a real extension of the work carried out to sustain the park, manage and cull invasive species, etc. The bias of the survey developer shows through.

It's more than bordering neighborhoods you need to worry about. LOTS of bikers from outside the bordering neighborhoods use Sligo for commuting, both before and after sunset, some very late in the evening. The Regional parks where culling has occurred generally are not commuting routes. It is unconscionable that you should present such a biased survey towards culling without actually considering this fact and presenting the risks.

Again, I feel a conflict on this issue, but leaning toward the appropriateness of culling.

If we are going to be "Friends of Sligo Creek," we need to be friends to EVERY inhabitant of the creek area - including the deer.

Your organization needs to take a leadership role in this issue. Culling will help improve biodiversity - but will still keep some deer in the park.

FOSC can play an important mediating role since I imagine most FOSC members are reluctant to kill animals but also understand the need for biodiversity. This gives FOSC a higher level of credibility than the County. FOSC does not need to become an advocate for deer culling per se. So there is an important public facilitation role here. FOSC needs to be open to culling as a means to maintaining biodiversity (because it would be foolish to be blind to the fact that this may be required), but coming straight out and advocating culling would distract from the mission -- which is maintaining biodiversity, not shooting deer.

The large deer population is going to increase the presence of predators such as coyotes that pose a threat to humans and pets. I also am concerned about the possible arrival of mountain lions in our area -- Maryland DNR denies they are in Garrett County, but residents there report a small population is established. The burgeoning deer population is attracting them.

I am more active in Sligoheadwaters then FOSC.

Well, actually .... Why not try to educate and see what happens. Then next summer, proceed at full throttle to pursue culling and other options. Consensus you are NOT going to get. If neighborhood associations don't want deer culling, then let them pass their own resolutions. Put the onus on them to opt out.

FOSC could serve as convenor to facilitate residents and county officials working together to address the issue. Culling deer may be the solution, but there may be others. FOSC should advocate for decreasing the deer population, and work to inform community about the pros and cons of options. At that point, FOSC could make recommendations to county.

I don't think there should be culling yet, so I don;t think FODC should advocate in favor of culling.

It is a very difficult issue, and could be quite divisive to the group. I think FOSC can and should help encourage dialogue, and disperse info on the different viewpoints.

I'm a little ambivalent on this question. I understand the deer are a real problem but I don't know how serious. Certainly it would be better if you had the support of neighborhood associations and if you did not undermine the other programs you are engaged in. But if the deer are causing as significant and serious a problem as I think they might be then managing them would supercede the importance of your efforts in those other areas.

I grudgingly agree that FOSC needs to balance the issue with its need to be good neighbors

Let the public make the decision.

Again, if it were truly the current policy of FOSC Directors NOT to diredtly advocate for the culling of deer, its indirect advocacy of culling is likely to be accomplished by this survey, which is NOT an unbiased survey.

See above comment.

i am not an expert, but this is my opinion

I see FOSC's advocacy as separate and distinct from that of neighborhood associations: FOSC attracts a particular subset of citizens concerned about the creek ecosystem, whereas neighborhood associations are based on citizen addresses. FOSC should be empowered to develop policies independent of those from neighborhood associations, and the County should consider all of these.

OK, yes, probably best approach. But set a near-term deadline, soon!

I lean a little towards believing FOSC has no business advocating the killing of deer, however, they are a part of the park we are all trying to preserve. If they starve to death, get killed by cars, or cause drivers to be killed in accidents, that will ultimately have a negative impact on all our other efforts.

FOSC needs to lead on this, not simply follow neighborhood associations. The problem is only going to get worse.

I think that FOSC should spearhead informational advocacy with the neighborhood associations surrounding the park. However I think it important for FOSC to lead.

bow hunting should be considered as a safer alternative to using sharpshooters.

i think your questions are too leading. your friends group should support it if you think of yourselves as advocates for natural habitats

Though there will be many people who will never advocate the culling of deer, regardless of the damage they do, we ,ust go ahead and beging to reduce their number. Then we must begin to look at measures to continually keep the numbers reduced.

IF the board views the protection of the Park's natural habitats as a primary mission, in my opinion it has no choice but to advocate for culling AND help people understand the myriad of issues surrounding the burgeoning deer population.

