Valley Forge Park sets deer shoots after year's delay

On October 5, 2010, Anne Marie Carden wrote:

Please! Please! Please! Help the Deer!!!! I live close to this park I visit the park as well as the deer as often as I can! They do not bother anyone!

On October 5, 2010, Valley Forge Local wrote:

It’s about time. I’m an animal lover but the deer in VF National Historic Park are a danger to other animals, themselves, and humans. Sharp shooters will allow for a swift and relatively painless end.

On October 5, 2010, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:

Those animal lovers who want an end to the deer ought to at least have the courage to stand behind their narrow-spirited words with a real name.

On October 5, 2010, Matthew McLaughlin, Friends of Animals-Pennsylvania wrote:

The deer do not pose a danger to human beings. If people are concerned about not hitting deer with their automobiles, they need to drive responsibly. There are deer near where I live and at night, when I know they are out, I proceed through those areas with caution. Driving safely is not, and should not, be considered an inconvenience, as that’s how everyone who operates an automobile should be driving.

There are steps that communities that want to avoid car collisions with deer can take. Pennsylvania is not alone in wanting to avoid these accidents and residents of the state. Other states have installed the Strieter-Lite System, which can reduce automobile collisions with deer by 78-90%. Much of the cost of installing the system can be covered by federal programs.

On October 6, 2010, Bridget W. Irons wrote:

The supposedly methodical and scientific plan hatched by the federal government to practically annihilate the deer at Valley Forge NH Park is highly suspect. Once again, we have a plan designed to blame the deer. Let’s stop the blame game and come clean on the deer issue. Journalist and novelist Martha Gellhorn once said, “Never believe governments, not any of them, not a word they say; keep an untrusting eye on all they do.” Good, decent people must speak out on behalf of the deer. Turning our backs would make us complicit in this terrible wrong.

On October 6, 2010, Dustin Rhodes, Friends of Animals wrote:

The whole concept of “wildlife management”—a euphemism for domination and control—needs to be questioned here. The root of the problem here is larger than deer living in a park. And slaughtering them doesn’t solve a problem; it just creates more.

We humans need to take a broader view of nature, and see ourselves, and others like deer, as an integral part of it; but we aren’t the masters of nature and we should stop pretending that we are.

And as far as population is concerned, we need look no further than our own species to find one that’s truly breeding out of control and wreaking havoc.

On October 6, 2010, Anne Marie Carden wrote:

“Deer” Valley Valley Forge Local,

Would you be so kind as to explain how the deer are a danger? I would be most interested in your knowledge. How are they a danger to humans? I think we are the ones who are a danger to the deer. Personally I think lack of information is dangerous. Thank you and I look forward to being educated!

On October 6, 2010, Michael Holodnak wrote:

The deer need no “Population Control” from humans. Let these beautiful beings live free.

On October 6, 2010, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:

For Anne Marie Carden: Thank you for your message here. I believe I just spoke with your partner on the phone. I understand you have been photographing the deer - even observing individuals as they change and grow - and that your photos have been or are currently sold in the Park’s gift shop. How sad if those individuals, whose pictures the Park’s visitors love and pay to have, are under fire.

Please keep in touch with us. Thanks to you and your partner for supporting the interest of the deer in simply living and enjoying their natural lives. You can write to me at leehall[at]friendsofanimals.org

On October 6, 2010, helen harvey wrote:

Valley Forge Park belongs to all of the citizens of this nation, not to the immediate neighbors or the valley forge staff. Many people visit the park to see the deer. Why are some people so bloodthirsty. Why do they think they are the only living creatures that matter?

On October 7, 2010, Anne Marie Carden wrote:

Trust me when I tell you that they will never get another one of my photos!!! They should not profit from or use as a marketing tool those poor deer that they consider to be such a problem. My photos were my may of celebrating their life and beauty!!! I have post cards that I also made (at their request) out of my deer photos, titled “a day in the life of a deer at Valley Forge National Park” They were NEVER turned over to them for the above mentioned reason. I am happy to give them away to you if you can use them or to anyone else that may want them for the right reasons. If I can do anything at all to help the deer please call on me! I should not complain about what they are trying to do if I am not willing to be part of trying to help. My wish is for people to realize that they just can’t kill what they think gets in their way. What happened to respect for life? Your own life someone else’s life or the life of an animal!

