.

Councilman on New Deer Hunting Map: ‘This is Just Dumb’

Revised map shows 11 viable properties but councilman said most of them aren't viable hunting grounds.

Two weeks after Councilman David Kos that qualify for hunting under the proposed bow hunting legislation now being reviewed, another map was released by . James is council’s representative to the Environmental Affairs Advisory Board (EAAB), who is recommending bow hunting on parcels 5 acres or larger with an occupied structure no closer than 101 feet.

James said the new map, prepared by dentified 11 properties upon which hunting can currently occur under the deer management program that was implemented in 2004.

“These are the 11 properties that were generally discussed as the EAAB was preparing its proposal for its deer management program,” James said. “Both Mr. Reitz and Chief Owad were involved in the identification of those properties, as I understand it, as far back as 2004.”

James said the new map circulated by Kos was created when Reitz was on vacation and Reitz was unable to review it.

“It follows the language that the EAAB drafted for its proposed program,” James said. “However, the EAAB always talked about the 11 properties in its discussions of the matter.”

Kos said that doesn’t matter

“The revised map doesn’t change one thing at all,” he said. “The EAAB said in a series of meetings it intended it only be the 11 properties, yet they drafted up legislation that didn’t specify that in writing.”

Kos said to be fair, the EAAB are not legislators.

“But it should have been mentioned,” Kos said. “The fact they drafted 5 acres or more in black and white includes those properties (on Kos’ map).

“That’s a failure on their part. The law as they wrote it does not exclude any property 5 acres or more.”

Kos still found plenty of fault in allowing hunting on most of the properties on James’ revised map, including parcel no. 2 near Center near the Walker and Moore roads intersection.

“I wonder how that business is going to be affected if they knew there could be hunting across the street,” Kos said. “Weiss Field is a couple of hundred feet away. That site is a bad fit.”

He noted that a fleeing injured deer could run into one of the city’s busiest intersections.

“And the last thing you want when you drop off your kid off is a truck dragging a deer and a hunter with a bow slung over his back,” Kos said.

Parcel no. 10 on the map, a small parcel on the northeast corner of Lear and Walker roads, drew another negative review from Kos.

“This is just dumb,” he said. “It’s right by Learwood Middle School. An arrow can travel 900 feet.”

Properties to the north of parcel no. 6 are for sale.

“That’s valuable Pin Oak properties,” Kos said. “What developer would spend millions develop property knowing there is legalized hunting right behind them?

“It’s a terrible idea.”

Kos acknowledged that many problems would go away if council knew where stood on the issue. He owns a number of parcels that would qualify for hunting (see PDF for who owns the 11 parcels).

“It would be beneficial if we all knew where Mr. Kopf stands on this,” Kos said. “Unfortunately he’s pulled into this, but he’s an important part of this.”

Kopf has not publicly stated yet if he would allow hunting on parcels he owns.

Kos said the only property that would appear feasible for bow hunting is parcel no. 1, but that is not where most of the deer problems have been reported.

Council is continuing to review the proposed legislation.

