The deer problem: Time to act
It's time for the Pennsylvania Game Commission to play a more proactive role in reducing the commonwealth's rapidly increasing urban and suburban deer population.
The deer herd, unchecked for too long in too many places, is far too large. The rising census not only imperils motorists and pedestrians but creates a gross imbalance in the ecosystem of Penn's Wood, setting the stage for a too-large herd in too-close quarters to be ravaged by disease.
Bob Frye, the outdoors editor for Trib Total Media, says Game Commission member Bob Schlemmer, an Export resident, has a fine idea — inspired by Murrysville's use of hunters — for controlling the deer population statewide.
Overcoming what Mr. Frye calls the biggest obstacle to deer control — lack of access for hunters — Murrysville has been organizing hunts in its parks that have culled its deer for nearly 20 years.
Says Mr. Schlemmer: “Maybe we need ... an employee of the Game Commission ... to work with Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Erie, maybe Scranton-Wilkes Barre, to set up hunts.”
Among many other smaller communities, we would add.
That would move the Game Commission, usually reactive on such issues, to a proactive posture — benefiting millions of residents who are increasingly threatened by urban and suburban deer while simultaneously and responsibly expanding hunting opportunities.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.