In most of North Carolina (and the East Cost for that matter), people recognize that the natural ecological balance is way out of whack with regards to deer populations. The removal of predators has been met with increased suburban vegetation as a food source and decreased hunting pressures. Deer populations must be controlled to re-establish forest ecosystems. One method in the “eco-quiver” is controlled bow hunting in urban areas.

However, southern Orange County isn’t like the rest of North Carolina. Here it’s all about what makes you feel good. Killing Bambi's doe mother doesn’t feel good. Just because you’re a self-acclaimed “environmentalist” doesn’t mean you care about things like forest ecosystems more than saving Bambi's mother. In the world of Orange Progressive politics, science is the handmaiden of feel good environmental public policy, not the other way around.

Back in the real world, Dr. Emile DeVito, a conservation ecologist and Manager of Science and Stewardship for the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, states we are facing an ecological disaster from the deer overbrowsing. “Land managers are aware of the catastrophic impact of super-abundant deer on tree regeneration and the loss of biodiversity in the metropolitan New York region’s herbaceous forest wildflowers. Now another phenomenon, the loss of the woody shrub layer, has reached a critical stage across most of the region (outside the New Jersey Pine Barrens).”

The good news is that the damage is repairable. “In the Watchung Reservation, a parkland area in Union County, N.J., fencing that has kept deer out for 13 years has helped promote the regrowth of native woody trees and shrubs and perennial herbaceous plants in spots that had absolutely zero visible native plants in the understory when the fences — called exclosures — were erected in 1995.

These new areas of forest understory are dense and shade the ground, and they are suppressing invasive alien species that were abundant at the time of fencing. There is variation between plots; in some locations alien species are still common. But in every plot native species are now the dominant vegetation. In fact, in some locations — in the deep shade cast by native, regenerating trees — shrubs and wildflowers are outcompeting alien weeds!

It is clear that the only way to give our forests a chance to recover from both overbrowsing by deer and alien plant invasions is a two-step approach: 1. a drastic reduction in the deer herd, to a level so low as to achieve the functional equivalent of an exclosure (winter deer populations must be about 5 per square mile for a drastically damaged forest to begin to recover), and 2. the collection of local native seeds by local master gardeners or other volunteers, with associated gardening programs to re-introduce the native shrub layer where it cannot return on its own.”

How overcrowded are local woods with deer?

According to Duke University professor Norm Christensen, there wasn't a deer in sight 38 years ago when he began a long career studying the ecosystem of Duke Forest. Now, deer are so abundant they've inserted themselves into his research. (North Carolina's deer population has increased from about 670,000 in 1984 to more than 1.25 million in 2007, according to the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.)

In the 7000 acre Duke Forest just north of Chapelboro, it was estimated in 2009 that about 900 “Deermowers” munch their way through the understory. Duke held a hunt to remove about 100 deer. However, even at 800 deer, that equates to about 70 deer per square mile, 14 times the optimal goal of 5 for restoring an ecosystem, as advocated by Dr. DeVito.

Local “Bambicologists” decry even these modest attempts. According to Ms. Jane Norton, a sustainability educator, who moved to be near Duke Forest 22 years ago, there aren’t too many deer. ”I care about all of nature and think it's imperative…to live in harmony with the natural world. I think our purpose on this earth is to learn from nature. I don't believe in playing God.”

Chapel Hill is overpopulated with Bambicologists eating the understory from your fiscal house as well. So it should come as no surprise to Pulpsters that the town council stands ready to shoot down a proposal for an urban deer hunt within city limits. Councilor Sally Greene said, “I cannot support an urban archery program, no way, no how.” Councilor Lauren Easthom said, ”I'm sensitive to this issue, but I can't support anything in town that involves archery and residents.” (See Chapel Hill Herald Bambicology Story.)

Of course, it's too much to expect Councilors Easthom and Greene to overcome their ignorance and biases against an urban archery hunt. Apparently, it never occurred to them that the hunt is conducted from an elevated tree stand, and that the arrow shot is made at usually about 20 yards, in a decidedly downward trajectory. It's not like archery practice at the local Girl Scout camp.

