DEER: Hold city responsible
Don’t you find it interesting that the Council has ensured that they and the city are protected by a “hold harmless” agreement that the participants must sign if anything goes wrong.
That should be a huge red flag that they indeed realize this activity has plenty of room for something to go wrong, and they’re indemnifying themselves right out of the starting gate.
If it’s so “safe,” why do they need a “hold harmless” agreement for themselves?
And what about property owners who oppose this and choose not to participate? If the actions of hunters cause injury, death or property damage to residents, how will we be made whole and indemnified, since HO insurance rarely covers hunting activities?
That means it’s unlikely we would see relief for any damages from the property owner who allowed the hunting without having to sue for damages, IF they have the funds to cover our losses. And what if someone is killed?
And selling a home will be impacted since the majority of people don’t want to live in a hunting zone for these reasons, among others.
So ask yourselves why the Council built an escape clause for themselves and the city, but not for anyone else, if this is a perfectly “safe” practice.