Tony DeNicola will be coming back to speak with the Commission on June 22. Tony DeNicola, president of White Buffalo, Inc. is the one who told then Commissioner Linfante that the 2014 aerial survey was inaccurate and estimated that there are 400-600, and even over 600 deer in Mt. Lebanon (number varied depending on the source). I have not seen many deer for some time now. Certainly not 600 deer in 6.06 square miles, or even 400 deer.
Commissioner Kelly Fraasch, who pushed for surgical sterilization of deer, said DeNicola's numbers are estimates. One deer count, using an airplane and infrared cameras in 2013, put the population at more than 340. A count a year later showed fewer than 200.
“We have no idea how many deer there are in the municipality,” Fraasch said.
Click on the link to Mt. Lebanon that is on White Buffalo's website. You will see "Deer Doctor" Sandy Baker's photo. Her recommendations are listed on the pledge below.
For a hard copy of the pledge, click on:
Please mail completed forms to:
Elaine Gillen
P.O. Box 14873
Pittsburgh, PA 15234
How come MTL's hired experts always cite higher costs for the things they don't want to do?
ReplyDeleteHere's what DeNicola said:
“(Mt. Lebanon) would need to sterilize well over 90 percent of the females. ... You could need $250,000 to $300,000 to do that,” DeNicola said. “To capture 300 animals is a very substantial undertaking.”
First question: why would DeNicola need to sterilize 300 deer if the 2014 aerial survey only found fewer than 200 deer?
Second question the Tufts University expert says sterilizing deer with PZP only cost $261/deer.
So sterilizing DeNicola's 300 imaginary deer would cost only $78,300. A far cry from DeNicola's $200,000-$300,00 estimated costs. How can two "experts" be so far apart on costs?
But here's what a Tufts University expert saiid: "Cost of capture and initial treatment of deer [using PZP] has averaged approximately $261/deer, with subsequent remote delivery of booster vaccines costing approximately $88 per deer. Use of the one-shot treatments will increase the cost per vaccination, but reduce total labor costs by reducing the frequency with which deer have to be treated." Dr. Allen Rutberg, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy.
"Suburban deer populations have been stabilized and reduced over time by 35-50%. The most dramatic reduction so far has occurred where use of one-treatment PZP vaccines has been associated with a population reduction of 44% in five years." Dr. Allen Rutberg, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy"
I think the commissioners need to reevaluate their "expert" hiring policies.
We have Gateway "+/-, but usually ++++" Engineering, the Penn State Turfer, "oops, I Missed Benner and now DeNicola.
Maybe we should look at our Manager.
Time to advertise that T-shirt store again, Elaine. They might be the hot fashion for MtL this summer.
If the commissioners do the right thing, they will table the deer discussion on June 22 and replace it with a discussion on how to implement PAYT now. That way, MTL can finally move out of the Dark Ages of Trash Collection.
ReplyDelete- Jason M.
Jason, when have the commissioners done the right thing? We are stuck with the damage done by Kristen Linfante. She insisted that deer "management" be the number one goal. She and Coleman were a tag team. With them both gone, maybe there will be some rational thinking restored in Mt. Lebanon.
ReplyDeleteStaff doesn't want PAYT, Jason. Staff wants deer killed, Jason. Staff wanted the toxic turf. See a pattern, Jason? 9:29 AM gets it. DeNicola's numbers are estimates. We don't know how many deer we have, let alone how many are does.
Elaine
By all means, let's have open, fair and intelligent discussions on deer and PAYT.
ReplyDeleteYou may want to visit these two items on PAYT.
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/06/03/michael-c-munger/recycling-can-it-be-wrong-when-it-feels-so-right
Then there is this Entertaining Penn & Teller Bullshit episode on Recycling.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=yh-KDa_Jmok
By all means Jason, let's have serious factual commission discussions on deer and PAYT, but if those discussions are going to be led by "experts" spewing facts like we have 600 deer without a one shred of concrete evidence to back it up, leave me out.
Jason--
ReplyDeleteWhy strive for Zero Waste when 21st century technology can make use of ordinary trash?
"The recovery and use of methane from landfills can significantly reduce the overall emissions of greenhouse gases. Landfills are the largest anthropogenic source of methane in the U.S. There are a variety ways that utilities can reduce overall emissions of methane from landfills. Landfill methane can be collected by developing gas recovery systems, and it can then be used to generate electricity, as a fuel for nearby industrial purposes, or enriched and sold to gas pipelines.
Capture and use of landfill methane as fuel for electricity generation is done through the development of well fields and collection systems at the landfill. Collected methane can be used for on-site power generation or pipelined to a nearby existing generating station. Where electric generation is impractical, flaring is preferred over direct venting to reduce emissions and fire hazards."
http://www.uspowerpartners.org/Topics/SECTION6Topic-LandfillMethane.htm
Yes, collecting and recycling aluminum cans for instance is a wise move. In fact, so smart we should be getting paid to do it! But ordinary trash-- like paper, table scraps and lawn clippings are not a problem that can't be dealt with as the above link points out.
I agree with you, let's have an intelligent discussion on how "MTL can finally move out of the Dark Ages of Trash Collection."
Let's stay on topic, please. This is about deer. Jason signed the personal pledge, 11:01 AM. He and the others who are for PAYT are to be commended. They have a united front. No backstabbing. Np pointing of fingers.
ReplyDeleteI have spoken in favor of non-lethal methods for ten years, been on radio shows, cleaned up corn from killing fields, sent out press releases, and got a community together. I worked my butt off for the Sandy Baker weekend. Sadly, only four volunteers from the Sandy Baker committee signed the pledge that is made up of Sandy Baker's recommendations. For that I have been labeled toxic, divisive, polarizing, blamed for sterilization not going through, accused of signing the deer's death certificates, harassed on the blog, harassed at my home, and am getting screwed out of my expenses for the Sandy Baker dinner. Never mind the expenses that I have forked over for RTKs. On top of that, I am removed from the mailing list.
I doubt the PAYT people do that to each other. I know the prokill "garden biddies" work together. Their leadership doesn't stand around hoping to see one of their own fail.