Back in the real world, Dr. DeVito suggest the following steps be taken when confronted with deer overpopulation. “Deer reduction can only occur with drastic changes to deer management, such as:
1. tax credits or other monetary incentives for every female deer (doe) harvested by an individual.
2. doe harvest requirements for landowners who receive a preferential, lowered property tax assessment for engaging in forestry programs that protect natural resources. Without aggressive management to reduce doe abundance, forestry programs have little chance of success in regenerating trees and other forest components. Deer fences may be substituted for hunting programs, where surrounding lands are not accessible to hunters.
3. economic incentives for municipalities and counties to initiate doe control programs.
4. legalizing the sale of local venison for food and hides for small manufacturing enterprises.
5. free butchering of deer for venison donations to homeless shelters.
6. other changes and innovations that represent thinking 'out of the box.' ”

As pointed out by Dr, DeVito, not only does restoring the deer population balance increase biodiversity, it also increases the absorption of storm runoff and decreases erosion and siltation of water courses.

Bambi and his kind needn’t worry about destroying Orange County ecosystems as long as they remain cute and don't bite. Public policy will be bent towards feelings over facts.

Oh, they should also keep a Democratic Party affiliation.

In the continuing saga which is the battle royale between the right for people to be free from abusive public behavior of others versus the right for beggars to ask for free money from others (an ability most highly developed in local politicians), the town of Chapel Hill is coming firmly down in the corner of panhandlers. Despite the efforts of that loveable, but wayward thinker, Councilor Matt Czjakowski, the right to beg for money is too precious to the social well-being of Chapel Hill society to restrict any further.

Mr. Czjakowski made the silly mistake of believing that he could look to town governments like Burlington, Vermont, i.e., towns with socialist leaning public policy, to find panhandling control laws that would meet the acceptable rigors required by Orange Progressives. He was wrong.

On 14 January 2009, Mr. Czjakowski proposed adopting the Burlington ordinances which would have increased panhandling free zones around bus stops from six feet to fifteen feet and increased fines from a maximum of $50 to a maximum of $500. In his words, ““The reason that I petitioned for this, obviously, is that there is sentiment within Chapel Hill and amongst other people who are familiar with Chapel Hill that Franklin Street is not a place necessarily that you always want to go. Not just because of panhandling, but because of loitering and aggressive behavior, use of loud obscenities and things of that nature.”

A fifteen foot beggar-free zone is just too much for solicitous Chapel Hill Councilors. Councilor Sally Greene, “friend of her backyard” neighborhood conservation district advocate, crack Lot 5 town negotiator, and a member of the Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness executive board, said Mr. Czajkowski is “asking the wrong question. I think the right question is the right balance for our community given some competing interests, and one interest that our citizens have is the right to panhandling and the right to be on the street as long as they're not being aggressive. I think we have an ordinance that goes far enough. I don't think we need to look into making the ordinance stricter than it is. I think we can look at enforcement and think about whether our existing ordinances are being enforced enough.”

Councilor Mark Kleinschmidt joined in on the “Mad Matt” bashing by saying the town has done a good job of responding to specific issues. Demonstrating his keen grasp of human dynamics, Mr. Kleinschmidt apparently believes that his private warnings to the Chapel Hill Police Department last year to back off panhandling law enforcement solved the panhandling problem. (In Orange Progressive logic, if you declare a problem not to exist, it does not exist.) Mr. Kleinschmidt is silent about the embarrassment caused by “Mad Matt’s” persistent public elevation of the non-enforcement of local panhandling laws. (To an Orange Progressive, if you remain silent about an embarassing situation, then the embarassment never occurred.)

(See the Herald Sun Soliciting Story.)

As reported in April 2008 in the Pulp (see Pulp Exposer Expose), civil rights are important to Orange Progressive politicians. Not in the manner of Dr. King marching in Memphis for the rights of municipal workers, but in the manner of browbeating municipal workers (the local police) not to do their jobs.

Rogue Councilor Matt Czajkowski, continuing his streak of not drinking the Orange Progressive Cool-Aid, raised the specter that Chapel Hill may not have a monopoly on good governance, in general, and may not have workable solutions to unwanted public behavior such as public urination, public shouting of obscenities, or public genital exhibition, in particular. As can be seen on video (see Chapel Hill Meeting Video at the five hour mark), on 25 June 2008 Mr. Czajkowski spoke up about people not wanting to visit Franklin Street. He spoke about finding successful, proven ways to counteract unwanted public behavior downtown.

The bastions of Orange Progressive civil rights, Councilors Easthom, Greene, and Kleinschmidt acted as if Mr. Czajkowski had publicly urinated on the council table.

