Saturday essay: More deer tales
The day began with one deer and ended with nine.
Sunrise was two hours off as the Silverado exited the Parkway to loop around to Route 51. Just as the brakes were being applied, it was there — a young deer picking up speed off the hillside, ready to bolt across the ramp. A collision was imminent.
But as the truck's anti-lock brakes kicked in, preventing a sure skid, the deer's anti-lock hooves kicked in, too, preventing a sure collision. The only hint of the averted impact — a few deer hairs stuck on a fender screw.
Fourteen hours later, at home, dusk was nigh. The greenhouse had to be buttoned up. Just as the latch to the door was being secured, it was there, just to the left — a four-point buck wishing there were no fence between his snout and a raised bed's foot-high fall peas.
We scared each other at the same time. He bolted over a terrace to rejoin a pack of eight other deer, including two fresh fawns; I bolted to the greenhouse.
There's already a bumper crop of deer in Mt. Lebanon. At nearly 57 per square mile, that's more than the like count of many states. With the mating season ahead, the deer will be especially active. And the danger will only increase, as will the deer census in seven months or so.
Who knows, maybe the board of commissioners, which refuses to do anything to cull the population (and is more concerned about banning dogs from parks), is hoping to turn a few bucks by selling tickets to rutting-buck fights.
— Colin McNickle
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.
- An ObamaCare ‘re-do’?
- The Moody’s downgrade: Inaction’s price
- The flood of illegals: Misplaced blame
- Same old Cuba
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- The federal budget: Here we go again
- ‘Diversity’ or discrimination?: A step back