Thank you to the people who have stepped forward to circulate the pledge. I will be helping out at First Friday, with wristbands and the pledge to sign. A couple of volunteers were recruited to help out at other tables with equally important issues. I agreed to help out. Anyone else interested, please email me at EGillen476@aol.com. I wish the Coalition for Coexistence much success. See you at First Friday!
Elaine
Elaine---IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BEING REMOVED FROM KELLY'S EMAIL LIST OR THE LIST OF SOLDIERS WHO WON'T SIGN THE PLEDGE, CONSIDER YOURSELF LUCKY. VERY LUCKY.
ReplyDeleteOBVIOUSLY, ALL OF THOSE FOLKS HAVE DECIDED THAT THEY DO NOT WANT AND DO NOT WANT TO WORK FOR A NON-VIOLENT MT. LEBANON.
LET THEM BE.
I'm not sure what prompted the mention of backstabbing in your comment Elaine, but we'll let that go for a moment.
ReplyDeleteWhat should one do if they sort of agree with the pledge?
"I am a Mt. Lebanon resident who believes that the Mt. Lebanon Municipal Government, including its Commissioners, ("Municipal Government") should not be governing its residents through bloodshed. Further, I am opposed to violence, including the unnecessary and purposeful killing and wounding of deer within Mt. Lebanon."
What if you are totally against the indiscriminate hunting of deer within the municipality, but could accept perhaps bow hunting in very limited, very controlled areas?
What if in the interest of compromise, you could see a bow hunt in Twin Hills, McNeilly, Robb Hollow, the Golf Course, provided it was well advertised, aiming done away from homes.
Why they'd want to do it would be beyond me because it wouldn't achieve the desired results any better than Benner's trap and kill, but if the blood thirsty ladies want to finance it, let 'em go at it.
You see, though not a hunter, I have no problem with people that like to. Therefore, I'm not opposed to violence - in it's proper precinct.
Example, if a police happens upon a deer, dog, coyote, bear, squirrel or rapist/robber mauling some little old garden lady or a young child-- officer by all means take whatever action necessary to save the victim, get as violent as you deem necessary.
If I sign the pledge then I'm disagreeing with myself and there is the conumdrum.
Here's a plan I could reluctantly accept.
ReplyDeleteLet's say the blood thirsty deer ladies live on a huge lot and they can get all their neighbors around their lot to agree to let her (or her hired gun) shoot deer on her property so that any shooting meets all PA Game Commission standards. Let her go at it.
But, Annie Oakley must accept all risk and incur very heavily penalties if they break any restrictions or an accident occurs.
If she wounds a deer and it makes it way to a resident's property that didn't approve of her shooting, there is mandatory jail time and restitution to the resident for pain and suffering.
If they miss and their bullet or arrow strikes a home, vehicle or property of someone that didn't approve of her hunt, they pay a huge monetary penalty to the victim of their incompetence.
If they hit a person with an errant shot, they're responsible financially and with mandatory jail time in years.
Now the pro-kill ladies say hunting in our little bubble would be very very safe. If they truly believe that, get them to pay for it and accept the risk!
I don't want to try hunting in our densely packed community. I don't want to pay for someone else to do it either.
I prefer taking my chances driving with deer around and it isn't the end of the world if they eat a few of my plants or poop occasionally in my yard. If the ladies want to accept the risk, let 'em.
If people think I shouldn't have to pay for collecting other people's big trash piles, why should I pay for others deer hatred.
Pay as you throw is... OK.
Pay as you kill though is unacceptable.
Hmmmm.
3:34, what a novel idea... while we're on the Pay As You Throw band wagon, why don't we institute a Pay As You Kill program.
ReplyDeleteEach resident calculates how many deer they want exterminated - some ladies suggest we need to get rid of as many as 600 - and each month the municipality sends you a bill for the number of deer they killed.
Here's how I suggest it could work.
The municipality sends you a form and ask you how many deer you want killed.
Let's say you answer 30. The municipality luckily this month hired some dead eye shots and they bagged 30 this month at a cost of $10,000.
Then everyone that wanted 30 or more dewy killed pays their share of that cull. As in PAYK!
If you only wanted 10 deer killed you'd pay a 33% of the rate for that month.
Those that wanted 31 or more deer are still on the hook for future deer slaying costs until they hit their chosen number.
Simple, PAYK or "why should I have to pay for other people's killing!"
The Coalition for Coexistece denounces all violence in our community. Period.
ReplyDeleteSecond, Mt, Lebanon's high population density renders deer hunts within its borders, regardless of the weapon, as highly dangerous and thus prohibitive. Period.
WHITE BUFFALO, PART 1
ReplyDeleteFirst, Tony DeNicola (White Buffalo) is not an objective "expert" and lacks professional and personal credibility. White Buffalo is the most infamous deer killing vendor in the country. DeNicola's in the deer killing business. Not only does he lack objective credibility, but he has a record of civil rights violations.
In 2008, White Buffalo and the City of Solon, Ohio settled a lawsuit with resident, Belinda Geiger, for $25,000. According to The Solon Herald Sun, Geiger claimed “The city and White Buffalo conspired unlawfully to silence her and deprive her of her right to free speech.”
In 2004, former hunter Steve Hindi did an undercover investigation videotaping White Buffalo’s deer killing program in Summit County, Ohio. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported: “Instead of showing quick deaths, six days of footage show deer suffering after they were shot, missed shots and rangers putting plastic bags over animals’ heads as they thrash, Hindi said.” The video footage appears on Hindi’s web site, along with testimony from several veterinarians who described the method of killing as “inhumane”. Steve Hindi settled his case against Anthony DeNicola for his tampering with evidence by erasing footage of his deer torture in the Akron Metroparks. DeNicola will pay damages in the amount of $17,500.
The point being that based on DeNicola's conflict of interest; i.e. he's the leading deer killing vendor in the U.S., which raises professional objectivity and credibility issues, and that he's been sued and settled multiple times for civil rights violations, which raises personal credibility issues, that it is incredulous that the Commissioners are using DeNicola (White Buffalo) as an "objective consultant" advising them on managing deer-human conflicts in Mt. Lebanon. This is getting like the movie "Ground Hog Day". Mt. Lebanon pays a biased deer killing vendor as an "objective consultant" to give them an "objective advisory report", which the vendor will be paid to implement.
Mt. Lebanon's pro-kill administration has established a long track record of paying biased deer killing vendors, i.e. USDA Wildlife Services, Wildlife Specialists LLC, and White Buffalo to present pro deer killing reports (paid for white papers) to justify the deer killing plans the administration had already decided to implement. In addition, these "objective" pro-kill vendors always end up implementing and getting paid for the pro-kill plans that they were paid to present.
This appears to be done under an intentional facade of objectivity to get citizen buy-in, who don't pay enough attention to recognize the sham going down in front of them, for their deer killing programs. If this crony process doesn't reek of bias and corruption, I don't know what does.
WHITE BUFFALO, PART 2
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Mt. Lebanon, DeNicola is misrepresenting the facts in an effort to promote a deer culling program. Why would he do so? Because it's easier and more profitable for DeNicola to kill deer. It's easier, cheaper, and faster for him to hire shooters vs. bringing in an experienced veterinarian like Dr. Steven Timm to do and train other vets to do the ovariectomies, and to bring in an outfitted surgical van, or to set up a surgical facility to do the sterilizations. Sterilization's have more overhead expense and requires more human resources. In addition, DeNicola's sterilization capability is stretched to capacity across the country, and so why I believe he uses the Trojan Horse sterilization scam.
The Trojan Horse Sterilization Scam
IMO, DeNicola uses sterilization as a Trojan Horse to differentiate his company to win killing contracts, because no other vendors do deer sterilizations. However, once he gets in the door he persuades the Commissioners that he has to kill the deer (reduce the population) before implementing a sterilization maintenance program. In many cases he exaggerates the deer population and the number of deer he has to kill before implementing a token deer sterilization program to fulfill his contract. So DeNicola is being brought in because of interest in doing a safe, humane, and non-lethal sterilization program, and then once in the door, he is promoting a kill/sterilization program.
Unless the Commissioners adamantly tell DeNicola that they only want him to do a safe, humane, and non-lethal sterilization program, then I believe this is the typical bait and switch scam he pulls. He can be very persuasive in selling a deer killing program, i.e. it's the easiest and most cost effective solution for him. If DeNicola smells division on the Commission, then he pushes for a cull/sterilization program. However, this cull/sterilization program is in reality a total culling program masquerading as a sterilization program.
DeNicola will exaggerate the deer population, and say that he has to kill this number of deer before sterilizing any deer. For example, using a crystal ball, DeNicola estimates the deer population in Mt. Lebanon at 600 deer, and says that he needs to kill at least 250 deer before sterilizing any deer. The most recent aerial deer survey counted 193 deer in and around (outside Lebo borders). Do the math, 193 deer - 250 deer killed = -57 deer left to sterilize. So after DeNicola slaughters all the deer, he sterilizes a few token deer to fulfill his contract. He can get in and out of Mt. Lebanon quickly (take his money and run) with little investment of time or effort, and on to his next deer killing contract.
This Trojan Horse sterilization scam is also effective in persuading Commissioners who want safe, humane, and non-lethal methods and anti-cull residents to compromise too; i.e. they rationalize that it's better than them killing all the deer, when in fact there is no compromise and he is killing all the deer. The non-lethal Commissioners and residents are duped, and the scam is successful.
WHITE BUFFALO, PART 3
ReplyDeleteSo let's evaluate DeNicola comments in today's Trib article.
"DeNicola recently sterilized about 300 deer in three states. He estimates Mt. Lebanon would have to catch and treat just as many to lower its population without killing animals. If he cannot sterilize that many, he would need to include lethal culling to meet the municipality's goals, he said." ... “(Mt. Lebanon) would need to sterilize well over 90 percent of the females. ... You could need $250,000 to $300,000 to do that,” DeNicola said. “To capture 300 animals is a very substantial undertaking.” Today's Tribune Review Article
So while the latest aerial deer survey counted 193 deer in and around (outside Lebo's borders), DeNicola says that aerial deer surveys aren't accurate, and so he uses his crystal ball and estimates that there are 600 deer in Mt. Lebanon. That's quite an extraordinary estimate based on no scientific evidence or data. So ignore the actual count, and believe his estimate. Most people in Mt. Lebanon never even see a deer, and Benner set up 6 corn bated killing corrals, and could only find 6 deer to kill. If there were 600 deer in Mt. Lebanon, you'd be seeing deer everywhere. They'd be standing in line at the ATM machines.
So assuming that there are 193 "resident" deer in Mt. Lebanon. FYI, I don't believe this number, because I think the majority of deer travel to Mt. Lebanon from adjacent communities to eat from Mt. Lebanon's 52 flower islands and gardens and flowers in residents yards and bird feeders. So most of the deer are in and out, and not resident deer. In addition, if these aerial deer surveys are counting deer 2 miles outside of Mt. Lebanon borders, then even this number is a highly inflated population number. However, for our purposes, let's assume that there are 193 resident Mt. Lebanon deer. OK, DeNicola would have to sterilize 96 doe to sterilize 100% of the doe in Mt. Lebanon. The deer population in Mt. Lebanon should be 50% male and 50% female, and so he would only have to sterilize the doe, i.e. 96 doe. So DeNicola saying that he'd have to sterilize 300 deer is not accurate. In addition, he wouldn't even have to do this at one time, but could stagger this program over a couple years if he had to.
DeNicola sterilized 137 doe in about 2 weeks in Cayuga Heights, NY, which was around 95% of the doe, and then he came and sterilized the remaining 12 doe the following year. DeNicola is claiming a population reduction of 40% in two years using sterilization. The DEC (NY's Pa Game Commission) and Cornell University, the DEC's pro-kill extension, didn't want a successful sterilization program in the state that could be emulated, and so they introduced bow hunting into the program to kill additional deer, including sterilized deer. They intentionally destroyed the study. Nevertheless, before bow hunting was allowed, sterilization was responsible for a 40% reduction in the deer population in 2 years. This is proof that a deer sterilization program alone is extremely safe and effective. In addition, "In East Hampton Village, N.Y., DeNicola captured and sterilized 114 does, about 70 percent of the female deer, during two weeks in January". So why can't DeNicola do the same in Mt. Lebanon?
