The commission has declined Kelly's proposal to do deer resistant plantings accompanied by educational signage in front of the municipal building as "too political". Yes, you heard that right. What is wrong with this town???I was nowhere close to the Municipal Building last night, so I will have to wait for the meeting video to be uploaded later on today.
More to come.
Everything about the municipality's deer mismanagement program is political. That's one huge challenge for anti-kill people. Deer resistant planting in front of the municipal building is not a terrible idea. It's not a smart one, either. All it would do is create more fodder for the garden biddies. This is exactly what they would say if the proposed garden is created: "Well, of course, the deer are not eating these plants. The deer do not go near the municipal building." True.
ReplyDeleteBetter idea would be to focus on deer resistant plantings in some private gardens (that would allow public view). There are several ways to accomplish that. My guess is that the majority of commissioners saw Kelly's proposal as a photo op for Kelly's campaign.
7:28 AM, these plants were donated by Jim Jenkins. I would not be happy to see them planted on private property. Maybe if Jim Jenkins had bought a sign for Dixon Field, things would have been much different.
ReplyDeleteI understand that it was total lunacy at last night's meeting. Three pro-kill residents, directed by Michalina, were talking about deer sightings, Lyme Disease, and traffic accidents from who knows where or who knows when.
Elaine
'Game-changing' study: Reducing deer herd in residential communities reduces Lyme disease
ReplyDeleteI'd appreciate you posting this. This important study is pretty much the definitive study on the topic. Unless, you only post anonymous comments that you write yourself
Were the prokill ladies talking about the 17 year old hit on Washington Rd last week just an hour before the missing child notification from the MLPD?
ReplyDeleteI understand, Elaine. But, the deer killers will say, and they may be correct to some degree, that if theses plants were displayed in a woods-like backyard, the deer would gobble them up. Perhaps the planting at the edge of one of one of the municipal parks, and not in a commercial district where deer do not freely roam, would help to boost the pro-deer cause AND give Kelly her photo shoot for re-election.
ReplyDeleteLast night's 11 PM news on KDKA featured a story on deer resistant ideas for the garden. I found it to be well-done. Apparently, "deer netting" is inexpensive, almost invisible and, if placed over beloved hosta, etc., the deer will not mess with it. The piece featured Doug Oster and he seemed to imply that the deer are here, so accept it. If only......
Last night, was evidence presented of the deer traffic incidents? At what ate of speed was the vehicle(s) going? Lyme Disease is not caused by deer. That is well-established. Deer sightings? So, what? They live here on the same Earth that humans do. Nobody owns the Earth.
Long may they run.
BTW, did Michalina's monologue last evening mention that "Cornell University conducted a study....."? I think that everyone, including the commissioners, have grown tired of Michalina's repeat performances. Somebody, please, do us all a favor, pull the curtain on her.
ReplyDelete8:08 AM, I published your anonymous comment. You can drop the attitude. I don't write anonymous comments. I don't send out fake emails using a municipal domain. I don't send in letters to the editor as Carrie Doe, Carrie Steel, or any other name. Anything I write, I sign my name to it. Why don't you start your own blog, Sister?
ReplyDeleteElaine
Let me get this straight. Planting deer resistant flowers with educational signage is TOO POLITICAL, but hiring contractors to run around Mt. Lebanon shooting AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifles that threaten the safety of all families, turning our parks into a private bow-hunting (50% wounding rate) killing field, which would traumatize residents (children) seeing wounded deer dying in their yards, panicked wounded deer running into the streets causing accidents, being accused of animal cruelty by The Humane Society of the United States, giving Mt. Lebanon negative publicity on the headline news for 3 months, and budgeting $75K of taxpayers money, many of whom have protested that their taxes be used to protect a handful of gardener's tulips, is not TOO POLITICAL. Am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteHas any evidence been presented that Lyme Disease, regardless of its source, is present in any Mt. Lebo homes or that any Mt. Lebo resident has contracted the disease? Perhaps, 8:08 will answer my question. I'd appreciate it.
ReplyDelete8:53 AM, a resident who attended last night's meeting told me that Michalina did not speak. She was orchestrating the commenters. What I have seen her do is sign in a block of prokill residents for Citizen Comments. She usually does this before the Commission Discussion Session begins. There is nothing illegal about this, just an observation.
ReplyDeleteElaine
I thought eliminating deer was about safety on the roads? Car accidents (or rather alleged and/or yet-to-happen accidents) was the reason cited for this entire boondoggle. Now it's Lyme disease?
ReplyDeleteTry this on for size:
http://www.aldf.com/lyme.shtml
" White-footed mice serve as the principal "reservoirs of infection" on which many larval and nymphal (juvenile) ticks feed and become infected with the LD spirochete. An infected tick can then transmit infection the next time it feeds on another host (e.g., an unsuspecting human)."
Guess we better start planning a massive mice kill. there is also this little gem:
"The mode of spread is not entirely clear and is probably due to a number of factors such as bird migration, mobility of deer and other large mammals, and infected ticks dropping off of pets as people travel around the country."
In other words, you can kill every deer within 50 miles of Lebo and guess what--Lyme disease will find its way back. So will deer. And mice. And birds. Nice try, though, ladies. It seems you really do want to live in a bubble, an actual bubble.
Three questions for the pro-kill folks.
1. How many reported cases of Lyme disease have there been in Mt. Lebanon in the last year?
2. How many cases have been reported in the last five years (and has there been an increase or decrease)?
3. How many reported traffic accidents have been attributed to deer in the last 30 days (you know, since according to one of the resident self-proclaimed experts, there are over 100,000 deer roaming the streets and gosh, we just the let the ball drop on "managing" that massive herd), and has there been an increase or decrease relative to the same 30-day period in previous years?
Ok, so technically, that was four questions.
Mr. Cannon, the article I posted reads:
ReplyDelete"Kilpatrick...explained that during the first year of a tick's life they feed on a wide variety of wildlife. 'Humans, coyotes, mice - even birds,' he said. 'But during the second year as an adult, they require a medium to large-sized mammal. They cannot get what they need, from say a mouse. That's the critical link of the deer in the tick's life cycle.' When deer are abundant, 'all those ticks get their blood meal,' drop off and lay thousands of eggs. When the deer numbers go down, he said, so do the number of ticks."
In other words, the ticks can't lay their eggs without a deer host. Thus, fewer deer means fewer egg-laying ticks which means fewer juvenile ticks which means a decrease in Lyme disease.
According to the CDC's website, Pennsylvania leads the nation in the number of reported Lyme disease infections, and, between 2010 and 2013, infections rose by 50%. Sorry, if that's insufficiently granular. I do know that Lyme disease is reported in every county in our Commonwealth.
May 13, 2015 at 8:08 AM
ReplyDeleteResponse (Part 1)
Hey folks, there are a lot of biased, unscientific, not peer-reviewed, Lyme/deer studies with a pro-kill agenda out there, and this one posted is just another example of an agenda based junk science study.
Howard Kilpatrick, co-authored of the study is a well known pro-kill wildlife biologist at the Connecticut DEEP. In addition, so is Bernd Blossey at Cornell University, who's not even a wildlife biologist. You have to understand some background first. The Dept. of Natural Resources at Cornell is basically a bought and paid for extension of New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), which is the same as our Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC). Hardly unbiased or objective. Cornell's "studies" are totally biased promoting hunting and other lethal solutions to deer management, just like the recommendations we get from the Pa Game Commission.
That's why Richard S. Ostfeld, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, landmark book published by Oxford University Press, “Lyme Disease, The Ecology of a Complex System” in which an objective scientist and Lyme disease expert analyzed and synthesized just about every study to date on this topic. Well over 100 studies are examined in the book, and the conclusion is crystal clear and accessible to the general public: There is little to no scientific correlation between deer and Lyme disease. The Pa Game Commission supports to the same conclusion.
Below is feedback from Richard S. Ostfeld, Ph.D on the "study" just posted, "The Relationship Between Deer Density, Tick Abundance and Human Cases of Lyme Disease in a Residential Community".
7/3/2014
Thanks for your note. I’ve read through the Kilpatrick et al study and find it quite weak. The fundamental flaw is that the study is unreplicated and has no control – that is, they began a deer-hunting/reduction program in one community (N = 1) and had no control community in which hunting was not imposed but ticks and Lyme disease cases were similarly monitored. So, the result is an anecdote. This is unfortunate, because it is a missed opportunity to rigorously address the issue of deer reduction and Lyme risk. I have been urging folks who plan deer culling programs to design their intervention so that the data can be rigorously analyzed, i.e. with replication and controls, but to no avail. Figure 5 in the paper shows that cases of Lyme disease (these were self-reported in surveys rather than being confirmed by medical professionals) were declining precipitously at the time that the deer management program began, suggesting that some other factor besides deer removal was having an effect. This makes replication and control all the more important. They also failed to cite quite relevant research, e.g., by Levi et al (2012) (attached).
I don’t plan to make any public comments on the paper – my experience is that most people’s minds are already made up about the role of deer management, with their positions based on emotion more than rationality, and so scientific discourse has little effect.
Best wishes,
Rick
Richard S. Ostfeld, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Box AB, 2801 Sharon Turnpike
Millbrook, NY 12545 USA
May 13, 2015 at 8:08 AM
ReplyDeleteResponse (Part 2)
"They also failed to cite quite relevant research, e.g., by Levi et al (2012) (attached). ..."
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/27/10942.abstract
Deer, predators, and the emergence of Lyme disease
Taal Levia,1, A. Marm Kilpatrickb, Marc Mangelc,d, and Christopher C. Wilmersa
Author Affiliations
Edited by William H. Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, and approved May 9, 2012 (received for review March 16, 2012)
Abstract
Lyme disease is the most prevalent vector-borne disease in North America, and both the annual incidence and geographic range are increasing. The emergence of Lyme disease has been attributed to a century-long recovery of deer, an important reproductive host for adult ticks. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that Lyme disease risk may now be more dynamically linked to fluctuations in the abundance of small-mammal hosts that are thought to infect the majority of ticks. The continuing and rapid increase in Lyme disease over the past two decades, long after the recolonization of deer, suggests that other factors, including changes in the ecology of small-mammal hosts may be responsible for the continuing emergence of Lyme disease. We present a theoretical model that illustrates how reductions in small-mammal predators can sharply increase Lyme disease risk. We then show that increases in Lyme disease in the northeastern and midwestern United States over the past three decades are frequently uncorrelated with deer abundance and instead coincide with a range-wide decline of a key small-mammal predator, the red fox, likely due to expansion of coyote populations. Further, across four states we find poor spatial correlation between deer abundance and Lyme disease incidence, but coyote abundance and fox rarity effectively predict the spatial distribution of Lyme disease in New York. These results suggest that changes in predator communities may have cascading impacts that facilitate the emergence of zoonotic diseases, the vast majority of which rely on hosts that occupy low trophic levels.
jcannon, May 13, 2015 at 10:24 AM
ReplyDeleteAllegheny County reported no cases of Lyme Disease in all of Allegheny County in 2013. I don't know about 2014.
In 10 years of attending Commission meetings, I've not heard of one documented Lyme disease case reported in Mt. Lebanon, that was proven to have been contracted in Mt. Lebanon, or was proven to have had any connection to deer. Actually, I haven't even heard of one documented.
This non-stop Lyme disease scare tactic being propagated by the pro-kill ladies is a totally bogus justification to slaughter all the deer to protect their tulips. They just hope if they keep on lying enough that uninformed residents will start to believe them. Their entire campaign to kill deer is disingenuous. It's just one big lie after another. Everyone knows it's about their tulips, but they've tried to make it about car-deer collisions and everything else trying to catch some traction.
I think it was Joseph Goebbels who is quoted as saying that, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." seems to be the pro-kill ladies strategy.
I don't know how many times pro-kill trolls have posted on Elaine's blog making up stories, but when confronted, they can't substantiate their claims.
Why do they have to constantly lie to make their case? They have no integrity or credibility.
I guess they have to lie, because that's all they have.
Deer and Lyme Disease - THE FACTS
ReplyDeleteThe blacklegged tick that transmits Lyme disease feeds on approximately 27 species of mammal and 70 species of birds. The bacteria is passed through the bite of a tick. But deer do not get Lyme disease nor do they pass it along. Rodents, on the other hand, particularly the white-footed mouse, do contract the disease and pass it along to other ticks that feed on them. Rodents are called “reservoir hosts” for this reason. Deer are not reservoir hosts, they are called “dilution hosts” because, even though a tick can feed on a deer, as one of the many mammals offering blood meals to ticks, the disease is not spread through the deer-tick relationship.
A landmark book published by Oxford University Press called, “Lyme Disease, The Ecology of a Complex System” by Dr. Richard Ostfeld, analyzed and synthesized just about every study to date on this topic. Well over 100 studies are examined in the book, and the conclusion is crystal clear and accessible to the general public: There is little to no correlation between deer and Lyme disease. According to the book, only about 30 percent of ticks are infected with Lyme disease. Four small mammals (including white-footed mice) host 50% of the ticks, but account for 90% of infected ticks. That means that all the other possible hosts account for only 10% of infected ticks. There are, in fact, no credible (peer reviewed) studies that correlate a reduction in deer numbers with a reduction in Lyme disease.
"I am a research scientist who has devoted much of the past twenty years to understanding the ecology of Lyme disease, and other tick-borne infections. A comprhensive review of all the scientific literature on the relationship between numbers of deer and numbers of ticks reveals that the majority of studies find no statistical correlation at all. The lack of a correlation derives from the following facts: (1) deer do not infect ticks with Lyme bacteria, and actually reduce the infection prevalence in tick populations; (2) adult black legged ticks feed on at least 27 different species of mammals and are not specialists on white-tailed deer; (3) when deer populations are culled, ticks crowd onto the remaining deer, resulting in similar total numbers of tick meals; and (4) even when deer affect the number of eggs laid by adult ticks and resulting abundance of larvae, numbers of larvae do not predict numbers of nymphs (nymphs are responsible for transmitting Lyme disease to people). Moreover, although mention is made of deer thresholds in the non-peer-reviewed literature, no scientific data support the existence of a deer density threshold below which ticks decline to low numbers. Scientific literature on which my statements are based can be found in the book cited above." (Dr. Richard Ostfeld, Senior Scientist, The Cary Institute)
In addition, recent work by Dr. Tamara Awerbuch of the Harvard School of Public Health, confirms that deer are not the culprit for Lyme disease but in fact it is the white-footed mouse ("Killing Deer Not the Answer to Reducing Lyme Disease", Says HSPH Scientist" interview dated 11/23/10). Dr. Awerbuch states that, "There is NO linear correlation between killing deer and the tick population."
This research emphatically refutes the notion that killing deer will reduce the tick population or lyme disease. In the face of this indisputable facts it becomes unsupportable to kill deer for Lyme disease reasons.
Don't you just love 8:08's claim that their link is the "definitive" study on Lyme Disease.
ReplyDeleteGuess they're saying that the PA Game Commission's information linked below is full of crap
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1721301&mode=2
"Species Affected
B. burgdorferi has been isolated in many species of wild mammals and birds. In North America, the bacteria have been found in coyotes, raccoons, chipmunks, rabbits, and several species of rats, mice, and shrews. The bacteria have also been isolated in several bird species including but not limited to the mallard, ringnecked pheasant, wild turkey, house wren, song thrush, American robin, gray catbird, song sparrow, and house sparrow without causing disease. Domestic animals including dogs, cats, cattle, and horses can also become infected. The Lyme disease bacteria can cause a very similar illness in humans."
8:08, we're anxiously awaiting your rebuttal to 11:42's comment.
ReplyDeleteReposting - never showed up
ReplyDeleteMay 13, 2015 at 8:08 AM
Response (Part 1)
Hey folks, there are a lot of biased, unscientific, not peer-reviewed, Lyme/deer studies with a pro-kill agenda out there, and this one is just another example of a biased junk science study.
Howard Kilpatrick, co-authored of the study is a well known pro-kill wildlife biologist at the Connecticut DEEP. In addition, so is Bernd Blossey at Cornell University, who's not even a wildlife biologist. You have to understand some background first. The Dept. of Natural Resources at Cornell is basically a bought and paid for extension of New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), which is the same as our Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC). Hardly unbiased or objective. Cornell's "studies" are totally biased promoting hunting and other lethal solutions to deer management, just like the recommendations we get from the Pa Game Commission.
That's why Richard S. Ostfeld, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, landmark book published by Oxford University Press, “Lyme Disease, The Ecology of a Complex System” in which an objective scientist and Lyme disease expert analyzed and synthesized just about every study to date on this topic. Well over 100 studies are examined in the book, and the conclusion is crystal clear and accessible to the general public: There is little to no scientific correlation between deer and Lyme disease. The Pa Game Commission supports to the same conclusion.
Below is feedback from Richard S. Ostfeld, Ph.D on the "study" just posted, "The Relationship Between Deer Density, Tick Abundance and Human Cases of Lyme Disease in a Residential Community".
7/3/2014
Thanks for your note. I’ve read through the Kilpatrick et al study and find it quite weak. The fundamental flaw is that the study is unreplicated and has no control – that is, they began a deer-hunting/reduction program in one community (N = 1) and had no control community in which hunting was not imposed but ticks and Lyme disease cases were similarly monitored. So, the result is an anecdote. This is unfortunate, because it is a missed opportunity to rigorously address the issue of deer reduction and Lyme risk. I have been urging folks who plan deer culling programs to design their intervention so that the data can be rigorously analyzed, i.e. with replication and controls, but to no avail. Figure 5 in the paper shows that cases of Lyme disease (these were self-reported in surveys rather than being confirmed by medical professionals) were declining precipitously at the time that the deer management program began, suggesting that some other factor besides deer removal was having an effect. This makes replication and control all the more important. They also failed to cite quite relevant research, e.g., by Levi et al (2012) (attached). ... I don’t plan to make any public comments on the paper – my experience is that most people’s minds are already made up about the role of deer management, with their positions based on emotion more than rationality, and so scientific discourse has little effect.
Best wishes,
Rick
Richard S. Ostfeld, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Box AB, 2801 Sharon Turnpike
Millbrook, NY 12545 USA
ReplyDeleteReposting - so in order
May 13, 2015 at 8:08 AM
Response (Part 2)
"They also failed to cite quite relevant research, e.g., by Levi et al (2012) (attached). ..."
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/27/10942.abstract
Deer, predators, and the emergence of Lyme disease
Taal Levia,1, A. Marm Kilpatrickb, Marc Mangelc,d, and Christopher C. Wilmersa
Author Affiliations
Edited by William H. Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, and approved May 9, 2012 (received for review March 16, 2012)
Abstract
Lyme disease is the most prevalent vector-borne disease in North America, and both the annual incidence and geographic range are increasing. The emergence of Lyme disease has been attributed to a century-long recovery of deer, an important reproductive host for adult ticks. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that Lyme disease risk may now be more dynamically linked to fluctuations in the abundance of small-mammal hosts that are thought to infect the majority of ticks. The continuing and rapid increase in Lyme disease over the past two decades, long after the recolonization of deer, suggests that other factors, including changes in the ecology of small-mammal hosts may be responsible for the continuing emergence of Lyme disease. We present a theoretical model that illustrates how reductions in small-mammal predators can sharply increase Lyme disease risk. We then show that increases in Lyme disease in the northeastern and midwestern United States over the past three decades are frequently uncorrelated with deer abundance and instead coincide with a range-wide decline of a key small-mammal predator, the red fox, likely due to expansion of coyote populations. Further, across four states we find poor spatial correlation between deer abundance and Lyme disease incidence, but coyote abundance and fox rarity effectively predict the spatial distribution of Lyme disease in New York. These results suggest that changes in predator communities may have cascading impacts that facilitate the emergence of zoonotic diseases, the vast majority of which rely on hosts that occupy low trophic levels.
Below is peer review feedback from Richard S. Ostfeld, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Lyme Disease Expert, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, on the "study" just posted, "The Relationship Between Deer Density, Tick Abundance and Human Cases of Lyme Disease in a Residential Community".
ReplyDelete7/3/2014
Thanks for your note. I’ve read through the Kilpatrick et al study and find it quite weak. The fundamental flaw is that the study is unreplicated and has no control – that is, they began a deer-hunting/reduction program in one community (N = 1) and had no control community in which hunting was not imposed but ticks and Lyme disease cases were similarly monitored. So, the result is an anecdote. This is unfortunate, because it is a missed opportunity to rigorously address the issue of deer reduction and Lyme risk. I have been urging folks who plan deer culling programs to design their intervention so that the data can be rigorously analyzed, i.e. with replication and controls, but to no avail. Figure 5 in the paper shows that cases of Lyme disease (these were self-reported in surveys rather than being confirmed by medical professionals) were declining precipitously at the time that the deer management program began, suggesting that some other factor besides deer removal was having an effect. This makes replication and control all the more important. They also failed to cite quite relevant research, e.g., by Levi et al (2012) (attached).
I don’t plan to make any public comments on the paper – my experience is that most people’s minds are already made up about the role of deer management, with their positions based on emotion more than rationality, and so scientific discourse has little effect.
Best wishes,
Rick
Richard S. Ostfeld, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Box AB, 2801 Sharon Turnpike
Millbrook, NY 12545 USA
I WAS there last evening and took notes. The three well-rehearsed pro-kill folks were first out of the starting gate and did their best to strike fear in the hearts of every (non-deer) living thing with their rhetoric. To listen to those alarmists, Mt. Lebanon is being totally over-run by deer who are absolutely destroying the town while utterly terrorizing its citizenry! (Obviously, in THEIR UNIVERSE, the deer are the ONLY thing going on right now; even with the "cooling off period" proposed by the Commission's President.) As fully expected, we're now hearing horror stories about: someone's aunt being hospitalized following a collision (speed, weather,road conditions, and location unknown); Lyme disease afflicting a co-worker's child (also location undisclosed); deer taking over a yard, making exit of a residence an impossibility; collision rates in New Jersey (of all places!); destruction of native plants with further invasion by invasive species; risks to all of us of being "GORED" by deer, and I don't mean just during rutting season or in defense of young; oh yes, and gardens being damaged. If I've forgotten anything (my notes are at home), it's because after nearly 15-minutes of these horror accounts, I was pretty sure they were an indication that the world must be coming to a quick and certain end! So...what's the take-away message from all this smoke-and-mirror stuff? FACTS! LOTS OF FACTS! ALL THE FACTS WE CAN FIND! And they're doing their part by giving us plenty of red-herring issues to refute. I hope you've all rested-up during this "cooling-off period" because it's now time. The podium is open and you have your choice of fishy-issues. Ready? Let's get back in the fray!