THe steps that FOSC is taking is appropriate. THis survey, should help the Borad to make a sound decision. I believe that there is only one way for teh Board to go however, in the end. Deer are a clear and present threat to the mission of the group. While the surve may help that, at some point the Board SHould take a stand in vavor or reduicing the deer popualtion and using culling as the method of choice. Bringing neighborhood associations on board is the right course. Friends may need to begin a lobbying effort in those communities advocating teh choice while agreeing to abide by a clear and demonstrable consensus of teh community. THis advocacy shoulbe based on science regarding the habitat. However, it may be necessary to use additonal arguments to make the case. Lymes disease and traffic accidents are potentially salient arguments that have their own constituancies. It may be necessary to create a colation of such groups to convinve the majority of residemts.

I do believe that FOSC should advocate. Although I do not think we need concensus from the associations or all neighbors it is essential that the community is educated about the issue and understands why we advocate for culling.

I do believe that FOSC should try to involve the neighborhood associations but you're not going to get 100% support. I think that most people agree that there are too many deer.

FOSC should be a leader

I hope, though, that with sufficient support, those who oppose culling would not be tempted to exact vengeance upon the Friends of Sligo Creek by abandoning support for other activities -- a reaction that would ultimately only hurt the park.

So long as neighborhood associations are fully apprised of the situation and residents are given an opportunity to have input, FOSC is well within its rights as an independent nonprofit group to advocate culling of the deer. FOSC is not a government entity. If you conclude based on your analysis that deer should be culled, you should advocate for it. Those who are opposed will be able to exercise their rights to speak against it. I think your choices above are somewhat limited -- there should be a choice between the the two yes's

Since I'm not associated with FOSC and am not well-informed about the alternatives to culling, I don't think I can provide useful input on this question. I think the answer depends on two things: 1) Whether the FOSC board believes culling is needed. 2) How likely culling is to take place without lobbying by FOSC. It's entirely reasonable for the board to take no position on the issue if culling is likely to take place without any intervention on the part of FOSC.

I believe the FOSC's position should not be to lobby for culling but to educate those involved with their choices. Taking a stand without doing so amy seem expedient in the short run but in the end would place their standing and the other venues/activities at risk.at

Fof SC can speak for themselves without trying to get unanimity with other associations.

Go for it !!!!!

As stewards of biodiversity, not just protectors of the deer, I think the community (or at least myself) look to FOSC to advocate for the best interest of Sligo Creek. By sharing research and facts, raising public awareness and gaining support for what is right, not just what is easy, I think many people would appreciate FOSC guidance in making an informed decision for the health of our local environment.

I think FOSC is really undermining its support from people like me, who do not appreciate the attempt at propaganda.

At this point the herd has gotten far too big, and the lack of predators will mean that the herd will continue to expand and eat all the vegetation.

Education and public awareness is very important priority. It has helped me to support culling the deer population. However, I would not want to undermine the other important activities of FOSC. One issue that a friend brought up was whether urban deer are safe to eat. Does the meat contain chlordane or other pollutants?

Deer management is necessary if FoSC is also going to promote biodiversity. PETA-like opinions are based on emotions not reality and while we can respect their feelings they should not dictate science-based decision making regarding managing the parkland. Shooting animals is not something I take lightly, but in a truely natural setting there would be predators. The predators would be killing deer in a much less humane way.

Maybe you let the Mexicans catch deer for pets and they can eat them. They can cut the trees down and use the wood to make a fire to cook the deer. I have seen Mexicans bathing in the creek.

Back to top

QUESTION 16
Did this survey ask the pertinent questions, and introduce the pertinent facts, about deer culling in Sligo?
Yes
No
If not, what other questions should we consider?

ASk folks specifically what deer deterrents they have used.

Number of times deer are sighted in one's yard and number of deer "incidents" in your yard. For example, I'm two blocks over (on Sidney Road) from Sligo, and I easily get monthly or more frequent deer visitations in my fenced-in back yard. I know this by the type of damage and the 'scat' they leave behind.

A very good survey, but some attention should have been given to the alternatives to culling: what is the trajectory of the park's habitat without reductions in the deer population, and what are the alternatives to culling.

However, the survey appears to structured by someone that supports culling the deer hear, which i do support. If the order was different it would not be so obvious.

