|
Someone sent me this off the internet, thought you folks might
want to read it too.
Walt
Deer Hunting FAQ
Introduction and acknowledgments
Hunting is often condemned by Animal "Rights" advocates as an evil
practice that not only exemplifies the worst in human conduct, but also
injures populations of game animals, causing genetic damage and even
species extinction.
Hunting of the White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) is often used
as a primary example in the condemnation of hunting, in part, I expect,
because it is a commonly known animal, and in part because, as a result
of Walt Disney's expertise at anthropomorphizing animated animals,
Bambi is a ubiquitous image in the minds of most Americans: After all,
who but the most cruel and vicious bounder would set out on a fall day
to kill Bambi, or worse yet, Bambi's mother?
This is an effort to clear up the misconceptions of urbanites (and others)
whose knowledge of the white-tailed deer comes primarily from Disney
and other sources of similar factual reliability. Although this document
was written by me, I must, in fairness and humility, acknowledge the
considerable assistance offered by Ms. Sue Bishop, Dr. Martin Hulsey,
Mr. George Dunham, Mr. Joe Douglas, Mr. James Eckler, Dr. William
Porter, and the many AR advocates who have forced me to find the
actual sources rather than rely on pamphlets and propaganda...may
THEY be similarly (if uncharacteristically) moved in the future.
I should note, too, that the information provided herein applies ONLY to
the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and primarily (though by
no means exclusively) to its existence on the northern parts of its range.
Unless otherwise noted, no claims are made for other species of deer.
September 23, 1995
Rich Young
Rochester, NY
Send comments to the author at this address: [email protected].
Table of Contents
The White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
Reproductive characteristics
Population dynamics
Environmental Impact
On Non-humans
On Humans
The Role of Humans in Population Control
Wildlife Management
Hunting
The White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
Who hasn't seen the Walt Disney animated feature, Bambi? Remember
how we all fell in love with Bambi's cute spotted coat, and those big soft
brown eyes with the long, sweeping eyelashes? And do you remember
how horrified we were when Bambi's mother was killed by that nasty
old human hunter? Of course you do...Bambi was a near-universal
experience for those who grew up in the '50s and '60s, and continues to
be one of the most popular features for children even today.
There isn't much that's more adorable than a white-tail fawn (maybe
kittens...or playful Giant Panda cubs) and anyone who has even a
modicum of feeling falls in love with a white-tail fawn immediately
(urged on, no doubt, by that lingering image of Bambi stored away since
childhood).
But the white-tailed deer is just another animal, and a prey animal at
that, and in order to render decisions regarding its management based on
fact rather than impulse and emotion, we must separate ourselves from
our memories of Bambi, forget we saw The Yearling, and treat
Odocoileus virginianus as dispassionately as we would treat a slug. We
want white-tails to survive as a species, but we want them to survive in
balance with their environment, not at the expense of it. To this end,
then, it behooves us (pun intended) to understand a little of the biology
of the white-tail as well as to appreciate its emotional appeal.
According to 30-year Michigan white-tail researcher John Ozoga [in
Whitetail Winter, Willow Creek Press, Minocqua, WI, 1995; pp. 23,
27-28], the white-tailed deer is one of the most adaptable animals on the
planet and, although the Cervidae are thought to have arisen in Eurasia
and migrated across the Alaskan land bridge, the genus Odocoileus is
considered to be a New World descendant of those early travellers. The
white-tailed deer as we know it today has (according to the fossil
record) existed essentially unchanged for perhaps as much as 20 million
years and is thought to be the ancestral form from which today's mule
deer and black-tailed deer evolved. It has managed to colonize habitat
ranging from the dense rainforests of South America to the subarctic
tree lines of North America. In so doing, it has evolved into several
subspecies, from the large Odocoileus virginianus borealis sub-species of
the northern woodlands, in which a mature buck may weigh 400 pounds
(almost 182 kilograms) and stand 40 inches (nearly 102 centimeters) at
the shoulder, to the Margarita Islands subspecies, O. v. margaritae, in
which a mature adult may weigh only 40 pounds (18.2 kg). Some 200
pounds (91 kilograms) is more representative of healthy bucks in the U.
S. Such size differences related to climate are predictable, and in fact are
summarized by Bergmann's Rule, in which the tendency toward larger
body size is seen as a natural result of selection for those individuals best
able to withstand the rigors of winter cold, or alternately, dissipate body
heat in a tropical climate (larger body mass results in less surface per
unit volume and subsequently reduced heat loss, while a small body size,
with relatively more surface per unit volume, loses excessive heat more
effectively).
Though there are differences in the effects of habitat and climate on the
various sub-species, there are many, many similarities as well, and we
shall explore some of those characteristics in the following paragraphs.
Reproductive Characteristics
As a prey animal, the white-tailed deer has evolved with several
adaptations that allow it to survive the predations of the many
carnivores that consider it a dietary prize. In the words of Dr. R. J.
Warren [Trans. 56th N. A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf.; 1991]:
"White-tailed deer possess a wide variety of antipredator
adaptations (Mech 1984), which obviously indicates that they
evolved as a prey species. Thus, acute mortality (e. g., predation)
probably always has been a major component in the complex of
factors that control deer populations. Behavioral interactions and
social pressure among conspecifics, which control some animal
populations (Wynne-Edwards 1964), do not seem to be operative in
deer."
One of these adaptations is a relatively high reproductive rate FOR AN
ANIMAL OF ITS SIZE. Obviously rabbits or mice reproduce much
faster, but each individual has far less impact on its environment. Even
among deer, the white-tail is a champion: The mule deer (Odocoileus
hemionus), for example, takes an estimated two to three years longer for
an unmolested population to reach environmental carrying capacity than
does the white-tailed deer, according to Dr. Dale R. McCullough ["The
Theory and Management of Odocoileus Populations" in Biology and
Management of the Cervidae, edited by C. M. Wemmer (1987)]. And
according to studies done by Louis Verme and John Ozoga, the
white-tail reproductive rate is high even under adverse conditions,
though fawn mortality under such conditions may also be high. In a
study by Verme and Ozoga [J. Wildl. Man. 46(2):281; 1982], it is stated
that:
"...acute malnutrition of pregnant does commonly results in heavy
neonatal mortality (Verme 1977) which can disrupt herd dynamics
for years."
The age of the doe is an equally important consideration. Verme [J.
Wildl. Man. 33(4):882-3; 1969.] states that yearling does on poor diets
averaged 1.14 fawns per pregnancy while prime-age does on the same
diet averaged 1.58 fawns per pregnancy. He says of one test population:
"Only 11 of 19 litters consisted of twins, a comparatively small
proportion for physically mature female deer."
Verme also notes, however, that yearlings on poor diets have a much
lower pregnancy rate (their advance to sexual maturity is delayed by
poor nutrition...a similar phenomenon is seen in human females). In
addition, he notes that the ratio of male fawns to female fawns changes
from roughly 46% males for well-fed prime-age does to nearly 80% for
poorly-fed prime-age does. Nevertheless, it is clear that the reproductive
rate of even poorly-nourished white-tailed deer is sufficiently high that
the birth rate will more than simply replace the parents: In Verme's
example, 19 poorly-nourished does bore 30 fawns. Even if we assume
that the number of bucks in the herd equalled the number of does who
bore fawns, the herd's population increased by nearly 80%. And these
were poorly-nourished does; the implications regarding reproduction
rate for deer that are NOT poorly-fed are obvious. In a summary of his
previous work, Verme (1969, op. cit.) lists the average reproduction rate
of prime-age does (as determined from three studies) as 1.15 fawns per
doe for poorly-nourished does, and 1.73 fawns per doe for
well-nourished does. In one of these studies [Trans. 32nd N. Am. Wildl.
Conf., p. 412; 1967.], the rate was as high as 1.85 fawns per prime-age
doe when the diet was at least adequate.
Population Dynamics
The implications of such a high reproductive rate should be patent. In the
absence of other controlling influences, white-tailed deer population
normally will continue to expand until the increasing lack of nutrition
begins to bring some of the controlling influences (such as fawn sex
ratio, neonatal mortality, and winter deeryard mortality) to bear. The
typical "balance" that is reached was summarized by Dr. William Porter
of the State University of New York (SUNY) at Syracuse who said (in a
personal communication regarding an unhunted area he has monitored):
"Our work in the Adirondacks shows that MOST of the fawns die
EVERY winter. Deer persist in the region because adults live a
long time (12-15 years) and only need one or two mild winters in
their lifetime to replace themselves." [emphasis his]
Note that this statement supports the observation of Verme and Ozoga,
above, regarding the heavy neonatal mortality characteristic of
poorly-nourished deer. And as Warren said [op. cit.]:
"Behavioral interactions and social pressure among conspecifics,
which control some animal populations (Wynne-Edwards 1964),
do not seem to be operative in deer."