In a surreal demonstration as to how “reasonableness” is considered “unreasonable” in southern Orange, Councilor Greene led the charge by going off on the assertion that “it's already been done”. She did so without once admitting that there is a real problem with unwanted public behavior in downtown Chapel Hill.

Councilor Easthom bemoaned the problem as not being one of irresponsible behavior for which an individual should be held accountable. For her, the problem is one of the social condition imposed by society on an individual. Apparently, homelessness induces public urination lewdness, and obscenity.

But the piece de resistance of surreal argument belongs to Councilor Mark Kleinschmidt. He used Mr. Czajkowski giving the example of a “street person” shouting public obscenities as “proof” of Mr. Czajkowski being biased against street people in terms of their civil rights. Without Mr. Czajkowski having said anything like that either directly or indirecty, Councilor Kleinschmidt had no compunction in charging Councilor Czajkowski with being only against unwanted public behavior by street people. Apparently, Councilor Kleinschmidt feels that if 95% of the public urination is caused by a small minority of people, then implementing effective ordinances against public urination by those people would be a violation of their civil rights.

Pulpsters remember that Mr. Kleinschmidt previously has marched down to Chapel Hill Police Department headquarters and read the riot act… to the police concerning a gentlemen in a wheelchair who has publicly urinated in front of children at Kidzu. To Mr. Kleinschmidt, the rights of a serial lewd pervert demand more protection than the rights of young children.

No word on when room and board at their home will be offered the Franklin Street flasher by either Councilor Easthom, Greene, or Kleinschmidt.

Civil rights are important to Orange Progressive politicians. Not in the manner of Dr. King marching in Memphis for the rights of municipal workers, but in the manner of browbeating municipal workers (the local police) not to do their jobs.

Local politicians often wonder out loud why more people don’t visit Franklin Street. You might get the chance to visit with an older gentleman in a wheelchair. He might lewdly solicit you if you're a young woman. He might urinate in front of you. Then again, he might just be content with exposing his genitalia to you.

The flashy Franklin Street fixture has been cited dozens of times for his questionable behavior. So what do Councilperson Sally Greene and Councilperson Mark Kleinschmidt do about this situation? Why they march right down to Chapel Hill Police Department headquarters and read the riot act… to the police.

The gentleman in the wheelchair has civil rights. He can’t be stopped from cruising Franklin Street sidewalks. He can’t be stopped from urinating at will in front of Kidzu.

Councilpersons Greene and Kleinschmidt appear to prefer to protect the rights of a serial lewd pervert over protecting the rights of young children.

No word on the affordable housing to be offered the Franklin Street flasher by the town council.

In early 2007 the Chapel Hill town council voted to approve $25,000 to write a new town inclusionary zoning ordinance. In charge of this yet-another task force project were Councilman Sally Greene, former Chapel Hill planning board member, research attorney, “friend of her backyard”, neighborhood conservation district advocate, and crack Lot 5 town negotiator, and Councilman Mark Kleinschmidt, executive director of yet another local tax-exempt organization and on-again, off-again political power couple paramour. The council contracted with White and Smith LLC, a national planning and law group with offices in Kansas City, Missouri, and Charleston, South Carolina, to write the new inclusionary zoning ordinance, despite the town employing an in-house attorney who provides counsel on zoning issues. (What’s inclusionary zoning? It’s the fancy cumbayah (see Phictionary) code phrase for affordable housing (again, see Phictionary).)

So where’s the ordinance? According to Ms. Greene $25,000 isn’t enough to write a zoning ordinance. The Chapel Hill Inclusionary Zoning Task Force needs more money. As reported by the Chapel Hill Herald, they also need a new consultant to ”get us to the goal line.”

Ms. Greene told the town council that the $25,000 “affordably written” ordinance was not what her task force expected. Her explanation? The crackerjack task force used an out-of-town consultant who didn’t hear the concerns of the task force.

Did the town council vote to require the contractor to deliver what was promised on their contract? No.

Did the town council vote to put another councilperson in charge? No.

Did the town council vote to have the town attorney finish the job? No.

The town council approved hiring a new consultant and using up to another $10,000 for the zoning ordinance.

No word on what bonuses will be awarded town staff for this brilliant example of municipal administration.

No word on whether or not the town council and its task force realize that Charleston and Kansas City aren’t in North Carolina.

See CHH Cumbayah Finance Story. (See Ms. Greene’s Bio.)