On October 7, 2010, David Forjan wrote:

Just my 2 cents. Why is it that we humans so often choose to kill? Why is killing so often the solution of choice? We humans cause the problems, and then are too lazy? or too impatient? or too emasculated? or so heartless? that we just decide to kill. As the option of choice so often we kill: coyotes, wolves, woodchucks, deer, wild mustangs, cougars, leopards, geese and on and on. Why do we humans choose the MOST inhumane option, the most extreme option, the most heartless option, so easily and so often? There are a whole slew of other options that we should pursue, each and every one, before we kill. Especially if we are to keep considering our species humane. Ironic that the species “human” is the root of the word humane. A contradiction in terms to me.
Let’s all start acting like we’re part of the word “humane”. Being so quick to kill is not worthy of us being a part of that word.

Thanks for listening. David Forjan

On October 7, 2010, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:

UPDATE: FRIENDS OF ANIMALS AND CARE WILL HOLD A DEMONSTRATION AT THE PARK THIS SATURDAY, 9 October, 2-4 PM.

Meet us in the parking lot near the bicycle rentals and restrooms. That is officially the First Amendment Zone and on Park maps it is identified as:

“Lower Welcome Center Parking Lot.”

Look for the bright blue Friends of Animals banner.

The permit has been approved for our group by the Park administration and the Superintendent signed it on 7 October. Please exercise your First Amendment rights with us this Saturday.

On October 7, 2010, Dustin Rhodes, Friends of Animals wrote:

Hi David.

That’s exactly what I wonder, too. And obviously I don’t have an answer. Instead of believing that humans are heartless, I choose to believe that, sometimes (maybe even most of the time), we are simply ignorant. After all of the social conditioning, we simply haven’t realized there’s a more enlightened way of viewing animals who share the planet with us.

On October 7, 2010, David Forjan wrote:

Dear Dustin,

You are correct, in all that you’ve said herein. One enlightened way is to acknowledge that they have just as much right to live as we do. That way of thinking, unfortunately, is not pervasive. Hence the legal struggle for animal rights.

Be well. David Forjan

On October 7, 2010, Anne Marie Carden wrote:

David Forjan,

I think you said more than “two cents worth.” You said it all. It is sad that we live in a “throw away” world. If it gets old, gets in our way, we get sick of it we just toss/kill it. I often wonder what holds value for people any more? I see many comments in ref. to the deer causeing car accidents. WELL MY THOUGHT IS THIS SO DO DRUNK DRIVERS…SO DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO LEAVE A PILE OF FOOD SOME WHERE FOR SUCH AN OFFENDER TO BE DRAWN TO AND THEN WELL YOU ALL KNOW HOW THIS STORY ENDS.

On October 7, 2010, Sharon Klein wrote:

It is amazing how heartless the human race as become. Deer are such gentle precious gifts to the earth. What has happened that people think it is okay to destroy animals so heartlessly?

I see deer frequently in the Hollywood Hills and cannot understand how anyone could think of destroying them. Valley Forge Park belongs to all of the people, not just a handful of ignorant jerks.

I cannot believe a permit would be approved to destroy earths beautiful gentle creatures. It makes me sick.

Sharon Klein

On October 7, 2010, hilda estrada wrote:

It makes me sick. Anytime the government/policy makers decides that an animal is in their way (for whatever reason) the first solution is to kill. The world does not belong to humans to destroy and kill animals. We humans are to share the space we live in with all living creatures. I once enjoyed Prospect Park in Brooklyn—feeding all the birds, geese,swans,pigeons. Recently without any public vote or notification these beautiful birds were slaughtered (shot and gassed). This is animal abuse- Cruel and Inhumane- which I though was against the law. When will it end?

On October 7, 2010, iris carr wrote:

i am a member of friends of animals
the planned deer shoot is a crime against humanity

show mercy and stop discrediting your state

iris s carr

On October 7, 2010, Carolyn Finn wrote:

Thank you FOA for standing up to Valley Forge in order to end the cruel and primitive idea to thin the deer herds by permitting hunting. Allowing hunters to kill these beautiful gentle animals is a sin. In this day of modern technology and effective drugs, there should be many other alternatives to violence. Isn’t there enough gun violence in every other part of Philadelphia and the surrounding suburbs. Let’s not legalize and encourage more!

On October 8, 2010, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:

Thank you, Carolyn. We don’t even need modern technology or drugs to come up with an alternative to violence at Valley Forge. That’s the beautiful simplicity of this. We merely need to sustain the status quo and let the deer be. The deer population peaked several years back. It’s basically a stable population now, to which the Park is a traditional home.

