Deer not the problem I
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, Dec. 20, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
The writer of the letter “Menace unaddressed” obviously does not like deer. He also proposes to burden the state Game Commission, or us taxpayers, with the responsibility of removing deer and transferring them to remote forest areas.
How much is he willing to contribute to foot the bill for this insanely conceived proposal? Perhaps he wants to promote bazooka hunts to rid the suburbs of these life-threatening critters. Our police and Game Commission officers are pushed to the limits of their resources and surely have other pressing priorities.
Do we need rampaging hordes of hunters invading the suburbs? I'd rather deal with the deer population. I consider deer a serenity-instilling addition to my country lifestyle and appreciate their beauty; they are, after all, part of God's creation.
Furthermore, if it weren't for fear of hitting deer, metro-suburban motorists would probably blow through our neighborhoods at 80 mph. Local police surely appreciate this form of speed control. The writer of this ludicrous proposal is always at liberty to remove himself from this threat in the suburbs to the safe inner sanctum of city grime and crime.
Peter C. Ebner-Eschenbach
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.
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Saved her life
- Not reviled abroad
- Peduto’s interests
- Wildlife & humans
- Conspicuous by absence
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Orwellian redefinitions
- Keep Laurel Point
- Guzzardi for guv