Some people think democracy is about everybody finding a way for everyone to agree. In reality, democracy is about finding a way for everyone to disagree -- without pummeling one another in the process.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission is a democratic institution, one in which, until recently, Sunbury resident Thomas Boop has held a position of prominence.

Mr. Boop has been president of the commission for a little more than a year, and was elected to his second one-year term in January.

By all appearances, his second term has been shortened considerably. Other members of the board voted last week to remove Boop as president.

The 4-0 vote came during a special meeting of the board, which oversees the setting of hunting seasons, policies and license fees in the state. Mr. Boop has since asked for another formal hearing to be heard on his "firing," giving him a chance to answer all the charges. The outcome of that "trial" probably will be the same: Boop will be demoted to a "regular" seat on the board.

But to date, the only publicly announced reason for the ouster vote is Boop's outspoken criticism of the commission's stringent deer-management policies. Over the last several years, the commission has been attempting to decrease the overall size of the herd while increasing the "trophy" buck many hunters desire. Many hunters, however, decry the policy because they think the herd has decreased to near invisible numbers in some areas -- including in the Central Susquehanna Valley.

Mr. Boop said at a recent commission meeting that the deer policy was "fatally flawed," and asked a state legislator to help reform it.

Other commission members apparently took offense to such "independent" thinking and voted to boot Boop out.

The upshot is not that the deer-management policy is right or wrong. Good and wise people can disagree on such policies. The issue is how a state-appointed board operating under the general rules of a democratic institution handles dissent.

In this case, the board members handled it poorly. The anti-Boop faction clearly has a majority on the board, and their votes will hold sway with or without Mr. Boop as president. There was no need to take an extraordinarily punitive step to get their point across or to guide policies in their preferred way.

Meanwhile, judging by the number and tone of hunter comments on the deer policy, the commission has more pressing issues to address than who is -- or who is not -- its board president.

The commission lives off the licensing fees hunters provide. Yet many of those same hunters seem extremely upset about the deer-hunting policies.

While the commission must balance long-term health of the ecosystem with short-term wishes of hunters, it also must show that hunting remains a viable, enjoyable sport -- or it risks putting itself out of business.

Mr. Boop is a hunter, and is listening to fellow sportsmen as well. He is voicing a commonly heard concern. Shooting the messenger is never a good way to handle dissenting opinion. In fact, hearing the dissent is essential to careful consideration of the issues. Silencing dissent does not create harmony, it only creates alienation.

Mr. Boop says he will remain on the board no matter the outcome of his "trial." Something tells us that "silence" will not be on his agenda.