According to your website, Kristen is saying that the Game Commission is requiring archery to be included in any plan. Is that a true statement? I have asked this question before and got no response.
Elaine Gillen
Elaine, that is a requirement as the Municipality applied for two Deer Control Permits. Below is the applicable section of the State regulations that is relevant to this topic. Subsection (c) contains the requirement.
§ 147.322. Application for deer control permit.
(a) An application for a deer control permit shall be completed in conjunction with the Commission and submitted by an authorized officer or employee of the political subdivision, homeowners association or nonprofit land-holding organization in the form required by the Director and contain the information requested by the Director.
(b) An application for a deer control permit must contain the following information:
(1) A complete map showing the boundaries of the area being considered and indicating the land use within the area, cover types, huntable areas, damage areas, deer concentration areas, all safety zones and proposed control areas within the proposed boundaries.
(2) A deer management plan shall be submitted with each application which provides deer management goals and requesting the number of animals to be removed.
(3) Each application shall substantiate the background and scope of the deer problem and include alternative approaches to the problem and propose what action is recommended to be taken under the permit.
(c) Public land within the proposed boundaries shall be open to lawful public hunting unless otherwise prohibited under this title or as otherwise authorized by the Director. Private land within the proposed boundaries may be closed to public hunting at the landowner’s discretion. However, if closed, deer control activities may not occur thereon.
Source
The provisions of this § 147.322 adopted July 29, 1994, effective July 30, 1994, 24 Pa.B. 3716; amended December 19, 2008, effective December 20, 2008, 38 Pa.B. 6928. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (320730) and (297379).
Philip J. Weis
Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney
301 Grant Street, 20th Floor
Pittsburgh PA 15219
(412) 562-3937
Thanks, Phil, for the clarification, but this is where it gets confusing to us. Does Subsection (c) specifically require archery?
I remember Gary F. from the Game Commission saying that there must be hunting done on public property if or when the sterilization permit is to be granted. Who is the Director? Steve Feller? Is public hunting prohibited in our parks? Is that why it was only open to municipal employees? And finally, since the archery program was "suspended," when will it resume?
(c) Public land within the proposed boundaries shall be open to lawful public hunting unless otherwise prohibited under this title or as otherwise authorized by the Director.
I heard nothing else, so I looked for answers on Kelly Fraasch's blog. Sure enough, Kelly updated her blog with Little did we know....
It appears that I am not the only one looking for clarification.
Update December 31, 2014 3:18 PM On mtl Magazine's Facebook page, Tom Moertel did some fact checking which I thought would be appropriate to include with this post.
Tom Moertel The risks of deer in Mt. Lebanon have been greatly exaggerated, especially by Commissioner Linfante. Yes, deer can and do hurt people in Mt. Lebanon. But such cases are rare. In the nearly 4 years that Mt. Lebanon has been tracking deer-related incidents, there have been only 6 reports of actual injury, all through car accidents. That’s about 1.5 cases per year, on average.
To put into perspective just how small that number is, consider this: According to police reports, there are on average over 100 car accidents per year in which someone is injured or killed in Mt. Lebanon. Deer – characterized by Commissioner Linfante as a “major public safety issue” – account for less than 2% of those accidents. Further, if Linfante’s culling plan goes into effect and achieves its stated goal of reducing deer-related car accidents by half, your chances of being injured or killed in a car accident in Mt. Lebanon will be reduced by less than 1%. *Less than 1%.*
If the solution to a major public safety issue makes you less than 1% safer, is the issue really a major public safety issue?
There are legitimate arguments to be made for reducing Mt. Lebanon’s deer population. If you want to argue that deer damage gardens, cause car accidents that require costly repairs, or contribute to the spread of Lyme disease across the country (although the research makes it doubtful that culling deer is an effective remedy), go ahead.
But why invent a public-safety scare about something that causes virtually nobody in Mt. Lebanon to be injured or killed? Why play up the fact that there have been over 700 reported “incidents” but neglect to inform the public that virtually none of them have anything to do with people getting hurt by deer? Why spend 3 years developing a solution that, even if it achieves its stated goal, will prevent less than 1 incident per year in which someone actually gets hurt?
Couldn’t we have prevented many more injuries – and quite possibly deaths – by investing that same 3 years in fighting Mt. Lebanon’s larger public-safety problems?
So why didn’t we?
18 comments:
The way I read it "Director" refers not to someone in MTL, but rather to someone in the Game Commission, say: "Matt Hough became the agency's Executive Director after 33 years of service with the Game Commission, in January 2014."
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1096089&mode=2
It reads that this Director has the option of not requiring the public lands available to public hunting.
No relevant questions are actually answered by the municipal government - commissioners, manager or solicitor.
The reason is not that they know the answers but are holding back, but rather that they are all ignorant, have no clue as to what they are doing; and, they are incapable of a will or ability to collectively determine answers for themselves and the resident public.
We need to rid ourselves of all of them! They are far more than an embarrassment, they're a danger to us all.
The public servants that work for us also think they are worth salaries, benefits and pensions far above those paid in the private sector.
Cut 'em loose, there are plenty of capable people out there that can do and equal or a better job for 60% of the cost.
I filed a Right To Know concerning the archery plan on December 23, 2014. I just heard back from Steve Feller and it is the typical "The Municipality is in the process of obtaining a legal review" crap. Feller will let me know on or before January 29, 2015.