The lesson to be taken home here is that deer will die. In a herd at
environmental carrying capacity, the only question to be resolved is in
what ratio the fawns will die of starvation compared to other herd
deaths. As adults die (from whatever causes), fawns will live; those that
do not will generally die of malnutrition. When it comes to food
distribution, as Dr. Dale R. McCullough says ["Lessons From The
George Reserve, Michigan" in White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and
Management, edited by L. K. Halls; 1983]:
"It makes no difference whatsoever to the survivors in the residual
population whether the individuals no longer present fell to bullet,
fang, radiator grill, or the vagaries of time."
Harris [J. Wildl. Man. 9(4):320; 1945.] describes a starving deer:
"First the fat over the rump and saddle disappears, and then
gradually the fat that lies between the hide and body cavity will be
absorbed...The next step of fat absorption occurs within the body
cavity proper. That around the kidneys and on the intestines
disappears, and the last to be absorbed within the body cavity is the
spot of fat on the heart. A really critical stage in the life of our deer
is now approaching. He can still jump and run, and he looks bright
and snappy, although his coat is looser and rougher. You think he is
in good condition, but the truth is that he has only one more reserve
of fat to use...Now the deer begins to absorb those fat cells [in the
bone marrow]. Gradually the marrow turns [from solid and
creamy-white to] red and finally becomes jelly-like, which means
that the fat cells have been absorbed.
The deer is still apparently full of life. He can jump and run, but he
is only living on borrowed time, and in a few days when you jump
him from his bed he springs up and starts off but soon staggers and
falls; he gets up and tries again only to stagger and fall again, this
time to stay down. The next day or so, you find his body..."
Fifty years later, according to John Ozoga (in Whitetail Winter, op. cit., p.
136), not much has changed:
"Death from malnutrition is an insidious, pathetically slow process.
Fat depletion and physical weakening progress with nearly
undetectable signs, until it's too late for recovery. In the final stages,
however, a deer's coat roughens, its hip bones show, and hollows
appear in its flanks. The starving animal spends most of its time
bedded down in a curled head to tail position to minimize body
surface exposure. It adopts a lethargic, uncaring attitude, no longer
bounding away, flag waving, as danger nears. Small deer,
especially, stand hump-backed, their front legs spread slightly, back
legs close together, [holding] their heads up at a 45 degree angle
[below horizontal]....At some unknown time during starvation,
rumen attrition and adrenal exhaustion become irreversible.
Thereafter, a deer so stressed could no longer handle the metabolic
stress of feeding."
And perhaps the most poignant observation is from Curtis Stadtfeld [
Whitetail Deer: A Year's Cycle. Dial Press, New York, 1975]:
"They are likely to die in March. And they die unmourned,
untended, unnoted."
In Harris's study, which describes a harsh North Dakota winter, this
progression began in mid-January and ended only in late March or
April.
"By March 15, evidence of extreme malnutrition was found, and
during the rest of March and all of April malnutrition was the chief
cause of death in a good many deer...The greatest loss occurred in
April after the snow had gone, when green grass and forbs were
available. All the deer then found dead had full stomachs."
Cheatum [New York State Conservationist, April-May 1949, p. 22]
addresses the phenomenon of death from starvation with full stomachs,
and the inability to recover even with proper rations:
"Deer have been collected while still able to move around on their
feet and with the femur marrow reduced to 1.5 per cent fat. These
animals would probably not have recuperated even had they been
treated with the best of shelter and food."
