Town and Country’s deer go global.
Town and Country deer in 2001. (Post-Dispatch file photo)
The Economist is a British-based newsmagazine (albeit one that calls itself a “newspaper”) that has been covering world economic and political news since 1843 — don’t miss this week’s 14-page special report on the Brazilian economy. It is a serious magazine (newspaper) for serious news consumers.
But this week, under a St. Louis dateline and headline reading “The War on Bambi,” The Economist pays special attention to Town and Country’s long and controversial efforts to control its deer population:
The community suffers, on average, a collision a week between a deer and a car, and the animals are scoffing plants of all kinds in yards and gardens. After a series of heated hearings the city has decided to spend $150,000 on getting sharpshooters to kill 100 deer and veterinarians to sterilise another 100. The city has already tried other methods including paying for the relocation of deer, an ineffective tactic (the deer just came back) that has now been outlawed. The suburb has also banned people from feeding the deer, which has upset residents who like them.
We’ve always tried to promote global solutions to this problem. Nine years ago, when TWA (of sainted memory) was offering non-stop flights to Paris for $358 and Town and Country was relocating deer at $367 apiece, we suggested the city save money by sending its deer to Paris. Last year, when the Wall Street Journal reported that Komodo dragons were eating goats and small children on remote Indonesian islands, we suggested there were some obvious synergies — either ship the deer to Indonesia or ship some Komodo dragons to T&C.
We were scoffed at. But now The Economist — noted for its free-trade, pro-globalization editorial views — has recognized the problem. Ahem.
Kevin Horrigan is deputy editor of the editorial page. He writes editorials on local, state and national politics and public policy and also contributes a signed column to the Sunday Commentary Page. "The Old Sport" is a former sports columnist for the Post-Dispatch and for 10 years hosted radio talk shows on KMOX and KTRS in St. Louis. He lives in South St. Louis with his wife, Kate, and a dream of one day starting a professional catfish noodling tour. 
The deer were there first!
So were predators, only they aren’t there now. So humans need to fill that role. Lock and load…
Why don’t those county idiots let people go hunt them with bows, donate the meat to homeless shelters, and actually make money on it by charging for deer tags?
I have a friend that lives in T&C. The deer are out of control and his idiot neighbor feeds them constantly. You can’t drive down Mason bordering Queeny park without having to avoid a herd of them.
Why pay $150,000 for sharpshooters? Are the veterinarians charging for their sterilization services? Even if they are, wouldn’t it be more humane to simply sterilize rather than kill?
My sister lives in Town and Country and the deer are not that bad at all. Mostly people are upset because they eat on the plants. My sister planted things that deers do not like, and solved the problem. The deer are beautiful and do not hurt anything.
So what the deer were there first? Deer do not own land, pay taxes, vote, or drive the roads. Feed ‘em to the homeless!!
The people in T&C that think that it is any different to the deer if they are killed by sharpshooters or hunters, are sadly mistaken. I find it unbelievable that they continue to believe that the deer are more important than the people that are hitting them daily. There is a proven way to maintain the deer population…bowhunting……but that would be too cruel. Let’s spend a fortune and still kill them…just more humanely?
Marymae, you hit on something that I remember was discussed earlier on this same website concerning the overpopulation. Sterilization is an option, but it is expensive, traumatic for deer, and a temporary resolution that doesn’t address the immediate issue.
It’s expensive because you need to capture the deer (tranquilizing them) in order to sterilize them. Therefore, you’ll still need to hire the sharpshooters.
It’s traumatic. I shouldn’t have to convince you of that. It WILL hurt for some time. You can’t tell a deer to take a week off work and keep ice on it. Some incisions will re-open, have a good chance of getting infected and will kill the deer in a painful, non-humane manner.
Finally, this solution doesn’t resolve the actual symptoms. Deer will continue to hit cars and possibly die (a well-placed bullet, crude as it sounds, will cause less pain) and destroy property by foraging. As the sterilized deer die off, new, unsterilized populations will come in from neighboring areas, so this solution is only temporary at best.
Last of all, speaking as a hunter, there is no way the city should be hiring sharpshooters if those sharpshooters are hunting with firearms. I don’t care how good they are, the potential for collateral damage with a rifle is simply irresponsible. Get bow hunters or use fast-acting tranquilizer guns with a lethal injection administered immediately thereafter. Bullets ricochet far too easily and even low-powered rounds can pass through soft tissue and exit the animal largely intact and move on to other targets.
Frabax… Morally, everyone owns the land, including the non-human animals on it. It’s every living being’s birthright. Get over your anthropocentrism.