ReplyDeletePerhaps the anti-kill faction can knock off one issue at a time.
ReplyDeleteAs I stated earlier today, it is well established that deer are not the cause of lyme disease. Some of the commentators on this blog subsequently posted authority for my statement. Thank you.
So, the anti-kill group (is there one?) should make Lyme disease the next topic for discussion and presentation to all commissioners.
Don't argue about it on this blog forever. Take it to your leaders. Persuade Bendel to say on the record that deer do not cause Lyme disease and, therefore, contracting Lyme disease can no longer be used by Mt.Lebanon as a valid reason for killing deer.
Chip away all the pro-kill arguments, one at a time.
May 13, 2015 at 10:57 AM
ReplyDeleteActually, as Dr. Richard Ostfeld points out, "when deer populations are culled, ticks crowd onto the remaining deer, resulting in similar total numbers of tick meals".
In addition, other studies show that deer reduction programs actually increase the risk of humans and dogs (pets) getting Lyme disease; i.e. if the ticks can't find a medium mammal (raccoon, possum, fox, coyote, etc.) or larger mammal (deer), they will seek humans and dogs out for their next meal, increasing the risk of Lyme disease infection for us and our dogs.
Reposting for 3rd time. For some reason (Part 1) never gets posted.
ReplyDeleteMay 13, 2015 at 8:08 AM
Response (Part 1)
Hey folks, there are a lot of biased, unscientific, not peer-reviewed, Lyme/deer studies with a pro-kill agenda out there, and this one is just another example of a biased junk science study.
Howard Kilpatrick, co-authored of the study is a well known pro-kill wildlife biologist at the Connecticut DEEP. In addition, so is Bernd Blossey at Cornell University, who's not even a wildlife biologist. You have to understand some background first. The Dept. of Natural Resources at Cornell is basically a bought and paid for extension of New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), which is the same as our Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC). Hardly unbiased or objective. Cornell's "studies" are totally biased promoting hunting and other lethal solutions to deer management, just like the recommendations we get from the Pa Game Commission.
That's why Richard S. Ostfeld, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, landmark book published by Oxford University Press, “Lyme Disease, The Ecology of a Complex System” in which an objective scientist and Lyme disease expert analyzed and synthesized just about every study to date on this topic. Well over 100 studies are examined in the book, and the conclusion is crystal clear and accessible to the general public: There is little to no scientific correlation between deer and Lyme disease. The Pa Game Commission supports to the same conclusion.
Below is peer review feedback from Richard S. Ostfeld, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Lyme Disease Expert, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, on the "study" just posted, "The Relationship Between Deer Density, Tick Abundance and Human Cases of Lyme Disease in a Residential Community".
7/3/2014
Thanks for your note. I’ve read through the Kilpatrick et al study and find it quite weak. The fundamental flaw is that the study is unreplicated and has no control – that is, they began a deer-hunting/reduction program in one community (N = 1) and had no control community in which hunting was not imposed but ticks and Lyme disease cases were similarly monitored. So, the result is an anecdote. This is unfortunate, because it is a missed opportunity to rigorously address the issue of deer reduction and Lyme risk. I have been urging folks who plan deer culling programs to design their intervention so that the data can be rigorously analyzed, i.e. with replication and controls, but to no avail. Figure 5 in the paper shows that cases of Lyme disease (these were self-reported in surveys rather than being confirmed by medical professionals) were declining precipitously at the time that the deer management program began, suggesting that some other factor besides deer removal was having an effect. This makes replication and control all the more important. They also failed to cite quite relevant research, e.g., by Levi et al (2012) (attached). ... I don’t plan to make any public comments on the paper – my experience is that most people’s minds are already made up about the role of deer management, with their positions based on emotion more than rationality, and so scientific discourse has little effect.
Best wishes,
Rick
Richard S. Ostfeld, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Box AB, 2801 Sharon Turnpike
Millbrook, NY 12545 USA
Almost forgot--it was like looking at an ALTERNATE UNIVERSE on display when the issue of the Municipal Building planters was addressed. Commissioner Fraasch indicated that Jim Jenkins had kindly donated to the Community two large planters filled with varieties of deer-resistant plantings at the end of Sandy Baker's presentations. She proposed that they remain in front of the building and that (here's where this got other-worldly) the "Deer'licious" signs remain in the planters to let people know that the plants they were looking at were deer-resistant. Without naming names, and believe me I COULD name names, Kelly found herself in a battle with SIX people who were convinced that identifying plants as deer resistant: was beyond their expertise; was premature since they hadn't received a written report from Sandy Baker, yet; might be problematic, since we have many fine master gardeners in our community who may not agree with Sandy Baker's report when it does arrive; would place the community in the position of serving as "guarantor" of the deer-resistance properties of things that might, nonetheless, be eaten; AND MAKES A POLITICAL STATEMENT CONCERNING AN ISSUE THAT HAS BECOME DEVISIVE! They don't believe that municipal planters should make POLITICAL STATEMENTS! Seriously?!? This after assurances that Jim Jenkins would receive no credit whatsoever for the generosity and that this would further the "stated goal" of the Commission to assist the public through, of all things, EDUCATION! (Kind of reminds you of the Garden Biddies insisting that education is just a waste of money, doesn't it?) Anyway, Kelly raised every well-reasoned argument anyone could have thought of, to no avail. The score remained: SIX to one! So now, it isn't just the deer who are politically sensitive; it is apparently anything that might be put forth as a possible solution to mitigate against the complaints being raised about the deer, as well. We are now officially in the Twilight Zone!
ReplyDeleteThe reason(s)why the commissioners vote for or against flower pots is not articulated at the meeting. Everything about the flower pots was politically MOTIVATED. Kelly knew that her fellow commissioners would vote against her idea long before the meeting started. The other commissioners told her and they told her the REAL reasons why. (Who knows? Kelly declined to make a deal with them on one of their pet project? Maybe.) The public meetings are, in essence, the meetings after the meetings. Don't get too riled about what the commissioners do/say at public meetings. It has all been rehearsed. As for Kelly, she knew that the commissioners would vote against the flower pots (which is silly in itself). By raising the issue, though, Kelly got to play out another of her skits about her martyrdom for the deer. (Let's not forget that Kelly voted for a pro-kill interim commissioner while kicking an anti-kill applicant in the face.)
ReplyDeleteTake the deer issue out of the hands of these politicians. I suggest a grass-roots initiative is the only thing that will work. Do it. Organize, plan and act. Forget the flower pots and the hosta ladies. They can fend for themselves.
Question: What percentage of seats were filled at each of Ms. Baker's presentations? I do not ask for nefarious reasons. It's an important statistic to put in the anti-kill group's mix. Just approximate. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteMay 13, 2015 at 8:08 AM
ReplyDeleteResponse (Part 1)
Hey folks, there are a lot of biased, unscientific, not peer-reviewed, Lyme/deer studies with a pro-kill agenda out there, and this one is just another example of a biased junk science study.
Howard Kilpatrick, co-authored of the study is a well known pro-kill wildlife biologist at the Connecticut DEEP. In addition, so is Bernd Blossey at Cornell University, who's not even a wildlife biologist. You have to understand some background first. The Dept. of Natural Resources at Cornell is basically a bought and paid for extension of New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), which is the same as our Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC). Hardly unbiased or objective. Cornell's "studies" are totally biased promoting hunting and other lethal solutions to deer management, just like the recommendations we get from the Pa Game Commission.
That's why Richard S. Ostfeld, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, landmark book published by Oxford University Press, “Lyme Disease, The Ecology of a Complex System” in which an objective scientist and Lyme disease expert analyzed and synthesized just about every study to date on this topic. Well over 100 studies are examined in the book, and the conclusion is crystal clear and accessible to the general public: There is little to no scientific correlation between deer and Lyme disease. The Pa Game Commission supports to the same conclusion.
Below is peer review feedback from Richard S. Ostfeld, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Lyme Disease Expert, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, on the "study" just posted, "The Relationship Between Deer Density, Tick Abundance and Human Cases of Lyme Disease in a Residential Community".
7/3/2014
Thanks for your note. I’ve read through the Kilpatrick et al study and find it quite weak. The fundamental flaw is that the study is unreplicated and has no control – that is, they began a deer-hunting/reduction program in one community (N = 1) and had no control community in which hunting was not imposed but ticks and Lyme disease cases were similarly monitored. So, the result is an anecdote. This is unfortunate, because it is a missed opportunity to rigorously address the issue of deer reduction and Lyme risk. I have been urging folks who plan deer culling programs to design their intervention so that the data can be rigorously analyzed, i.e. with replication and controls, but to no avail. Figure 5 in the paper shows that cases of Lyme disease (these were self-reported in surveys rather than being confirmed by medical professionals) were declining precipitously at the time that the deer management program began, suggesting that some other factor besides deer removal was having an effect. This makes replication and control all the more important. They also failed to cite quite relevant research, e.g., by Levi et al (2012) (attached).
I don’t plan to make any public comments on the paper – my experience is that most people’s minds are already made up about the role of deer management, with their positions based on emotion more than rationality, and so scientific discourse has little effect.
Best wishes,
Rick
Richard S. Ostfeld, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Box AB, 2801 Sharon Turnpike
Millbrook, NY 12545 USA
Barbara, it has been The Twilight Zone for sometime.
ReplyDeleteLook back to the early meetings on the high school renovation.
Due to public pressure the board formed at committee (CAC) comprised of 12 architects, engineers and other building professionals to evaluate the high school renovation plans.
When the CAC submitted their evaluations the board attempted to censor their findings. Failing that, Cappucci after hearing their critique and suggested chimed in saying she had no intention of revisiting the destruction of building C.
12 reputable experts advised it didn't have to come down and this board member shut down any further discussion.
Well, we were promised a less than $100 million renovation and we now know how that is working out.
Now we have advice on coexisting with deer, and how is that advice being received?
Does there seem to be a common denominator?
Barbara,
ReplyDeleteLet me guess. Coyotes are now coming to Mt. Lebanon because we have deer.
We have had coyotes for years. We had a bear running through Mt. Lebanon too. I have the police video on the blog.
Elaine
Actually, Elaine, you've jogged my memory. We were told last night by, I believe, the first of the trio, that she has walked our parks and has seen severed deer legs in Bird Park as "evidence" of coyote presence in the community. (She and her cohorts had gone before I had the chance to ask if she had taken pictures or what she had done about leaving deer parts where they could attract some of our rats-as-big-as-cats.) Although this "evidence" wouldn't hold up in a Court of Law, I guess their battle cry is: "When in doubt, BLAME IT ON THE DEER!"
ReplyDelete2:24, while the flowers pots may have looked nice, I too found them to be rather silly and a skit.
ReplyDeleteThe real proof would have been voting for a tried and true anti-cull, anti-turf, fiscally conservative and transparent commissioner for Ward 3... she didn't so anything now is just song and dance.
The commission meeting videos are now online. Here is the link to the commission meeting.
ReplyDeleteCitizen Comments starts at the 08:56 time stamp.
