[mindpilot]

A sharpshooter hired to reduce the east metro deer population will begin killing deer at several parks in St. Paul and Maplewood on Friday.

The intention is to cull the deer herd in an area bounded by Interstate Hwy. 94, the Mississippi River and Century Avenue. An aerial survey found 473 deer in that area; the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources recommends up to 125 deer for the area.

The overpopulation has led to increased complaints from residents about damage to private property and park vegetation and has raised concerns about deer-car collisions.

The sharpshooter will hunt only on public land and is coordinating the effort with the police and the sheriff. The shooting sites will be baited with corn to attract the deer, and the hunt will take place at night, when the parks are closed.

The venison will be donated to the Ramsey County food shelves.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5744929.html

[yesterdaysyouth]

sing me up!

hopefully i can get some tenderloin out of the deal....:neener:

[model 649]

ONE sharpshooter to kill about 350 deer?:eek: Talking about a busy shooter. How long would it take a good shooter to clear that many deer?
Josh

[Grayrock]

Government issue sharpshooter? How do they decide who gets the job? Will they be using a suppressed weapon? How is the populace handling this news?

[Jim Watson]

Typical elitist antigun antihunt approach.
They could have hunters paying for the privilege of reducing the deer population. I don't know the geography, if they worried about stray bullets, turn the stickslingers loose on 'em.

[Nathanael_Greene]

I'm glad they've decided to thin the herd using a method other than waiting for people to kill the deer with cars, but I think this is such a missed opportunity for municipalities.

Instead of paying someone, they could sell archery tags, make money off the deal, please a lot of bowhunters, thin the herd quickly and cleanly, and in general have a positive outcome.

I hope that at the very least, they distribute the venison to food pantries.

[Scottmkiv]

I seem to remember hearing that some city in a similar situation used a shotgun with a 6 foot or so barrel.

[Cosmoline]

Why waste money on a sharpshooter? Just open up a year-round bow and shotgun season.

[Rembrandt]

A more efficient use of tax money would be for local Swat Teams to practice on the deer herd (think of them as terrorists with antlers)....since Swat doesn't have any experience gutting carcasses perhaps the medical examiner can haul em' to the locker.

[Dance&Sting]

Are you sure...?? I'm from the Twin Cities and the St.Paul/Minneapolis area is highly occupied by the human population which makes "shooting" difficult because off all the activites going on even during the night time. Wouln't they consider traps and jail bates instead?? Hmmmm.......

Oh and one more thing. Where can I sign up.. Shhhhhh* be quiet or someone'll hear this.:evil:

[countertop]

Here in Northern Virginia - with special special urban archery bonus tags you can hunt antlerless whitetails from mid September till mid March. Its still not enough, and I think there is some talk of expanding the season even more and/or allowing shotguns (which buckshot from Tree stands) to be used.

[MDig]

The area in question is fairly high density human population as well. I agree Hunters could pay for the privelage to hunt the area but would need to qualify, ie prove their proficiency with a rifle or bow. Too great a risk otherwise. It's a damn shame good hunters get overlooked and a "Sharpshooter" has to be hired. I for one would pay for the hunt, Pay for the qualification (range fees and such) and still be willing to donate the meat.

[mindpilot]

THE FACTS: The sharpsooter was to help BAIT the deer. Went out on a Contract basis by the City Council. The guy is from the east coast has great record. 'Bout $200 a deer is the cost he is charging. The local Police and SWAT will be doing the Shooting. They are using laser sights, night vision, and only shooting in baited sealed off Parks.

Not open to regular hunters except bow hunters

[Art Eatman]

Not that I'm advocating any sort of William Tell thing, but i find it ironic about all the safety worries.

I mean, you have folks who can shoot aspirin with bow/arrow. Guys with rifles who can put five shots behind a dime at 100 yards. If folks aren't in the line of fire, where is the danger?

:), Art

[atomchaser]

$200 a deer just to bait them? It's really hard to get deer in a park to come eat corn at night? Good work if you can get it!

[sturmruger]

I have taken down a whitetail with a .22lr It can easily be done with proper shot placement. I don't know why they don't start a .22 season in metro areas then you wouldn't need to worry so much about people shooting too far.

[sumpnz]

mindpilot - I fail to see why you consider this to be such a good idea. For starters, at $200/deer * 350 deer = $70,000. Why should the city/county pay someone the equivalent of someone else's salary and benefits to do what could easily raise several thousand dollars by having hunters pay for the privilege. If they want to give food to the soup kitchen, make the hunters give, say, everything but the tenderloins to the charity. Then use the money from the fees generated to buy more food.

Also, by hiring a "sharpshooter", who BTW apparently won't even be doing the shooting, they are feeding into the myth that Joe Average hunter is too reckless to be trusted with even a bow and arrow.

[c_yeager]

Also, by hiring a "sharpshooter", who BTW apparently won't even be doing the shooting, they are feeding into the myth that Joe Average hunter is too reckless to be trusted with even a bow and arrow.


I hate to say it but some hunters probably *are* too reckless to hunt in a metropolitan park. My uncle lives in a modest hunting area in Washington, and he has to have his kids stay with his mother on opening day lest they have to take cover under the furniture.

There are ample excellent hunters out there, but there are just enough wackos that one would have to develope a screening process to see who should be hunting in areas that are adjacent to dense population. Any such screening process would be complex, expensive, and invariably promote claims of iniquity from people who get excluded. This method is simply easier, and ultimately cheaper for the city.

[mindpilot]

DID I SAY IT WAS SUCH A GREAT IDEA?? I think not. I just posted the article. Its a good idea because the deer are causing chaos and accidents. And your little idea about having other hunters go in there and do it? umm....Ever heard of Liability Insurance?????? $70,000 wouldnt cover a cent for if a regular hunter missed and hit someones house, car, or PERSON! The city is doing it cause they OWN the parks and already have liablity insurance on all their property.

[sumpnz]

DID I SAY IT WAS SUCH A GREAT IDEA?? I think not. I just posted the article.Well, you did put a thumbs up icon in the title of the thread. That and the tone of your posts sure seemed to make it sound like you though it was a good idea.
And your little idea about having other hunters go in there and do it? umm....Ever heard of Liability Insurance?????? $70,000 wouldnt cover a cent for if a regular hunter missed and hit someones house, car, or PERSON! The city is doing it cause they OWN the parks and already have liablity insurance on all their property.And this is an issue during regular seasons, how? Plenty of hunters accross the country hunt on city/county/state land and those govt's don't seem to have that big of a problem with liability insurance. As I seem to recall, it is the hunter's responsibility to not harm other people or their property and the hunter is the one liable if they do so.

[spacemanspiff]

Ever heard of Liability Insurance?????? $70,000 wouldnt cover a cent for if a regular hunter missed and hit someones house, car, or PERSON!
gee, is insurance premiums supposed to equal the potential amount of loss at risk? :rolleyes: i guess thats why every individual pays millions of dollars for their car and homeowners insurance.