Officials who point to a lack of natural predators need to stop killing them too (Pennsylvania’s coyotes are specifically relevant here). Nature can then work in its own ways, find its own balance. This is what we should insist is done. It’s also the ecologically correct way to proceed.

People have a tendency to complicate matters unwisely. Extreme measures bring unintended consequences. Let’s press for sanity, decency, and non-violence.

On October 8, 2010, Priscilla Ferrater-Mora wrote:

It used to be believed that predators controlled prey. We now know the reverse is true: prey control predator numbers because the prey animal is food for the predator. Predators, like all animals, increase or decrease according to their food supply.


PNC, Inc offered to fence the 4 10 acre forested plots that the Park claimed—without evidence—the deer were destroying. They rejected the offer. Even assuming that their reasons for killing the deer are to protect the “forest,” their plan makes no sense. If they manage to kill 500 deer this years as projected, that will still leave 500 or more deer to eat the understory. Next year they plan to kill another 500 deer which will still leave a number of deer to munch on the understory. The same for year three,etc. So, although they claim the damage is dire, and something must be done at once, their slaughter plans will not allow for regrowth of the understory since there are always deer remaining to say nothing of additional deer that will be born due to compensatory reproduction that takes place when large numbers are suddenly removed.

So, even if one did not care about the deer, their plan is absurd and a waste of $3-5 million tax dollars. No wonder people lack faith in their government: both Casey and Sestak have been lobbied and apparently choose not only to ignore this waste of public money, but also to ignore the wishes of the vast majority who enjoy seeing the deer. What is the real motive behind this scheduled blood bath?

On October 8, 2010, Allan Booyjzsen wrote:

Not being a resident of the USA, I am un-aware of the situation at Valley Forge Park. However, similar circumstances are experienced throughout the world, even in our National Parks. I must agree with Matthew McLaughlin, so much so, that I trust he will not mind me quoting him.

“Driving safely is not, and should not, be considered an inconvenience, as that’s how everyone who operates an automobile should be driving.” - Matthew McLaughlin.

Dustin Rhodes’ remark about “wildlife management — a euphemism for domination and control”, is also practiced in ‘nature reserves and parks’ all over our planet. There are other comments which I would like to mention, but obviously I have to stop somewhere.

So once again, it comes down to the morals and ethics of Man, which seems to be that the Neanderthal’s killer instinct has not evolved out of us yet and makes Bridget W. Irons’ comment, using journalist and novelist Martha Gellhorn’s remark “Never believe governments, not any of them …” oh so true!

On October 8, 2010, peg k wrote:

I wish I could be there but I am working - I will be there in spirit!

On October 8, 2010, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:

One note on your comment, Priscilla Ferrater Mora: While it makes sense that predators, like all animals, increase or decrease in population according to their food supply, the legal situation in Pennsylvania imposes human hunting and trapping on coyotes all year round. The wolves were chased out of this state long ago and now humans lack respect for the smaller yet capable predators who have arisen in their place. The ethically and ecologically right thing to do? Respect predator animals instead of claiming that there aren’t enough and therefore humans need to artificially prevent births or bear down on animals with bows or rifles. This domineering cycle needs to be addressed and Friends of Animals is doing just that with our Coyote Coexistence Initiative:

http://www.friendsofanimals.org/actionline/autumn-2010/coyotes.php

On October 8, 2010, Maryanne Appel wrote:

This outrage against the deer must be stopped - permanently. We must all raise our voices together to protest this insidious plan by government officials to shoot most of the deer in the park and impose contraceptives on those few who manage to escape the shooters’ guns.

If the words “Justice for All” are more than an empty slogan, they must include those who are the most defenseless against human oppression. Let us hope that the voices of gentle people will be heard above the din of lies and deception, and that reason will prevail.

On October 8, 2010, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:

Plan your visit to Valley Forge! Directions (including GPS) for tomorrow’s vigil:


http://www.nps.gov/vafo/planyourvisit/directions.htm

Meet us at: “Lower Welcome Center Parking Lot”

On October 8, 2010, Mary Binsfield wrote:

Deer management is necessary!!…ESPECIALLY in an urban enviroment where natural predators are few (although vehicles are plenty!). As hunters, we only take what we use & if they are managed properly, it ensures their health & safetly.

On October 8, 2010, Charlene Padworny wrote:

Please let the gentle deer be. : )

On October 9, 2010, Sally Malanga wrote:

Stop using men with guns to assault nature.

On October 9, 2010, Tony Longobardi wrote:

I wonder what would happen if the National Park Service just gave the 2 MILLION DOLLARS which is going to be spent over the next 15 years for this deer cull to the homeless shelters instead of the deer meat.

