Politics from the Palouse to Puget Sound

Friday, May 16, 2008

Deer Colfax

I talked to a Colfax deer sympathizer today. I was surprised to learn that he "loves" the deer in his town. Regardless of the cost to his neighbors, he enjoys seeing deer out his window. I have news for him. Moscow has wolves. They are hungry and 35 miles is not too far for a hungry wolf. If the libs of Colfax want deer, they need to plan for the environmental impact of also welcoming their predators.

In this week's Gazette:

Another animal crisis has hit the Colfax City Council.

This time the animals are deer.

Some years ago, the city council was faced with another ticklish animal problem. Cats were everywhere. During public comment about the problem, a teacher gave testimony in favor of the cats by reading a child’s book on kitties. A councilman, unmoved by the impassioned reading, simply said the city should “smoke ‘em.”

The next animal crisis made national news. The council took on an old cowboy who had the audacity to drive a horse drawn wagon in town without fitting the horse with a diaper.

Now, deer are the problem facing the city. Within the city limits, deer have long been a nuisance. They are numerous and ravenous. They have lost any fear of people and brazenly travel around town devouring plants. They are like rats with hooves as they forage through vegetable gardens, landscaped yards and flower beds.

Many residents have tried to create barriers to protect their gardens. Usually these do not help. The barriers are either not high enough or not strong enough. In the face of this onslaught, other residents have set up feeding stations for the deer to encourage them along their destructive paths.

On Monday, May 5, the mayor introduced an ordinance to make it illegal for residents of Colfax to feed the deer in town. Some towns have found creative ways to rid themselves of troublesome deer. The first step, quite logically, is not to make them feel welcome and not to put out smorgasbords for them. This bit of logic fell on deaf ears at the council meeting.

Like deer caught in headlights, the council froze and refused to do anything, voting 5 to 2 against the ordinance and tabling it indefinitely.

Somebody should explain that despite their number deer cannot vote, only people can . . . and many of them have gardens and yards they don’t want to share with marauding animals.

Gordon Forgey

No comments: