Deer not the problem II
In response to Gerald Schiller's letter “Menace unaddressed” concerning the deer population in the city and suburbs: While I agree that deer do wreak havoc on motor vehicles, I hardly call them a menace. Winter weather presents dangerous situations for drivers and we need to act accordingly; the same caution should be rendered while driving when deer are mating or searching for food.
I firmly believe the problem is not the deer population but overdevelopment of land. This is what is happening in my township. What was once home for these creatures is now home for humans. I'm sure if enough residents complain about their shrubs, trees and gardens being destroyed, it's only a matter of time before more ordinances are put into effect and citizens once again lose more control.
There are only certain plants I can grow on my property because of the amount of sunlight, so I plant accordingly. Many plants are deer-resistant.
As far as deer being a health hazard, I don't want to be protected from everything. I want to be able to take risks, make mistakes and have choices.
If you are asking your local government to address this issue, you stand to lose more than you gain, and nothing positive ever came from interfering with the balance of nature.
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.
- Today’s big lie
- License, insure bicycles
- Puzzling trend
- Figures conflict
- Fair pay for hard work
- In PC we must II
- Rethink NFL fandom
- Climate & hunting
- Conservatives, back Corbett
- Religion & government
- Pay attention to history