It is unfortunate that my request is timely and won't be much help after two, possibly three commission meetings. The reorganization meeting on January 5, may include a deer management discussion. January 13 and January 26 are the dates for the other commission meetings in January.
Guess what? It is all legal.
Elaine
7:37 & 8:52: It would be comforting to think that the municipal government is "ignorant", but they are not ignorant about most things. When they don't answer questions, they are intentionally evasive. Their screw-ups and delays are often, but not always, intentional.
Exactly Elaine. These government officials/lawyers always author these requirements/ordinances/laws with so much wiggle room "for them" that they're almost useless.
Remember Klein's response at the Audit & Finance meeting where he asked: "won't the renovation bump us into problems with the cap?" To which Jan replied: "there always exemptions and exclusions we can apply for."
We see it in the Game Commission's rules that public land must be open to public hunting unless the "Director" determines otherwise.
Another example-- the EPA dictates that you and I, Joe or Jane Citizen must pay a tire disposal fee every time we replace the tires on our vehicles because it's good for the environment, they tells.
BUT, on the other hand the EPA/DEP can approve dumping 20-40,000 used tires on kids' athletic fields... because - ta da- there is no hazard!
Amazing isn't it?!
Any incriminating evidence will be redacted of course.
Before RTK, a commissioner stated it was necessary to "sanitize" the files from time to time.
A little off topic but one such public safety issue that could be looked at more than the deer situation is being more aggressive at enforcing the texting while driving laws here in Mt. Lebanon. When I inquired about the number of citations issued in Mt. Lebanon in 2013 for texting while driving, the Chief said 3, and probably that same amount for 2014. If Kristen is so concerned about deer, she should be screaming about the lack of enforcement of texting while driving laws. I wonder how many of those dots represent accidents because of texting while driving? I bet it's more than 1.
Nick M.
Cool analysis and graphic, Tom M.
Mt Lebanon has spent a lot of time and money creating a myth about dangerous deer lurking in the shadows of every tree and garden in Mt Lebanon. Every local newspaper has perpetuated this suburban myth.
What else could Mt Lebanon have been doing with its time and resources?
Here is something that the staff could have been doing. Boards Agendas and Minutes
Elaine
After reading all the comments from this post and others, would I be wrong in saying that the real issue with the deer in Mt. Lebanon is not vehicle accidents involving deer, but rather the deer that are munching on tulips, hostas and other berry bushes in the yards of residents who probably complained so much that if Kristen actually told the truth about why we had to eliminate deer that she would be the laughing stock of Mt. Lebanon so she had to make something up that sounded more believable?
Excellent study of the facts Tom Moertel!
How much were they planning to aleve the - tsk, tsk - deer related death and destruction on our roadways?
Did you notice the Sports Advisory Board info in your link Elaine?
The Most Recent Agenda posted is 11/6/14.
The Most Recent Meeting was 11/6/14.
Guess when the Most Recent Minutes Posted are from... 6/5/14. Real timely, hun.
Parks Advisory is even worse.
Recent agenda posted: 6/3/14
Most recent meeting: 11/10/14
And get this-- most recent minutes posted are from 4/1/14. That's 8 months ago.
Economic Development is just about as bad. June 28th is the last posting of meeting minutes and the last posted meeting was 8/29/14. Even though taxpayers are footing bills for TOD development surveys and there are meetings or discussions going on about developing townhouses along Castle Shannon Blvd.
Funny how the Environmental Sustainability Board is the most timely.
Not exactly 5:39. If you look at the listing of minutes on the Lebo website you will see a huge gap of missing minutes from 3/13 to 9/11. There were 5 meetings in that time frame but no minutes posted.
Nick M.
Elaine @ 4:48 pm: Aren't they obligated to keep up with these matters? I know that legally they are obligated to inform the public of their plans to meet but then what afterwards? I noticed that Traffic Board meetings were advertised in the newspaper for 2015 but I didn't see any other board meeting calendars announced.
That hunting requirement can easily be changed for specific scenarios. It is too densely populated and developed to safely hunt in Mt. Lebanon, that's why we are requesting approval for a safe alternative sterilization program. How does the logic work that you have to approve a dangerous hunting program for the Pa Game Commission (PGC) to consider approving the safe alternative? That's rediculous!!!
I have no doubt that if Mt. Lebanon had the WILL it could get a full sterilization or contraception program approved w/o a hunting program. First, Mt. Lebanon would have to firmly request a sterilization program w/o hunting, based on the serious safety risks hunting poses to families and their children. The Commissioners have to stand up for its residents, and not kowtow to the PGC. I'm sure that Senator Matt Smith, State Rep. Dan Miller, and State Rep. John Maher would fully back Mt. Lebanon's proposal for a sterilization or contraception program, w/o hunting, and would send a letter or sign a communal letter to that effect. This would be the added political pressure required to get the PGC to approve the program.
December 31, 2014 at 5:05 PM
You are totally correct. The car-deer collision kill the deer campaign launched by Linfante is totally disingenuous. This is all about deer eating the tulips and hostas, and the gardeners who like to host their homes on annual garden tour, and who refuse to plant deer resistant flowers, use repellents, or deterrents. The public isn't aware of this bait and switch, because they don't pay attention, but all of the Commissioners know what's going down, and except for Kelly Fraasch, have become complicit in the charade.
Post a Comment