As posted earlier, deer sterilization works under the same principle as immunocontraception. "Suburban deer populations have been stabilized and reduced over time by 35-50%. The most dramatic reduction so far has occurred where use of one-treatment PZP vaccines has been associated with a population reduction of 44% in five years." Dr. Allen Rutberg, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy.
HSUS and Tufts' immunocontraception programs are successfully implemented without any culling, or use of lethal weapons that threaten resident safety. Culling is not necessary. In addition, as posted above, PZP immunocontraception is a lot less exepensive.
WHITE BUFFALO, PART 4
ReplyDelete"If Mt. Lebanon doesn't sterilize enough deer, or reduces the population so much that breeding deer from neighboring communities have room to move in, it would undo the gains sterilization makes, he said. 'With non-lethal methods only, immigration is something you're helpless against.' " Today's Tribune Review Article
This comment from DeNicola is nonsensical. Perhaps Trib reporter Santoni misquoted him, or DeNicola is once again intentionally spreading misinformation to discredit sterilization to promote his deer culling preference. The fact is that DeNicola's recommended culling program would be an open invitation to deer immigration from adjacent communities and compensatory reproduction. One of the positive features of the sterilization and immunocontraception methodologies is that it maintains deer place holders in their existing home range, which minimizes deer immigration from neighboring communities.
As I understand, DeNicola was brought into Mt. Lebanon, because Commissioner Kelly Fraasch was interested in implementing a resident safe (no lethal weapons), humane, and non-lethal deer management solution. DeNicola is a mercenary, and will do what ever the community tells him to do. However, if he perceives a division within the decision makers, like he did in Mt. Lebanon; i.e. his private communications with Commissioner Kristen Linfante (RTK), he will do everything in his power to persuade the Commissioners to implement a deer culling program and a token sterilization maintenance program, i.e. it's easier, cheaper, and faster for him to implement (take the money and run) and to move on to other lucrative deer culling contracts. Resident safety and what's best for Mt. Lebanon is not his priority.
Furthermore, this is all putting the cart before the horse. If Mt. Lebanon doesn't implement Sandy Baker's comprehensive deer-resistant gardening strategies (reducing the food attractant), which are attracting all the deer to travel to Mt. Lebanon and other non-lethal recommendations first, and give them enough time to work, then DeNicola will just be killing and/or sterilizing Scott Township and other adjacent communties' deer.
Bottom line, implement Sandy Baker's recommendations, and if those recommendations don't reduce the majority of deer-human conflicts in Mt. Lebanon, then open a dialogue with Allen Rutberg Ph.D., Tufts University and The Humane Society of the United States to explore a safe, humane, and non-lethal immunocontraception solution.
Mt Lebanon hasn't proven the deer problem to me. However, let's pretend for argument's sake there is an actual problem.
ReplyDeleteI am against killing deer in public parks in this built out community, and having taxpayers pay for it. If an individual wants to kill the deer in their backyard, perhaps they should work with their neighborhood to gather 75% signatures of their neighbors and pay for the killing themselves or at least some large portion of it. Why, if Mt Lebanon requires a petition for everything and resident contribution for every other undertaking, does the deer killing cabal get a free pass on developing community cohesiveness and personal financial contribution? They should pay 20% at the very least if this is the way Mt Lebanon goes.
It's absolutely abhorrent to kill deer in parks, where residents seek peace and recreation when there is very little open space in Mt Lebanon. Further, if there is someone suffering from PTSD in your neighborhood, they have the right to accommodations if the government is paying for your neighborhood deer to be killed. They should be accommodated by NOT HAVING DEER KILLED IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
If I wanted the deer killed, I'd move actually. The current government isn't one anyone should opt to collaborate with long-term. The deer killing residents should have learned this by now but maybe they aren't paying attention to the bigger picture.
3:34--Hunting in a backyard does not solve the density issue. In fact, it magnifies it.
ReplyDeleteSecond, does everything on this blog have to come down to money?
Third, please don't compare a campaign to end community violence with a trash/recycle plan. Apples and oranges. Forget the trash for once, or go to the blog page that welcomes comments on the PAYT subject.
The Coalition for Coexistence.
2:49---The pledge refers to "unnecessary" killing of deer. The police may employ legal use of force when required. I've never heard of deer raping or mauling. They are not predators. I think you are on point with rapists/robbers. Please do not inject language into our pledge. Read it and absorb it.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your anticipated cooperation.
We have already begun a dialog with HSUS and Tufts' Dr. Rutberg and we have been analyzing the Hastings-on Hudson model for well over a year.
ReplyDeleteC for C (We didn't just roll in on a wagon of pumpkins.)
I call 'em like I see 'em. It's KILLING. Not culling. Culling sounds like something involved in making fine wine even finer.
ReplyDeleteWe are no longer using the word "cull" in our dialog. Please, let's get the lingo correct. Thank you.
C for C
2:49 PM I don't understand your logic, if you are totally against "indiscriminate hunting" of deer within the municipality, but could accept perhaps bow hunting in "very limited", "very controlled" areas, then you support turning our parks into a private hunting club, and the use of lethal weapons in Mt. Lebanon. Mt. Lebanon parks are within the municipality and bow hunting in the parks is totally indiscriminate hunting. As a result, you have no business signing the pledge, because you support hunting and the use of lethal weapons in Mt. Lebanon.
ReplyDelete1) Bow hunting will have absolutely not affect on the deer population or in reducing deer-human conflicts. It is nothing more than recreational hunting.
2) Bow hunting is extremely inhumane. Twenty- two published scientific surveys and studies indicate that the average wounding rate for bow hunting is over 50 percent. More than one out of every two deer shot is never retrieved, but dies a slow tortuous death from blood loss and infection.
3) These wounded deer will be dying in residents yards traumatizing families and their children, and running out into the roads causing accidents.
4) If there is hunting in the parks, residents are being deprived of safe use of those parks.