What is preventing the National Park Service from seeing that they are “cutting off their nose to spite their face”. By killing 80% of the deer, they are ruining the park experience. Tourists like to see the deer. They pull over their cars to take pictures of the deer.

The park is NOT deforested as they say. The park has plenty of trees, bushes, grass, etc. Just take a drive along 252 by the creek sometime.

How surprised are they going to be when there are more deer/vehicle accidents when the deer are fleeing from the sharpshooters.

Take a step back for a moment, that’s right, let go of your ego for a moment, and see that this is a dangerous, expensive, unnecessary plan.

On October 9, 2010, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:

Photos of today’s protest in support of the Valley Forge deer are available in the open Facebook album here:

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=244396&id=531482549

More to come. Of the people who spoke with us, everyone we met except one said these words: “We want the deer; we like them”; “We fully support what you’re doing”; and — quite commonly: “I run [bike] here every day. They are as gentle as pets. What is the matter with the Park, that they could even think of this?”

A special thank-you to New Yorker David Forjan who drove four hours each way to stand and be heard for the deer. Our messages: LET THEM ROAM! IT’S THEIR HOME!

On October 18, 2010, KTB wrote:

Blocking the initiative to use hunters to thin the herd in VF Park is more humane than allowing the deer to starve to death, right? Which is what is going to happen before the coyote packs can generate enough numbers. That deer herd is OUT OF CONTROL and needs to be taken care of NOW. Obviously none of you people live in the area surrounding the park, and have no idea just how bad it is. Not to mention - if you were local residents, I am sure the safety of your neighbors’ pets and children would be a higher priority than the safety of these deer, and you wouldn’t suggest increasing the number of coyotes. Coyotes will hunt deer, yes - but only if there are no tasty Yorkies, Chihuahuas, or Lab puppies around. MUCH easier prey. I am a dog owner and I won’t even walk my dog in that park - something he enjoys very much - if the coyote population is increased.
Park officials, and the courts -don’t listen to this small number of loud people who obviously haven’t thought about the risks of their “solution” and do what makes sense. There is nothing inhumane about it - especially if the deer meat winds up in food banks!

On October 18, 2010, Jo wrote:

I see there is interest in bringing in coyotes to control the dear herd. What will you all be posting when you see a coyote killing the cute little fawns, or even the beautiful, big eyed adult deer, let alone the cute little bunnies, squirrels, nearby cats, dogs, etc. in the area? I would much rather have the deer more humanely killed with weapons.

Also, if anyone complaining about the hunt also eats meat, I insist that you go to a slaughter house to see exactly what happens before that big juicy steak appears on your grill. Many farm animals raised for meat are also beautiful and do not hurt anyone. I can’t imagine how anyone who is a member of FOA could think of eating meat, but I’ll bet there are many.

On October 18, 2010, Barbara Jansen wrote:

I am first and foremost an activist for wildlife. One of the most important elements to consider in wildlife protection is the ecosystem. Because of a long history of human interference there are a lot of systems out of balance. One is definitely the removal of top predators such as the wolf, but there are many other elements too. People tend to interfere in the most mundane ways by changing the environment and creating new patterns of wildlife behavior. Because of this, additional human interference is sometimes the only possible answer to rectify the problem. Your idea that coyotes could reduce the population is not based on any knowledge of what coyotes are capable of. People tend to think Coyotes are just small Wolves but their habits especially in hunting are very different. For this reason, they would not have an appreciable impact on this large of a deer population. If the eco system is allowed to get this far out of balance there are many many long and short term consequences for all of the animal populations in the system. Please don’t let your emotional response to one animal (yes deer are beautiful, timid animals) allow you to be a party to long term and possibly irreparable damage to this fragile ecosystem.

On October 18, 2010, Robert M. Rollins wrote:

If you believe that allowing Coyotes to “cull” an over populated deer herd is more humane than allowing professionals to shoot them, you obviously know absolutely nothing about Pack Hunting and Killing Techniques. Most animals are brought from repeated rips and tears in their skin & from loss of blood. The pack then feeds on the live animal until it dies from it’s injuries.

These are not Tigers or Lions that kill with a quick surprise attack and kill by snapping the neck of their prey. Coyotes and all wild dogs run their prey to exhaustion, until they’re cornered or too week to stay ahead of the lead animals. Mother Nature, in this case is vicious and cruel beyond your imagination. If you had EVER witnessed this for yourself, you would think more than twice before suggesting it.