Elaine
But who cares if there are coyote eating deer.. right? Isn't that a free cull? (I do like deer but I am not against nature taking its course). Does the pro-kill master gardener want a cull of coyotes, too? How about the fox puppies that have been discovered in a Mt Lebanon back yard recently?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWPO36u4lFA
Flowers in front of the municipal building discussion is in the Discussion Session Part 2. The video is here.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that Coleen Vuono was the first to object to the idea.
There will be a discussion of lethal methods and non-lethal methods of deer "management" on June 22.
Elaine
2:24 and 3:13----Right on. You have the correct focus and analysis. Everyone interested in keeping the deer safe, please, please read 2:24 and 3:13.
ReplyDeleteWho wants to watch the commission meeting video? I don't care to. I would rather spend my time considering options for a comprehensive anti-kill plan. Stop wasting precious time, please.
ReplyDelete3:13, Kelly has always been nothing but song and dance. By now, however, almost everyone has figured her out.
ReplyDeleteAs to the two pots of plants. Just place them somewhere, Kelly. We don't need another song and dance. And, if the majority of the commissioners truly are Putin-like, give the pots back to Mr. Jenkins with a big thank you note. Figure it out, Kelly, without making a public production of it.
If Kelly Fraasch cannot get her commissioner cronies to allow her to place two plant pots in front of the muni building, (even if her intention is to use the plants as a photo op),then Kelly Fraasch is nothing more than a potted plant to this community.
ReplyDeleteI'll say it again, the biggest issue that goes on with the commissioners is the bulleying and scapegoating behavior which has ALWAYS been completely unreasonable and socially INAPPROPRIATE! The deer in our community are now the scapegoat! Whatever the issues are in ML, there is always a scapegoat. I don't need a PH.D to figure this out. The appropriate response for the scapegoat, is to take themselves out of the middle. Unfortunately, the deer can't do this. The bottom line is MONEY and a very small group of idiots with too much money and time on their hands. Focus on the inappropriate behavior and call these people on it! It's appropriate to question ethical, selfish, and dishonest behavior.
ReplyDelete4:46, good point, a minority vote 'sometimes' on important issues is about as ineffectual as complaining on a blog.
ReplyDeleteIf one doesn't take steps to change the game or at least persuade others to their point of view, what is the point?
Put the potted plants in the commissioner's chair.
5:09, these people have been called on their behavior time and time again. It hasn't changed anything.
some people said their were forming a PAC or group to do just that. I hope they're succeeding in their effort.
These people that are Living and pushing this fear of Lyme Disease-- do they never leave Mt. Lebanon?
ReplyDeleteDo they never go to South Park, Ohiopyle? Do they never golf at South Hills, St. Clair or Nevillewood Golf Clubs? Do they never attend their childrens' or grandchildrens' travel sporting events at other community fields?
Do they believe that once they kill every Lebo deer, they'll somehow be inoculated from every exposure to ticks?
They truly do live in a bubble.
If the Lebodeer buddies attended the May Mart on the lawn of the Phipps Conservatory they could've easily picked up a deer tick.
ReplyDeleteThere are deer in Schenley Park, look it up.
This article also includes politicians!
ReplyDeletehttp://theinternationalcoalition.blogspot.com/2011/07/noam-chomsky-top-10-media-manipulation_08.html
I watched that discussion about flower pots and I thought it was shamefully dishonest. Of course, I don't know what all they are hiding but this Commission really makes me sorry for Mt Lebanon. There isn't a Pittsburgh-real feeling to any of them. It's like an imposter mafia has overtaken this town.
ReplyDeleteUnder the Dome.
ReplyDeleteMy first thought was why does the commission have to vote on the placement of two flower pots?
ReplyDelete5:09, I think you are onto something constructive. The scapegoat theory is highly plausible. Also, The CBS Evening News the other night reported on a campaign on the University of Colorado campus and paid for by the university that is attempting to essentially force those on campus to face their racist, sexist, etc. behavior. The thought behind it is that one does not change his/her behavior until s/he recognizes the behavior. As I was watching the piece, I saw a connection to the elite, monied, nothing-to-do garden women in Mt. Lebanon. Their behavior with respect to the deer is barbaric. Let's rub their noses in their unevolved, uncivilized conduct. Over and over again. Here is the link to the CBS story:
www.cbsnews.com/news/university-of-colorado-tries-to-fight-racism
Elaine,
ReplyDeleteYou are so hypocritical and ridiculously challenged.
The only commmissioner that has stood up for the community at any point has been Fraasch and yet you bash her here. Because she didn't vote for you?
You BEG the community to get candidates that will stand up to the thugs that want to kill deer and install turf and when she doesn't vote for you to become a replacement, you lose your crazy mind?
Then you let people post things like she is all song and dance?
You post here that actions have consequences or so you were told. Well they do. You have single-handedly pissed off every commissioner to the point where they won't even talk to you. How in the world would Fraasch or anyone else put you even in a top 100 list of possible commission replacements. You can't work with even a single one of them. If she wanted to ever work with another commissioner you put her in the position of not being able to consider you for the position. That is the consequence of the actions you have taken against the commissioners on this blog. And it is now the action you are taking against Fraasch.
I used to think this blog could be good for the community by exposing wrongs but if you are going to even go after the ones that actually give a damn about the community then screw it. You don't even deserve a place in the community conversation anymore because you refuse to even work with the best we have.
Look at how many times you use the word lunacy here and then go look in the mirror. You refuse to use your blog to do good. Instead you choose to do harm. It is not the commission that is divided. You have single handedly united them. You, far more than anything or anyone else, have built that commission in to an efficient pro-kill, pro-turf, team. Everything you ask for, the commission will willingly, happily, and rightly take the other side of the argument.
Congrats on your success since I am sure you define the gutter talk as such.
Oh that is so brilliant, the commissioners will willingly, happily and "rightly" take the other side of an argument simply cause it is against Elaine.
ReplyDeleteHelluva way to run a community.
Elaine says don't spend on turf, so if they follow your opinion 9:07, the commissioner should happily argue to spend all they can.
Brilliant, just brilliant.
May 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, E. T. Gillen said... "It is interesting that Coleen Vuono was the first to object to the idea."
ReplyDeleteBIG SURPRISE THERE! Looks like Vuono has hit the ground running in the footsteps of her deer killing obsessed predecessor Commissioner Linfante. The puppet master is happy.
Wow, I wasn't even at the meeting the other night and it is all my fault? The Discussion Session Part 2 didn't look like a united commission, 9:07 PM. Is this going to be a nightly bashing, 9:07 PM?
ReplyDeleteElaine
9:07. The only thing I've ever seen Kelly Fraasch stand up for was to have her picture taken.
ReplyDeleteIf Elaine Gillen has as much power of persuasion over the commission as you suggest, then Elaine Gillen deserves a seat on the commission.
Remember, Kelly likes playing the role of the martyr commissioner.
All that publicity for being completely ineffective. I'll give her credit for being successfully conniving.
9:07. WAKE UP.
Elaine--It may not look like a united commission but looks are deceiving. All the commissioners practice their lines in front of each other before the meeting begins.
ReplyDelete9:07. Play nice or pick up your toys and go home.
Just a suggestion...the opportunity to adopt a flower bed and plant deer resistant plants and flowers may be a good idea for some, even for a business who wants to put a sign up.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mtlebanon.org/index.aspx?nid=1911
9:07 just gave you a key to manipulating things in the community.
ReplyDeleteWant to stop the deer cull. Argue for it. In fact argue for killing every living thing in the municipality.
9:07 in their infinite wisdom told you the commissioners will happy argue for the other extreme.
So there you go,, viola, the commissioners will side with NOT killing anything.
Thanks 9:07!
You gotta love Dave Brumfield at 1:48 an on of the discussion video part 2.
ReplyDeleteNick M.
9:07,
ReplyDeleteYou are ridiculous. You complain about her publishing comments. She published your comment, man! She publishes most comments. If the Commission is making decisions to spite Elaine, that reflects incredibly poorly upon the Commission. Who are the elected officials? I don't think they act like it sometimes. Why did Kelly find it necessary to mention her top 4? It was completely unnecessary. I don't think Elaine expected her to vote for her, but naming the top 4 was a fairly apparent political move to distance herself from Elaine. Kelly has shown a lot of integrity over the past couple of years, but that was not a move that showed integrity.
I listened to Coleen Vuono's argument against Kelly's suggestion for wanting to plant 2 deer resistant plants near the municipal building. I'm sorry but Coleen Vuono is absolutely clueless on this issue. Did she even see Sandy Baker when she was here? She wasn't present when Sandy Baker gave her presentation to the commissioners. She's arguing about something she knows nothing about. The woman needs to be quiet for a while.
ReplyDeleteNick M.
Elaine has always been pistol-whipped as a community scapegoat. Give her a break! At least she files RTKs and exposes the deception going with the local politics. Who else is doimg that??!!! The bullies have always trashed her behind her back! Is someone else going to step up to the plate, be honest, and give the facts and transparency to the community?? I think not!
ReplyDeleteThat was also not a move to motivate people to stand against the pro-kill deer ladies.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, if it takes a commission to decide the fate of two potted plants, our government either has nothing else to do or they do what they do behind closed doors.
ReplyDelete9:07 pm I agree that the commission appears united but not because of a reaction to Elaine. While I do appreciate all of Elaine's work and her amazing blog, I don't think that's all the commission is teaming up to defend themselves and Mt Lebanon against. There are bigger issues than deer in our midst.
ReplyDeleteBefore our interviews, I brought up the Sandy Baker event to the applicants. Coleen did not see Sandy Baker. She must not have listened to Sandy Baker's report to the commissioners either. It was the during April 27, 2015 Commission Discussion Session, right before our interviews.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Hi Elaine, Coleen's argument has no foundation. I don't even know where's she's coming from with what's she's even talking about.
ReplyDeleteIt is kind of comical 10:17, isn't it?
Nick M.
9:39 pm I had a similar idea regarding flower beds. I know that one family already has their landscapers take care of the traffic island by their house. This year, I haven't seen the municipality plant any flowers yet and i know they've had some challenges with their mowing service.
ReplyDeleteMake sure the flowers are considered more deer resistant than others and are pollinator friendly since 61% of bee colonies in PA collapsed in the last year.
#beecrisis
http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/8364448-74/beekeepers-reported-colonies#axzz3a4Xu8yCc
http://www.whiteflowerfarm.com/deer-resistant-perennials.html#
It's all about money! Follow the money!
ReplyDeleteAnybody with a lick of knowledge about gardening already knows how and where to find deer resistant plants. I can name twenty such perennials off the top of my head. Same with annuals. It's not rocket science. If anyone needs more information on deer resistant planting, Rutgers University has an A+ list.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, follow the money if you want to see what your commissioners are up to.
10:27 which stash of money are you suggesting to follow? are you talking about gardener money? unassigned funds? allegheny county council money? sports money? the endowment? the muni's fake budget money? state grant money? newcomer tax money? there might be TOO MUCH MONEY and yet..there's never enough according to the commission and feller.
ReplyDelete10:27, I believe the flower bed adoption program is a great idea but for some reason it isn't being advertised effectively on the website for folks to take advantage of, it's buried about 5 menu items deep. The PIO should have it on the front page.
ReplyDeleteThe municipal flower beds that taxpayers have $6300 invested in since last year has hit quite a few snags. It's another case of being behind the eight ball on yet another taxpayer funded project. This commission just can't seem to get it together.
Port Authority has been slow at getting to the grass too. If my grass was as tall as the Port Authority's I'd be cited immediately.
Nick M.
May 13, 2015 at 9:07 PM
ReplyDeleteMy issues with Kelly Fraasch are the following:
1) I voted for Kelly Fraasch, because I believed she supported non-lethal solutions to deer-human conflicts, and stood against the use of lethal weapons in our parks and neighborhoods. However, in 2014 she voted for a cull/sterilization program, which brought lethal weapons into our community that threatened the safety of residents, and turned our community into an inhumane killing field.
2) In 2015, Commissioner Fraasch voted for Coleen Vuono, the hand picked pro-kill replacement, which guaranteed another deer killing program in the fall.
Bottom line, I no longer trust Commissioner Fraasch to stand her ground against the use of lethal weapons in Mt. Lebanon. She betrayed my vote. I think it's great that she lobbied to bring in Sandy Baker, but then she'll turn around and vote for bow-hunting or a bait-and-shoot deer killing program. I have no idea what she stands for any more.
A peer reviewed study means nothing. All it means is the authors friends and colleagues read the study. There are so many ways to twist a study and a big one includes cheating and who stands to benefit. If ypu think our politicians cheat, doctors aren't any different. Most everyone has a price.
ReplyDeleteIf you do not know without google what a LLMD is, you know nothing about Lyme.
Lyme (the bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb) is not easily cultured, so not easily studied which equals no information.
There are other vectors than ticks that transfer Lyme including arachnoids and birds. If you have Lyme you probably co-infections such as Babesia, Bartonella, Anaplasma, Ehrilichia, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, or others.
Bb can cross the placenta from an infected (possibly undiagnosed) mother to fetus; and possible human sexual transmission. Yes, Sex. Why not? They are now advising male Ebola survivors the virus may remain in semen indefinitely!
As we all know by now, the white-footed mouse is a ticks preferred prey. Blame the acorn shortage and LESS white footed mice leaving more ticks looking for other food.
The most understood fact: not everyone but by an infected tick will get the infection (or a long term infection). The state of the body's immune system is important if bit. We can all agree much of our food is processed, our soul is depleted of nutrients
and food today holds little nutritional value compared to decades ago.
Lyme, is quite possibly our own fault. Historically in notes from the 1700's men would be covered with dozens of ticks day upon day. These men developed
Arthralgia and painful joints, but not all of them. Today, we get it from one tick?
It doesn't take a genius to put the puzzle together.
Let's get over the farce of killing deer because of Lyme.
10:27 PM. War is all about the money. I agree. Follow the money.
ReplyDeleteI do not think any commissioner, even Fraasch, is trustworthy. She has pulled some hum-dingers. She'll use you for her cause or information and then drop you. My opinion, of course.
Fraasch has brought us her California Style Politics. How can anyone take her seriously until she at least learns how to properly pronounce Primanti Brothers?
ReplyDelete10:01. That's the funniest thing I ever heard.
ReplyDeleteQuestion.
ReplyDeleteIs there a huge problem with deer eating anything along Washington Road from Washington School to Rolliers.
I've lived here over 30 years and can't remember ever seeing a deer on the stretch of Washington.
So what's the purpose of the planters? Prove deer don't eat the plants in it? Educate residents what plants deer avoid?
Have we become so lazy and dependent on government that we can't look it up or stop at Jenkins and ask them?
The short answer is yes.
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming that it would be to try and raise public awareness, on a bust street, that there are plants that are deer resistant. Hard to believe that the Commissioners think that it would be political.
Apparently the Lebo deer haters haven't figured it out yet...
Wait, I'm sorry, I forgot it was about safety. No wait, it's about disease. No wait, it's about do-do in the yard. No wait, it's about deer attaching people. No wait...
Roger, I'd agree that somehow they figured this would be an educational endeavor.
ReplyDeleteIf teaching residents about deer resistant plants was the objective, why wouldn't they put them somewhere where the hundreds of Lebo deer would have convenient access to them.
Say the corner of Cedar and Morgan Drive.
That way Commissioner Fraasch, Jenkins or the anti-cull people could point at the plants and show evidence that deer avoid them.
Putting them in front of the municipal building shows what? That deer that pick up pizza at Mineo's don't stop to munch on plants in front of the municipal building.
It's absurd showboating.
I disagree.
ReplyDeleteYou don't need to "prove" it to anybody. Just get people to observe that there are attractive plants that deer tend not to eat. Then maybe the light bulb will go and they will think, HEY those look nice, maybe I'll try those instead of what is being eaten.
In addition, I think the municipality should lead the way and mandate that all of the traffic islands and flower beds that the pubic owns should also be done with deer resistant designs.
Here is what I don't understand, Roger at 1:32 PM. Putting deer resistant plants is "political" but seeing "Eat More Venison" signs on municipal property near Longuevue and Washington Road when Sandy Baker was here is OK.
ReplyDeleteThen when I posted this thread which pointed out the lunacy of the commission majority who disagreed with Kelly's suggestion of planting two potted plants that were donated, the Kelly supporters/"apologists" go out of their way to say how crazy I am.
If nobody wants the two potted plants, I will take them and plant them where my property ends and Rockwood Park begins. I will make sure that no "Deerlicious" signs are on municipal property, Coleen.
To spend twelve minutes and 26 seconds of a commission meeting discussing "Deerlicious" signs and whether two potted plants are making a political statement is pathetic.
Elaine
Roger, please see my comment on 5/13 at 8:46 AM. Also, it's probably worth taking a look at Doug Oster's talk about deer resistant gardening on KDKA-TV News earlier this week.
ReplyDeleteAnd, may I say one more time that deer-resistant gardening is not a NEW concept. Ten years ago, I only purchased deer-resistant plants. Tax Farms, Jenkins, Chapins, etc. all have deer resistant displays and experts on staff. Trax has offered deer resistant gardening classes for years. We didn't need Sandy Baker to show us what gardeners and garden centers already know. The very rich garden ladies with professional landscapers need only to let their landscapers know of the deer presence. They'll plant the appropriate gardens where the pro-killers can take in the sun and sip on iced-tea, while polishing their pieces. I'll look for the Rutgers link to deer-resistant trees, plants and flowers. Almost every respectable on-line and mail catalog flower and shrub vender indicate which plants are deer-resistant. Bluestone Perennials, High Country Gardens.
One rule of green thumb that will not fail you in these parts--- plant ornamental grasses, allium (ornamental onions, and pulminaria for a care-free, deer-resistant and pretty garden. The deer will not touch them. Cleome is a lovely annual that is safe from deer. And there is a large variety of marigolds out there. This is just a small sampling.
Therefore, the more the garden biddies kick and scream about their Hosta, the less they know a thing about gardening.
Sorry but has anybody checked on this "deer-licious" program? I can't imagine why deer resistant plants would be called "deer-licious". Maybe someone can provide a link to what this 12 minutes of video, paid for by taxpayers, was actually referencing.
ReplyDelete2:03--Kindly explain. I've never heard the term "deer-licious." Perhaps you will enlighten me.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
Yes, maybe "someone" can provide a link to the program or "someone" can actually listen to the explanation given by Kelly when she was talking about it during the twelve minute, taxpayer paid video.
ReplyDeleteIt is a rating system based on how deer resistant the plants are.
This is when you come back with how crazy I am.
Elaine
Oh. Okay. I understand. I will find a helpful link to a web site (I think commercial flower/shrub vender) that rates some plants on a scale (like one to 10) of how deer-resistant the plants really are. Throw in ornamental sages (many varieties) and perennial plumbago as completely deer resistant plants. Allow me to add that what deer eat in our region may not overlap with other regions. Local garden centers and experienced gardeners know what plants stick and what plants are deer food.
ReplyDeleteNo commissioner seated on the dais should speak the word "deer-licious."
ReplyDeleteYou are NOT crazy, Elaine. Quite the contrary.
12:38 here Roger.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it shouldn't be necessary to prove anything regarding deer-resistant plants, but unfortunately there are some people you just have to take by the hand like little children and direct their attention to a real life demonstration.
It shouldn't be necessary, but if we're going to waste countless hours debating to have these potted plants just put them somewhere where the deer might actually visit them and have the demo. If Jenkins is willing to donate them fine, thank you Jim Jenkins.
As for 2:03's comment, I agree why would you call a program about deer resistant plants deer-licious?
It's smart-diculous! See what I mean.
After watching the commission video, I wonder if Vuono will be consistent in her concerns regarding the appearance of municipal endorsements when it comes to field signs and selling naming rights.
ReplyDeleteIf you follow her logic, is the municipality endorsing running up to The Saloon to buy a six pack to chug down while watching a kids' baseball game?
I guess it is a matter of degrees. The potted plants are just that, a couple of potted plants.
The Saloon field sign on the other hand is $750 Of municipal revenue toward endorsing that some people get potted.
The commissioners certainly can't spend Jenkin's plants, but they will be able to spend advertisers sign dollars toasted their special agendas.
Now I'll bet if Jenkins or deer-licious offered a $1,000 to put the plants on the sidewalk the discussion would'vegone a completely different direction.
How odd is this? Google deer-licious and one of the first hits is for a product called "Deer'licious."
ReplyDeleteWhat is it? Here's how the manufacturer describes it.
"From the makers of C’mere Deer…As seen on ScentBlocker’s Most Wanted TV Show. 1(8) lb bag. Drawn to our unique odors, whitetail deer have been known to devour almost anything treated with Deer’licious powder; often times eating into the soil seeking any remaining residue."
http://www.garyengbergoutdoors.com/blog/2013/01/06/for-sportsmen-com-deer-licious-deer-attractant-1-6-2013/
Too bad our very expensive deer exterminator didn't buy a bag or two of Deer'licious, maybe he'd have been more successful keeping the deer-hating ladies happy.
Just when you think this town couldn't get any funnier, it goes another step deeper into comedy.
ReplyDeleteMonty Python couldn't do it any better.
Elaine. I raised the question about "deer-licious" and I have never called you crazy. I'm just saying that a) it's a bad name for a deer resistant planting classification system and b) why isn't there any info available online about the program. It certainly isn't scientific because I already looked in the scholarly databases. Is Mt Lebo proposing to reinvent the wheel again like they did with deer corrals?
ReplyDeleteHere's an idea, but we've got to act fast before the community pool opens.
ReplyDeleteLet's buy a couple of bags of "Deer-licious" deer attractant and spread it around on the pool side of the unfinished "Crown Jewel" field.
Watch this YouTube video for the stuff, it's only around $20 a bag.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0HoyvwJm_6Y
Then when the deer stampede to eat the stuff the Lebodeer ladies can run down an blast away at them.
Heck, maybe we'll kill two birds with one stone since a couple of these ladies are probably worse shots than the deer specialist we hired.
With any luck they take out a couple of the pool lights that burned all winter, thereby cutting our energy consumption and saving the Earth from global warming.
See it doesn't have to be all that hard or expensive to control deer AND save the environment.
Right ladies?
Plus, 4:36 it will be another Unique Lebo recreational activity.
ReplyDeleteWe have the Ladies Golf League, Womens Tennis, why the the LeboDeer Gunners?
The blood-thirsty ladies save their precious tulips,manager the deer herd and get in a lot of shootin'.
Fun will be had by all, except the deer, of course. Hey, so what, they're all going to die anyway.
Elaine Any talk on a campaign to purchase a sign for Lebo Citizens? A nice little dig or now what they call shade. If they refuse I'm sure the ACLU will take the case.
ReplyDeleteAs a person suffering from Lyme Disease DO NOT say the disease has no relationship with ticks because it does! You get Lyme Disease in only one way and that is from a tick bite.
ReplyDeleteI finally went on Jim Jenkins' website. Kelly has the name of the tags wrong. They are called Deer-Leerious TM Plants
ReplyDelete"Plants deer don't like to eat"
Sigh.
Elaine
Elaine - Thanks for the link to Jim Jenkins. I looked into the trademark for Deer-Leerious. It looks like it comes from "Perennial Farms" and they have also trademarked these phrases:
ReplyDeleteDeer-free zone
Deer-leerious plants deer don't like to eat
Not Eatin' This
Can't Stand This
Not Likin' This
Beautiful Plants that Taste Terrible
What struck me is that 3 of their trademarked phrases are things I say to myself when I read Mt Lebanon news.
https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/the-perennial-farm-2775651/
Please help me, Bobbi. Where did we say that Lyme Disease does NOT come from ticks?
ReplyDeleteElaine
5:33 PM, someone just emailed me with a pledge to pitch in $100 toward a sign!
ReplyDeleteElaine
5:52 PM, thanks for the laugh. I needed that!
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to Jim Jenkins Lawn and Garden Center.
http://www.jenkinslawnandgarden.com
Elaine
How much is a sign? Are there any rules or can any business advertise? What about an Adult Store? Or Strip Club?
ReplyDeleteEarlier someone asked about Lyme Disease and Mt Lebanon residents. Does it matter how many women in Lebo have Breast Cancer? One is too many! But for your information the Lyme Disease Support Group is made up of mostly people here. Worse is that many with the disease do NOT realize they have it. New tests being released by the FDA make testing easier, faster and cheaper. Research that showed antibiotics don't always work has prompted numerous new studies. Even several TV "stars" that have the disease have been a big help. Anyway you put it... Ticks are the carriers. And right now dealing with ticks is the way to control the spread of the disease.
ReplyDeleteI'm in Elaine! Get a sign. Can you run a contest for the best sign design?
ReplyDeleteI sympathize with the Lyme Disease sufferers but there are preventable things you can do to avoid Lyme Disease.
ReplyDeleteIf you are going to cite CDC recommendations, show me wear it says kill the deer in your suburb.
We can't remove the water from the ocean to avoid drownings, either.
6:33 signs are $750 with an additional $150 one time sign printing charge.
ReplyDeleteThere are sign specifications, like a white background with a 2" green border and type size minimums, although no one seems to be enforcing the rules.
Of course I believe it but you're saying, Elaine, that Kelly misused the silly deer term while addressing the commission and audience?
ReplyDeleteForget all those catchy phrases, anyway. It complicates what are already very well organized botanical categories. Next, I will post the Rutgers web link.
5:52--you are very funny. Thanks for that.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea that another poster had about making a banner. Then we could all go down and meet at the bleachers and have a party while we're yelling at Dave Brumfield to run a little faster when chasing the lacrosse kiddies. It would be a lot cheaper too and we're not limited to size of sign/banner.
ReplyDeleteNick M.
Hi Folks--- As promised, here is the link to the Rutgers deer-resistant plant chart. It's self-explanatory, very comprehensive and does not include any licious or leerious language. (Further, the plants and flowers I mentioned in my earlier posts are in the A+ category for this region. Also, before planting anything, make sure it is appropriate for our zone. Because of global warming, Pittsburgh is now between Zones 5 and 6.)
ReplyDeletehttps://njaes.rutgers.edu/deerresistance/
You're missing the point Nick.
ReplyDeleteThe old saying is- if you can't beat them, join 'em!
We're all here to end the divisiveness, not perpetuate it.
Advertising Elaine's blog to the community is a good idea, because there are a lot of people out there that don't what her blog is really about yet.
They're not tuned in or they've gotten a garbled, biased version of what it's about from the people trying to protect the status quo.
Buying a sign imprinted with the proper message could be a game changer!
8:45 Elaine's blog should also advertise on the building that houses Pamela's. There's a little open spot there available for advertising next to the Mt Lebanon mural.
ReplyDeleteElaine are people serious about a sign? If so i would be happy to donate the little i can afford. It would be interesting to see if little Dave would allow it. And if they deny it the press coverage would get people's attention. My problem with having people in the stands at kid's games is that it would make those holding the signs look bad and give more ammo to the Daves. Kids have a hard enough time being kids here they don't need politics pushed on them.
ReplyDeleteI'll add to a "Lebo Citizens" sign at the field. But did I read that signs have to be printed by THEIR printer? I'm afraid to ask this but does Lebo have a sign printing department? Or is this another business that donated to the "right" candidates?
ReplyDeleteWell put Bev,
ReplyDeleteI thought that was Allan Arbitage on that photo. I didn't watch the video until this AM. He has written all kinds of garden books and I guess is not endorsing products for the big bucks. Good for him.
ReplyDeleteRule of thumb, if you are shopping for plants/flowers on--line, generally in the informational section about the plant, there will be an emoticon line. If it's deer resistant, it will have a little drawing of a deer with a red or black line through it. Also, "deer resistant" plant will be spelled out in the description. Same goes for in-person shopping at the garden center. Read the tag on the plant. I highly recommend the Rutgers web site. I posted the link at May 14, 8:42 PM. It has photos for many of the plants.
Here is an interesting observation that I hope you will share will me. When you look at the Rutgers site, you will see that it grades certain plants/flowers according to their level of deer resistance. (Kind of like deer-lirious, but much easier to the eye.)
You may be surprised (or not) when you see the number of plants, flowers, trees in the "deer will eat these up" category. I think it is category D. Then, compare it to the A list, which is the number of plants that, for the most part, deer to not go near, let alone eat.
PLEASE--- pro-kill garden people--- give this highly reliable Rutgers web site a chance. Or, give a copy to your landscaper.
JB, I think they use a commercial sign printer, perhaps Banksville Printing or Fast Signs.
ReplyDeleteWhat is funny is that the signs currently up at Dixon don't follow the specification requirements.
While I hate to be critical of the tennis center, they have signs hanging on their fences facing Cedar that aren't 150' from the road. It's a stupid restriction in my opinion, but if they're going to have that stipulation in the field sign ordinance they should follow it.
I'm in on the sign. Bet they don't approve it! I'll email you Elaine privately.
ReplyDeleteRoger D.
7:51 AM, thank you for that information. Penn State Extension also has a list of deer resistant plants organized by the type of garden.
ReplyDeleteJim Jenkins and Sandy Baker also provided lists at the Deer Doctor events. Unfortunately, I cannot scan Sandy Baker's list because I do not have her permission to do so. I will try to locate the list provided by Jim Jenkins.
Elaine
Elaine--- Yes, Penn State Extension has a site similar to the Rutgers site. They are both very comprehensive and accurate for this area of the country.
ReplyDeleteOver the past couple of weeks, I've seen numerous pro-kill statements in the newspapers that were directly or indirectly aimed at continuing to promote sharpshooting in Mt Lebanon. I wanted to suggest that the anti-kill team partner with independent newspapers and recognize that both the Trib and Post Gazette are clearly in favor of supporting sharpshooters, despite the effort made by the PG Editorial Board to discourage this ongoing divisive issue.
ReplyDeleteTapping into public source journalists, college investigative newspapers, etc could be better resources for support.
10:15 AM
ReplyDeleteLinks please, must have missed them.
Roger D.
I didn't provide the links bc I think we've all been exposed to enough of the pro hunt club garbage. However, here's an example of a Trib journalist's tweet:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/breakingnewzman/status/598889730567180288
I spent 4 years in Ann Arbor getting my PhD. This is not surprising.
ReplyDeleteIt is there that I began to become suspicious of people who called themselves "liberal" but often were quite narrow-minded and laser-focused on only what they wanted/their version of reality.
Additionally, the culture in Ann Arbor is very similar to that of the sub-section of Mt. Lebanon that is pro-kill:
1) Privileged.
2) Arrogant.
3) Too much time on their hands.
... all of this speaks to the larger question of whether "Deer Management" should even be on the radar screen of our local government. Are there not more pressing issues?
Each of the candidates for commissioner should be asked: Is deer management a priority for you, and if so, where it is on your list of top priorities for Mt. Lebanon?
- Jason M.
What they never include is how densely populated the areas are. According to the 2010 Census, Mt. Lebanon has 5468 people per sq. mile. Ann Arbor, Michigan has a population of 113,934 and it is 28.7 sq. miles. That translates to 3969.8 people per square mile.
ReplyDeleteBarbara Sollenberger crunched the density numbers of all the contiguous communities for the commissioners at Tuesday's meeting.
Again, Mt. Lebanon is 5468 people/sq. mile.
The killing fields:
USC has 1958.5 people/sq. mile.
Bethel has 2768.7 people/sq. mile.
The anti killing:
Castle Shannon 5207.3 people/sq. mile.
Dormont 11,306.6 people/sq. mile.
Baldwin Twp. 3984 people/sq. mile
Scott has 4277.4 people/sq.mile
Just an FYI Fox Chapel has 690 people/sq. mile and they kill deer. Barbara 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.
All apples to apples. 2010 Census numbers.
Elaine
Barbara--- You're da man. As I have mentioned to Eileen, I think that the "density" argument might be our best. It goes directly to the heart of public safety. Hudson-on-Hastings, NY, played up the density argument to sway the mayor to use contraception instead of guns and arrows to "manage" its deer issues.
ReplyDeleteOpening fire or shooting arrows in Mt. Lebanon is similar to doing those same things in Kennywood.
The charging rhinos line is funny.
Thank you, Barbara.
Nita
Jason at 2 PM--- Your comment raises two issues that have been nagging me for a long time.
ReplyDeleteI am incredibly surprised at the identity of some of the pro-kill people who call themselves liberals. I am a liberal democrat. Liberal Democrats do not kill deer. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
I have also wondered why the commission here is doing anything about deer management. They must have the legal power (or not). The deer seem to be managing quite well on their own.
PS I was not implying that Republicans kill deer.
ReplyDeleteBut, I will say with a credible amount of certainty that the concept of shooting bullets and/or arrows, especially in densely populated areas like Lebo, is not in sync with Democratic Party or liberal ideals.
When I first heard long ago that Mt. Lebo Democratic Commissioners approved deer killing in the community, I was and am convinced that the Mt. Lebanon Commissioners are not Democrats. (Dan Miller was a real Democrat commissioner.)
4:59 PM, replacing natural grass with toxic turf is not in sync with Democratic Party or liberal ideals either. But these commissioners have gone rogue.
ReplyDeletePutting up tiny little signs that educate people on what may be deer resistant is considered too political, but hiring killers to kill deer is not.
I sent an email to the commissioners asking about signage down on Cedar.
Elaine
Elaine--- You are correct about Dems and toxic turf.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure these commissioners have gone rogue, though. The evidence clearly reveals that they have never been REAL Democrats.
I am positive that your email about signage will be well-received by the commissioners. HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA.
I'm not sure if culling deer is an R or D issue, but let's not forget that the founder of Earth Day, a liberal Democrat, is in jail for killing his girlfriend.
ReplyDeleteWhat does the following say about a party and the voters that will follow their advice.
ReplyDelete"Allegheny Co. Dems Pushing Votes For Deceased Councilwoman Still On Ballot « CBS Pittsburgh"
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2015/05/15/allegheny-co-dems-pushing-votes-for-deceased-councilwoman-still-on-ballot/
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." —H. L. Mencken
Jason M., May 15, 2015 at 2:00 PM
ReplyDeleteJason, I was disappointed in your generalization and attack on "liberals" with regard to the pro-kill ladies and I guess Commissioners; i.e. it is beneath the leadership expectations I have for you. This is a bipartisan opposition movement.
Based on my observations, there is very little difference between the elitist Democrats and Republicans in the Mt. Lebanon bubble.
I think if any generalizations should be make, it should be more focused on other variables that are more specific to the characteristics of the profile of people that are proactively promoting this senseless slaughter with a disturbing passion.
Some of the similarities of the core group passionately pushing for this slaughter are that they are women, mostly older women, some are ex-Commissioners. They typically have impressive educational credentials. Many sit on the boards of charitable institutions in the cultural arts, etc. in an effort to establish false respectability. I can't explain their hateful, bloodthirsty, and cold hearted obsession to slaughter gentle sentient beings and their babies, and cause so much suffering in acts of animal cruelty, or their willingness to threaten the safety of the entire community with the use of AR-15 assault weapons for their tulips. However, I think some of these ladies demonstrate the characteristics of narcissistic and sociopath overlapping personality disorders, i.e. pathological lying, manipulating others, lack of empathy, sense of entitlement, feels superior (high-status people), shows snobbish, arrogant, haughty, behaviors, preoccupied with prestige, need for admiration, no conscience, no remorse, no guilt, no shame, no sorrow and no soul.
Evaluating the psychological and group dynamics of the male Commissioners that have allow themselves to be manipulated by these ladies to implement this senseless slaughter is a post for another day.
Can't wait to see that Lebocitizens sign go up.
ReplyDeleteWith all those extra game slots from the artificial turf, readership should increase dramatically which in turn should help foster some more community affairs participation.
Thanks to those who are supporting the blog.
7:09 The male commissioners are not "allowing themselves to be manipulated". They are in control and making deals. Just wait for it...
ReplyDeleteMale AND female commissioners are making deals at this very moment.
ReplyDelete7:09, I agreed with up to your last paragraph.
ReplyDeleteWhy did you single out evaluating only the male members of the commission?
One of the biggest proponents of slaughtering deer was a female. Then another female chose to seat one more pro-cull commissioner.
Besides, we just made a change to the Home Rule Charter to make it gender neutral, so why are we still make gender-related comments.
Leadership expectations or not, I will call out my own when they are full of BS.
ReplyDeleteAnd Ann Arbor is a place where I became better acquainted with a certain narcissistic self-aggrandizing subset of the larger self-identifying "liberal" population.
This observation is relevant here because several of the leaders of the kill movement have identified themselves to me personally as "Liberal Democrats" ... and I have said, directly to one at least, "Killing deer is not a liberal cause."
And Elaine is right--neither is tearing up green fields for toxic turf so the elite can play a game or two more in the drizzle.
- Jason M.
8:45pm, while putting a LC sign down at the fields would be an excellent idea because of the points you make about exposure, I don't believe it will have any impact on ending or even reducing the amount of divisiveness in the community. Strong leadership will have more of an impact than anything to pull people together, unfortunately we don't have leadership from our manager or our commissioners.
ReplyDeleteNick M.
Jason M., May 15, 2015 at 7:56 PM
ReplyDeleteSo several leaders (2 or 3) of the pro-kill movement have identified themselves as "liberal Democrats", so you think that gives you justification to make wide sweeping generalizations. And in your judgement, making generalizations like that helps unite this bipartisan movement against this senseless slaughter.
"I will call out my own when they are full of BS."
OK, I'll give you two to call out. Colin McNickle, Trib Editor, who writes a bunch of BS every other week about the need to slaughter all the deer in Mt. Lebanon, and "Don't you know who I am" ex-Commissioner Carolyn Byham, who has been passionately pushing to slaughter the deer in Mt. Lebanon for as long as I can remember. Start a hollerin - I'm a listening. I'd like a few generalizations thrown in too.
BTW, I get a kick out of the pro-kill ex-Commissioner who's a constant troll on this blog making up bizarre stories to demonize deer, and she occasionally states that she's a "vegan"- right. She's the only vegan I know that is a heartless proponent of killing defenseless animals. However, since she said that she's a vegan, I guess all vegans are heartless killers of animals, even if they won't eat or wear any animal products.
7:09 pm, The point of my post was to try to profile and analyze the motivation of the handful of obsessed and passionate pro-kill proponents. From my observation, these happen to be women, which itself is somewhat surprising and disturbing, i.e. women are typically perceived as more thoughtful, caring, and compassionate of the species. Women are supposed to have a built in motherly instinct that men lack. So how can these women have no compassion or empathy for a doe and her baby fawn? I'm not trying to be politically correct, but just keeping it real. These are the facts as I see it.
ReplyDeleteI lumped the two pro-kill female Commissioners as just extensions to the passionate pro-kill proponents, because they were hand picked puppets to be spokespersons for the pro-kill proponents. So psychologically, I saw them in the same group. However, on second thought, maybe they should be evaluated separately; i.e. they likely have different motivations from the core pro-kill proponents.
I see the other male Commissioners voting to carry out this slaughter as a different group with different motivations to evaluate.
I view the passionate pro-kill proponents in a more evil light than the Commissioners voting to carry out the slaughter. Don't get me wrong, I see them both as evil components, but the one's passionately pushing for unnecessary death and suffering, and the use of lethal weapons in our parks and neighborhoods as more disturbing to me.
That said, I am not making male/female generalizations beyond this specific scenario and moment in Mt. Lebanon, which could shift and change moving forward. But right now and historically, this is how I see it.
7:33 - I agree with you -- from 7:09. I was just responding to the comment that the commissioners are being manipulated, of which I disagree.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do believe the commission may, in fact, unleash sharpshooters this fall if the citizens do not continue to organize.
Jason M., May 15, 2015 at 7:56 PM
ReplyDeleteI don't want you to call out Colin McNickle or ex-Commissioner Carolyn Byham. I was just making a point.
ORGANIZE, PLAN AND ACT.
ReplyDelete11:16 PM, thanks for the advice. I can count on you to help, right? In case you don't have my email address, it is EGillen476@aol.com.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Commissioner Vuono in her comments on putting two pots of deer-resistant plants in front of the municipal building might be misconstrued as an "endorsement" by the municipality.
ReplyDeleteDo you think she views an article on say solar panels, kitchen make-over, or personal exercise studio in the "official" mtl magazine as a similar "official" endorsement?
What would be the difference?
Isn't an article describing how wonderful a municipal employee's newly remodeled kitchen is -- an endorsement for the contractor?
How about a yoga studio or and ice cream shop?
Then you have the PIO's critique of the areas grocery stores. Was that an "official" endorsement of one over the other because of whom you might rub elbows with?
By allowing a Saloon sign on Dixon Field, does that Mean the municipality finds their beer preferrable over Betos, Pub and Pizza or the Ivy Inn?
Just wondering Commissioner what the difference is?
7:09pm - I don't know who you are, or exactly what you are saying, but I do like your fire regarding the "bipartisan opposition movement."
ReplyDeleteWould you be willing to get together to discuss? (Also, we are not the only ones interested in this movement).
- Jason M.
I can't believe people are still debating what to do with two planters worth of donated plants. Here's a suggestion.....if people are really fascinated by the idea of making these plants a destination for curious gardeners, put them at the library. They have a wonderful outdoor spot, and frankly that's where people go to learn stuff. It's a building that houses millions of pages of material in which people express different views on every subject under the sun. You won't be viewed as picking sides. You might even have a deer pass by every so often.
ReplyDeleteAs for the difference 7:10, there's no endorsement. One establishment simply chose to buy a sign and advertise it business. Do you think if Elaine's group purchased a sign promoting her website that that it would be an endorsement by the commissioners? Sometimes you people don't even read the stuff that you choose to comment about.
As an aside, it if this blog spent $750 on a field sign those funds would be spent on turf. That's classic.
8:12 AM, the revenue from the sign sponsorship program "go directly to the Municipality to pay for maintenance or capital improvements of Municipal fields." So what you are saying is that it is only going toward "the Crown Jewel" and not to any of the other fields, right?
ReplyDeleteElaine
Nice try 8:12.
ReplyDeleteI'm not the one that said that by putting two planters somewhere that that would be perceive as an a municipal endorsement.
Of course I don't believe if Lebocitizens put up a sign that then the municipality would be perceived as endorsing her blog.
Vuono brought up that an action such as putting two planters on a sidewalk indicates they endorsed the deer resistant plants. I just followed her logic a step further.
Also, maybe you should read a little bit smart ass! From everything I've read, the revenue from field signs isn't specifically earmarked for turf. My recollection is that the money from signs goes into improving all recreation facilities from ballfields, to tennis courts, to golf course and pool.
Perhaps you know something different?
So why wouldn't Lebocitizens put up a sign, they've never said they don't like Lebo's amenities or kids.
But you keep living in your little bubble 8:12.
Can someone give me an update. I'm a little confused. I saw part of Sandy Baker's presentation to the Commission, but I missed the general meeting, and I haven't seen the latest Commission meeting regarding the deer resistant potted plant debate and vote as being too political.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand, both Sandy Baker, a deer gardening and behavioral expert, and Laura Simon, The Humane Society of the United States' wildlife biologist and renowned deer expert, have told the Commissioners that the main cause of the "deer problem" (car-deer collisions and deer browsing) in Mt. Lebanon is the smorgasbord of irresistible flowers and plants that Mt. Lebanon plants in its 30+ flower islands and 22 other public planting areas, and the plants and flowers that residents grow in their yards. It's this abundant food resource that is the major attractant causing deer to come into Mt. Lebanon to browse. Their solution was to reduce this food attractant. And they've both said that if Mt. Lebanon implemented a community wide deer-resistant gardening strategy, that it could reduce the overwhelming majority of deer-human conflicts.
If Mt. Lebanon just took the following 3 basic actions right now, it could have a major impact today in reducing the food attractant in Mt. Lebanon, which would result in a major reduction in deer-human conflicts.
1) Plant deer resistant plants and flowers in its 30 public flower islands and 22 public planting areas.
2) Launch a public campaign asking residents to plant deer resistant plants and flowers in their yards and gardens.
3) Publicized and enforced their bird feeding ordinance, i.e. the height of the bird feeder to prevent deer from getting access to the bird feeders. Every bird feeder right now is a deer feeder attracting deer in to Mt. Lebanon.
These 3 basic actions are the first 3 steps in implementing an effective solution to the deer-human conflicts in Mt. Lebanon, and could be implemented right away with no additional spending.
So my question is, is this being done? If not, why?
I don't understand why these actions would be "too political". Mt. Lebanon owns the 52 public planting areas. Why would private individuals care if deer resistant flowers or tulips were planted in them. And if planting deer resistant flowers in these public flower islands could reduce car-deer collisions, why wouldn't Mt. Lebanon rush to implement this strategy?
Why wouldn't the Commission launch a campaign asking residents to plant deer resistant plants and flowers. No doubt, the handful of pro-kill gardeners wouldn't comply, but I think the majority of the 13,610 households and 33,000 other residents would be happy to comply. Again, if planting deer resistant flowers could reduce car-deer collisions, why wouldn't the Commission rush to launch a public campaign and ask residents to plant deer resistant plants and flowers?
And the same logic goes for the bird feeding ordinance. Currently this ordinance is doing nothing, because no one knows about it, and it's not being enforced. Publicizing this ordinance and explaining why it's necessary and enforcing it could have a major impact in reducing the food attractant and car-deer collisions. So why wouldn't the Commission make residents aware of this new ordinance and enforce it?
I'm confused with the flower pots debate, when the above actions should be implemented right now.
Again, are any of these actions being implemented? If not, why?
Before you call someone a smart ass for not reading, perhaps you should read some yourself so that you don't look like a smart ass. This comes directly from the municipal website: "All funds go directly to the Municipality to pay for maintenance or capital improvements of Municipal fields."
ReplyDeleteFields 8:35. Not tennis courts, not ice rinks, not swingsets, not playgrounds. Fields. Further, let's count how many municipal fields there are. Bird Park, Wildcat, Middle and Dixon. Generally come all of the fields are currently maintained from the operating budget. That leaves us with capital improvements. Capital improvements are virtually impossible at Bird and I can't think of any improvements that are or will be necessary at Dixon. What does that leave us?
So, 8:12 are you telling us we were lied too? That we were duped into believing that field sign revenue would go into all park and recreation amenities?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the heads up that it was all a scam to put in artificial turf!
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/south/2012/05/10/Advertisements-coming-to-school-municipal-fields-in-Mt-Lebanon/stories/201205100327
"Over the past month, residents have turned out at meetings to discuss the poor state of neighborhood parks and fields and how the municipality is going to pay for improvements. Many of them agree that selling ad space is a way to fund those projects without raising taxes."
Perhaps taxpayers should demand an audit of the field sign revenue. Where does the money go, who are the salespeople, who is the field sign printer and how much do the signs actually cost and has any of the money gone into anything other than artificial turf!
I find it disappointing that people intentionally define themselves as either a "liberal" or a "conservative", i.e. Democrat or a Republican. They choose a camp and that's it, that's who they are. They stop thinking and goose-step to the talking points of the camp they chose. I don't define myself with either of these parties, and I evaluate each issue and candidate on its, or his or her merits and positions. Remember critical thinking?
ReplyDeleteI get the impression that many think that Elaine's blog is a Republican blog and that it's OK to attack "Liberals" or Democrats on it. I know Elaine's a Republican, but I don't get the impression that she's a goose-stepping ideologue. I think Elaine is totally bipartisan and takes positions on their merits, and supports candidates regardless of party, but on his or her positions. In addition, I think there are as many Democrats that read and participate on this blog as Republicans.
Elaine's blog has been responsible for launching a bipartisan resident movement against toxic turf and the insane deer slaughter, and has been working a lot better than our dysfunctional local and federal governments. So I think Elaine deserves a lot of credit in demonstrating how Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, and others can still work together on issues and make a difference.
9:07 AM, how about Brafferton?
ReplyDeleteElaine
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/south/2015/05/15/Mt-Lebanon-plans-June-discussion-on-deer-management/201505150095
ReplyDeleteMt. Lebanon plans June discussion on deer management
"Addressing deer management is one of four major goals of the commissioners in 2015"
Really, you got to be kidding me! Why is "deer mgt" one of the four major goals? We just had Wildlife Specialists LLC set up 6 killing corrals, and they couldn't even find deer to kill. What is wrong with these Commissioners?
These discussions are nothing but a charade and a joke. The lovely pro-kill ladies got Coleen Vuono, their hand picked new puppet on board to guarantee the pro-kill program vote for the fall. So who in their right mind thinks that anything has changed? So what's the point in participating. Maybe the anti-cull residents should boycott these discussions, and instead should start organizing protests for June and the fall deer killing program. Our only option is too keep Mt. Lebanon in the headline news until we can replace the current pro-kill Commissioners.
9:12 do you enjoy playing the fool?
ReplyDeleteAt 8:12 you wrote that the $750 from the Lebocitizens sign would go to turf.
Now in your 9:12 comment you write: "All funds go directly to the Municipality to pay for maintenance or capital improvements of Municipal fields."
Not all Municipal fields are turfed and those fields need maintenance and capital improvements too.
Are you telling us something 9:12?
Is the Municipality abandoning all maintenance and improvements at our fields like Brafferton and Bird?
If the sign revenue is specifically earmarked for turf as you claim, then there must be a specific line items in the field maintenance budget, I would think, to assure that the field sign revenue goes out exclusively toward turf. If not, there should be to keep everything on the up and up.
Or are you spilling the beans that soon taxpayers will be footing the bill for expensive artificial turf at those municipal fields with grass will be turfed soon as well?
If that's true $750 each from 3 signs isn't going to go very far to pay for more turf.
9:12 show us one official document that says field sign revenue will be used EXLUSIVELY on artificial turf.
ReplyDeletePerhaps then I'll concede that I am the smart ass and you're not.
Let the truth expose one of us to be what we really are.
8:55 AM, the discussion about the two pots occurred during the May 12, 2015 Discussion Session Part 2. Here is a link to the video.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind words, 9:24 AM. I seriously doubt that the Republicans consider this a Republican blog. I have never voted straight Republican. I'm with you, 9:24 AM - critical thinking.
Elaine
9:12 you may want to enlist the aid of the PIO in your search for the documents that explicitly direct field sign revenue to artificial turf.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, she is the "official" public information officer and should have access to the document or at least be able to guide you to its location.
Good luck on the quest.
Perhaps the two pots issue being labeled "political", has to do with the idea that the Commissioners do not want to be perceived as willing to negotiate on any issue. They have superbally demonstrated that it is "their way or the highway." It all boils down to their wanting to have absolute control over everything and an outright refusal to listen to any constiguents who disagree with them in the community.
ReplyDeleteFirst a correction. The comments directed to 9:12 by 10:13 and 10:32 were directed to 9:07, not 9:12.
ReplyDeleteNow 9:07, in that PG article linked in 9:12's post it states:
"Mr. Brumfield, who introduced the ordinance, said each sign could bring in between $1,000 to $5,000 each year, depending on its size. The money collected from advertisers, for example, could help the municipality improve drainage -- a major concern for residents -- at a field every year, he added.
The vote passed without the support of the planning board, though."
Now then 9:07, I'm pretty sure turf and drainage are analogous. Brumfield doesn't say turf is a major concern for residents, he said drainage was. He also states that the field sign revenue would be used to improve drainage at "A" field every year. In 2012, the municipality didn't have any turfed fields (it still doesn't by the way) and he couldn't possibly know at that time that the community would turf a field. So what drainage did he vote the field sign ordinance into existence for if the field sign revenue is as you claim exclusively earmarked for artificial turf?
Correction @ 11:55 "not analogous"
ReplyDeleteTurf was in the works in 2012. Petitions were shared, coaches were meeting together and writing letters to commissioners, etc.
ReplyDeletehttp://lebofields.blogspot.com/2012/08/turf-petition.html?m=1
No, no, no, no, no, you're not getting away that bullshit 12:19.
ReplyDeleteIn 2014, the PG ran this headline: "Artificial turf could come to Mt. Lebanon fields, February 13, 2014 12:00 AM
By Harry Funk"
Notice it reads "Could!"
So what you're trying to tell residents is that our commissioners passed a sign ordinance so that revenue from field signs could be directed to turf that wouldn't possibly be approved until 2014.
Yeah, I get it installing artificial turf could improve drainage at a field, but so could properly grooming and maintaining a natural grass field.
We didn't have a turfed field in 2012 and it wasn't a certainty that we have one in 2014. Remember, turf was dependent on private donations coming in.
You've deflected well, but you still haven't answered where it officially says field sign is specifically earmarked for artificial turf.
"You can fool some of the people some of the time, and you can fool most of the people most of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
Sorry misquoted. The correct quote is-
ReplyDelete"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Abraham Lincoln
Please submit artificial turf comments under the "Forgotten" thread, and let's get back to deer related comments. I would appreciate it if we could get back on topic. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Wake up, folks. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The Baseball Association and the Softball Association spend countless dollars on supplies to maintain MUNICIPAL fields. They spend countless hours on maintenance, because the municipality does little more than mow the grass. They've spent money to build shelters, put in new scoreboards, paint and repair the concessions stand, replace and repair the batting cages, and the list goes on. You complain about accounting, but you want the associations to sell these signs and do all the legwork. If you want to do some accounting, that's great and the associations should send the municipality a big, fat, INVOICE. Knock off the crap about Brafferton, you already know where those bids came in--and what about those neighbors and the lack of parking??? The challenges are even more defined for that field. And it does get used. You all need to wake up! This town isn't just yours.
ReplyDelete10:09: I understand your frustration. I don't think it does the pro-deer people an ounce of good to show up at Commission Theater. At least not until the comprehensive anti-kill plan is completed.
ReplyDeleteTo that end, and to all pro-deer residents, you must do something more than protest. Been there, done that. You need substance and data, and viable alternatives.
You need, more than anything, for a handful of MT. LEBANON RESIDENTS to organize, plan and act. Grow the movement to included as many Mt. Lebo residents as possible. NOW. Support from outside the dome is always welcome. But, unless the plan to keep the deer alive is community--driven, the stage will look the same as it did last time and the results will be no different. And, the media will NOT want continue to report about pro-deer protests. Give them something other than screams and signage. Give them something new, some substance, to boost their ratings.
Please forget the flower pots. Raffle them off. Figure it out, commissioners.
The pro-deer people need to be crunching numbers and analyzing the information. I don't mean by standing up at Citizen Comments and talking into the abyss.
First, take back your community. Don't let a handful of twisted despots control Mt. Lebo's destiny. Our government is a sham. Only deal with them when absolutely necessary and completely organized and prepared.
Mt. Lebanon's pro-deer contingency needs to begin a serious discussion and timeline for a comprehensive plan. The best and the brightest please come forward, define your mission and MOVE in accordance with that stated mission.
Elaine is collecting names via her email. As soon as you've got enough to fill the chairs around a small table, call that first meeting and vow to do things differently than in the past. What the pro-deer folks have done so far has not worked. It has, at best, hastily plugged up some holes and did that very well. For the sake of the deer for the sake of civil and moral progress, be more than reactionary.
Now, it is time for Mt. Lebanon pro-deer RESIDENTS to take the offensive. Seize the moment. Take YOUR community into YOUR own hands. NOW.
Thank you.
I would like to know more about the June 22 commission meeting. In particular, will that meeting be before or after the commission invites the anti-kill stakeholders (and there are many) to the table?
ReplyDeleteI am sure that the anti-kill faction, or at least one or two representatives, will show up for a discussion with the commissioners.
Also, will there be a 50/50 raffle at the June meeting?
Elaine--- Would you consider starting a separate thread for the anti-kill Mt. Lebanon residents (and necessarily those opposed to them or without opinion) to share ideas about the June 22 commission deer meeting and the events leading up to it?
ReplyDeleteHopefully, the anti-kill folks will take the high road in the discussion, in order to promote their group's interest in being a primary force in the building of a civilized, enlightened, evolved and united Mt. Lebanon.
Those anti-kill residents who keeps the focus only on constructive ideas and comments (no trash talk) will win brand new Kitchen-Aid hand mixers.
Thanks, Elaine, for considering this request.