Kill the deer. Now.

For the better part of eight years now, London City Council has been bickering about whether or not to cull some deer in and around Sifton Bog.

I can't believe we're still talking about this. The answer to the deer overpopulation has always been obvious. Why? Relocating the deer would solve nothing, because the deer would die anyways since they would be moved to an unnatural habitat. Doing nothing means they're still invading backyards, and getting themselves killed on fences.

We had this discussion in 2001. And now in 2009, City Council wants to spend our taxpayer money on a consultant to tell us what we already know.

Controller Bud Polhill, as well as some area residents, are opposed to a deer cull simply because they're afraid of consequences for children.

One particularly strong letter to the editor on the subject appeared in today's London Free Press, written by Mary Shepherd. In her letter, she argues:

"The fallout from this plan will take a heavy toll on children; the boards of education would be well-advised to have long-term counselling available for staff, students and families who will suffer emotionally should killing be the city's decision. How does a teacher explain that the deer will die, often a slow, lingering death, and that "their" deer could be one of the animals killed?"

Grief counsellors?! For deer? According to this argument, children who grow up on farms need grief counsellors whenever "their" cows or chickens are killed for meat.

The City of London needs to have some balls and ignore these emotional, illogical pleas to protect the massive deer population. The decision to cull should have been made quickly years ago, and the City should then have moved on to bigger issues. It speaks volumes at what kind of city London is compared to its neighbours.

While London City Council bickers about deer, other municipalities are planning regional rail transit for the future. London has got to be the laughingstock of Kitchener-Waterloo.

Kill them, and move on.

Year-round bus pass needed

There has been ongoing debate in the past few years as to whether the London Transit bus pass provided to all undergraduate students at the University of Western Ontario should be expanded to a full year.

It is imperative the current bus pass is made valid for twelve months of the year, instead of the present eight months from September to April.

Contrary to what some Western students believe, there are a large number of Western students who are in London during May, June, July and August.

In addition to the many students who are actually from London and live in London all year round, other students are in London over the summer because they are taking summer courses, have found a job in London, or have just decided to make London their home all year.

At present, it costs $283 to have an LTC bus pass for the months May-August if you are a post-secondary student - $70 per month plus a $3 photo charge. This is more than the cost of the eight-month pass Western students have during the year.

Of course, there are many students who would be opposed to a year-round bus pass, as they go back to their hometown for the summer.

Therefore, there should be a compromise. Much as the University Student Council Health Plan has an opt-out feature for students who have other health plans, there should be an option for students to get either an eight-month bus pass or a full-year bus pass, for an extra fee not exceeding $80.

There should also be an opt-out option for students who do not have access to LTC. In this case, this opt-out should be an option only to those students who live in an area over a kilometre away from a full-service LTC route. Students who live in Komoka or Lucan - and yes, there are some - should not have to pay for a bus pass they will almost never use.

There would be an extra administrative cost to having multiple bus pass structures, but it could be amortized across all students to the point it would be a minimal additional charge absorbed into the passes.