I do NOT hunt, nor am I in favor of hunting to control most over population issues. Although, it’s much more humane that a Valley Forge winter without enough food, or have you forgotten the lessons learned by then General Washington?

My suggestion, while it’s more expensive but would I believe be more in line with what you CLAIM your objectives to be is to trap, dart, tranqualize as many healthy does as possible and relocate them. There are millions of acres of No Hunting Lands in this country to which they could be moved. Why not try that for an idea?

On October 18, 2010, Charlie wrote:

I understand how an organized kill can be viewed as inhumane. However in an area where the deer are overpopulated for the available habitat this is the only way to avoid animals starving and dying of disease.

A sharpshooter is going to be able to take the animals in a manner that does not make them suffer, where starvation and disease are both ways for the animals to die that make them suffer greatly.

I’m a conservationist and a hunter and I understand that maintaining a healthy herd for the available habitat requires balancing the animals and their habitat. Too many animals will degrade the habitat to the point that it will not sustain any.

Introducing a high number of predators to the area such as coyotes is going to further stress the habitat, and a damaging tactic that does not have any guarantee of results.

Please reconsider your stance and allow the herd to survive in moderation opposed to dying as a whole.

On October 19, 2010, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:

KTB: It’s apparent that you want hunters in Valley Forge Park. But this is a national historical park, no place for guns (not to suggest that guns are a pleasantry anywhere). No one should be letting pets roam unobserved in the Park. If you are with your pet there will be no trouble. Coyotes are naturally shy of humans and will confine their activity to times and places that avoid conflict.

Much more sensible than some of the humans we are hearing from.

On October 19, 2010, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:

Jo, to clarify: No, Friends of Animals and CARE are not asking that officials move coyotes to the Park. Coyotes already live in the Park. We are quite simply asking that the Park maintain the status quo in the Park (where the deer population has decreased after peaking in 2003 as reported in the Inquirer in February 2009), and respect the coyotes of Pennsylvania. It’s high time.

Thanks for your comment about being consistent. Most of the members who enjoy our cookbooks (we are already going into second printings for both) likely are not eating any animals; they are finding out there’s no need to do so —as the recipes do, if I might say so, match the best in any popular cookbook.

On October 19, 2010, sher g wrote:

As locals that frequent the park weekly, we find the deer are part of the allure. Visitors from all over stop to observe and photograph the deer.

These tame, white-tailed beauties are part of the park and have natural predators. We have personally observed coyotes in and around the park and can also confirm that the park’s very statements confirm the population has not increased so.

What is the real reason behind this madness? To protect their recent renovations? This is a national park, not hunting territory; the deer need not suffer for bogus reasons.

On October 20, 2010, Ginger wrote:

Why is it no one seems to understand the ecological damage the over abundance of deer in VFNHP are doing? There are simply too many deer for the land in the park to sustain without the park giving up its life as a viable ecosystem. You all seem to speak only for the deer. Well, I am here to speak for the trees and the rest of the vegetation. The deer are eating all of the young saplings and many of the trees in the park are old and will soon die. What will replace them?

The whole business is unfortunate, I don’t want to see anyone in a car killed by hitting a deer, nor do I want an animal to suffer and die that way. I respect all life and there needs to be a balance and we have lost that at the park. Without human pressure nature will balance herself, but here we have human presence and pressure, that is just the fact.

Culling the deer using the skills of professionals is unfortunately the only answer under the present conditions.

On October 20, 2010, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:

Ginger:

In 1777 — 1778, George Washington’s Continental Army camped on what would become Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. It was located on an agricultural and industrial landscape. In order “[t]o establish and sustain the camp, every tree within a several-mile radius was cut and used for hut construction and earthworks or burned as fuel.”
Washington chose this site specifically because the mostly treeless terrain offered strategic views all the way to Philadelphia. That is the history of the Park and its foliage (or, in certain areas, the lack of it).

Over the next century, the authentic historical setting deteriorated through the addition of a chapel, museum, arch, and ornamental plantings. The existing agricultural landscape, with its barns and other agriculture buildings, fences, and farm lanes, was obliterated to conform to ideas of subtle grandeur.

Now, can we fairly ascribe any past and present danger to the foliage to an “overabundance of deer”?

No one here wants to see foliage wrecked. But if one would speak up for the trees and vegetation, one cannot single out the effects of the Park’s community of deer.