Clearly, this tendency of Odocoileus virginianus to increase its population
will cause great suffering when food supplies become insufficient, and as
Warren notes, non-predator controls are simply not adequate to prevent
this suffering. Both Harris (1945) and Verme and Ozoga (1982)
document 63% fawn mortality in undernourished white-tailed deer
herds, Ozoga reports that winter mortality consists of as much as 90%
fawns [Whitetail Winter, op. cit.], and Porter [op. cit.] has noted that in
one area, "...MOST of the fawns die EVERY winter." The fawns are
among the most vulnerable to food shortage, since they have not been
able to store fat over the summer (most of the energy consumed goes
toward growth in the first months of life), and their body size is not yet
large enough to minimize overwinter energy loss or to reach diminishing
food resources overhead; they are therefore selected according to
Bergmann's Rule.
McCullough describes the dilemma [Wemmer, op. cit.]:
"...high recruitment rates ['recruitment rate' is the number of fawns
that survive to adulthood, not the number that are born --RY]
usually are realized at low population densities, and these rates
decline as population size increases because of intraspecific
competition for food. Usually in deer the competition is not based
on the amount of forage consumed, but rather the quality of forage
consumed. The problem is not finding enough vegetation to fill the
rumen (deer dying of malnutrition usually have full rumens), but
the net energy and nutrient balance possible on the diet obtained. If
the better plant parts of the most digestible species are readily
available, the net gain can be put to growth and reproduction. If the
net balance is negative, the loss has to come from the body mass,
and this condition cannot be sustained for long or death by
starvation will result."
We should be clear about the implications of a "low recruitment rate."
Many will be tempted to equate this with a low reproductive rate, but this
is not the case: "Low recruitment" means that while many fawns may be
born, few live to adulthood. This differs significantly from the [incorrect]
idea that few fawns are born, and this important difference should be
carefully noted.
Curtis Stadtfeld [op. cit., pp. 34-35] relates an interesting example:
"The fecundity of deer -- potentially tragic because of the artificial
imbalances in nature -- can be illustrated again in the case of
South Fox Island, a little more than 3,000 acres, about 5 square
miles, some 17 miles from the northern Michigan mainland into
Lake Michigan...Owners of the timberland who were logging the
island [in 1962] convinced game officers to plant deer on the island.
In September 1962, the Michigan Department of Conservation, now
the Department of Natural Resources, released six bucks and eleven
does. At least two died that winter, so no more than fifteen deer
were alive on the island to begin its repopulation.
In 1969, seven years after the first deer were planted on the island,
the herd numbered at least five hundred. At least forty more deer
had been taken by hunters.
A special hunting season was established, as the DNR decided that
the herd was too large for the available food. Hunters killed 188
deer that fall. Conservation officers believed the herd was still too
large.
In the fall of 1970, an even more intense effort was made to harvest
deer from the island so that the herd would again be in balance
with food supplies. The DNR issued licenses to 612 persons, who
killed 382 deer, including bucks, does, and fawns. In the spring of
1971, a check showed that the island had 194 deer; a population
that fall of 400 was expected.
In eight years, the original 15 deer had produced a herd from which
at least 620 deer had been killed and the herd still numbered 15
times larger than the number put there in the first place.
If continued intense hunting is not practiced, the herd will double
each fall. The island once could provide food for approximately
eight hundred deer. Its carrying capacity has now dropped to
possibly four hundred."
And finally, on the subject of population dynamics, Warren (1991) again:
"Some might argue that starvation and poor reproduction
demonstrated by deer in overpopulated herds is evidence that the
herd is regulating itself. However, natural regulation of most large
ungulates should include predator-ungulate interactions as well as
ungulate-habitat interactions (Peek 1980). Starvation and disease
are not acute mortality factors, but rather provide only chronic
control over a population (Eve 1981). Under these conditions, deer
herds can remain at high levels for many years until starvation,
disease, or severe winter weather reduce the herd. By this time,
adverse ecological effects can have already occurred. Short-term
reductions (2-5 years) in the deer herd as a result of these natural
die-offs probably will not allow recovery of the natural
communities in the area. Plant and animal community recovery
may require several decades to occur, especially in areas where seed
banks may have been depleted because of chronic overbrowsing by
deer."
Which brings us to the next issue: What do the deer affect besides
themselves?
Environmental Impact
Until now, we have been looking at the white-tailed deer as an entity
essentially independent of the environment in which it lives, and
although the white-tail can be fairly selective about the choice of
vegetation it eats, its diet becomes less selective as hunger increases and
it can, if populations increase to environmental carrying capacity, have a
notable impact on the environment in which it lives as it proceeds down
its list of edible foods from those that are nourishing to those that are
merely filling. We have seen that Odocoileus virginianus reproduces
rapidly, and that non-predator controls do not seem to be sufficient for
proper population control in this species, but what of the impact of these
animals on the other life forms with which they share their
environment?