5) The kids in Mt. Lebanon are constantly cutting through the parks as short cuts. The kids would be cutting through the parks while hunters with lethal weapons are hunting in these parks. This is an accident waiting to happen.
6) Missed shots and unrecovered razor tip arrows will be deadly booby traps for kids and dogs playing in the parks.
7)_ Bow hunting will trigger compensatory reproduction. While it may seem counter intuitive, killing deer actually triggers an increase in deer reproduction and population. This phenomena is called compensatory reproduction and is a well documented population dynamic in deer and other mammals. When the deer herd density is temporarily reduced through hunting, culling, or trapping, there is reduced competition for food, and the number of twins and triplets born actually increases. Studies have show that after a hunt surviving females produced enough offspring to not only replace those killed, but enough to actually increase the size of the herd. This phenomenon explains why hunting as a management tool has resulted in an ever-increasing number of deer in this country. For example, a study conducted by the Dept of Wildlife and Range Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation at the University of Florida sampled deer from five separate sites: three hunted and two nonhunted. The study found that the incidence of twins being born to a pregnant doe was higher on hunted land than on non hunted land. The study found the incidence of twinning was 38% on hunted sites and 14% on nonhunted sites. No twinning was observed among pregnant fawns or yearlings from nonhunted areas, whereas...18% of the pregnant yearlings and...33% of the pregnant fawns from hunted areas carried twins." (Reproductive Dynamics Among Disjunct White-tailed Deer Herds in Florida", Journal of Wildlife Management [1985]).
2:49 pm, please explain why you support bow hunting in our parks again.
Our commissioners recently spoke on a conference call with HSUS and Tufts (within the past two weeks). What has the public heard about the sum and substance of that call? Nothing.
ReplyDeleteWe've found that it help to always be one step ahead of the commissioners.
4:37, for accuracy the pledge reads-
ReplyDelete""I am a Mt. Lebanon resident who believes that the Mt. Lebanon Municipal Government, including its Commissioners, ("Municipal Government") should not be governing its residents through bloodshed."
Then it goes on- " Further, I am opposed to violence, including the unnecessary and purposeful killing and wounding of deer within Mt. Lebanon."
Regardless, several pro-kill people have stated deer have turned on their pets and fear they'll attack their kids or grandkids. Do I believe it'll happen? I believe a deer attack is highly improbable. Could it happen, maybe. I don't want want to put my name to something I would possibly regret standing for in the future.
As I stated earlier, I'm not totally opposed to deer hunting in some very, very, very restrictive form. Do I know at this point what the restrictions should be... no I don't, but I'm open to the possibilty that someone smarter or more skilled than I may come up with a plan.
Do I wish to promote killing deer in MtL... no I don't.
Am I some sort of prick for not signing the pledge, in your eyes, I guess so.
2:49 pm and 5:57 pm. I'm assuming you're the same troll. You think you're being so sly and tricky. Please go and get a life, and stop trying to inject your old tired scare tactics on this blog.
ReplyDelete5:00, first off I didn't sign the pledge.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I specifically said I might accept hunting in very restricted areas ONLY under very, very controlled circumstances. The examples of issues with a hunt would all have to be addressed and if they can't be, I wouldn't accept it.
There is a big difference between supporting something and having an open mind that maybe it is doable.
For you I guess, everything is black and white or off and on. For me, I can allow for variations of each.
Here's an example of where I stand.
Let's say, every single Ward 1 resident wants a bow hunt. Who am I, a resident in one of the other Wards to say no? I don't have to like it, nor should I have to pay for it and I sure as hell am going to demand that they keep it in their Ward and pay a hefty penalty if they don't.
So there are my thoughts hate them if you wish, that is your prerogative.
Correction for 5:17.
ReplyDeleteThe response was direct to the first 5:00 pm not 4:37.
The commissioners have a strong duty to protect the health , welfare and safety of all Mt. Lebo residents. If you understood the critical underlying issue of population density, you may be willing to accept that violence, including deer hunts with bows, arrows or rifles, is not something to be tolerated by Lebo residents or encouraged by the Lebo local government. Elaine, an earlier subject on this blog clearly listed the density figures for Mt. Lebo, local communities that kill deer and those that do not. The difference between Mt. Lebo's population density and that of othes that kill deer is staggering.
ReplyDeleteElaine, I am sorry to trouble you, but could you continually post the density statistics for our surrounding communities and for Mt Lebo. It's all in the numbers. It's fact. Real data.
Here you go, 6:31 PM:
ReplyDeleteAgain, Mt. Lebanon has 5468 people/sq. mile.
The killing fields:
Upper St. Clair has 1958.5 people/sq. mile.
Bethel has 2768.7 people/sq. mile.
Communities opposed to lethal methods:
Castle Shannon 5207.3 people/sq. mile.
Dormont 11,306.6 people/sq. mile.
Baldwin Township 3984 people/sq. mile.
Scott Township has 4277.4 people/sq. mile.
Just an FYI Fox Chapel has 690 people/sq. mile and they kill deer. A resident said you could shoot charging rhinos in Fox Chapel because their density is so low.
If Peters is killing deer, their density comes out to 1077.3 people/sq. mile.
Elaine
6:31, how many people live IN the Twin Hills and McNeilly plots or at the golf course?
ReplyDeleteI'll say it again. Shooting in our densely packed neighborhoods is foolish, but if everyone in that neighbor want to engage in stupid behavior that 'only affects themselves,' who are we to stop them?
There we go, you just knew it was coming... "2:49 pm and 5:57 pm. I'm assuming you're the same troll. You think you're being so sly and tricky. Please go and get a life, and stop trying to inject your old tired scare tactics on this blog."
ReplyDelete5:35, perhaps you should read the book linked below. Opinions like yours may be part of the cause for the divisiveness in this community.
ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1621573702&linkCode=xm2&tag=thewaspos09-20#productDescription_secondary_view_pageState_1433049095546
""Kirsten Powers explodes and skewers 'The Silencing'— the demonizing and repression of different views, especially conservative views. Here is a liberal calling out other supposedly liberal people who claim to believe in free speech but tell all who disagree with them to shut up. Hallelujah—you are lucky to have this book in your hands!"
