Darien Times To The Editor: In Ms. Hughes letter of November 10th, presents more meaningless, out of context statistics to validate her anti-hunting opinion. It has been said, if you torture statistics long enough, they will admit to anything. To be sure, it is easier to organize people against something than in favor of it. Hence, organizations such as Friends of Animals prosper in suburban America. It is ironic, that an anonymous writer in last weeks Darien Times withheld his/her name out of fear of hunters. It is not we who condone violence.Alex Pacheco of PETA has openly said that "arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are acceptable crimes when used for the animals' cause". One of these groups has caused millions of dollars of damage in Vail, Colorado. I don't need to vilify these organizations. They do it themselves. "I have known many meat eaters to be far more non-violent than vegetarians." -Mahatma Gandhi Ms. Hughes should consider the shamanic cultures, people who seek to establish interspecies communication. They believe that animals realize the way nature works and are willing to let humans kill some of their kind for food as long as they agree to care for the rest of the species. In Prayers to Raven, Richard Nelson's study of the Koyukon of Alaska, he describes how that native tribe has never created the extinction of a single species. The tribe has fished and hunted as the primary mode of survival for thousands of years. In fact, there is often the greatest abundance of animals along the traplines and hunting routes of the shamans. "We and our ancestors are the same people" - Carleton Coon I never intended to change Ms. Hughes', or any animal activists mind about bow hunting. Nor is she likely to change mine. I just wanted Darien readers to know the truth. I answer because I felt that the unchecked propaganda from anti-hunting organizations would be accepted as truth by the non-hunting majority if I (or someone) didn't speak up. I think Ms. Hughes' goal is to publicize her position and glorify herself. Being an ethical hunter I continuously conduct an inner search for rightness in my actions and beliefs, part of which is keeping an open mind. I once suggested that the Darien Times was biased in it's coverage of the bow hunting issue. After the publication of my third letter, I can't say that I still think so. I hope Ms. Hughes won't make me write again. Rob Lucas 866-1414
	Norwalk Hour To the Editor: I am responding to the letter by Carol Beer in the letters from readers section. The writer expounds the usual animal rights propaganda, depicting bow hunting deer as barbaric. I harvest several deer by archery means each year. I strive for, and achieve quick humane kills and the meat is consumed by my family and myself. It isn't uncommon to anchor a critter right there, where he stands with archery equipment. It isn't slow and agonizing as the writer of last Thursday's letter states. I'd urge readers to not believe the hype. Bow hunting is our best option for managing deer numbers. It's use should be expanded, not curtailed. Fred Bear - the father of modern bow hunting said it best: Death by tooth and nail is far crueler than any I could ever bestow. Rob Lucas 866-1414 08/23/99
Norwalk Hour To the Editor: I am writing in response to a letter by Priscilla Feral published on September 30. Each autumn Ms. Feral's letters (this one has been published verbatim in numerous papers state wide), she misuses biological axioms and disseminates animal rights propaganda. It is an organized promotional campaign and not truly a "letter to the Editor". She and her organization have a goal - to end hunting and animal uses. Period. They don't care if animal research holds the cure for Leukemia or AIDS. They don't care if suburbanites are terrorized by deer, deer ticks, Lyme's disease or incurable Erlichiosis. They just want hunting stopped because they don't agree with it and they don't care what happens afterward. I hunt on numerous properties where the land owners have small children. I have a 3 year old myself and can empathize with any parent who's child has contracted one of these debilitating contagions. Bow hunting on these small properties in populated areas is the only viable option for deer population control and besides, it's fun. I love to hunt. I haven't bought a steak at a store in ten years. Venison is a nutritious, organic, low fat and low cholesterol meat. In an effort to serve the land owners of Darien, New Canaan and Wilton I take more deer than I can personally consume. I donated 34 pounds of meat to the Food Bank of Lower Fairfield County in Stamford already and the season is only two weeks old. Hunters for the Hungry, a charitable organization donates thousands of meat annually in Connecticut. If Ms. Feral got her way, the deer would not be the only ones overpopulated and starving! I have taken two doe deer in the last week, one in Darien and one in New Canaan. Both shots were at a range of less than 30 feet and the deer succumbed within 10 seconds. Neither one wandered beyond the 2 acre property lines. A recent enclosure study demonstrated how 10 deer became over 200 in five years. The progeny of the 10 I hope to harvest this year will make a difference to Connecticut down the line. It will make a difference to the property owners besieged by deer. Bow hunting isn't a "scheme" as the writer says. It works. If more people asked for bow hunters to help them, they'd get the help they need free of charge. All you have to do is ask. http://www.deerbowhunter.com Rob Lucas 866-1414
