ShareThis Page
Saturday essay: Dereliction of deer |

Saturday essay: Dereliction of deer

| Friday, August 31, 2012 8:54 p.m

We must not stint

Our necessary actions in the fear

To cope malicious censurers.

Shakespeare’s words should be instructive to Mt. Lebanon’s “leaders.” For the South Hills community’s elected officials have, for years, dithered over culling the deer herd. The result has been a predictable and dangerous population explosion.

Witness the fresh multiple sightings of multiple mommy deer with multiple fawns in tow. And that’s just in the Sunset Hills neighborhood.

Deer-control opponents, who appear to have Mt. Lebanon’s majority Democrat board of commissioners by the short horns, like to paint the scenario as something of a pastoral poem — a lyrical event of nature to behold, not to be disturbed.

But in an urban setting, that’s a bucolicism conceived in ignorance, a malicious censure of common sense, as nature itself now is proving.

In one case, mommy plus three has been reduced to mommy plus two with one of those two now suffering with a badly mangled leg. Clearly, this family has tangled with a car or two. And you can bet this scenario is being repeated around the community.

Once wrote 19th-century orator Henry Ward Beecher, “The ignorant classes are the dangerous classes.” And how dangerous it is that they hold such sway over officials who should know better.

— Colin McNickle

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.