On Non-humans
One of the most interesting papers on the impact of deer is the paper by
R. J. Warren [op. cit.], from which the following is taken:
"The best evidence of the adverse effects of an overpopulation of
deer on plant communities and ecological succession was provided
in a recent study of a 60 to 70-year-old Allegheny hardwood forest
in Pennsylvania where deer densities were controlled
experimentally in 160-acre enclosures that had been clearcut,
thinned, or uncut. Tilghman (1989) demonstrated significant
reductions in tree seedling height, density, and diversity in all
enclosures where deer densities reached 40-80 [per square mile]. At
these higher deer densities, she documented a shift in forest
succession to a near-monoculture of black cherry (Prunus serotina),
and profound changes in the composition of herbaceous ground
cover, all of which were the direct result of overbrowsing by deer."
"In a study of plant communities in Great Smoky Mountains
National Park in Tennessee, Bratton (1979) documented a
reduction in the number of plant species, a loss of hardwood species,
and a predominance of conifer species in an area of the park heavily
populated by deer compared to an ecologically similar control area
with fewer deer."
"Perhaps one of the most significant plant indicators of an
overpopulation of deer in an area is the occurrence of 'bark
stripping' on trees. During winter in Catoctin Mountain Park,
Maryland, deer strip significant amounts of bark from elms (Ulmus
spp.) (Warren and Ford 1990). Bark stripping has been proposed as
an indicator of low forage availability for ungulates (Miquelle and
Van Ballenberghe 1989). Bark stripping by deer represents an
exacerbation of the overbrowsing problem in forests. The adverse
effects of overbrowsing on understory vegetation and seedlings are
further compounded by the effect of bark stripping on midstory and
overstory trees via increased susceptibility of trees to disease and
mortality (Miquelle and Ballenberghe 1989)."
"On Saratoga National Historical Park, New York, deer browsing
prevented recruitment of tree seedlings to saplings...(Soukup, et. al.
1990). Bratton and Kramer (1990) determined that overbrowsing
by deer on Cumberland Island National Seashore, Georgia, was
helping suppress live oak (Quercus virginiana) seedlings, sprouts
and saplings in the forest that dominates the island."
"Scott and Yahner (1989) found greater use by snowshoe hares (
Lepus americanus) and Dessecker and Yahner (1987) found greater
breeding-bird community species richness and diversity on recent
(<= 6 years old) clearcut stands in north-central Pennsylvania that
had been successfully regenerated (>= 70 percent of plots stocked
with desirable tree species <= 5 feet tall) as compared to those not
successfully regenerated (<= 50 percent stocking level).
Overbrowsing by deer was the major cause of unsuccessful
regeneration."
"One well known natural preserve decided decades ago to control
deer to prevent vegetation damage. The 1,146-acre George Reserve
in Michigan was established so the area could 'follow its natural
course without interference by Man' (McCullough 1973:3). In the
mid-1930s after deer had been reintroduced to the area for less
than 10 years, 'it was imperative the the deer population be
artificially controlled by Man, even though such action ran counter
to the basic philosophy of noninterference in the natural processes
of the area. It was recognized that part of the problem was lack of
natural predators in the area, and the role of predator had to be
played by Man' (McCullough 1979:8). Interestingly, 'deer are the
only animals (or plants) on the Reserve that are artificially
controlled' (McCullough 1984:239)."
On Humans
Where there are populations of humans encroaching upon, or even
sharing, living space with the white-tailed deer, there are bound to be
conflicts. The deer need space to live and food to eat, as do the humans,
and as the deer search for both living space and food in an area
populated by humans, there will be interaction on a variety of levels. In
the words of Dr. Warren again [op. cit.]:
"Deer overpopulation can be defined simply as too many deer in a
particular area. Yet the concept of 'too many' can include a variety
of social, biological, or ecological definitions. There can be too many
deer in an area from the standpoint of public safety (e. g., excessive
deer/vehicle collisions), agricultural damage, and damage to
landscape plantings..."