Darien Times To The Editor: I'd like to respond to the letter by Dot Hayes (Friends of Animals - Darien). The letter was titled Hunting Unnatural, which to me is an oxymoron. Tell an owl hunting is unnatural. Tell a Native American. Dot Hayes preaches the anti-hunting drivel that is so non factual, it's amusing. Overpopulation of deer is supposed to run it's course and all the little critters of the forest will cooperate with each other and be better for it. Ever been to Fire Island, Sheffield Island or other isolated contained environment where hunting isn't permitted and the deer have run amuck? Know what a "browse line" is? Because that's what you'll see. No vegetation, below the line where the deer can reach. Now new growth. Sapling trees die. Animals that require ground cover like turkeys and rabbits cannot hide so they die. Skinny starving deer that are susceptible to disease from their run down condition abound. It's cruel. Hayes says the doe deer have more food and thus more fawns because hunters kill bucks. Fact is, hunters kill doe and buck. And no mater what the harvest, there is plenty of food for all the deer at the present numbers, hunting or not. A buck doe ratio of 3:1 is natural. Bucks get killed going insane during the rut (breeding season) and fighting other bucks. She's making this stuff up as she goes along! Man is the dominant predator. The state's hunters didn't make it so, it just is. If we, man, are going to eliminate the natural predators such as wolf, bear, panther and lion and not take the place of those predators, we are irresponsible. But that's what "Friends of Animals" would try to convince the non hunting public ought to be done. If we are going to squeeze the state's wildlife on ever smaller parcels of undeveloped land and not allow the states conservation officers to manage the quantity of animals, we are reckless. But that's what "Friends of Animals" would do. The deer population would more than triple before starvation took effect and that would triple car accidents and tick borne diseases. Know anyone affected by Lyme's Disease? Tell them you want to triple the deer population and they'll move to Florida. Most of the state's deer are in Fairfield County, where gun hunting is difficult or impossible. Westport, which has an illegal no hunting ordinance leads the state in vehicle/deer conflicts. Limited to less efficient bow hunting, and the difficulty bow hunters have obtaining permission on private land, hunting isn't eliminating enough deer in our area. The answer is longer seasons, higher bag limits (Alabama has a limit of a deer a day, we have a bow limit of 4 per year), and Sunday bow hunting allowed on private lands. Organizations like Friends of Animals use the media and advertising to drum up millions dollars a year to "help" animals. What they don't tell you is that most of the money pays their salaries and legal fees of efforts to abolish hunting. Make no mistake, these groups don't help animals. Better to donate to Ducks Unlimited, the Audubon Society or the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America. Then the money goes DIRECTLY to help wildlife. Dot Hayes and her fellows are trying to manipulate you into giving them money to abolish animal use and hunting. They want you to vote to stop animal research. They say "if animal research held the cure for AIDS, I'd be against it". They say "a rat is a dog is a boy". Tell that to your sons and daughters. Rob Lucas - Norwalk 203.866.1414
Darien - News Review To The Editor: I am writing about the story "Letting Nature Run its Course" by Heather Weant in the August 26th edition. The author misses the point either intentionally or unintentionally. The article is peppered with quotes from an animal rights activist (who lies) and the DEP biologist is either misinformed or misquoted. I also find Mr. Harrel's description of bow hunting as a "fools errand" insulting. He just doesn't get it. I hunt. I do it in Darien and surrounding towns. I harvest nutritious, low fat, low cholesterol, sterioidless venison for myself and my family. But I'd hunt even if the law said I had to give all the meat to charity (and I do donate voluntarily). I hunt to have hunted. It's a challenge to pursue deer with a stick and a string. Last year I took three doe from nearby towns, including Norwalk. I hunt because I love it. Not because the land owner wants fewer deer, fewer ticks or less landscaping damage. Ms. Feral says guys like me "kill trophy bucks, but never a doe". She should check her stats with the state. Last year bow