—Juan Williams, Fox News political analyst and New York Times bestselling author ofMuzzled"
Here's Powers' basic points:
Why the illiberal left has become an Orwellian "big brother," policing what it deems acceptable speech and opinions
How the illiberal left is obsessed with delegitimizing Fox News
How illiberal left pundits--even self-proclaimed "feminists" (and Powers names names)--engage in outrageously misogynistic and sexist dismissals of their female opponents
How illiberal colleges and universities limit freedom of expression to tightly regulated "free speech zones" and ban speakers (even liberals) with whom the illiberal left disagrees
How "truth" matters little to the illiberal left, for whom ideology is everything
How is it that liberalism, once associated with open-mindedness and reason, has become a vehicle for irrational prejudice, ideological conformity, and the marginalization and punishment of alternative opinions?
OK, we're really getting off track here. This isn't about liberals or conservatives. This is about a professional deer killer advising the commissioners that more deer killing is in order and he is the one who will be paid to do it. We have no idea how many deer we have.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want to sign the pledge, so be it. But why are the commissioners taking advice from someone who stands to make the money? This is Benner ALL OVER AGAIN!
Elaine
Elaine, that is a horse of a different color with which I agree with 100%, especially the second to last sentence!
ReplyDeleteOf course, the expert is going to say we have 600 deers.
Of course, they're going to say sterilization is going to be very expensive.
What else are they going to say... you have 100 deer and it's only a problem for the people that put out a smorgasbord for them. He'd be cutting off his own nose.
This is 5:35 pm Earlier I posted, "2:49 pm and 5:57 pm. I'm assuming you're the same troll. You think you're being so sly and tricky. Please go and get a life, and stop trying to inject your old tired scare tactics on this blog." I'd like to make a correction, i.e. I mistakenly typed 5:57 pm. It meant to type 2:49 pm and 5:17 pm. BTW, I guess 5:35 pm is the same troll again.
ReplyDelete6:50 pm. I think you were attacking my comment above, but I'm not sure, i.e. it sounded like you were off you meds. I couldn't make any sense of anything you posted.
I accused 2:49 pm, 5:17 pm, and I guess 5:35 pm of being a troll, the same troll. BTW, I know who the troll is, because I recognize her writing style and technique. It's not an issue of me trying to sensor an opposing opinion. It's about getting fed up with pro-kill trolls on Elaine's blog trying to be sneaky and pretending that they are against deer killing programs, but trying to be "open minded" and willing to compromise. These are efforts to try to influence and undermine sincere residents who oppose the use of lethal weapons, hunting, and shooting in our community and neighborhoods. I've seen these pro-kill trolls lying their asses off and making up all kinds of stories demonizing the deer. They are (or she is) pathological liars, and every time I've called them out for proof, they disappear off the blog. I occasionally wonder why Elaine allows these liars to post on her blog, when it's obvious, at least to me, what they are doing. Hey, if you're pro-kill make your case with facts or at least give your opinion. Don't play sneaky games or lie to make your case. That's what upsets me.
5:35, you're so full of crap. I'm not buying any of it or any of your 2:49 pm or 5:17 pm posts. I hate to waste my time to even respond to your BS, but since Elaine keeps posting your crap, I guess people have to respond to it.
Hunting on one street or Ward in Mt. Lebanon affects the safety of residents in the surrounding streets and areas, and cars driving by. The maximum range for a .223 rifle with 55 grain bullets is 2.2 miles. Benner increased the fire power of his ammo. A missed shot, a misfire, or ricochet puts all residents in this 2.2 mile radius at risk. The maximum range for a compound bow is 595 yards, and an extreme cam compound bow 931 yards. Again, all residents in the affected radius are at risk. In addition, with a 50% bow hunting wounding rate, wounded deer are going to be traveling way out of this private hunting street or ward to traumatize residents in adjacent neighborhoods dying in their yards, and running out in to the streets causing accidents. So there is no way that pro-kill residents can get together to promote hunting on their street or neighborhood w/o causing serious safety risks to other surrounding families, children, and pets.
The 10:00 News picked up the DeNicola quote last night about costing $300,000 to sterilize 300 deer in Mt. Lebanon. Everything about DeNicola's statement is bogus. Are there 300 does in Mt. Lebanon? Are there even 300 deer in Mt. Lebanon? The cost of sterilization is bogus. I was at commission meetings where veterinarians were coming forward to volunteer their services. There was a woman from Duquesne University who was not permitted to speak because she was not a resident of Mt. Lebanon and had volunteered her grad students to assist in transporting the sedated deer, the hardest part of the procedure.
ReplyDeleteThe cost of $1000/deer is bogus. A woman from Cranberry was willing to donate $1000 toward sterilization. That was the last meeting where Bendel permitted non-residents to speak.
I wish Mt. Lebanon residents would stop listening to the BS coming from the municipality. Like everything else, if they are against something, they will overestimate the costs. If it is something they want, we get a low-balled figure.
Elaine
Following Sandy Baker's recommendations, costs the municipality zero. Ms. Baker said that the LAST thing Mt. Lebanon should consider is killing deer. Her recommendations are listed on the pledge.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Also, having Tony DeNicola at the municipality's door (and speaking for the municipality)is like the fox guarding the hen house.
ReplyDeleteDeNicola is a hunter. And, to make more money, he wants to take the path of least resistance. To him, lethal methods are much easier and less time consuming than non-lethal. POW. BANG, BANG.
The Fix is already in for Mt. Lebanon, part 1
ReplyDeleteTony DeNicola, president of Connecticut-based White Buffalo Inc., will address the Board of Commissioners about deer management June 22 to explain his methods of controlling deer populations with sterilization and, sometimes, bowhunting.