Often it is farmers concerned about their crops, and suburban residents
tired of replacing ornamental plants and afraid of potentially lethal
collisions who first complain about deer overpopulation. And their
complaints are not made entirely without justification: As already
mentioned, a collision in a vehicle, while often lethal to the deer, is also
potentially lethal to the humans in the car, either because of
inappropriate avoidance maneuvers, or by direct impact of the animal
upon the vehicle's occupants (as in the case of one incident with which I
am familiar in Delmar, New York, some years ago, in which the skull of
the passenger was penetrated by the deer's hoof). In 1993, the State of
Pennsylvania recorded 45,954 car-deer impacts in which the dead deer
was recovered. There were probably many more in which the deer was
not killed, and undoubtedly some incidents in which the deer was killed
and the event not reported nor the deer recovered, but even aside from
the loss of human (and Cervid) life such collisions cause, the economic
impact of these collisions (as vehicle damage is repaired and human
injuries treated) should not be ignored. Indeed, as stated in Deer
Management Recommendations for the State and Local Governemnt, and
the Citizens of DMU 96, prepared by Dr. Paul D. Curtis, of Cornell
University, in 1993:
"Decker, et. al. (1990), estimated that 57,000 deer-car collisions
occurred in New York during 1988, resulting in property damage in
the range of $50 million. Any other method of deer control is safer,
more humane, and more cost-effective."
Those who favor protection of [especially suburban] deer herds, whether
animal "rights" advocates or simply anti-hunting activists, should pay
particular attention to the last sentence of the preceding quote from Dr.
Curtis.
Compared to such horrific incidents, damage to shrubbery certainly
seems benign enough, but there is a significant economic impact from
the cost of repeated attempts at landscaping, implementation of
protective measures, or, failing all that, the reduction in estimated real
estate value. These factors may seem crass, but they are both real and
significant. And the increased cost of food caused by the appetites of
scavenging deer in midwestern grain fields or the fruit orchards of the
east is a direct cost to the consumer as well. Probably none of these
compares favorably with the National Debt, but deer do cost us millions
each year, and not all citizens are willing to pay these costs
unflinchingly, based on philosophical principle alone.
The Role of Humans in Population Control
It is clear that the environment in which the white-tailed deer evolved is
nothing like that in which it now finds itself. One may, of course, judge
this to be either good, or bad, or of no particular consequence, but it
could be argued that most Americans today would agree that humans
should attempt to find a way to live with other species, and to attempt to
compensate for past "indiscretions," i. e., anthropocentric (and thus often
short-sighted) wildlife management decisions. To that end, a large
network of official and unofficial organizations dedicated to
"conservation" and/or "ecology" has arisen. The goals of these various
organizations are often quite varied, and some even find themselves in
conflict, but few would disagree that the white-tailed deer should both
exist AND be healthy...no one wants a huge population of starving runts
any more than a tiny but rarely-seen population of incredibly healthy
specimens...and so, those we call "wildlife managers," charged with the
responsibility of making the goals Society sets a reality, often walk a thin
line, trying to please many, and often failing to please even some.
Wildlife Management
The goals of the wildlife manager are often conflicting; in today's world,
he or she must balance the desires of hunters who want opportunities to
complete their hunt successfully, farmers and home-owners who don't
care about harvesting (or even seeing) the deer, and
animal-protectionists who feel that the death of an animal at the hands
of anything other than a non-human is morally bereft. As McCullough
states [in Wemmer, op. cit.]:
"The tradeoffs in deer population management...are that one can
have low residual populations yielding high recruitment rates,
intermediate residual populations yielding intermediate rates, or
high residual populations yielding low, zero, or at times, negative
recruitment rates. Which of these cases is most desirable depends on
the goals of the management program."
"If the objective of the [management program] is to minimize
deer-car collisions or crop damage, heavy harvests of either sex and
any age will be required to maintain low residual populations."
"If the goal of the program is a high residual population then total
protection can be implemented. In extremely stable environments,
this may result in stable residual populations, but in fluctuating
environments variation in residual populations that exceed K cause
considerable risk of vegetation damage." [K=the population at
which recruitment exactly equals chronic mortality in adults...the
point at which the available resources in a given environment can
no longer support a larger stable population. In a fluctuating
environment, K will change from year to year. --RY.]
