Seen and Herd -

This article just plain sickens me. Here we have two lesbians living together, and getting front page attention about something they obviously have no clue about. NATURE, the need to figure out their own issues, before trying to interfere with nature that surrounds them.

It is obvious the Sun enjoys the attention it gets from running articles like this. Why not run another article about how OM hurt himself running on his treadmill.

extremely biased writing. Perhaps you are trying to get a job with the NY times.

I'm so glad to see these two taking a stand to protect the animals on their property. I've had similar experiences with hunters poaching on my property and shooting a gun just at the tree line to my yard. On two weekends he argued with me although our property is clearly marked. After I called Baltimore County Police, the hunter knew I was serious about prosecution and did not return. But, each new hunting season, we begin a new season of fear in my neighborhood. It's a pity that those who wish to hunt are too lazy to go to truly rural areas to slaughter. I also do not want my granddaughter to see the bloody carcass paraded around in the back of a pick up truck either. Something else these guys are prone to do around here.

It is truly sad that the uneducated get all the press. These woman are allowed to restrict hunting on their property and should if that is their wish. They should not be allowed to break the law by feeding deer, that are a public nuisance. Or keeping an animal alive for a whole year that should have been put down out of compassion.If someone wants to hunt on property when they have permission that is also their right. I wish I could afford the property in that area myself so hunting would not be so difficult for me, but alas I am a struggling biologist who will always see the need for predation.

First let me say that I am a 39 year old female...I don't hunt, but know people who do. I wouldn't say that I am pro or anti hunter...but what I would say is that I find this entire article obsurd! Yes these women have the right to keep people from trespassing on their property but they do not have the right the interfer with people who have the legal right to hunt on other properties that they have permission to hunt on. Furthermore they have no right to interfere if they think/know that someone is hunting without permission on someone elses property, they do however have the right to call the police or DNR, to say that they phycially fought a man for his bow and arrow is ridiculous.
Here are two proclaimed lesbians who you would think would be open minded, and less likely to judge,considering their lifestyle, but this article proves that they are just the opposite...to depict male hunters as "crouching man with a taste for fawn meat", "predators" and "crazed men with guns" is insulting to men and women everywhere. The statement they they have "bloodied deer running, begging for shelter" is equally obsurd, deer are wild animals not pets and to imply differently is just a tactic to sway people opinions. Dogs take joy in human companionship, deer do not. I find these two women to be very narrowminded, their comments are so anti-male that I find incomprehensible that the Sun Paper would print such one sided dribble. I guess the author can say well I contacted DNR...I do think I read about 3 lines out of the entire article from DNR...this is why I miss the News American....Baltimore readers truly suffer from having only one newspaper that is so onesided, facts are facts and opinions are opinions, its a sad day though when two womens opinions are printed as facts that misrepresent an entire group of people.

It amazes me that there are all these claims of injured deer but nobody is able to get a photo for evidence. This is BS animal rights propaganda.

True, it is illegal to hunt on someone's property with out premission. These women have every right to prohibit hunting on their property. On the other hand, let's not forget it is just as illegal to disrupt a hunter while he is legally hunting. If these women are going after hunters that have permission from the land owner to hunt on his property, there is nothing they can do about it...even if they are sitting in a tree within view of their property. They don't have to like it, but if they purposely interfere with a hunt, they are just as guilty as the poachers on their land.

If the Sun prints a story like this they should have the responsibility of telling the whole story, not just one side.

I'm not sure the article could have been more biased if the writer had tried. He/she is either totally uneducated, or simply has fallen victim to the anti-hunting hysteria these women propagate. These women have every right to restrict hunting on their property. However, off of their property is another matter. They should not be allowed to interfere with hunters lawfully harvesting deer. Regarding their feeding them...straight from DCNR's site: "This practice may have undesirable outcomes; it can lead to an increase in the overall health of adult deer temporarily, can contribute to an unnaturally high concentration of deer, and can lead to increased deer damage problems. Concentrating deer may facilitate the spread of diseases between deer, cause the depletion of habitat, and may impact forest regeneration. In suburban and urban areas, feeding deer may also lead to an increase in vehicle strikes near the feeding area. Feeding deer can decrease their fear of humans, which may lead to dangerous deer-human interactions. Likewise, deer concentrated at feeding sites may also increase the risk of people contracting Lyme disease." I wonder what their neighbors will think when one is involved in a deer-caused serious automobile accident?

KIM TAYLOR wrote:

First let me say that I am a 39 year old female...I don't hunt, but know people who do. I wouldn't say that I am pro or anti hunter...but what I would say is that I find this entire article obsurd! Yes these women have the right to keep people from trespassing on their property but they do not have the right the interfer with people who have the legal right to hunt on other properties that they have permission to hunt on. Furthermore they have no right to interfere if they think/know that someone is hunting without permission on someone elses property, they do however have the right to call the police or DNR, to say that they phycially fought a man for his bow and arrow is ridiculous.
Here are two proclaimed lesbians who you would think would be open minded, and less likely to judge,considering their lifestyle, but this article proves that they are just the opposite...to depict male hunters as "crouching man with a taste for fawn meat", "predators" and "crazed men with guns" is insulting to men and women everywhere. The statement they they have "bloodied deer running, begging for shelter" is equally obsurd, deer are wild animals not pets and to imply differently is just a tactic to sway people opinions. Dogs take joy in human companionship, deer do not. I find these two women to be very narrowminded, their comments are so anti-male that I find incomprehensible that the Sun Paper would print such one sided dribble. I guess the author can say well I contacted DNR...I do think I read about 3 lines out of the entire article from DNR...this is why I miss the News American....Baltimore readers truly suffer from having only one newspaper that is so onesided, facts are facts and opinions are opinions, its a sad day though when two womens opinions are printed as facts that misrepresent an entire group of people.