I thought this survey made numerous assumptions about both support and opposition to deer culling, resulting in questions to which I would answer both Yes and No.

Are you concerned about the spread of Lyme disease by deer ticks? Are you familiar with the debilitating and deadly aspects of Lyme disease? Are you aware that you will be spending tens of thousands of dollars out-of-pocket if you contract Lyme disease and wish to be fully cured? Does this influence your opinion on deer culling?

Now let's DO something

Q. If you are opposed to culling deer over-populations on moral grounds but eat meat as part of your diet, are you aware of the conditions under which animals are bred, fed, and slaughtered in America?

Would anyone in the community be willing to pay for the culled deer to be butchered and take the meat?

Organizations that have food programs that serve low/no-income residents of the immediate area should have priority in receiving deer meat from any culling operation, before countywide organizations or other potential outlets.

I'd want to know what times of day culling would occur and whether there would be any notice (even signs: culling in place) to avoid men with guns in trees alarming park users.

But--see above--this ended up like a push poll used by politicians--set up a straw man and then ask questions designed to obtain the results you are seeking.

This survey is more of an advocacy piece, than an actual survey. It is clear that FOSC doesn't care about the opinions it gathers, unless they support an already set conclusion.

I feel the way the information presented in this survey buries the fact that deer are significantly degrading our parkland. This information could be made much more prominent, and the fact that by allowing large deer populations, we are indirectly killing birds, fish, and invertebrates that depend on these habitats. It is far too timid, as though afraid of riling up opponents by frankly stating that deer are harmful at the densities we currently see.

Too many to list.

How should we lessen the impact of deer on surrounding neighborhoods? Could we introduce wolves, chronic wasting disease?

Thanks!

I think that the survey is biased towards killing aka culling deer. Further, I find #13 offensive that thinking that eating the deer makes it ok to kill them. I think #14 offered more options. I appreciate that this is an emotional and factual issue, and applaud the organization's careful deliberation.

Great job on designing the survey.

thank you for the opportunity to respond!

I think FOSC could help make clear that deer don't just live in the park boundaries, and that each of us will see more deer damage to our property, car accidents, and other effects as the deer population gets larger. Keep up the great work, and thanks for the superb effort to educate and advocate for the park!

Do you know that prey and predators are both necessary for healthy watersheds?

I felt that many of the questions were leading. It felt like a questionnaire sent by the RNC or DNC.

lets face it; housing has overpopulated which has squeezed out what used to be wildlifes home. i think as humans we need to take the responsibility in making good on our errors and come up with a plan to replenish what woodlands we have left and start living harmonously with nature instead of taking the quick, easy, and cheapest.

Any other alternatives to killing the deer?

It might be persuasive to add examples of the danger to native birds and animals that are losing their sources of food and nesting areas to the deer. I don't think people want to let the deer drive out birds or other animals that call the park home. Good luck.

I support culling to prevent deer starvation and other suffering

This was a very well-written survey. Thank you for taking the time to solicit our opinions!

The deer were here before we were. Respect all life.

Thanks for taking this on.

Thank you for including our opinions in your report.

alternatives are not discussed other than stating it has been predetermined by other agencies that alternative means are not practical for various reasons. Alternatives need to be discussed and explained in detail. There may be those, like myself, that would donate money (and be willing to donate time to raise money) to pay for alternatives that have been ruled out simply because they have been deemed too costly. The issue has become simply to kill or not to kill, which is not the whole story.

Again, I would appreciate less biased answers that present objective options.

It asked questions not relevant--or without qualifying questions to support the responses. The responses for Question 6 should be discarded. Without knowing the qualifications of the respondent, the answers are not relevant. This is a question for an expert on deer population. Question 9 is missing a key response: I have not seen increased damage to my landscaping, but that's because the deer consistently eat the same plants every year. Hosta, ferns, tulips... they are chewed to the ground every year. Finally, despite the affect the deer have on some plants in my yard, I don't mind them. We as humans have had a negative impact on the deer habitat, I can surely put up with a little from the deer.

?

This survey is clearly slanted toward influencing a responder to agree with deer culling. It is biased in its approach given the information provided and should be immediately revised to provide information about what home owners can do to discourage deer from residing in and around their neighborhood (fencing, repellents, etc.) and also provide information about contraception and sterilization methods that are being utilized around the country.

