September 30, 2006


Wildlife Waste Is Major Water Polluter, Studies Say (David A. Fahrenthold, 9/29/06, Washington Post)

Does a bear leave its waste in the woods?

Of course. So do geese, deer, muskrats, raccoons and other wild animals. And now, such states as Virginia and Maryland have determined that this plays a significant role in water pollution.

Scientists have run high-tech tests on harmful bacteria in local rivers and streams and found that many of the germs -- and in the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, a majority of them-- come from wildlife dung. The strange proposition that nature is apparently polluting itself has created a serious conundrum for government officials charged with cleaning up the rivers.

Part of the problem lies with the unnaturally high populations of deer, geese and raccoons living in modern suburbs and depositing their waste there. But officials say it would be nearly impossible, and wildly unpopular, to kill or relocate enough animals to make a dent in even that segment of the pollution.

If you proposed exterminating deer and geese in particular, exurbanites and suburbanites would be wildly enthusiastic.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 30, 2006 10:16 AM


Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 30, 2006 12:45 PM

Proposal for eliminating deer: archery.

Proposal for eliminating geese: shotguns.

Posted by: Lou Gots at September 30, 2006 2:40 PM

No, no, no!
You do not want to eliminate and or eradicate, you want to harvest on a large scale, new arrivals will ensure the crop, while significantly reduced, is always there.
Now, what to do with said harvested "good eats"?
Here in rural/suburban CA, with many deer, not yet a pest, and many wild turkeys, a pest, I'd guarantee you any civic/volunteer group having a venison/wild turkey dinner benefit would oversell every event.
Gotta think you, oj, and almost all the refered to exurbanites and suburbanites would love to dine on these wild game entrees, especially for a good cause!

Posted by: Mike Daley at September 30, 2006 10:41 PM

If the deer was shot in cornfield, it tastes pretty good. If the deer was shot in a swamp (or "wetland," to be PC), it tastes like swamp. I've never had a good wild duck (only ones where the slightly fishy flavor was successfully camouflaged), and I would imagine those Canada geese who live off of chemically-fertilized golf course grass would be pretty nasty. Sell licenses to commercial harvesters to turn them into fertilizer and pet food, and use the money to feed the homeless.

They do that with rough fish in the city lakes here in Minneapolis. They net out the whole lake, throw back the game fish, and haul the carp and bullheads to the processing plant.

Posted by: ted welter at October 1, 2006 1:04 AM

Ah, MN, especially urban Minneapolis.
Where did you ever discover cornfield deer,or fish duck?
oj is New England, and I'll venture the pest like deer there thrive on orchard fruit and the slaved over home gardens. No swamps, but, of course there aren't any swamps in MN either.
Maybe you're NJ transplant?
Fishy duck? Maybe Brandt shot on San Francisco Bay, even tho' in the '50's they tasted more like butter than fish. MidWest Flyway ducks over MN would certainly not be "fishy".
All that aside, any community benefit organization serving venison/wild turkey/wild duck-goose meals would raise tons of $$$'s outside the blue cities.

Posted by: Mike Daley at October 2, 2006 9:35 PM