No doubt, DeNicola has continued his private communications with certain pro-kill Commissioners or ex-Commissioners, who are telling him that he can get bow hunting passed, but bait-and-shoot killing would be more of a problem. This comment about DeNicola explaining his methods with sterilization and sometimes bow hunting is a complete ruse. I've never seen DeNicola recommend bow hunting, i.e. he knows bow hunting has no impact on deer populations and is only recreational hunting. He would have never said that unless prepped to say it. DeNicola uses bait-and-shoot killing programs. That's his bread and butter. So this above statement reveals a lot of what is going on behind the scenes in collusion and private discussions. He's now promoting bow hunting to make his inside pro-kill Mt. Lebo contacts happy. Can't wait to see all of his sterilization/bow hunting reference sites. BTW, he can't use Cayuga Heights as a reference, i.e. he had nothing to do with bringing in bow hunting there. That was the DEC and Cornell's strategy to sabotage the successful sterilization program, i.e. they can't allow any non-lethal deer population management strategies be successful.
This June 22 deer mgt meeting is a total farce. The Commission has already decided on a deer killing program. This meeting is nothing more than a propaganda event to get buy-in from the uninformed public for their deer killing program. The goal of this meeting is the same as their biased Deer Forum last June.
The Fix is already in for Mt. Lebanon, part 2
ReplyDeleteThe commission wants to reduce car crashes involving deer by 50 percent within five years. ... “(Mt. Lebanon) would need to sterilize well over 90 percent of the females. ... You could need $250,000 to $300,000 to do that,” DeNicola said. “To capture 300 animals is a very substantial undertaking.” If he cannot sterilize that many, he would need to include lethal culling to meet the municipality's goals, he said. “(Mt. Lebanon) would need to sterilize well over 90 percent of the females.
Notice, DeNicola is using Mt. Lebanon's goals as his excuse for a lethal culling program. One gets the impression that this 50% reduction in car crashes was a commandment written in stone from the hand of God. BTW, I wonder who came up with this goal. Remember, the entire car-deer collision campaign that Commissioner Linfante launched was a total ruse that the pro-kill Commissioners embraced to justify their deer killing program. Commissioner Linfante was the puppet spokesperson of the pro-kill Commissionettes (Barbara Logan, Carolyn Byham, and Bonnie VanKirk), and their pro-kill deer campaign was all about deer eating their tulips, and the elitist gardeners wanting to showcase their homes during the Library's garden tour. Remember, car-deer collisions with injury are less than 2% of all car crashes in Mt. Lebanon. Again, another sign that DeNicola is working behind the scenes, and being prepped - the fix is in.
Of course it is. Just an FYI, I get daily hits from someone from the Game Commission.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Elaine, reg. the Pa Game Commission hits. I'm not surprised. I'm pretty sure that Tom Fazi, the Information and Education Supervisor for the Pennsylvania Game Commission (Southwest Region), monitors your blog, and was anonymously posting on it a couple months ago.
ReplyDelete9:11: Agreed that the fix is in.
ReplyDeleteSo, let's get this straight. The commission wants to lower the deer/driver accident rate to 1%. Correct.
ReplyDeleteSo why is DeNicola being brought in to present at the June deer mgt. meeting? BTW, is Mt. Lebanon paying for his expenses? Who else is being brought in? Are any non-lethal experts being broughtin? Did the Commission invite Laura Simon, The Humane Society of the United States'wildlife biologist? Will DeNicola be given more than the 10 minutes given to Sandy Baker to present to the Commission?
Is this going to be like the 2014 June Deer Forum, where the panel consisted of 6 pro-kill panelists vs. 1 non-lethal panelist, i.e. a phony forum set up to sell their deer killing program to Mt. Lebanon residents?
BTW, why in the hell are we still talking about deer? And why is deer mgt one of this Commission's top priorities?
So why DeNicola? The pro-kill Commissioners have no interest in sterilization. They had Merlin Benner, the deer killing vendor, represent Mt. Lebanon to the Pa Game Commission on the sterilization issue the last time. No conflict of interest there. And they never followed up with the application. However, maybe they are going to go with DeNicola's Trojan Horse Sterilization Scam, where he slaughters all the deer and sterilizes 2 token deer.
Mt. Lebanon doesn't want to use the USDA Wildlife Services to implement a deer killing program based on the bad experience it had with them in the past. Remember, the wounded deer that got away, and that wasn't reported, and that bled out in a pool of blood on a residents front walk.
I'm guessing that Mt. Lebanon doesn't want to use Wildlife Specialists LLC again, because they proved to be incompetent killers.
So DeNicola is the only deer killer left to implement their bait-and-shoot killing program, and why they're bringing him back in. They're bringing him back in to sell the program to the public, and then to implement it.
"It's highly stressful because you always have to assume you're going to miss." Tony DeNicola, White Buffalo Inc., The Valley Independent Newspaper
ReplyDeleteTuscaloosa officials consider ban on bow hunting near city
ReplyDeletePosted: Sunday, May 31, 2015 12:37 pm | Updated: 3:02 pm, Sun May 31, 2015.
Associated Press |
TUSCALOOSA, Ala. (AP) — Tuscaloosa officials are set to consider extending a ban on bow hunting to areas close to city limits.
The Tuscaloosa News reports that the proposal would prevent hunting within 300 yards of the city limit.
Senior Associate City Attorney Jimbo Woodson says the idea was prompted by residents' complaints about bow hunting close to homes or near trails and sidewalks. Woodson says city officials banned bow hunting within city limits in 2004 after similar concerns.
The council plans to meet Tuesday night.
"Distraction through Distress" is a municipality sponsored leadership program and deer slaughter represents the subject matter du jour. Our leaders are distracting residents by perpetuating the myth that the municipality needs to reduce the number of deer/driver accidents when they have failed to address the infrastructure deficits highlighted in the August 2012 Road Safety Audit.
ReplyDeleteDeer were not mentioned anywhere in this comprehensive, multidisciplinary, data-driven analysis of road hazards in Mt Lebanon and yet the municipality continues to spend time and money on the subject. When do you think they will address the Road Safety Audit findings?
http://mtlebanon.org/DocumentCenter/View/9598
Quite right, 3:18. Why is the deer issue so pressing over all other issues?
ReplyDeleteI submitted the comment (with corrections) below on March 24th to the blog. Little did I know at the time that Bendel's coming months would be less than two. It would seem that he had no intention of putting serious study ahead of divisiveness on the deer issue.