In addition to the park, our home garden has been affected to the extent we are thinking of moving somewhere culling is allowed.

It should not have been biased. It should have asked about urban sprawl, habitat loss, reintroduction of predators, and other issues relevant to biodiversity.

How would it be done safely?

One method that should be considered is introducing more coyote, wolves, foxes, and birds of prey into the ecosystem that are normally found here. Discovering how to breed these animals that are normally found here would be ideal. Reintroducing predators is the best way to handle the situation.

seemed a bit biased in favor of culling, but that might be because I am in favor of it based on what I have read. Good to hear about the food banks. I thought only males were hunted as food, did not read any comments about that.

I don't think all residents can be experts on deer, biota, eco harm. Let experts influence decision most.

I think you need to add one more question that is very important, and it gets to that final issue (in part D). If the whole purpose of this survey is to help the FOSC board make a decision about whether or not to advocate for deer culling, then you should just come right out and ask the question about the impact this decision would have on other FOSC activities. You need to ask people something like, "if you are opposed to the culling of the deer population in Sligo Creek by lethal means, and FOSC decides to advocate for this position, would you: (then list several options to choose from) a) quit my membership with FOSC and not engage in FOSC's other activities; b) remain an FOSC member but not engage in its activities; c) remain an FOSC member and continue to work on environmental stewardship, park clean-ups and other FOSC activities; d), e), etc etc. You get the idea.

I would say you didn't introduce facts about other options to get rid of deer besides referring to birth control, a long term solution.

Survey is a wee bit slanted - this is just about a push poll with the way the Qs are directed so specifically to deer problems.

Not clear that capture and releasing of a small number, such as below Collsville, could not be feasible.

While this survey covers many aspects it is all designed to lead people against the deer. You make claims for which you provide no way of validating. Why would we take your word?

The survey did not consider alternatives to killing the deer, such as contraception, learning to live with the deer, etc.

...but I would like to know more.

It struck me as a bit one sided, trying to persuade owners to agree to kill the deer. There are birth control methods,. Why not use those?

You don't provide a plan B or C. You just dismiss all other choices as being too costly or unreasonable. I don't even raise my camera when I am near a deer. I have no wish to teach a deer that folks who raise a camera are trustworthy. A deer might get used to it, as they are around here, and then trust a person with a gun or rifle who intends to kill him or her. BTW, thanks for all of your hard work on behalf of the partk!

Coyotes and bike commuters! You shoulda talked about those issues, too!

Most of the questions were very pertinent. But you did not present the fundamental issue of who/what has primacy in the "right to life race" that has been set up by the current controversy. Pitting plant vs. animal life and by implication favoring the plant over the animal is a stance that is the height of hypocrisy for a human settlement such as ours, which has destroyed native woodlands to create suburbs.

In question 11 you gave no way to say that you want deer present as part of the biodiversity but that they should not be allowed to grow in population above the present population.

Everything in the survey is about damage to the park or nearby neighborhoods. What about the safety of the deer? By this I mean those that get hit by cars and don't have enough to eat in the winter. I have seen deer with one broken leg. I don't like to see animals suffer and culling would be the most humane at this point. After the population is reduced, then the birth control could be considered or any other option.

You might bring up the loss of wildflowers which is noticeable, and the impact on the alien plant removal project (resignation of chairman?)

Survey options as to how the County should pay for increased deer management programs.

Culling the human overpopulation

I think bow hunting should be allowed

The survey "facts" seem designed to push culling. I don't see any contrary arguments.

Only offered culling option. Could have provided info on other options and why they are/aren't viable for the area.

Thank you.

This survey is completely one-sided written to make uninformed people believe that culling is the only option.

I have suggested other issues in my comments, above. Please reread. Thank you!

THis further undermines the role of FOSC. I am incensed that FOSC would pursue slaughtering deer in my local parks. The have no where to go. THey are as important as your azaleas. FOSC has already lost much of my support because many board members violate park laws, especially the leash law. THis is unsafe for people and for wildlife. And, it demonstrates that the rules are flexible. It's a horrible example,

The questions could have been written in a less leading and biased tone (it seems the authors have an a priori assumption that culling is advisable, and they seek concurrence of the responder. This can lead to biased or reactionary answers).

