Why is it so axiomatic that government gets things so backwards? And in Pittsburgh, it too often is the rule rather than the exception. Too many public projects/programs are based on flawed “inputs” that lead to, naturally, flawed “outputs.”
To wit, what good is a fancy computer program to aid snow removal when you continue to do a very poor job of, well, snow removal?
Or how about restrictive residential construction rules supposedly designed to make residential units more “affordable” but only make them more expensive, then lead to developers seeking government (i.e. taxpayer) subsidies?
Those are just two of a dozen or more examples we could cite. But the latest example comes in a Post-Gazette story detailing the city’s deer-reduction program.
But, first, some background, per the P-G report:
“In 2010 the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture researched Pittsburgh’s escalating deer density. PDA said that while urban parks can generally accommodate nine deer per square mile, an estimated 50 per square mile were living in Frick Park. The department recommended a controlled archery hunt, but for 13 years Pittsburgh mayors and City Council took no action.”
Fast-forward to today, per an independent University of Pittsburgh study, not commissioned by the city but a project of Graduate School of Public and International Affairs.
“Thursday last, it sent city officials and nonprofit park and forest preservation group “an in-depth report” that “cited a range of previously unreported information documenting deer-related deforestation in Pittsburgh parks,” the P-G reports.
“The Pitt research found that, from 2010 to 2023, the estimated number of deer in Frick Park rose to 300 per square mile.” And according to the Pit study, “From 2004 to 2023, we found, the number of deer carcasses collected by the city increased by 411%.”
“And last year,” the P-G further reports, “deer-vehicle incidents on city roads caused an estimated $3.6 million in vehicle damage, a 411% increase since 2010.
“Outside the parks, deer continue eating gardens, dropping scat in yards and transporting ticks that carry Lyme Disease. Many Pittsburghers enjoy watching backyard deer but complaints about deer damage proliferate.”
But here are two kickers. Not only does Pitt Professor Jeremy Weber (who oversaw the study) say that the city could have initiated a deer-reduction program two decades ago and made the problem easier to deal with, the white-tail culling program begun last year hasn’t been, and won’t be, very effective.
The first culling, introduced last September and following state Game Commission guidelines, saw 108 deer taken by volunteer archers in Frick and Riverview parks – when the parks were open.
The city deemed it a “success” and plans to expand the program this September to Schenley, Highland and Emerald View parks.
But Pitt says while those controlled hunts can stabilize the deer population, it can’t necessarily reduce it. It recommends sharpshooting with trained professionals. Though more costly, Pitt says “it reduces the number and keeps it down. The damage from deer justifies the cost.”
The P-G story notes the city’s deer-culling program “was abruptly launched.” And that would suggest it began without sufficient or credible information to properly consider how best to deal with Pittsburgh’s deer problem.
But now they do. The question for Pittsburgh officials is if they will “follow the science” – the real science – or continue with a deer-culling program that, according to long-ago available data and new research, more than suggests it will be a failure?
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