hunters took 5,183 doe and 6,430 bucks. Most of the bucks were young, hardly trophies. The reason a trophy is called a trophy is because it's unusual to get one. Ms. Feral attributes the rise in vehicular collisions with deer to hunters chasing them around (the deer, not the vehicles). Not true. Hunters mostly wait in tree stands for a deer to happen by. Bow season starts in mid September but the rise in collisions doesn't occur till November. The rutting season is the reason more collisions happen then, and it's a symptom of too many deer! Mr. Gregonis is off the mark when he says that bow hunting is not permitted within 500 feet of a house. No such regulation. He also is quoted as saying bow hunting is only appropriate in parcels of 10 acres or more. I just about always hunt on parcels of 1 to 2 acres and safely score on deer regularly. I believe these non-facts are the authors way of discouraging Darien residents from approving of bow hunting. Here are a few actual facts from a 1997 survey. Most hunters are not trophy hunters. Most are not meat hunters. Most hunt for the outdoor experience and to exercise their hunting heritage. Meat hunters come in second. Deer in Fairfield County will never starve. They will just browse the heck out of our plantings, wild growth and the supplemental food misguided residents put out. They will destroy the habitat for themselves and other species till they become so numerous that all the towns will have to do something. It's either bow hunting or sharp shooting and in Darien, only the former is possible. And it is already being done. I choose to be discreet about it in the name of political correctness and in the best interest of those who grant me permission. I'm not the only bow hunter in this town either. Residents don't have to do anything but say "yes" to a bow hunter and sign his/her permission form. Rob Lucas 866-1414
Darien Times Dear Editor: I have read with interest the second part of the two part series on "the problem with deer" and the subsequent volley of letters. It seems to me that the animal rights activist standpoint was placed up front and foremost. The typical animal rights theories about deer behavior and other misinformation occupied several entire columns of the article while the open minded or pro hunting point of view was presented scantily in drib and drabs. Then the Friends of Animals letter which offers to "help" residents looked more like an advertisement than a letter to the Editor. I spend a lot of time studying, photographing, writing about, pursuing and hunting deer in Darien, New Canaan, Wilton and Easton. I don't have a "problem" with them. In fact, in my opinion they are delicious! It is the only red meat my family and I eat as it is the most nutritious, cost effective, organic, lean and low-cholesterol choice available. I am proud and privileged to be able to harvest several White-tails with archery gear here in my home state each year. There are those who would abolish hunting and all animal uses, like medical research. There are those who collect contributions and claim to be "friends of animals". But just ask them: What portion of their budget goes to procurement of habitat? Ducks Unlimited secures thousands of acres a year. Ask "friends" what percentage of their budget goes to their own salaries and legal wars in other states? The answer will be "just about all of it". We (human beings) continue to wage undeclared war on our environment and the habitat of native species. We eliminate the animal predators, shrink the habitat, crowd the deer so that ticks and disease can spread abnormally easily. We wipe out forests which have limited carrying capacity for deer and replace them with sprawling estates with lots of food for them. Are we then surprised that they overpopulate? The hunters say - "Let us help". But hunters are not very numerous. We need the support of the non-hunting community for permission and acceptance. We need help to become more effective in the deer infested Fairfield County. We need support for more liberal bag limits, Sunday hunting on private land, and longer hunting seasons. The self appointed job of the animal rights activists is to misinform the non hunting public and undermine the image and reputation of hunters. Just a few of their lies that the Darien Times published....... Lie #1) Hunting creates more deer because it stimulates multiple births. Fact is, doe deer almost always have twins. Single and triplet births are uncommon. Only at the northern most reaches of the White-tail range (Canada, Maine), in a tough winter, doe deer seem to have the ability to selectively reabsorb one of the fetuses. This ability is unique to the species and is being researched in the hope of finding a hormonal abortion alternative for humans. Lie #2) An arrow hit deer will run for two miles before dying. Ever jump a deer? They run 50 to 100 yards and stop and look back at you, don't they? Well, arrow wounded deer do the same thing. Most of the deer I have mortally wounded have just run a few steps, looked around and collapsed. Far less traumatic than being hit by a car. Lie #3) Most hunters shoot only mature trophy bucks. Such deer represent about 2% of the deer population. In a state where the archer success rate is about 16% (one deer every 5 or 6 years), do you think a man or woman is going to pass up other deer waiting for that "one in fifty"? Three of my last four deer taken with a bow were does. That means I harvest 75% antlerless deer. Like me, most hunters are meat hunters. It's a shame that the Times isn't impartial and presenting both sides fairly.I guess objective journalism is too much to ask for. Printing this letter would be a step in the right direction, but I'm not holding my breath. Rob Lucas 866-1414 08/2/99
