Did you see Peter Jennings on ABC News talk about deer and car collisions. They had some fella saying that the last thing he would think about is an animal being out in the middle of the road when your driving at 65 miles an hour. Heck, that would be my main concern. Get this, this genious was driving through "deer valley" or "deer canyon" where ever that is.

The reporter said that the increase in the number of accidents is to be expected when man moves to these remote regions in deer habitats. They mentioned that this is the mating season and that the deer will be more active. But, was it mentioned that this mating is what causes the problem? No. One way was mentioned to solve the problem. Put up fences. It was said that this would cost the tax payers $200,000+. Not very feasible is it?

It was never mentioned that hunters could play an important role. As a matter of fact, the sport of hunting was never mentioned. This not only would be an acceptible method of animal control, it would not cost the tax payers a dime. Unless, of coarse, the tax payers are buying hunting license. Why do these people fail to acknowledge what we enjoy as a popular sport and way of life. I know it wouldn't change what has already been reported, but I'm thinking about writing ABC and voicing my opinion.

Ok, here's the story from the ABC website. Apparently they list several resolutions, none of which mention hunting.

ABC News Website

Man, he IS a few bricks shy of a load. What the heck would he expect to see while driving through mountain roads? A hooker??? Some people are as dumb as rocks.

A guy like that should stay out of mountains and off mountain roads--everybody that knows him personally should probably do the same---I got an idea, instead of fencing the deer away from the roads, Lets put a fence around the cities--so he and his kind are finally protected--and so they cant get out.

He is a PETER alright

Why does it surprise you that an industry that has demonized hunting for a generation, would not mention it as a remedy for population control of deer? While I am not familiar with Colorado in general or the area around Littleton described in the incident, I do know that Colorado does have a hunting season and if hunting in that area were an effective means of population control accidents would on the decline. I also know that too many hunters will not take Does under any circumstances and target only Bucks, any Buck, as long as there are antlers present. This does not lead to population control and is a primary argument against hunting as a form of population control. Until we, the hunters, team with our state wildlife management organization and effectively use hunting for that purpose we will see this continue and we will continue to be disregarded as a means of population control. This does not even address the issues regarding those that do not see hunting as an alternative for all of the emotional nonsense that abounds.

The text version for the media of this story was in yesterdays USA today.

At least they didn't BLAME hunting for the collissions. A short article in my local paper, taken from API mentioned both mating AND hunting as increasing deer movement at this time of year.

I should quit my job and get the contract to put up fences at $250K a mile. Who ever gave that quote was hoping for early retirement. I saw the story too.