More information on why alternatives are not suitable.

While the survey raised appropriate facts, I felt it came close to push-polling in advocating a point of view and an agenda under the guise of seeking input.

Links to other sites regarding information about deer would be useful as independent sources of information.

I supported culling before taking this survey, but the wording and structure of this survey seems to steer the reader toward supporting culling.

Solutions that would keep this problem from happening in the future, so we don't have to make this difficult decision again.

Suggestion - You might refer people to the article in National Audubon Society's magazine on this topic.

but they sure were leading questions - very clear where you stand

yes and no, solutions ought to be mindful of living in harmony with nature not in squashing it just for human convenience. I don't like any solution that involves killing animals in their homes.

I think so, but I'm relatively uneducated in the matter. It's hard for me to answer this Yes or No. Rather, I would like to choose "I am not sure." On the other hand, I think it did.

but... there were areas that could have contained a bit more nuance. And the fact that you stuck in all the background about the history of culling (safe, no one hurt, etc) and the damage done by deer could call into question your attempt to make the survey unbiased. I don't necessarily doubt your summary of past culling practicesN, just their inclusion and the spot where they were included. That said, I applaud your advocacy and your attempt to solicit input on this important matter.

This was a well-concieved survey. Perhaps the only missing item was about whether people enjoy the deer.

Might make sense to put up notices so that neighbors don't freak when they hear gun fire.

Include other neighbor hoods that are near the other parks, Rock Creek etc, as all the deer are migrating to each area.

I do not know enough about the topic to say at this point

This survey was fun to read and to take, but it was clearly not designed as a neutral data collection activity. Your preliminaries to questions and your phrasing of response options were very leading! As a survey professional, it's a lousy survey. But since I agree with your views, and you're quite moderate, no harm done!

Some of the geographical questions were mis-represented -- see above and I live north of Dale Dr. and south of the creek and Forest Glen Rd. and there was no option as to where I live.

There should be an "Other" category or "no opinion" for each question (you have it for a few).

Thank you for informing me about the meat donation. I was wondering about this. I hope, if the decision is to begin eliminating deer, that their deaths would not be totally in vain and that they will be used in their entirety.

BUT some sourcing for the statements concerning the alleged lack of effectiveness of birth control and other non-lethal methods of control would have enhanced the value of the survey

This survey is very biased.

I didn't notice. Did you mention how quickly they reproduce?Paul Crumrine, Watershed Landscapes, Inc. Devon Court SS

The question on biodiversity uses jargon--ask instead if people want to keep birds, native plants, and trees, in the park, or have more and more deer, and less and less of the others. (Or some such wording. The thing is--you have to be really up on what it means to respond positively to "biodiversity"/ it doesn't evoke emotion to most people, I suspect.

Many of the questions were not objective/clearly slanted. In addition, I was not sure in question 7 if you were talking about locally or overall. I answered as if you were asking overall. I have not experienced any of these things living here. You need a never option in question 3.

Would be helpful to recognize that Rock Creek Park is nearby and probably contributes, at least indirectly to the situation in Sligo. Has there been any assessment of the impact, if any, of culling activities in Wheaton, Rock Creek Park or other near by location on Sligo Creek. Intuitively I would think that the culling in the various areas should be, or should have been, coordinated.

On the list serve awhile back, there was a message about a young tree survey that described the damage to plants. This was very helpful to me. I think information about the plant and tree damage in the park and in neighborhoods would be helpful for people to know.

Find out about other fears and concerns people have about deer. A huge buck was caught between me and another jogger going the opposite direction a couple weeks ago. The buck chose to escape by galloping past me on the narrow trail. I don't know whether deer are dangerous when they feel threatened, but it was definitely scary to have those gigantic antlers missing goring me by a couple feet.

Regarding Question 8: I have seen deer in my neighborhood, not exactly in my yard.

1. I have given up gardening not only because of the fear of lyme disease but also because the deer eat whatever I plant. 2. The dear are virtually unafraid of human beings. I have gotten to within 5 feet of a deer before it ambles off.

A question that asks about an increase or decrease in observed deer in/around Sligo Creek

Survey was educational. I learned a good deal about the issue.

Back to top