Darien News To The Editor: In response to a recent letter by Robert White "What can be done about deer?". The answer is far more simple than working with town Selectmen and approaching the DEP with your plan. The DEP already has a way but our community is generally against and opposes it. It's called hunting. I currently hunt (archery only) in Darien, with the written permission of the landowner, as required by state law. My wife and I can harvest a total of 8 deer this year, and possibly take more if a bonus program is deemed necessary by the DEP. We live in a wonderful state, where much is done to protect landowners. Landowners are immune to any legal exposure resulting from hunting or hunters on their land. It is illegal to hunt without written permission on your person, dated the current year. The permission form must be the original, making attempted forgery obvious. You may grant permission to as many hunters as you wish. "Posted" signs are redundant, since all land is already protected. Yes, the DEP has all the tools it needs to manage the deer herd, almost. Even though landowners are protected, even though we can hunt almost anywhere such as a small property of an acre, even with our liberal bag limits and bonus programs, even with our long hunting season, the wildlife managers cannot control the single most important variable in the equation. Nine out of ten folks I ask for permission to hunt say "no thanks". They want the deer and associated plague of damage and disease reduced, but they say no. I believe I ask nicely, as politically correctly as I can, but they say no. Maybe it's got to do with the bow and arrow thing. Maybe it's perceived as painful. It's not. I've seen mortally hit deer go right back to feeding or browsing. Maybe it's the anti hunter activist misinformation, causing people to worry about wounded deer wandering about. A recent study showed that 84% of all hit deer where harvested by the hunter and the majority of those not recovered survived. Next time I ask, say yes and we'll both benefit. Better yet, ask me! ROB LUCAS - NORWALK 866.1414
Grenwich Times - Fax To the Editor: I'd like to respond to the letter by Dot Hayes (Friends of Animals - Darien). The editor titled the letter "Hunting only contributes to deer problem". Dot Hayes preaches the anti-hunting drivel that is so non factual, it's almost funny. But what isn't funny is that Hayes sends the same letter, verbatim, to every paper in the area. She attempts to use the media to color the opinions of the undecided folks who are neither hunters or animal rights terrorists. Organizations like Friends of Animals use the media and advertising to drum up millions dollars a year to "help" animals. What they don't tell you is that most of the money pays their salaries and legal fees of efforts to abolish hunting. Make no mistake, these groups don't help animals. Just to straighten out a few non-facts Hayes spouted. She says "hunters kill mostly trophy bucks". Hunters kill mostly does and young bucks. 90% of the buck kill in Pennsylvania is 2 years old or less. The reason a trophy is a trophy is that getting one is relatively rare. She says hunting is responsible for the growth in the deer herd, that hunting contributes to deer numbers. My young friend from Benson, Vermont named Glenn Lowell read Hayes' letter and remarked "If hunting increased deer numbers then Benson would have the most deer of any town in the world. Everyone hunts there!" Out of the mouths of babes. She says "the DEP sees it's job as providing game for it's hunter/clients". Hunters are a tool the DEP uses to ATTEMPT to control deer numbers. It is here, in Fairfield County that the state has the conundrum of too many deer and too many people. It''s hard for the agency to control the quantity of deer where hunting permission is sporadically granted on private property. I personally have 3 turn-downs for every one person who grants permission. Most of the state's deer are here in Fairfield County, where gun hunting is difficult or impossible. Westport, which has an illegal no hunting ordinance leads the state in vehicle/deer conflicts. Limited to less efficient bow hunting, and the difficulty bow hunters have obtaining permission on private land, hunting isn't eliminating enough deer in our area. The answer is longer seasons, higher bag limits ( Alabama has a limit of a