Saturday, June 24, 2017

Round Three

Our brainless commissioners will be approving a third year of paying Tony DeNicola another $9,000 for doing nothing but watching The Deer Hunter from his recliner in Connecticut.

The program has included "volunteer" archers and a dozen private "donated" properties, as well as McNeilly Park located near Brookline, Twin Hills located in Scott Township, Robb Hollow and Public Works located located near Scott and Upper St. Clair, and the Golf Course located on the edge of Castle Shannon.

Mt. Lebanon commissioners will be voting on Monday to hire Tony DeNicola to oversee the archery program with his trail cameras that we bought him last year. The donors and volunteers will also benefit with the venison, also on our dime.


Anonymous said...

Again why are we paying anything when other communities and the county get culling for free by volunteers?

Anonymous said...

I thought you'd be interested in this story from the New York Post. Cops' bullet meant for pit bull ricochets, kills teen: authorities

Anonymous said...

Two things Mt. Lebanon residents need to understand:

1) This bow hunting program is going to continue every year.

2) What this vote to continue DeNicola's $9,000 pay-off means is that he's in here for the long term dictating Mt. Lebanon's deer killing policy, which also means that there will be an annual $100K bait-and-shoot program every year or when DeNicola decides there should be. DeNicola could care less about 9K. For him that's just chump change. But that keeps him in control and dictating the $100K bait-and-shoot killing program, which is the prize for him. DeNicola is smart and manipulative. He knows he has the Mt. Lebanon Commission under his influence and control. He owns them. No questions or challenges will be made. He has a blank check to do what he wants, and he's laughing all the way to the bank.

Anonymous said...


I totally agree with you.

surfsup said...

Fricken unbelievable but really it isn't. Take a walk down James Place the street were Silverman lives and you will understand. It's all about the super rich protecting their plant investments. But has any of these people had a ride down bumpy shady drive East lately??? Also the deer are gone but we now have a ton of rabbits which eat our veggies but growing veggies is a non Lebo thing to do...

Anonymous said...

The question becomes, how do we get rid of these "brainless" people?
While Elaine's blog is great at exposing the issues, it doesn't have the power to replace "brainless" commissioners and "fill in the blank" school directors.
We can appear at and voice opinions at public meetings, bombardard them with emails, and collar them in public venues, but if they choose to ignore reason there is only one path to change things and that's at the polls in November.
They'll hear if enough people pull levers to replace them.

Anonymous said...

Truly, I think if all registered Mt. Lebanon voters showed up to vote in November, only the deer-killing candidates would be elected. I am anti-kill, but that is what I think about the people in this community.

Anonymous said...

6:37, you may be right if the vote was just about deer killing. But it isn't, it is also about wasteful spending (there are less expensive culling alternatives to DeNicola), infrastructure that needs fixed, and school spending that needs reined in.

Anonymous said...

6:37, as a pro-kill person living in this community, you're absolutely correct. The commissioners are implementing the will of the majority. I've been a vegetarian most of my adult life and I understand the underlying ecology why the deer must be culled in the absence of natural predators.

Then again, maybe I'm evil incarnate. Anxious to hear opinions.

Anonymous said...

8:11, my opinion---
I have no problem with hunting deer, thousands and thousands of people enjoy the hunt and eating venison.
I do have a problem with shooting in a densely populated area like Mt. Lebanon.
I think it's a risk not worth taking.
Look at it this way. If I wanted to safely (with all the precautions possible) plink cans or target shoot at stationary targets in my backyard people would go ballistic.
But throes same people are OK with hunters shooting at moving targets with no warnings of where they're doing it.
Second, the culling is having very little impact on the deer population. USC, Bethel, the County have been culling for years and they still have deer accidents.
Better idea, drive defensively, slow down and stay off your cell phone if you want to avoid colliding with deer!
All the culling we can do will not eliminate the possibility of a deer accident happening.

Anonymous said...

8:11, isn't it odd that the majority probably thinks having a shooting range/team in the high school where the shooting is strictly control and the targets are stationary and about 6" in diameter creates a dangerous situation, but find hunters roaming around in backyards and parks with weapons far more powerful and shooting at a moving target is perfectly safe and OK.

As H. L. Mencken is credited with: “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

Anonymous said...


The commissioners are charged with the duty to investigate the issues and base decisions on facts. This continued deer killing flies in the face of reality. You obviously don't know anything about the "underlying ecology". Perhaps you and the commissioners should take some time and educate yourselves about your alleged enemy---the white-tailed deer.

You're not evil. Just unlearned.

Anonymous said...

Elaine, pro-kill vegetarian troll (8:11 pm) is so very familiar. She's one of your biggest fans (only kidding), and has a pathological lying problem - who could that be? It's funny that she's so addicted to your blog. Not so funny, that she's still obsessed with slaughtering doe and their fawns.

Anonymous said...

10:37, yeah, I concede, I'm dumb.

But putting aside my obvious idiocy, the trained shooters do shoot from elevated platforms, at acute angles, with frangible ammunition, right?

But, I must be missing something in light of your grave concern and my intellectual inadequacy. Perhaps another quote from BJ Weinerschnizel will help.

E. T. Gillen said...

And how do we know that the majority is pro-kill? I missed that study.

Anonymous said...

Two elections of pro-kill candidates? Poor showings of anti-kill candidates?

That plus the recurring straw polls taken at the secret Lebo E.L.I.T.E. meetings in the Virginia Manor clubhouse.

Anonymous said...

6:46, you may be just that since you have a tough time with reading comprehension.
Please tell me exactly where I wrote YOU were dumb?
If you read carefully, I wrote that your "majority" were probably against the very controlled shooting range and a rifle team in the high school, but had no problem with hunters running around our parks and private property with high powered rifles shooting at moving targets!

The rifle team shoots at very stationary targets, in a very controlled environment with a very fortified backstop, as opposed to the deer Culver's shooting in a place where branches, stones, etc. could easily deflect a missed shoot that may move at the crack of the rifle.

I see one as very safe, the other not. I feel for your lack of comprehension 6:46. You are on the other hand very adept at being smarmy.

Richard Gideon said...

The commissioners are not implementing the will of THE majority; they are implementing the will of A majority - that being the majority of people who show up to vote; and that figure is, in the average, abysmally low.

I've lived in Lebo since 1975, and over the years I've heard commissioners say that they were elected to represent the people of their districts - and that is true. I've also heard some commissioners say that they were elected by a majority of the voters in their districts - and that is not true. At best most off-year elections for local candidates garner about 3 out of 10 registered voters; and that is hardly a majority.

Anonymous said...

Elaine as an Anti-Kill person,, I agree most of the township is Pro_kill and a large part of that group includes the young mothers with kids in elementary school.. there not so worried about plant munching as they are on the deer scaring their kids and spreading lime disease. it blows my might to hear these young mothers instilling fear into their kids,, one mother, who has all kids under 5 recently said she wanted to be on the list of homes that have hunters shot deer, when I asked her why she replied they were sleeping in her yard,,,
so there you have it,, the over 65 with money to burn on perennials so they can impress their peers and then the parents of elem kids who don't want them in their yard for fear of attack or disease to their precious kids who are taught to fear our State Animal...

Anonymous said...


Yes, your arguments serve to further underscore the need for educating the commissioners, the muni and the general public about the White-Tailed Deer. If you want to decrease the occurrences of Lyme Disease by lethal force, then those guys with guns should be shooting at the small critters, like the deer mouse and chipmunks, which have been proven as the culprits that spread Lyme Disease.

Even the PA Game Commission, that never met a deer it didn't want to kill, admitted on its website a couple years ago that there is no correlation between deer and the transmission of Lyme Disease. Period.

Other communities that are also out shooting deer have at least admitted that killing those deer will have no effect on the spread of Lyme Disease.

Let's put that Lyme Diseases phooey to bed---finally and forever---at least as it concerns the life or death of deer.

Anonymous said...

10:20, sorry, it's not so pat. While juvenile ticks that transmit Lyme are mainly hosted on mice, adult ticks that reproduce are hosted on deer. Thus, a reduction in deer result in a reduction in tick reproduction, which results in fewer ticks, which results in fewer instances of Lyme. Many studies indicate such.

Anonymous said...


Would you kindly cite the studies?

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

6:46, to back up my opinion that shooting deer in a densely populated area like our community is unwise...

"How Much Does Brush Deflect a Rifle Bullet? | Outdoor Life"

It doesn't take much to send a bullet off target, and once it's on it's way the shooter can't take it back.

BJ Weinerschnizel

Anonymous said...

4:30, what does frangible mean?

Anonymous said...

Did you read the link 10:08.

A frangible bullet can still be deflected without breaking up to either miss its target or worse causing a devastating wound that destroys a lot of tissue without killing the deer.
Try reading and comprehending just a little bit 10:08.

Anonymous said...

Here's a thought 10:08, let's conduct a test like "Outdoor Life" where we shoot a frangible bullet through some foliage with you as the target and you tell us the definition of frangible, OK?

Didn't think you'd like that idea!

Anonymous said...

The article doesn't say what frangible means. Does that warrant the suggestion that I be shot?

Elaine, did you approve this comment?

E. T. Gillen said...

Four of our commissioners approved spending $9000 for five months of killing. Kelly voted against it. Yes, Dave Brumfield, five. You don't even know what you are approving. You argued with a resident who was trying to tell you that archery season runs from the middle of September to the end of January with a break in December. Why do you have to be such a jerk? Barbara is correct. We have seven months of killing deer when you include the "sharpshooting" program.

Anonymous said...

Brumfield's Legacy on Mt. Lebo Commission: "I voted to kill deer."


Anonymous said...

8:14, once again you prove that you have big problems with reading comprehension.

From the "Outdoor Life" article
"I wanted to shoot both a high-velocity frangible bullet in the .223 as well as a slower hunting-type bullet. Both types performed similarly in the brush-deflection test. Three groups of Federal’s 43-grain Speer TNT Green (which zip out of my barrel at 3,680 fps) averaged 3.67 inches, while Hornady’s 55-grain V-Max (traveling at 3,205 fps) averaged 3.49 inches.
My conclusion, based on these results: Don’t trust your bullet to remain on course if it encounters any obstacle, and the thicker the debris, the more your bullet will veer."

Again, no one suggested anywhere that you should be shot, so don't make it up!
Since you asked what frangible meant I simply suggested that you might volunteer to demonstrate how safe frangible bullets are.
Unfortunately, if you are a property donor or a pro-shooting proponent you are volunteering your neighbors to test whether frangilble bullets are safe or not.
You're are not giving them a choice.

Anonymous said...

By the way 8:14 the definition of frangible is - fragile, brittle.

Applied to bullets it means the bullet will at some point disintegrate though that doesn't negate the possibility that once the bullet shatters it isn't capable of killing or inflicting a serious wound.

If you don't know that or are incapable of looking up articles on frangible bullets perhaps you should withhold your opinions on supporting shooting in residential neighborhoods.

Just this reader's opinion, no one will force you to do that.unlike the commission forcing residents to endure culling.

Anonymous said...

An important article on frangible bullets and deer.

"One must be a calm, calculating, careful and accurate shooter in order to effectively use frangible bullets on deer. Rush a shot, try a less than perfect angle and you risk wounding. This is why, after more than a century of compiling data, bullet makers do not recommend frangible, “varmint” style bullets for deer hunting."

Of course 6:46/10:08/8:14 knows more about bullets than Winchester!

Anonymous said...

Seems like the commissioners should be asking DeNicola why he'd use frangible bullets if according to the link in 11:57 bullet manufacturers don't recommend frangible, varmint bullets for deer hunting.

It seems neither a safe or humane way to dispatch deer.

Anonymous said...

You wrote:

"Again, no one suggested anywhere that you should be shot, so don't make it up!"

Then you wrote:

"Since you asked what frangible meant I simply suggested that you might volunteer to demonstrate how safe frangible bullets are."

And this how you described the demonstration:

"[L]et's conduct a test like 'Outdoor Life' where we shoot a frangible bullet through some foliage with you as the target."

Anonymous said...

Nice try 2:41, but you failed to included that I asked if that test would be OK.

Here's the complete quote that you edited to turn a suggestion that you might want to submit to a test that would demonstrate whether frangible bullets make culling safe in densely populated areas.

"Here's a thought 10:08, let's conduct a test like "Outdoor Life" where we shoot a frangible bullet through some foliage with you as the target and you tell us the definition of frangible, OK?"

So again, you demonstrate your inability to comprehend written words. So no one said you should be shot. I asked if you'd like to submit to a demonstration of frangible bullets.

Anonymous said...

Here's a question for you 2:41, and I'll try to word it as simply as possible so that you can understand it and respond.

Do you believe that frangible bullets make shooting deer completely safe and humane in a densely populated neighborhood?

Anonymous said...

2:41, thank you for making my point.
I believe that with your focus on frangible bullets you were trying to convince the public that culling is safe because these magic bullets turn into a whiff of dust should they strike something unintended. Much like those old cowboy westerns where bullets vaporize after hitting a boulder.

Which isn't true, should the frangible bullets hit something like a small twig of leaf and break up it becomes like a mini shotgun blast, still capable of delivering a devastating wound.

You agree with me because you said my proposed test (which no one in their right mind would agree too) would result in you being shot.

It's too bad though that our commissioners are by approving sharp shooting in our densely populated neighborhoods (without prior warning) are subjecting residents to the same kind of proposed test---- will a frangible bullet rote the them from a missed or deviated shot.

It won't.

Anonymous said...

You believe, do you?

Maybe frangibility in this context has more to do with shots not richochetting off the ground after a miss. But you're the entirely reasonable person who knows exactly what I think, so I must be wrong.

My neighbor told me that I think that all shots fired from an elevated position towards the ground are open shots, not obscured by foliage, thus making everything you said irrelevant. But she's wrong and you're right. My aunt told me that I think that I'm a beautiful woman, but I'm not sure because I've not heard your opinion.

You really got me with that test! Because I didn't accede to your suggestion that I be shot in a random demonstration that you constructed, unrelated to anything I said, I must lack comprehension. You're obviously correct. Sorry. In the future, I'll ask you what I believe before commenting.

Anonymous said...

10:17, so every shot the cullers will take at the deer, some from elevated tree stands, will be very close to perpendicular with what will be assuredly soft dirt. You know this to be a fact that will occur in every shot, right! Amazing, you must know where these shooters are. How'd you get that information?

I don't know the angles, the topography or distances between foliage, since we're not allowed to know where the sharpshooters are, but I suspect some shots have been and will be taken at angles nearly parallel to the ground and those angles could allow for deflections or richocets, frangible bullets or not.

You 10:17 are going to believe whatever you want obliviously, though I'll be glad to give you my opinion if as in your last sentence you said you'd ask for. It's like communicating with a brick wall, but I'll give you my opinion.

I submitted an article from a well respected manufacturer of guns and ammo that advises that deflecting a bullet (frangible or not) doesn't take much more than a blade of grass. (You said the article didn't mention frangible bullets, it's there in black and white but you must be correct)

You, your neighbor and perhaps your aunt, I suppose are all more knowledgable than that company, so I guess due to your snarky attitude I should acquiesce to your expertise and knowledge.

Thanks neighbor for enlightening me.

Wondering, are you going to respond to 4:55?

Anonymous said...

Yes, 10:17 who is your neighbor and how do they or you know that every shot has been taken from an elevated stand in an open area with no foliage??????

Anonymous said...

"[S]o every shot the cullers will take at the deer, some from elevated tree stands, will be very close to perpendicular with what will be assuredly soft dirt."

Yup, pretty much. At least this is what my neighbor tells me I think.

From the White Buffalo contract:

"We will shoot from elevated positions to ensure a steep angle of trajectory."

From Lebo's Comprehensive Deer Management FAQ:

"The sharpshooting will occur only from fixed, elevated positions (providing an earthen backdrop at all times) and will use frangible bullets designed to prevent ricochets—both important safety measures."

Anonymous said...

"[H]ow do they or you know that every shot has been an open area with no foliage?"

My neighbor is glad you asked what she thinks I think!

Also, from the contract:

"Some vegetation that may obstruct shooting opportunities, if present, it [sic] will be thinned or pruned to ensure optimal removal conditions."

Anonymous said...

12:45, "[S]o every shot the cullers will take at the deer, some from elevated tree stands, will be very close to perpendicular with what will be assuredly soft dirt."

So do they sift or take the dirt beforehand to ensure there are no hidden rocks or metal just out of sight?

Assuredly is an adjective meaning guaranteed; sure; certain.

I've also heard from a friend that at least one deer was taken by a sharpshooter standing on the ground and not in an elevated stand. Can I confirm it, no, but I have no reason to believe the teller just made it up.

Also in every article I can find on ricochets and/or frangible bullets they all read that frangible bullets do GREATLY REDUCE the risk of errant shots or ricochets though none claims they eliminate the risk entirely.

Here's one ammo sites conclusion.
"Ricochets may happen with any firearm and are most likely with long velocity lead bullets; they are least likely with high velocity frangible bullets."

Notice they reported "least likely with high velocity frangible bullets." The key words --- least likely! They didn't write it never happens with frangible bullets.

Sorry 12:45, in my opinion the only way to ensure that a bad shot will never happen is to not make that shot in the first place, especially in our heavily populated neighborhoods.

Having said that and I'm sure I'll be lambasted here... I'm not completely opposed to the use of trained and vetted archers to address the deer problem if the majority agrees that there is indeed a problem.

As an example, if the municipality notified the community of an archery hunt on say the closed golf course for a period of time, I could live with that if it was guaranteed that no shot would be taken in the direction of people or dwellings.

Seems the county has been using the free volunteers for years without incidents or problems and they've been eliminating a lot of deer.

Why can't we go that route?

Anonymous said...

"The mechanism of bullet disintegration varies with the energy transfer at the time of impact. With sufficient velocity, bullets may be vaporized upon impact. Few firearms can propel bullets at sufficient velocity to cause reliable vaporization at the target, and air resistance causes bullet velocity to decrease with increasing distance from the firing point; so frangible bullets typically rely upon other mechanisms for disintegration at lower velocities. Target characteristics are an important aspect of interaction with the bullet. Energy available to initiate the disintegration mechanism is limited by the rate at which the target slows the bullet; so bullets may pass through flexible, fragile or low-density materials without slowing the bullet enough to cause disintegration. Bullets must resist disintegration during handling, loading, and firing to reliably hit the target; so high-velocity loads may require a non-frangible jacket to protect a frangible core from disintegration prior to target impact. The jacket may ricochet, but should have reduced range without the weight of the frangible core.[5] Frangible hollow-point bullets may penetrate clothing, drywall, and light sheet metal; but often disintegrate upon striking glass.[6]