Potential Hunting Grounds Near School, Homes - Councilman Opposes Law

59 parcels eligible under proposed law

A in Avon Lake is under scrutiny by David Kos who said at least 59 parcels at 17 locations in Avon Lake would be eligible for bow hunting deer. He provided Patch with an unofficial map of parcels that could be eligible for bow hunting.

Kos' map is broken into wards, with Ward 4, Kos's ward, hosting most of those parcels.

Those parcels include three parcels — that could be open to bow hunting by licensed hunters with the property owners permission if the law is approved—that are across the street from

A joint Safety Committee and Environmental Committee meeting at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall will allow for comments from the public on the bow hunting issue, as well as a proposed ordinance on a ban. Both ordinances, recommended by the Environmental Affairs Advisory Board (EAAB) would still need to meet with council approval before either went into effect.

“I am opposed to this,” Kos said. “The proximity of some of these eligible properties are close to neighborhoods. Three are directly across the street from the high school. Some abut cul-de-sacs.”

Kos said that when residents look at the map and see where the properties are, “it will raise eyebrows.”

“All (if the parcels) can be a hunting ground,” he said. “I wouldn’t go to sleep very comfortable knowing adjacent woods can have hunting.”

In addition to a requiring the parcel owner's permission and sufficient acreage or a minimal 5 acres, bow hunting would need to be conducted from a tree stand. Kos said most of the acres that meet those requirements are located at Ford, PolyOne and the BF Goodrich plants and he didn't expect hunting there.

“I can’t see that in any way shape or form they will allow hunting,” he said. 

Kos added this was an “east of (SR) 83 issue trying to be decided west of 83.”

He said a better option would be to address the issue of deer accidents and create “deer zones” similar to school zones where solar-powered flashing lights and a lower speed limit during dusk and dawn—when deer are more active—could significantly reduce accidents.

He understood that some residents wanted culling to prevent property destruction, including deer feeding on decorative plants and trees.

“Eating flower beds is not a legitimate reason to kill deer,” he said. “The collisions with cars is. (Last year’s) 35 accidents is high. There is nothing in the EAAB report that addresses the traffic issue.”

He also expressed concern over the likelihood a deer would not be killed on the first shot and a hunter would have to track the injured deer off the permitted property.

Supporters of the culling program feel an immediate need to reduce what has been described as a serious deer overpopulation in the city.

Jeff April 28, 2012 at 03:40 PM
Please allow deer hunting! They have become a menace, and the population is too high to allow for proper grazing and nutrition for the deer. Just last night, I saw a deer that was just skin and bones loping down a development street with nowhere to go.
Lori E. Switaj April 28, 2012 at 06:03 PM
Looks like the deer culling option still has a way to go before it is recommended to council as a law. It will again be reviewed in a few subcommittees.
Curtis Weems April 28, 2012 at 09:20 PM
Does Councilman Kos conclude there is not a deer population issue? If he does then he should resist all efforts to cull the deer by any means even though they are a menace to our roadways, potentially causing bodily injury and more. This doesn’t take into account the fact our deer are forging on food stocks not suitable for them. Given that statistically our deer population will double every six (6) years must not be a concern for Mr. Kos, as he apparently does not see the deer as a problem now so why would they be a problem in six years? If Mr. Kos and other like him don’t believe that the herd should be culled than I would hope that he and his supporters would strongly oppose the ban on feeding the deer and recommend that the City and DNR feed the deer. Otherwise, it is inhumane to allow the herd to continue to grow without an increase in food stocks. Actually, such a measure would reduce property damage but not deer/auto collisions but Mr. Kos and his supporters apparently don’t care about that. Conversely, if Mr. Kos does believe that our deep population is too large, what is his solution?
JR April 29, 2012 at 03:59 AM
Curtis - to answer your question "Does Councilman Kos conclude there is not a deer population issue?" He never said that. David Kos is very responsible, knowledgeable and an excellent councilperson. What he did say is he's concerned because we are considering allowing you drunken hillbillies to shoot guns near a school. Probably a school he has his own kids in. So who do you think sounds more like an idiot you or him? Sounds like he has not come up with a personal solution to limit the deer populations, but he's pretty sure arming people with IQ levels like yours might make the problem we have with getting our flowers eaten seem pretty benign. I am a Kos supporter and I believe his solution for the deer issue as it relates to you is "Join the USMC and serve your country like he did - and you will cease being a little pansy that is afraid the deer are going to kill you. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK DAVE
Kim April 30, 2012 at 05:18 PM
I agree with Mr Kos, I live right up against one of those "hunting areas" and I don't want to deal with that in my backyard. Not all hunters are responsible about how they go about hunting. As for the driving issue- keep your eyes open, pay attention to the road, and stop speeding.


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 »