DON'T FEED THE DEER and THE CITY'S NEW WOODLAND PRESERVE

WESTERN ADVENTURES

I just got back from a trip out west.

My elderly (but still quite spry) dad wanted to visit his 97 year old brother in Tucson.

It didn’t take much convincing to get me to say yes---not after the winter we’ve had.

We met up in Phoenix.

My dad, a WWII navigator, got out his maps and plotted our route for the week.He’s not a highway guy---especially when he’s got a chauffeur and there are so many scenic routes to choose from.

I have to admit I like traveling off the beaten path too.
You never know what surprising things you’ll stumble across.

For instance….

Just outside of Miami Arizona we came across a steep, multi-story high grass-covered earthen dam that was formed by the rocky discharge from a local mountaintop copper mining operation.

Here’s what caught my eye:

Can’t make it out?

Here’s a close-up view.

Yep, someone had driven cattle up and fenced them in for grazing---at quite an angle no less---in a small pen near the top of the dam.

Hope the cattle enjoyed the view…!

NEW WOODLAND PRESERVE: LOOKS LIKE A GO!
I have received confirmation from several different sources that the Ohio Public Works Commission has approved a grant to buy (and preserve) 12 acres of land off  Bishop Road, south of Hawthorne Drive, adjacent to city-owned parkland.

The property contains several significant wetlands and streams that hold, cleanse and carry storm water runoff from quite a few communities to our south.
The streams are part of the Euclid Creek water system, which empties into Lake Erie…where we get our drinking water from.

Papers have yet to be signed, and final details are still pending, but it looks like there will be a new woodland preserve established in Highland Heights by summer’s end.

The property will be deeded to the non-profit West Creek Conservancy group.
Importantly, it will be subject to a conservation easement, guaranteeing that the woodlands will remain undeveloped and in their natural state for all time.

One caveat of concern.
I understand that there may be some sort of grant-matching requirement that has to be met in order for the deal to close.

I’ve asked before and I’ll ask it again:

Will Council---which so quickly, and without any meaningful public discussion, forked over $800,000 of taxpayer money to assist in a commercial redevelopment project---be willing to invest a much smaller sum to secure a new woodland preserve, for Highland Heights residents to enjoy for generations to come?

I can only hope that the answer to that question will be a resounding YES!

DON’T FEED THE DEER---OR ELSE

In March 2013, after receiving repeated complaints from Aberdeen neighborhood residents, Council began discussing the idea of enacting an ordinance that would ban the feeding of deer and other “nuisance” animals in the city.

The topic was discussed by Council’s Safety Service Committee several times in May and June 2013.
Thereafter the Committee presented a proposed feeding ban ordinance to Council.
Residents spoke out for and against the proposed ban at the July 23^rd Council meeting.
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2013/07-23-13_council_minutes.htm

It proved to be a hot button issue

So hot that, with Council elections looming, Council voted to table the discussion rather than take action on the proposed ordinance.

The matter lay dormant until earlier this month.

I can’t say I blame Council for being cautious.
Deer feeding is, apparently, a hot button issue everywhere.

Take, for example, this May 7^th Associated Press story, which reported:

A suburban Minneapolis man who had a long-running dispute with two
neighbors over feeding deer opened fire on the couple and killed one of them, hours after his son was arrested on suspicion of threatening to burn down their house, according to criminal charges filed Wednesday….
http://nyti.ms/1kZDq4N

Council removed the “no deer feeding” ordinance from the table last Tuesday.

Quite a few residents spoke during the public portion section of the Council meeting.

As before, the discussion was quite lively.

Sean Milroy, who unsuccessfully ran for a Council-at-large seat last November, suggested that rather than banning feeding, the city should allow residents with large lots to engage in bow hunting of deer on their property.

