Because neither the public at-large, the press, nor the city council were warned of the imminence of a deer cull, no one was in a position to make sure the procedure was done to the letter of the law. We are all in the unfortunate position of having to ask questions after the fact. As an example of the kind of mishaps that result when government intentionally chooses to implement its actions secretively, today the city attorney confirmed for me that the sharpshooting did in fact occur in violation of the city code that prohibits the discharge of firearms within the city of Oshkosh. Some background:
On January 13, 2009, the city council passed ordinance 09-12, "Approval of variance to deer feeding ban and firearm discharge ordinances/culling of urban deer/Osborn Ave. area." The ordinance specified that the granting of a variance to allow for the discharge or firearms would be for the time period from January 14, 2009 through April 1, 2009. Thus, when Urban Wildlife Specialists discharged firearms in late December, they did so illegally.
That the council had passed ordinance 09-12 occurred to me last night when I went over my notes relating to the deer cull issue. I immediately emailed city attorney Lorenson to ask if the council had renewed the ordinance, since I had no recollection of us having done so. Here is her response:
"I checked and I do not believe that the variance was ever renewed. As a practical matter we would not pursue citations in this instance for violations of this ordinance though; as the individuals that would be cited under the ordinance are the persons who discharged the weapons, and in this case they did so at the City's direction."
The most charitable explanation of the situation is that it was a bureaucratic mishap; the city manager, attorney, and chief of police somehow forgot that the variance had expired. If that is in fact what happened, it reinforces why it's so important to have a council and press ready to serve a watchdog role. (Unfortunately the secrecy did not allow the council or the press to serve that role.).
Someone less charitably inclined might suspect that the failure to renew the variance was done willfully. To renew the variance would have meant, for one thing, that the city council would have had the opportunity to deliberate about it. Unlike last year, when only I spoke in opposition, this time the deliberation would have included the voice of Bob Poeschl. Mr. Poeschl openly opposed the deer cull during his campaign, and I believe he received one of his highest vote totals in the ward affected by the culling. No doubt citizens pro and con would have came to the council to speak on the issue.
More important, if we had had the opportunity to deliberate about the variance and if the public had had the opportunity to comment, we would no doubt have insisted that firearms not be discharged without public notification.
Regardless of how one feels about deer culling (or fire trucks and pump stations), I hope we can all agree that a city manager ought not have the power to direct an organization or individual to discharge firearms in violation of city codes. Giving a local executive that kind of power is more in line with the old Soviet Union than the US Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Is the armory a city or military property?
Who's juisdication does it fall under? (city, state or federal)
Not sure, but it doesn't matter. The city would still need to grant a variance.
I forgot to mention in the blog post that the law banning the feeding of deer was also violated. The variance for that expired in April too.
The dear baiting law is statewide.
So why would the city enter into a contract with a company to cull the deer until December 31 when the window to harvest the deer was only until the end of April? That seems short sighted on the Council's part.
The deer baiting law is only in select counties, but that's really not what we're talking about here.
Last year, as one of the nonlethal approaches to deer management, the council passed a ban on feeding deer (the vote was unanimous.). Because the sharpshooters have to bait (i.e. feed) the deer before killing them, we needed to pass a variance allowing for the feeding. The variance ended in April along with the one allowing for the discharge of firearms.
BTW, the deer overfeeding issue is very serious on animal welfare grounds (strictly concerned with pain and suffering, without regard for any right to life), because it may result in an extremely inhumane (PAINFUL and slow) death. Given that grain is an unnatural diet for deer (as is the case this cattle, unless it is only a small proportion of the feed), the deer cannot digest it properly, and it can produce such severe gas that the deer may suffocate (just as grain-fed cattle can and sometimes do in feedlots). Anybody who has gotten severely bloated should be able to imagine just how painful that would be. This fact justifies the strict regulation of that practice.
Why would the council approve a variance to the legal discharging of firearms only until April 30 if the contract to cull deer went until Decdember 31?
Late in 2008, the police chief told the council that there would only be one night of sharpshooting necessary. Based on what are a low number of deer (relative to other areas of the state and nation where sharpshooters are typically called in), they probably thought they could do the job in one outing. That one outing would probably be between January and April, when the weather conditions are conducive to the task.
In the united states, property is held in much higher regard than life, individual rights, and just about everything else which defines a sane society.
Not short sighted at all, Chuck. I know it's hard to believe now, but there actually was a time when the city administration had some concern for oversight, accountability, and citizen opinion in this process. The April 1st deadline anticipated the fact that there would be elections in April and that the composition of the Council would change. I haven't had a chance to look into the legalities of it, but even if it were legal for a sitting council to lock a future council into a variance to the city's firearms discharge ordinance, it certainly would not be the proper course of action and I would be shocked if any member of the council would be willing to lock a future council into such an agreement.
So what you call short sighted was in actuality an attempt to be fair to the post-April 1 council and the voters. Bob Poeschl, who received one of his highest vote totals in the ward in which the Armory sits (and no deer voted), was never given an opportunity to deliberate or vote on a firearms variance. That's just wrong.
Post a Comment