"Tradeoffs, depending on where they are made, will more or less
satisfy or anger the various interest groups. Whether balances of
this kind will result in mutual satisfaction or mutual dissatisfaction
is hard to say. Given the completely different philosophical views of
hunters and protectionists, tradeoffs between these groups seem
unlikely to be mutually satisfactory."
Hunting
Though it may or may not be obvious to most of as we pursue our daily
tasks, largely unaware of the non-human world that surrounds us, the
increasing population of humans in the U. S. has conspired with the
success of wildlife management practices to produce an increasing
problem of human/deer interaction. While the white-tail was well on its
way to extinction at the turn of the century, there are now 52 times as
many as there were in 1900 (or some 25 to 30 million, depending on the
source of the estimate) [American Rifleman 143(9):36; 1995]. The
reduction in forested area caused by the expanding human population
has produced more "edge" habitat (which the deer prefer), restrictions on
human predation have been enacted for safety as well as protectionist
reasons, and non-human predators have been removed from most
natural ranges, all of which has allowed the population of deer to
explode.
In addition to the deer, there are 6 times as many wild turkeys, 18 times
as many elk, and 30 times as many bison today (compared to populations
in 1900), due in large part to the contributions of hunters to conservation
efforts through license fees and the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund [
American Rifleman, op. cit.]. There is no intent to imply, nor should it be
inferred, that hunters in general are in the field for purely altruistic
purposes; they are not. They hunt because they enjoy it. But these data
DO point out that hunting is not necessarily the purposeful extinction of
species it is so often characterized to be, especially as practiced today in
the U. S.
There are those who claim that hunting leads to family violence...a
theory put to rest by the simple example of our last several Presidents, all
of whom hunt, and none of whom are known to have beaten their wives,
abused their children, or attacked random strangers. There remains a
continuing effort by the anti-hunting community to develop a causative
link between hunting and child and/or spousal abuse, and while many
correlations have been identified, no causative link has been isolated
from these correlations. Poverty and rural location seem to be about as
closely related to domestic violence as hunting, and it makes sense that
poor people who live where the game animals do, and who may take out
the frustrations of hopelessness and poverty on those closest at hand,
may be more likely to hunt for subsistence and/or recreational purposes
than the average suburbanite, simply because the opportunity exists.
There are also those who assume that hunting of white-tailed deer
results in a genetic disadvantage to the species, a theory that does not
explain the recovery of the species from the population lows of the late
19th century while under constant hunting pressure, localized recoveries
under watchful scientific eyes, such as at the George Reserve in
Michigan, or the lack of genetic disability in areas where the
predominant "genetic flaw" is youth and, in Dr. Porter's words,
"...MOST of the fawns die EVERY winter." There is another recurring
theme related to the "genetic flaw" theory in which it is often pointed
out (falsely) that "natural" predators do not take any but the old and
sick, but McCullough says, regarding predators [in Halls, op. cit.]:
"There is strong evidence that predators take the young, the old,
and [the] unfit. This is not to say that healthy deer are not killed
sometimes. In fact, they are, and review of wolf predation on deer
showed clear evidence that success in taking a greater proportion of
prime deer is related to lower deer density (that is, wolves can kill
healthier deer by greater effort)...And because large predators have
higher reproductive potential than do deer, a vulnerability variable
has to be present to account for the long coexistence of prey and
predators."
Protectionists often urge that deer in overpopulated areas (when they
actually admit that these areas exist) should be captured and moved, but
the data show that captured deer have a significant mortality rate from
the stress and trauma of capture [Curtis, op. cit.]. And besides, where, in
a land of chronic overpopulation, would such deer be taken?
Contraception is a regularly-suggested option as well, but it is expensive,
might have to be done twice a year (at $200 to $800 per deer -- Curtis,
op. cit.), has implementation problems in wild deer herds (which deer are
already done?), and will not immediately improve an existing
overpopulation problem. In the realm of population control,
contraception has, perhaps, the most encouraging future, but it is not yet
a practical solution. Curtis [op. cit.] says:
"Reproductive inhibition is the preferred long-term strategy when
appropriate techniques become available. Currently, reproductive
drugs and delivery systems for free-ranging deer are experimental."