Kim,
I totally agree with your comments but this is about a lot more than just alternative lifestyles. These people are on the edge. Check out this forum http://www.topix.net/forum/source/baltimore-s...

One of the subjects of this article has posted.

They are breaking a couple of laws. One is interfering with legal hunters. Second, feeding the deer in such a manner is illegal in most states.

The AR movement has tried to place the value of animal life above that of humans/

Wow,
I knew the Sun was a biased liberal rag before, but that is seriously onesided. I am going to state what everyone else has. They have the right to protect their property from hunting. I have no problem with that but the light the article was written in about hunters is skewed. If you knowingly try to hunt on someones land with out permission thats called poaching. Secondly if they believe without hunting we can control deer populations, they are uneducated and insane. The deer populations in and around the loch raven area are very high. Go to the reservior's property and look at the vegetation. Most of the time is gone from the ground to six feet up. This type of article needs to culled from the news paper before it ever hits the press.
SHAME ON YOU SUN PAPER

I truly commend these women for sharing their story. It is nice to see that someone is taking a stand for these animals as well as against the hunters who seem to know no limits with their so called "sport". It is their property and they have a right to protect all that is on it. I am tired of having to explain to my children why some "hunter" has a dead deer tied to his truck. An act like that just proves that "hunters" are out to boost their own ego. It just goes to show that everyone can make a difference. Keep up the fight.

Bowchef wrote:

It amazes me that there are all these claims of injured deer but nobody is able to get a photo for evidence. This is BS animal rights propaganda.

Well maybe if you came out of the woods you would know that these pics exist. They do I have seen them myself and they are horrifying, to see such a beautiful animal suffer to a "sport"

After reading the article and then reading the comments, I had to read the article again. Nowhere in the article does it say they are interfering with legal hunters, only that they are looking for illegal hunters trying to sneak on their property.

Also, why is it okay for hunters to bait, feed and then kill the deer but it's not okay for compassionate people to feed them.

An article like this makes me wish that these women were my neighbors protecting my property for the good of the animals

Meredith wrote:

...I am tired of having to explain to my children why some "hunter" has a dead deer tied to his truck.

In your [self-admitted] repeated explanations to your children, did you explain that the hunter paid money (that supports wildlife conservation efforts) to purchase a license to legally pursue deer that are over-populated (since we humans removed natural predators)?
I'm sure you also explained that deer was going to be consumed, rather than rot by the side of the road after it did property damage to a car before it was struck.

Mike
Thanks for making a couple of points I forgot. Are they both vegeans? If not they dont have a right to put down people who hunt ethically for sport and food consumption.

Mike wrote:

<quoted text>
In your [self-admitted] repeated explanations to your children, did you explain that the hunter paid money (that supports wildlife conservation efforts) to purchase a license to legally pursue deer that are over-populated (since we humans removed natural predators)?
I'm sure you also explained that deer was going to be consumed, rather than rot by the side of the road after it did property damage to a car before it was struck.

No Mike I did not explain that since you paid for a license it is okay to kill a deer and strap it to your truck. At 2 and 4 years old it would be a little above their heads.

Nor is every deer either killed by a hunter or gets hit by a car. Since your comment states that it is done to stop overpopulation and this is your justification to hunting. Why don't you get behind the push for birth control for them or better yet why don't you focus your efforts on controlling the human race since it is this overpopulation that forces the deer into our everyday surroundings and giving them less and less of their own habitat. I'll tell you why - because you use overpopulation to justify that you are killers of innocent lives. Stop using it as an excuse - you are only fooling yourself.

Get a life! Go to college, get your Masters or Doctorate in Wildlife Biology, and THEN tell me a story!!!

Meredith wrote:

No Mike I did not explain that since you paid for a license it is okay to kill a deer and strap it to your truck. At 2 and 4 years old it would be a little above their heads. Nor is every deer either killed by a hunter or gets hit by a car. Since your comment states that it is done to stop overpopulation and this is your justification to hunting. <snip> ...Stop using it as an excuse - you are only fooling yourself.

Meredith,
You are correct, the complete truth would have been a bit over their heads. I am curious how you have handled those situations. Would you mind sharing?

I should have elaborated a bit as you missed part of my point; my apologies. I simply meant that for a dead deer, it is far better for it to be consumed than to have it rot by the side of the road. I did not say that all deer meet one of the two fates. I am a firm believer in the Bible though and that God gave us animals as food.(I won't get into the numerous verses that support my belief.)

I also did not mean to imply that overpopulation is THE reason for hunting. I legally hunt primarily because I enjoy it and I enjoy eating what I harvest as well as sharing that harvest with others. I enjoy the time in the woods. If I'm blessed enough to kill a game animal, that's great. If not, the time in nature was well spent anyway. I give Thanks daily for my life and what I do with it. No "excuses" needed from where I comfortably sit.

Anyway, have a great day.
-Mike

I am glad to lve in Canada where our papers have EDITORS that would not allow such one sided, bias drivel to get pinted. I fully support free speech but this RAG goes well beyond giving both sides equal time and space to express their views. I can not beleive that the general public would subscribe to this RAG or pick this RAG up at the news stands. But I guess people still read the National Inquirer and other such lowbrow rags.