My view of the deer culling proposal at Binghamton University is not a popular one.  I oppose it. Most responses to my questioning, although not certainly all,  have been patronizing or at least impatient. There is after all a matter of urgency in this “deer problem” and there is a company with a well developed sales pitch.

Byron Katie , a self help author, has posited this question to her readers: Is it true? Since reading that , I have often considered the question.

If you are a supporter of the deer killing, I ask that you would apply this question to the information that has been provided in defense of the Deer Culling.(Killing)

The company, White Buffalo, who are a business that provides sharp shooters to colleges and other Institutions often along with an environmental pitch, describe themselves as deeply committed to the environment. They say they offer the best and most humane solution to the Deer Problem. But is there a deer problem? Is that true? And what form does that problem take and how has the consensus that a problem exists been reached?

Do by all means check out the website of this “Animal problem” business.http://

Read also :

While you are doing that, please consider the name of the Business.

How do suppose it was chosen?

Does the juxtaposition of the name of an animal whose spiritual significance is deeply sacred to Native People’s give you a leg up when you are seeking an Environmental image?

Is that an integral choice? It seems unlikely to me that Native people would choose the slaughter solution. Again I ask, where is the truth in spirit and actuality in this company position?  It seems similar in character to the Environmental position of the Fracking Empire. In both cases, the initial proposal is assumed to be true, but is it?

Exactly how are the deer a problem? How is the forest degraded? Is providing easy food to the deer baiting them? Are the deer a problem? Was an exhaustive study done, or is Binghamton simply accepting the ‘college package’ offered by White Buffalo?

Are we in charge of the natural world? And if we are, what kind of a job have we done?

How many lives have been saved or improved by the dominance model. (Declare it a problem and kill it) Isn’t this the premise of most or all wars? Whose life has been improved by violence ?

Is the innate balance of nature to be ignored one more time by the experts?

Could we not accept the possibility that a little discomfort initially could bring lasting benefits and a True Nature Preserve?