Limiting construction in Chester and Montgomery Counties, or opposing the widening of the Penn Turnpike, or challenging the use of cars in the park with the oil and exhaust they introduce would make more sense in that regard. Have you thought about the importance of improving the SEPTA system so as to spare green spaces? Wouldn’t it make sense to do so? All of these issues are connected, and those of us who genuinely care about vegetation do not regard the Park in a vacuum.

We are keenly aware of the value of the Park ecology. But to begrudge the deer their natural tendency to eat the very food nature provides for them is a misplaced ecological concern.

Particularly so when the balance of the ecology would be better advanced by letting nature work than by setting out to dominate and destroy it.

On October 21, 2010, sher g wrote:

Well said Lee!

If we spent the 2 million contributing to more eco-practices, it would be a worthwhile investment. What is the real reason behind this madness? The recent million dollar renovations, new tree plantings, building and parking areas? How to explain to our children that the deer are “gone”, from the very park that SELLS postcards of them in their gift shop?

Leave the deer alone!

On October 21, 2010, ginger wrote:

Lee, you say “Now, can we fairly ascribe any past and present danger to the foliage to an “overabundance of deer”?”

And to that I say, yes. Let me first distinguish between “deer” and the ecologically oppressive population of deer that currently live in the park. This park is small and has no natural open space that buffers it from developed/human areas. It is what it is size wise and it has no room to grow and neither does the deer herd and yet it does. VFNHP is not like the very large parks of the west where animals have a more natural ecosystem of which to be a part. Contiguous with some of these large parks are other open lands both Federal and private.

The folks who support the culling of the deer I am going to guess, because I am one of them, would rather not have to do it, but long term scientific studies say that this is the most humane and reasonable solution. I am sorry it has gotten to this point, perhaps had this been foreseen, and I don’t know if it could have been, the solution might have been different.

Another thing to consider, is that this overpopulation weakens the herd and I have concerns that it will not be too far into the future that our deer will be found to be victims of CWD (Chronic wasting disease) a form of spongiform encephalopathy. Herds of white tailed deer in Wyoming are infected as well as herds in New York State.

I wan the park and the deer to be healthy - I do not want the deer to be gone.

On October 22, 2010, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:

Ginger, it seems to me you want it both ways. You concur with the view that the vast majority of deer at Valley Forge should be overwhelmed with firepower and dragged out of the Park, the survivors to be placed on a regime of pharmaceutical control, because, well, that’s all OK, because after all it’s not a full ecosystem like the West.

When it comes to the vegetation you claim to want to protect, then the Park should be treated as a natural ecosystem.

That’s what the Park officials are arguing, and it strikes me as contradictory, result-oriented arguing.

What you mean by being sorry it has got to this point is not clear to me. I visit the Park often. The deer aren’t taking over the bathrooms and gift shops. They enjoy the cover of trees; and the young ones, looking calm and healthy, occasionally watch the human passers-by.

As reported by Jeff Gammage in the Inquirer (15 Feb. 2009), a Park environmental impact study showed that the number of deer in the Park peaked at in 2003 — at a total of 1398. The reported number in 2009 was 1023. What “point” has it reached, then? The point of gradually decreasing over recent years to level off at just over a thousand individuals. The Park is beautiful and expansive, and the deer are well-adjusted and appear content.

Presumably you bring up CWD to ring the same alarm bells that the Park directors do. But you obviously know there is no CWD in the state. Creating a sudden vacuum wouldn’t be the common-sense approach to fostering the good health of these deer. If anything, the idea of letting natural predation keep the balance in the Park over time would best ensure the continued good health of the Park’s fauna.

On October 22, 2010, Katia Figueroa wrote:

Why are they mowing the grassy areas, further reducing the available food for the deer?

On October 24, 2010, Ginger wrote:

They are not mowing all of the grass, I think that is obvious. They mow the edges, a lot less than they did when it was a state park. And about the deer - grasses comprise less than 10% of their diet, so more grass is not the answer to the deer congestion issue.

By any count there are just too many deer and the park has made a careful and well considered decision to cull the herd.

On October 25, 2010, Katia Figueroa wrote:

No, actually if you drive along 252, which I do 4 times a day, you will see that it is the entire hillside, where deer usually graze, not just the edges. I can certainly understand the mowing the edges for visibility reasons. What is the other 90 percent of their diet comprised of?

On December 20, 2010, may wrote:

Katia,

Most of the fields are mowed only once per year. The one you mention was mowed late this fall.

Tony,

No the park is not deforested, but it will be if nothing is done. There are trees, but there are no young trees in the understory to take their place when the current trees die. the young seedling and sapling trees are all eaten by the deer.