deer a day, we have a bow limit of 4 per year ), and Sunday bow hunting allowed on private lands. Bow hunting is effective. I have harvested 4 deer in the last 13 months that way. The result of my hunting is that my family and friends have healthy, low cholesterol, organic venison to enjoy. I have time afield which for me is a spiritual heritage that I value. Money spent on hunting equipment carries a special tax that goes directly to benefit wildlife via the Pittman Robertson act. Hunters for the Hungry, a charitable organization of hunters, donate thousands of pounds of meat to the states needy. Hunting is safe. I ( or anyone ) am hundreds of times more likely to get killed by skiing or getting struck by lightning than hunting. If Friends of Animals were truly the animals' friends, they would be using the money to establish sanctuaries and organizing protests against pollution, the real threat to wildlife. The truth is, they just don't approve of hunting or any animal use for that matter. They have imposed their opinion and values on me, with their activities, and now you with this "letter to the editor" campaign. Better to donate to Ducks Unlimited, the Audubon Society or the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America. Then the money goes DIRECTLY to help wildlife. Dot Hayes and her fellows are trying to manipulate you into giving them money to abolish animal use and hunting. They want you to vote to stop animal research. They say "if animal research held the cure for AIDS, I'd be against it". They say "a rat is a dog is a boy". My son will know the difference, naturally. Rob Lucas - Norwalk 203.866.1414
Darien Times To the Editor: Last week a caller complained about the frequency and content of my letters to the Editor of your paper. She noted that I live in neighboring Norwalk, as if the press isn't free and the paper is an extension of the country club. The caller said that I teach my child about death and violence and wouldn't want his/her children around mine. I reread my submission, and saw nothing about teaching my boy about violence. Hunting is not about violence. I teach my son what a deer track looks like. How the print reveals which way the animal is walking. I show him deer droppings and where the bucks rub the trees. He lights up when we jump a deer from its bed and it's tail flies high in a bounding escape. When I come home after hunting and I tell him a story about what I saw, how the deer came walking through the dry leaves tssh, tssh, tssh, tssh , he is spell bound. He learns that hunting is a quest, a search. Even at an age of two and a half, he has a better idea of what hunting is about that the caller does. Rob Lucas 866-1414 (P.S. You published my phone number with a previous letter. This caught me off guard and I braced myself for a deluge of harassing calls from animal activists. It didn't happen. In fact no one called me about dead deer either! The only call I got was from an appreciative reader who encouraged me to continue. He was originally from Oklahoma and found the local attitudes about hunting and game management abhorrent.)
Darien Times To the Editor: I am writing in response to the Martin Cassidy article "Animal advocates take aim at New Canaan's deer rules" in the Tuesday, September 7th Advocate. The article is full of inaccuracies. First of all, in the title it refers to New Canaan's "deer rules". No town or municipality has autonomy to govern, manage or rule the hunting season. Game laws, season limits, acreage minimums etcetera are set by the state Department of Wildlife. New Canaan has no "rules", their Deer Committee has simply responded as a service to the community to create a directory. This directory is a list of qualified deer bow hunters who are available, as in a phone book, to service (free of charge) interested residents. In case you haven't guessed, I am a hunter. The article eludes to "residents with 6 acres or more of land to allow bow hunters on their property to go after deer." There is no minimum acreage in this state for bow hunting deer. I have personally harvested deer from as little as 3/4 acre lots. Mr. Cassidy could have checked his facts with the DEP. The article mentions that "Friend(s) of Animals has gone on the offense". I have found them offensive for some time. But their ad on page four goes over the top. I wonder how their contributors feel about $1,000.00 of their donations being spent on an ad to slime hunters. If they were really the animals' friends, they would be using the money to secure habitat, reintroduce species, recruit game law officers, and stop overdevelopment. That's what real animal advocate organizations do. Groups like Ducks Unlimited, Wildlife Legislative fund of America and the Audubon Society. The content of that ad is not the subject of my letter. But suffice it to say that the statistics show that a New Canaanite is more likely to be injured by an object dropping off an airplane than a hunters arrow. That's a fact. Rob Lucas Home 866 1414 Work 656 9999

Copyright © 2000 Rob Lucas   All Rights Reserved