I have ridden the bike paths of Shawnee Mission Park to the Kaw River as well as ridden along other stream systems in the area. If the park deer had safe access to the Kaw River and other natural areas via green belts, they would be able to migrate as they do when not isolated by development. Connecting corridors are used successfully in Europe, as well as green bridges over highways.
This is not a problem of overpopulation of the deer but of poor planning, zoning and human encroachment. We should help these animals find food and shelter rather than slaughter them due to our own lack of foresight. This can still be done at Shawnee Mission Park by connecting the parkway system in a way that allows the deer to move from area to area. Green tracts that allow the deer to move around without walking across highways is the key.
If people are concerned with Lyme disease, they should take appropriate precautions or spend their outdoor time in parking lots. Eliminating every deer in the park would not halt this disease.
Deer are beautiful animals, not just meals on the hoof for poor people.
Georgia Mueller
Belton
There are two areas that you are uninformed on. The frist is the idea that deer migrate. Deer do not in fact migrate. They have a very seclusive home range that they will stay in the majority of their lives. if a doe is born in Shawnee Mission Park it will stay with its mother and raise other deer in the same home range as its mother. The home range of the average or typical deer is roughly 2-3 square miles. This is generally the size of the entire Park. So even if there was a mile wide section of timber and natural habitat stretching from Shawnee mission Park to the Kaw river the deer in the park would still stay in the park the majority of their lives.
Ths second area that you are misinformed on is the idea that anyone wants to kill all of the deer in the park. That could not be further from the truth. The deer in the park need to be managed down to a number that the habitat can acctually sustain. the park is currently so over loaded with deer that they are destroying the biology of the park. The plant life in the park is struggling to keep up with the deer.
The deer will always be in the park and should always be in the park. They just need to be managed to a safe number to protect the herd from disease and killing all the plant life under six feet tall.
Posted by: rjj | March 05, 2009 at 04:17 PM
While I agree that development in KC is choppy and not located contiguous to the last development. Sometimes there is a mile between developments with undeveloped land between. This traps the animals in that space. Development should be contiguous to limit the encroachment, but that doesn't always fall into developers/politicians lobbying and campaign money plans.
However, I dont think only poor people hunt deer? Actually is mostly middle class.
Posted by: Stifled Freedom | March 03, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Don't worry, Georgia. If this "green bridge" idea wasn't in the recently passed "stimulus" bill - it sounds like a great candidate for the next one.
Posted by: JUNGLEJACK | March 03, 2009 at 08:50 AM
"This is not a problem of overpopulation of the deer..."
Actually, I think it is. The deer population in this area is exploding, especially due to the lack of natural predators and hunting opportunities in the surrounding urban areas.
I don't believe anyone has suggested completely eliminating deer from local parks, as you imply. Rather, the call seems to be for the population to be reduced to more sustainable levels.
Posted by: Marctnts | March 03, 2009 at 07:13 AM