Deer: slaughter them, eat them, sympathize with them—or what? Who’s “unnatural,” they or we? I find a certain calm these days in such scenes as the above, all from my side yard Uptown. In a search for peace of mind, compare them to the world news.

I’ve decided to co-exist with deer. I figure I sort of owe it to them. I won’t make a lot of friends in some circles with my attitude; my own wife is ambivalent at best (but takes to heart motherhood and the cute little fawns in spring). Others will get where I’m coming from, although they are not the ones turning up in news stories these days. 

The prevalence of urban deer is back in local news (Leader Oct. 11). It’s a common thing in many parts of America these days. In some areas, it's Elk that are the problem.  Many call it all unnatural. But I take exception with their conception of “natural.” Nature’s been taking a beating all over the world for some time now. This extended blip in life’s complacency here in Port Townsend is not exactly anything new. Someone mentioned the deer as being a situation “out of balance.”  Exactly, but who invaded and disrupted whose world?  Who caused the imbalance? We have a clashing of human arrogance and cervine innocence at the moment. Deer, of course, eventually will come out on the short end—and eventually largely go the way of the passenger pigeon. It’s true that some people find deer disruptive—even though they may find a bushy-tailed squirrel a pleasant visitor to the yard. Deer, after all, are so big, eat roses and poop a lot. But on the other hand, squirrels are a rodent—as are the roof rats that infest the community.

In any case, it’s impossible to "keep deer wild." That’s vague and unrealistic. We humans, at an increasing rate, are overrunning the wilderness in all of its aspects—littering it with tree stumps, anally subjecting it to a symmetry of straight lines and daubing it with glossy colors. That’s all more what I would call “unnatural.” 

But so many of us can't seem to be able to see beyond our individual noses. We are not singularly eminent in the scheme of things; we are part of an ever-growing horde. We are to the wilderness exactly what the deer are to the city.

In the case of deer, the problem's largely the clearing away of forest and eliminating their habitat. Much of our timberland, the deer world, has been reduced to a mere fringe of trees fronting residential development--complete with unleashed dogs, guns, extensive fencing, heavy-trafficked roadways, you name it. If you don’t believe me, take a side road or two sometime—or look at a few aerial photos. Tranquility for deer these days is the middle of town. My backyard.

A migratory Trail of Tears such as the one that herded an inconvenient Cherokee Indian nation out of the southeastern U.S. (to accommodate the growing of cotton) westward to Oklahoma in 1839  would just have nowhere to go if we tried to similarly relocate deer. So I guess the only answer would be to just kill 'em! That seemed to work with the troublesome indigenous Native Americans back in many areas in  post-colonial times. (I can cite that.) We seem to have thinned out our mountain lions effectively during our human sprawl, and one doesn’t encounter black bears much as a rule any more. Inconvenience seems to be the driving force for changing the “nature” of all things these days.

I guess collateral damage to the lesser species of life would cover the disappearance around where i’ve lived here in town the past 88-plus years. The Western Meadowlark of my childhood—or the flocks of beautiful red-wing blackbirds of not too many years ago, the dwindling away of the stellar jay. I truly miss them.

I don't think it's hand-feeding that’s a major factor in the population increase of urban deer.  These critters didn't starve out in woods. They're still driven to reproduce the same old-fashioned way--just like us. Deer haunt our particular uptown yard but still have to forage for sustenance (including lawn grass, tree leaves, some flowers and weeds, fallen fruit). Continually harassing them would be pretty much a waste of time. We fenced our garden instead (and raised the height of bird feeders in our trees). 

One thing about these deer, they do slow down intra-city traffic some--and I'm all for that. However, our impatient and inattentive drivers remain with us and still manage to chalk up a few deaths . . . enough to make us fearful of the prospects for children and cyclists. Deer hunting also isn't what it used to be, when more people killed and butchered their own meat. Where many used to hunt now often turns out to be someone's back yard. 

My family lived out on San Juan Avenue when I was a kid, complete with a huge unfenced garden somewhat infested by Chinese pheasant  (in the corn) and quail (in the raspberries)—but never ever a single deer, even though we adjoined what then was an unspoiled wooded area. It’s endless housing in all directions now. I can truthfully say I never saw a single deer, raccoon or coyote out there before we moved to Morgan Hill when I was about 15. A neighbor--Ah Tom, Chinese commercial grower, also had a huge vegetable garden that never attracted one single deer. 

As an animal lover and part-time deer-whisperer, I'm just sayin' . . . today's inconvenience to some is not really the deer's fault. Just ask Mother Nature; we are the problem! I suppose we might consider introducing some form of birth-control for deer. It seems the most humane and reasonable course. Good luck with that. Conservative wing-nuts would have to consider the reality that if it worked for deer it might actually work for the problem of just too damned many human beings shrinking and destroying our planet. But maybe not; those people don’t seem to concern themselves much with the world that will be occupied by their adult children and grandchildren.

There’s actually a new anti-birth control wrinkle in the ongoing conservative “pro-life” movement, Trump’s cutting out of women’s birth control coverage as a feature of the Affordable Care Act that he’s determined to fatally injure. I’ve always figured industrial “progress” (in some ways just another form of cancer in the minds of many of us, but a big buzz-phrase in conservative circles at all times) demands ever-more consumers to finance business expansion and growth, a tax base, etc. (but not in the form of immigrants). One trouble is that many unwanted babies born to unwed mothers or into poor families then become just another inconvenience to people like Donald Trump (much as Puerto Ricans, non-voting citizens, are right now).

What does all that have to do with deer? Everything just seems to illustrate how inconvenience to some can drive the direction of all things. As for “keeping deer wild,” I wonder just where would that be in this day and age? And just what do we do with the impoverished, the ailing, the malnourished and mentally afflicted among our fellow humans after we take away their health care? Perhaps I just see a pattern (including species extinction) that will become more evident beyond the day after tomorrow. 

We also could factor in global warming/weather change. Did any of you notice that in July of last year, the temperature reached 129.2 degrees in Kuwait? I wonder where the survivors in that area will be headed to seek survival in the years ahead. They could wind up in an exodus with no direction in which to flee.

And yes, I’ve managed to end here with another (figurative) shot at Donald Trump. I just hope he does not turn out to be (literally) the end of things where our society is concerned.