Due Diligence

This administration has declared "due diligence" in creating the deer culling ordinance we are now mired in. However, a review of council minutes has shown this to hardly be the case.

Following are excerpts from council minutes which clearly indicate the types of priorities which were dominant throughout the creation of the "bow hunting ordinance".

11-30-01 Councilman Riley states he believes it's better to kill deer with a crossbow than have them hit by a car, after some residents object to his culling plan.

11-29-06 Ed Baznik, a resident, gives council a lengthy presentation on his plan to harvest deer. He is requesting a nuisance permit and a citywide program to kill deer.
Chief Nicastro states the permit guidelines are "very ambiguous and very broad" which should ensure Baznik his permit although he adds a deer harvest "didn't seem to be a popular thing" and he didn't think the city should encourage hunting on small lots. He adds the only other permit issued was to Mel Kurtz on Riverview.
Baznik misinforms the council that trespassing won't be a problem as the "deer drops within five to ten yards". He adds that anyway, its better if the deer die somewhere in the woods rather than along the highway where they can be seen.
Ron White comments that it might be a good idea to notify neighbors of the hunting and Baznik replies he wouldn't want to "create undo worry."

8-22-07 Chairman Grendel states he believes the ordinance "is too highly restrictive". Nicastro adds, "if it's too restrictive there would be nobody hunting." He also states that a five acre limit is too restrictive. He states he will only approve sites that "are discreet and not in public view". He wants to eliminate the bow hunting proficiency test, the minimum platform height requirement, the 300 ft. from a structure requirement, and the 100 ft. from a property line requirement. Council agrees.
Councilman Klepacz states, he sees "no problem with issuing as many permits per site as somebody wants."

9-18-07 Council members express a desire to eliminate minimum acreage requirement. Nicastro reminds them "the intent was to keep this in a semi rural neighborhood" because "the issue is trying to put space between neighbors so hunters aren't seen by neighbors who like the deer".

10-9-07 Council passes the ordinance with no objections.

11-18-07 A resident suggests the hunters should wear "safety orange". Chief Nicastro rejects this because "the consensus was that hunters would rather be invisible than be seen by everybody ..." and he was "opposed to drawing attention to everybody that's hunting."

6-23-09 A resident suggests enforcement of the 500 ft. state regulation requiring permission of all land owners within 500 ft of the approved hunting site. ODNR rep, Jason Hadsel responds that this is only enforced when a resident calls to complain. He states that the "whole goal here is to ... open up opportunit(ies) to hunt." Ed Baznik worries that this would "...shut the whole program down." Chairman Grendel rejects the idea and moves on.
The same resident suggests having all arrows marked with the owners name. Hadsel replies this would cost the hunter too much money. Baznik makes the inaccurate statement that "most arrows go right thru the deer".
Again, the idea of hunters wearing orange is suggested. Hadsel objects saying , "You're putting a billboard on somebody. You're putting a bullseye on someone (?)".Baznik replies "I wore orange and stood out like a sore thumb." Again , Grendel and Piteo reject the suggestion.

The above is a small sampling of the "due diligence" taken by Council in creating this ordinance. As is obvious, public safety was about the last consideration when many restrictions were eliminated. The ODNR rep, Hadsel, is primarily concerned with opening up hunting opportunities as were the few residents who actually witnessed this debacle. Is this the way you want your city leaders to create legislation?

[back to Silence Speaks Volumes page]