As suburbia sprawls ever farther into the pines, the oaks and the maples, wildlife finds itself with fewer homes to live in.

The problem is that the habitat for humanity is now patchworked among the habitat for animals. Bears, geese, moose, coyotes, deer, elk, raccoons, turkeys, beavers and others find themselves living in the city.

Or, rather, the city finds itself living in homes of the woodland creatures.

The solution in many areas is to license the hunters and open up hunting seasons. The idea behind this is to control the population while using the funds from the licenses to keep the woods, prairies, lakes and parks in good upkeep.

Some say that this allows hunters, men and women alike, to enjoy their sport and to help keep the animals they shoot in check, and, with thorough regulation, to keep the animals from disappearing in the region.

But in many parts of the country, such as Long Island and around the Seattle area, environmental activists have worked to shorten or completely get rid of hunting seasons.

In these areas this has led to increased animal populations and these animals are quite often seen moving through the cities.

But should we decide to hunt these creatures just because humans have moved into their habitat?

If people who move to cities near forests and other animal habitat expect to live free of deer eating their Himalayan rhododendrons or raccoons pooping on the steps of their pools (they like to do that), then they shouldn’t have moved there in the first place.

The habitat belonged to the animals before the greedy land developers began clearing the trees, so if people choose to live there, then they must learn to put up with geese blocking traffic and neighborhood pets being attacked.

The problem then is when the animals cause severe problems such as beaver dams that threaten hundreds of septic tanks or when a bear entered a house and raided a panty drawer (it really happened, folks).

The solution I think would be best is to shoot the people, but that’s against the law.

Another solution I like is either put up or get out of town, but hundreds of homeowners aren’t able to move because nobody wants to buy a house that is also a zoo. So they want kinder, gentler solutions than shooting the animals.

I’d have to agree that if you’re going to try to control a population, it is not that humane to let thousands of drunk hunters with high-powered shotguns and man-against-nature attitudes shoot animals who are only trying to meek out an existence on what habitat they have left.

Often the animals move into the city to avoid the hunters.

They won’t get shot in the city, and many of those animals are smarter than the average bear. They know where they are safe.

The solution to the problem comes in the form of finding a way to control the species populations humanely.

In my mind killing them isn’t really humane. We argue more about whether to kill mass murderers than we do about whether to kill beavers. But if they insist on controlling the populations it has got to be done humanely.

Currently, research is under way to study the uses of animal contraception and new non-lethal traps.

It’s hard to say for sure now, but they sound like a good idea. It sure beats letting the hunters blow the animals’ brains out. Some might ask, “Animal contraceptives? What are they gonna do? Put condoms on the bears?”

No. They don’t do that. Just maybe that one who was looking for panties. Otherwise, the idea is, the governmental agencies who take care of wildlife and such would go out and shoot dart guns loaded with a contraceptive solution. It would be like shooting Norplant at a deer.

Imagine if you got a hold of this and shot your friend with it. Would he or she be glad or mad? What if he or she were married?

It could keep a teenage daughter from getting pregnant. “Mommy, Daddy shot me with a dart!”

“That’s OK, dear. It was an accident.”

It would be a good population control just to let the hunters have open season on each other; then there wouldn’t be so many stupid human beings.

---

Tim Frerking is a senior in journalism and mass communication from Pomeroy. He is the University News editor.