"In the coming months, we'll decide how to move forward,” said commission President John Bendel, who urged residents to put the divisiveness behind them."
What did Bendel just graduate from the Hillary Clinton Online Correspondence School of Political Obfuscation?
Regarding the waste of tax dollars, the senseless killing of six deer and the animosity it created amongst neighbors and the soiling of Lebo's good name why didn't he just say: "What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again." (Clinton on Benghazi)
But no he can't even do that. He and Feller are already setting the stage for another round of deer control SNAFUs to appease the privileged class.
Before we spend one more red cent on consultants, surveys or anything else we should examine and dissect some information from our very own Police Dept.
The Trib writes: "Mt. Lebanon police Deputy Chief Aaron Lauth said that in 2014, South Hills Cooperative Animal Control picked up 316 deer apparently struck and killed by vehicles in the 12 South Hills communities they cover, including 106 in Mt. Lebanon."
316 deer, according to Lauth were struck and killed by vehicles in 12 South Hills communities. 106 of them in Mt. Lebanon alone.
That means in the eleven other communities 210 deer were struck and killed for an average of 19.09 deer killed in each.
106 killed by vehicles in Mt. Lebanon! Then the other communities average 19 in USC, 19 in Whitehall, 19 in Castle Shannon, 19 in Bethel, 29 in Scott, 19 in Dormont, 19 in Heidelberg and so on. These are averages, we'd have to investigate the actual counts for each community.
So the big question, why 106 incidents in Mt. Lebanon? Do we have that many more deer than any of the others?
Are we bad, inattentive and drunk drivers?
It can't be culling and not culling can it?
USC culls, Castle Shannon doesn't?
So before we go running off willy nilly, hiring consultants, conducting aerial surveys... why don't we put our heads together and see if we can figure out why our accident numbers are so high.
Could it be USC killed 200 deer in vehicle related accident? That would indicate the other 10 communities only averaged 1 each!
That certainly doesn't seem plausible.
Hey, we have a lot of intelligent people in our community (and some really, really dumb ones), let's see if we can figure this one out without spending money before spraying bullets in a densely populated area.
Hopefully, people are paying attention and this resurrection of plans to kill deer in Mt. Lebanon will be a game changer for the November elections.
ReplyDeleteDo we really want to relive the events and bad publicity of the last winter that made Mt. Lebanon a laughing stock?
Here's the commission, incumbents with seats opening like Bendel, Fraasch and Linfante's look-like about to draw us in to trying to exterminate deer all over again.
I hope the community is watching closely.
I found this very interesting point made in the third paragraph from the bottom of this document from the USDA Wildlife Services.
ReplyDelete"Finally, WS recommends that the current archery hunting program in the [Upper St. Clair] TOWNSHIP be examined more carefully. At the current level, hunting is not being utilized adequately. The removal of 3 deer during the 2009 season is alarmingly low..."
THREE DEER? We are never told that part, are we?
Elaine
9:47 AM, sorry, no game changer for the November elections. In Ward 1, both R & D are prokill. In Ward 3, R is prokill. In Ward 5, R is definitely against deer culling. D, not so much.
ReplyDeleteElaine
That's why people need to pay attention.
ReplyDeleteIf everybody is OK with the fixation and spending on attempting to control deer and the related public relations debacle for the community, keep voting for the incumbents. You get what you vote for.
But, if you've had enough and believe there's more important things than saving a few tulips, vote for the Ward 5 republican and start an effort to get an independent on the ballot for wards 1 and 3.
Elaine is absolutely correct. If a PAC begins a grass roots movement today, realistically it MAY impact 2017 elections. Also, knocking incumbents out of office is a huge challenge. No matter how you do it, you will need money. And, it still won't change until 2017.
ReplyDeletePlease, it's getting painfully redundant. Stop looking for a new cast and crew this year.
There are three seats open this November 12:26. The commissioners are planning to put the Home Rule referendum to eliminate the super vote requirement on this November's ballot.
ReplyDeleteSo they'll have the three vote majority for a long time if Hoon doesn't win Ward 5. There will only be two seats open in 2017.
Do it now or don't do it all. It may be redundant but it is also reality.
10:57 AM/2:09 PM, how many deer will be killed before Election Day? That's the reality.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Apparently a lot Elaine, if a message isn't sent soon.
ReplyDeleteA lot more will be killed between November and 2017.
So, do it now, 2:09. Nobody is holding you back. Godspeed.
ReplyDeleteYou know 6:40, me, myself and I (that's the minimum number needed for change, right) had a quick meeting and we voted that 12:26 was right.
ReplyDeleteWe'll sit back and wait for 2017 like the rest of the community.
Ring us up in two years. Godspeed to you as well.
ReplyDeleteDeer Harvests (kills) have been down.
PA was down 14% in 2014.
http://triblive.com/sports/outdoors/7957218-74/harvest-deer-doe#axzz3bruxncmj
In 2014, Virginia was down 22 percent from the previous year and down 18 percent from the last 10-year average. The kill east of the Blue Ridge was down a whopping 24 percent, while on the west side it fell 16 percent.
In other states, as of December 2014:
Wisconsin: “The lowest deer harvest in 30 years.”
Minnesota: Down 23%
Illinois: Down 7% from last year at this time and down 28% from 2012
Michigan (DNR): “Hunters are seeing less deer.”
Ohio (DNR): “The harvest will likely be lower.”
(from http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/big-buck-zone/early-deer-kill-reports-are-down-major-whitetail-states)
We saw that trend in the 2013 and 2014 aerial surveys, 11:27 PM. But DeNicola discounted that data and threw in his own estimate. When Sandy Baker was here, she didn't even see any deer! There is a definite reduction in deer in Mt. Lebanon. I hope the June 22 discussion meeting will resolve in another aerial survey ONLY. We don't know how many deer are here. How can we do anything without a baseline? With this survey, it can be determined not only how many deer we have, but also how many does vs. bucks. That is important if there are plans to sterilize. I don't see a need to do any sterilization, but that is just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Elaine at 12:06---I think your post is right to the point. Why are the commissioners still talking about deer at all?
ReplyDelete