sandy maline May 16, 2012 at 01:17 PM
I am against this. I live by ward 1 and I don't want to worry about getting hit with a stray arrow or gun shot. I'd rather take my chances with the deer and drive a little more carefully. Avon Lake is a suburb now it is no longer a rural farm town.
Michelle Szegedy May 16, 2012 at 04:19 PM
I agree and am totally against this as I have let all council members and the mayor know. We as citizens need to push to oppose this. I have signage in my yard. Anything else we can come up with will help! The speeders in the city just need to slow down a little and watch what they are doing too!
Kristi May 16, 2012 at 07:58 PM
If the EAAB "always contemplated 11 properties," why wasn't the proposed ordinance drafted to allow bow hunting only on 11 properties? The way that the proposed ordinance is written, it does not limit hunting to only 11 properties. In fact, according to some calculations, hunting would be permitted on over 50 properties, including on school property, playground property, city parks, metroparks property, to name a few. Further, the ordinance, as written, would allow hunting in the direction of residential homes at a distance of only 101 feet. If that weren't bad enough, there is a provision for special hunting permits in areas smaller than 5 acres and CLOSER than 100 feet to residential homes. What clearly happened here is that the drafters of the proposed ordinance worded it so that as many properties as possible would be included as potential hunting areas. When it became clear that most property owners would not consent to hunting, EAAB started backing off and, in retrospect, claimed that it "really didn't intend" for hunting to occur on those properties. If the EAAB truly intended for hunting to occur on only 11 properties (and not the more than 50 that the ordinance allows), the threshold question is why the EAAB cannot draft a proposed ordinance consistent with its intent?
Patricia Vinch May 18, 2012 at 02:01 PM
STOP!!! We must reduce the number down...my car insurance just went up, this is now a high risk area. Think of feeding the poor...humans not animals. Lets get on with this.
John Kickingwing May 18, 2012 at 04:52 PM
This whole issue kind of reminds me of how we treated the American Indians when we arrived to visit their country. Back then they didn't try to sugar-coat their crimes. They actually passed a law called "the Indian removal act" in 1830. Patty - maybe your insurance went up because of your daughters 3rd DUI after the last time she got knocked up in the parking lot at Weiss field. This is a high risk area because YOU live here.
Kristi May 18, 2012 at 06:22 PM
Who says we need to reduce the numbers down? You, Patricia, because your car insurance went up? What about the parents who live here that don't want to live in fear for their kids' safety for 5 months out of every year? Did you think about them? What about people who don't want their kids to see a dead, bleeding deer tied to the back of a pick up truck with an arrow sticking out of it? Did you think about them? And, please don't tell me what I should care about - feeding humans or killing deer. You have no idea whether I help hungry children or not, or what other worthwhile causes I support. Finally, if what John Kickingwing says is true, shame on you for blaming the deer on your insurance increase. My insurance hasn't gone up and I live in AL, too. Maybe it's not the deer after all.
Nancy May 23, 2012 at 10:06 PM
"Avon Lake is a suburb now, it is no longer a rural farm town". I couldn't have said it better myself. Deer are part of the rural community and are a nuisance in the suburbs. Also, by not culling the herd, we are dooming these animals to a death by starvation. There is just not enough land to support the number of deer that are currently in Avon Lake. Unless you and others who are against culling the deer want to bulldoze your house and provide more area for the deer to roam, the only other option is to decrease the number of deer. And no, I am not an animal hater, in fact I volunteer at a "No Kill" animal shelter.
lake swimmer June 27, 2012 at 07:10 AM
all you folks whining about deer on the back of pickup trucks.... where do you think meat comes from?? do you think it originates in the supermarket? we have too many deer in Avon Lake, bottom line.... hunt them. eat them.... end of story...
G.W. August 30, 2012 at 09:10 PM
The idea of an arrow traveling 900 feet is ridiculous. Maybe if you shot at the tops of trees. Hunting from an elevated platform means the arrow would travel no more than 5 feet from it's intended line of travel. I myself would not take any shot beyond 60 feet and even then only if conditions were ideal. That means anything beyond 65 feet is safe, that's really the bottom line. Archery is a precise method of harvest, it is rare to even have an opportunity. It is part of our heritage as well. Sportsmans license fees are what is keeping our parks open; how many non-hunters have contributed to that budget? And a well placed arrow is an excellent alternative to slow starvation or a motorist killed by a collision with one. And lets face it, they have no other predators besides cars or stray dogs. Neither is as humane as a clean quick bow shot. If you really cared about the animals you would be honest with yourself; they have to be thinned and the sportsman of Ohio deserve the opportunity to be the control factor. Death is a part of life, we accept this as children and it holds true throughout our lives.
MZ August 31, 2012 at 12:43 AM
Where can I get a "Hunt deer in Avon Lake" Packard for my yard?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »