Reader opines on deer culling, Planned Parenthood
To the Editor:
In response to the first page news article, “Recycling efforts criticized in schools” makes the suggestion that “trashcans should be paired” wherever there are receptacles now. This may be a moot suggestion as numerous townships — including, I believe, Upper Dublin — are considering going back to singlestream collection process where newer methods of separation are possible without the duplicate costs for equipment and personnel. Until that time, pairing containers may be useful.
Also, Chris Posey’s letter on our deer population and the effects of the various means to cull the herds calls for a few comments. I have lived in the township for half a century. At no time has the deer infestation been worse. I often see on my crowded block in Fort Washington village deer on the street let alone in back yards. Although the letter cites an excellent base of statistics to support the letter writer’s view there are countervailing opinions and reasons. The argument for creating a vacuum and the quick repopulation is the strongest. The idea of lead poisoning from “shells ... particles, dust and residues” is weak indeed. The letter writer states that “non-lethal methods” to reduce the population are available. UD has explored those “methods” and has not found them effective. To say “killing innocent deer is a sin” is a theological/ethical argument and not a helpful one. It does go to the heart of a comment below. Animal hunting may be deplorable under certain conditions but the idea of animal murder has only recently entered the debate over the proper use of animals in our modern day culture. Instigated by the political leftists in our midst, they demand animal “rights” but then consider, as we will see, abortion and the taking of human life not only ethical — but necessary. Shades of WWII Germany.
Sarah Fagan in a letter to AG calls our attention to House Bill 300 and the funding of Planned Parenthood (PP). Her argument is that the defunding of this private business “threatens the rights of Pennsylvanian women.” Legal and right are two related but not identical concepts. The argument that killing deer but not potential or actual human life is a sin eludes me and a vast host of women and men. The argument that PP provides “essential services” is merely a cover for the nonessential act of demand abortion. I cannot find hospitals or insurance companies providing this necessary and essential service. Furthermore, it is fact that PP is asking taxpayers to pay for this unessential service including persons who find doing so repulsive to their ethical persuasion. Killing deer and killing human life are not identical in thought, word, or deed.
Roland Lindh Fort Washington