Another resident was less than enthusiastic about Milroy’s proposal:

“I am a firearms owner. I don’t know if it’s the best idea to have residents walk outdoors and start shooting at deer….
Whether it’s right that people are feeding deer, I don’t know…
Is it correct to make a sweeping law because of an obvious dispute between neighbors?  For the police department it will be a burden to enforce…”

Edie Nelson was distressed that the ordinance would prevent her from feeding squirrels:

"I feed birds and squirrels…It’s my hobby.
To my knowledge I have not created a nuisance.
I don’t want you to tell me who I can feed in my backyard..
If it (the feeding ordinance) is passed, all residents will be punished.
It’s not necessary, at least as currently written.”

In my mind, the most compelling argument was one offered by Bari Pinto, who is directly impacted by her Aberdeen neighbor’s deer feeding, as it regularly attracts huge collections of deer in Pinto's backyard.

Instead of fighting over whether feeding deer constituted a “property right” as her deer-feeding neighbor previously claimed, Pinto focused on a different concept: neighborliness.

“The reason I’m sad is that good neighbors now need to be ordinanced.”

 After giving several dictionary definitions of neighborliness, Pinto summed the concept up:

“Do unto others as you would have done unto you. 
If I was told that something I was doing disrupted my neighbors, I would stop out of courtesy and respect…
I would stop feeding deer out of concern and courtesy for my neighbors.
 If I knew that a neighbor had chased a deer with his lawn mower because the deer was hissing at him I would stop…

Some neighbors think that it’s only their rights and desires that matter.

It’s unfortunate that we need this ordinance…

I choose not to escalate hostility because I’m a good neighbor.”

Council passed a slightly amended version of the deer feeding ordinance, Ordinance 15-2013, at the May 13^th Council meeting.

The vote wasn’t unanimous.
Councilman Leo Lombardo voted no, explaining that he did not believe it was a serious enough city-wide issue to warrant legal intervention.
The amended version of Ordinance 15-2013 allows bird feeding and removed references to domestic pets...which means that:

Pets can legally dine al fresco this summer

 DEER FEEDING ORDINANCE:

A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSENSUS

Amy Francis, the Aberdeen resident whose deer-feeding apparently ignited the controversy, also addressed Council.
She identified herself as:

“..the evil deer feeder that everyone is talking to”

Francis said she:

“…was brought into this ugly, nasty dispute.
On the one hand you have the squeaky wheels.
On the other hand you have people who enjoy feeding the animals. We have a petition signed by over 100 people…
You (Council) are acting as judge and jury. It’s not your responsibility to do that…
You allow people to feed birds. Guess who likes bird food? Deer do. “

Francis then went on to make an interesting suggestion:

“The statute (proposed deer feeding ordinance) will only create more problems.
There are two more options.
You can allow your constituents to speak about this. Allow them to vote.
Or you can rewrite this.
Not create a blanket law taking away property rights.
Instead adopt an addendum to the existing nuisance law so you can deal with it on a case by case basis.”

The last suggestion was the road map to consensus.

It’s too bad that the Council majority who passed the deer feeding ordinance chose not to take that route.

It would have been a much more graceful political solution.

And, importantly, I believe it would have garnered every Council member's unanimous support.

Let's face it.
The real issue here----the one that the city definitely has both an interest in and the power to address---is nuisance.
The reality is:

The feeding of wildlife can---but does not always---create a nuisance

 And let's face it.Taking a nuisance approach wouldn’t have gotten Amy Francis off the hook.
 Far from it.

It’s pretty clear that her deer feeding has created a nuisance in her tightly developed neighborhood.

Focusing on nuisance, rather than adopting an outright feeding ban, would leave residents whose activities don’t cause an actual nuisance…residents like Edie Nelson and her squirrels---unmolested and in peace.

It was an approach advocated by Councilman Ed Hargate who, nevertheless, voted for the deer feeding ban.

It would have addressed the concerns of Councilman Leo Lombardo, who wasn't convinced that the Aberdeen deer feeding dispute represented a widespread city problem that needed to be addressed via a broadly drafted animal feeding ban.
It also would have addressed governmental overreaching, an issue of concern expressed by many of the residents in attendance at last week's Council meeting.

The nuisance animal feeding ordinance.
A missed opportunity for consensus.

What a shame.

The animal feeding ordinance passed by Council on Tuesday