Finally, hunting is often characterized as a mismatch between man and
his technology and a helpless animal. In fact, however, it is a match more
equal than any non-hunter might believe. Stadtfeld again [op. cit.]:
"And so, with the deer rather more relaxed and unconcerned than
the more tender observer might expect, with the balance of the
contest between hunter and deer rather more even than one would
anticipate, the season ends. The hunter had prepared himself with
all the power of his technology, and the deer responded with their
tens of thousands of years of instincts and their superb senses, and
the battle had been a rather fair one after all. The hunt was not
such a thing of horror -- the real horror lay ahead, in the deep
snow and bitter nights of winter.
But is it not unkind to take the life of a deer violently, with a
firearm, letting the lifeblood out on the land? It is a choice we must
make, for we are, artificially, the major surviving predator. We have
driven the others away, and with our instincts to preserve the life of
the deer, we feed and protect and care for them and they multiply.
It is a simple choice then to kill them as quickly and as cleanly as
possible, more neatly than the wolves and mountain lions do
sometimes, perhaps with less terror in pursuit and anguish in dying,
or let them grow old and die when their teeth are worn away or to
suffer from their own tendency to overpopulate and starve slowly in
the cold.
It is not a choice that can be avoided; inaction leads to
overpopulation and starving, the cycle is inexorable."
From a species management standpoint (taken by wildlife managers), the
human hunter is, as Stadtfeld points out, essentially another predator
(indeed, often the sole remaining predator) that can be taken into
consideration when planning the appropriate management approach, but
one that can be controlled and directed, one that will pay for the
privilege, and often the only source of acute [rather than chronic]
mortality available to simulate historical predator/prey interaction.
From R. J. Warren [op. cit.]:
"When one component of the ecosystem (e. g., deer) jeopardizes the
other native plant and animal communities in an area, then drastic
and non-traditional actions are justified to ensure the natural
functioning of all communities in the ecosystem."
It seems clear that it is entire ecosystems that deserve our attention, not
simply this animal or that one. When there are no predators except
humans, predation by humans, on a species designed by millions of years
of evolution to be prey, by those willing to pay for the privilege, is a
reasonable alternative (at least in the case of white-tailed deer).
Considering the status of the white-tailed deer today, there is no truly
compelling reason, philosophical or otherwise, to prohibit the hunting of
deer in areas in which the non-hunting populace will not be subjected to
undue danger.
Especially in the northern ranges, deer will always starve, and as Ted
Kerasote said regarding elk [Bloodties: Nature, Culture, and the Hunt.
Random House, 1993; p. 218]:
"Elk have starved with grace and dignity for thousands of years,
and don't need Florence Nightingales with rifles to sanitize their
deaths."
So it is with the white-tailed deer, as well. There is nothing humans can
do to prevent deer from starving, whether we hunt them or not, and from
a hunter, the idea of hunting to prevent deer from starving is an excuse,
not a reason. But it is equally true that compassion is not limited to
protectionists, who, in the throes of anti-hunting zeal, unwittingly
advocate starvation as a choice less painful than that which the hunter is
prepared to offer. Those who would advocate the abolition of deer
hunting must understand the consequences of their actions, as the hunter
does every time he or she is successful.
McCullough notes [in Halls, op. cit.]:
"[Protectionists] are not in the white cedar swamps in late February
and early March when deer reap the devastating rewards of the
protection afforded them....When deer are starving in the cedar
swamps or elsewhere, protectionists want to feed or move them....It
is as if doing something, no matter how absurd, will absolve these
people of the guilt of their benevolence turning out to be less
benevolent than they had expected from their 'model' of how deer
populations work."
Lest hunters succumb to the temptation to nurse a feeling of superiority
from McCullough's remarks, however, it would be prudent to finish this
article with another of his comments:
"...many [hunters] also have some rather quaint beliefs about deer
populations."
Perhaps, in some small way, this has helped to eliminate some of those
"quaint beliefs," as well as ignorance drawn from pamphlets and
propaganda.
Copyright 1995 by R. Young.
Permission has been granted to M. Hulsey to reproduce this
material. General permission to copy this material is granted as
long as this copyright notice remains as part of any copy thus made.
REV. 1 -- 5 Oct 95
REV. 2 -- 22 Oct 95
REV. 3 -- 30 Oct 95
REV. 4 -- 11 Nov 95
|