By The Tribune-Review
Published: Saturday, Oct. 5, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
I found Colin McNickle's article concerning the deer herd invasion of suburbia (“Saturday Essay: More deer tales,” Sept. 28 and TribLIVE.com) quite interesting, and the problem appears to be getting worse. How did this happen?
One reason is that Pennsylvania's very large Allegheny National Forest is no longer hospitable to the deer population. In fact, the yearly invasion of deer hunters after the Thanksgiving holiday has diminished because of the reduced deer population.
Because I grew up in Elk County, I have been following since the year 2000 how the EPA was able to close down the logging industry because of the “so-called” endangered Indian bat discovery in the area (which has also been found elsewhere).
Selective logging had been going on for many years with care to preserve the crop for future generations. With the ban on logging, there are essentially mature forests with heavy canopies and very few meadows available for the deer, which are grazers.
The revenue from the hunters has also diminished as well as the culling of the deer population, which has now shifted to suburbia.
In addition, President Clinton, by executive order before he left office, banned road building in the national forests, which will make it almost impossible for the locals to fight fires.
The biggest problem is the fact that these environmental NGOs can regulate at will and the public has little recourse with their bad decisions. Just another way that big government can interfere with our pursuit of happiness.
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.
- Harmar needs better enforcement
- Slots & property taxes
- Medicaid’s future
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Putin’s actions I
- Drought answer?
- Keep Laurel Point
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Obama & Reaganomics II
- Our nation’s testing obsession
- Lebo’s coyotes