#deer population

[sportsandlaughs]

[calyxaomphalos]

[marissastaxidermy]

Hi, I've read an article named "hunting myths and facts" when I was searching for arguments for and against hunting, and what do you think about it? It says that baiting deer with human food is dangerous and that wildlife agencies artificially raise deer populations before hunting season.

Hello, I’m glad you asked! Before I get into it I just want to say that I’m grateful you are doing some research, are willing to ask questions, and that we can have this conversation peacefully. I looked up the article that you are referencing and it does make some seemingly good points, but also seems biased and only scratches the surface. For anyone else who would like to read it: link. My partner is going to help me answer this because it is a very multifaceted topic- thus this will be a long post. Please note most of our experience is based on New York state.

Let’s first address the artificial overpopulation argument.The article seems to say that state agencies purposely create habitat that willincrease deer populations for hunting. They mention clear cutting and plantingfood plots.

Clear cuts:

It is true due to colonial clearcuts we have lost much of our old growth stands in America. However, allforests should not be old growth. In a natural setting forests go throughdisturbance (ice, wind, fire, natural inundation, etc), this resets what istypically referred to as forest succession. Some trees like the pitch pine Pinus regida have what’s called aserotinous cone. These serotinous cones are glued shut and can only open torelease seeds once fire has partially burned them. They have adapted thisstrategy as they would be out competed by other trees which are less resistantto fire, so this tree saves its seeds until fire comes through. In the animalworld we have species like the Kirtland’s warbler Setophaga kirtlandii, these birds can only nest in jack pines, Pinus banksiana less than 15 years old.The New England cottontail, Sylvolagustransitionalis is declining more than ever due to a lack of earlysuccession (freshly disturbed sites).

The main problem is disturbance forforests will also disturb humans. We suppress natural disturbances like fire.By encouraging sustainable logging (plant whatever you cut) you can maintainevery stage of forest succession while still providing forest products, jobs,and specialized habitat. For every species I mentioned that needs earlysuccession, there’s an alternate species that requires old growth, or mid stagesuccession.

State agencies boast better deerhunting through clear-cutting because it’s true. It incentives the public bygetting clear-cuts on their side. Clear-cuts improve deer by improving theirhabitat – this is not the same thing as overpopulating deer. The bottom line iswhether it is for deer or not, clear cuts are necessary in a world where humansoccupy and control so much habitat.

Food Plots:

               In mostcases food plots are not encouraged by state agencies. However, this does vary fromstate to state. As a former employee of the bureau of wildlife in the NYSdepartment of environmental conservation I want everyone to understand wildlifemanagement is more human management than anything else. When feeding deer wasfirst banned in New York it was such an ingrained practice in the Adirondackregion (I.E region 5 & 6) that not only did the people not stop, but policeofficers in the area refused to enforce the law. Most recently while I wasworking in region 3 we were seeking to eradicate mute swans, Cygnus olor. The mute swan destroysrooted plants, is incredibly aggressive, and without getting into too muchdetail is simply a horrible invasive species which is bad for native waterfowland wetlands. It seems like a no brainer, if we can aim to eliminate theharmful hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelgestsugae why not another destructive invasive species? In short the publicwas so outraged that the state government wanted to kill the “symbol of love”the management plan was rapidly scratched. Just because something makes sensefrom a management perspective does not mean it can be implemented! My salary isnot paid by the tax payers, all management is not aided by nature lovers,hikers, bird watchers, or animal rights groups. My salary is paid by theRobert-Pittman act and hunting licenses. When you buy a gun and a huntinglicense you’re not just helping deer, you’re helping most species. State agenciesopenly want better deer hunting, however overpopulated deer do not generallymake for good hunting.

Would a Wildlife Management agency support hunting?Absolutely. People rarely raise money for biologists any other way. That’s alltrue. Hunting is not an incentive for the biologists who genuinely want to seea more sustainable ecosystem and understand wildlife, but rather the incentivefor the public to support them. What wildlife management units want is toencourage farmers to manage their land in a way that supports and preserveswildlife, instead of just pushing wildlife out and solely favoring ‘game’/deerto hunt. I don’t think wildlife management workers have ever called for addingfood plots to state/federal land and refuges. Even though its public land it istypically illegal for the public to disturb the land by planting anything.Biologists are free to manage it as best for all wildlife and we can see thatfood plots to artificially boost deer populations are not part of the plan.This article is focusing on private land, where a biologists can’t see afragmented and unhealthy habitat and just decide to fix it. They need toconvince the land owner that it will benefit them and most often land ownerswill only cooperate if it supports better hunting (even though it’s reallybenefiting soil, plants, birds, entire ecosystems, etc on top of it). Severalstate agencies even have programs to incentivize agricultural land owners totransform farmland into wetlands (wetland reserves programs) to decrease theeffects of soil erosion and support all native wildlife.

Humans:

               Highways,lawns, agriculture, and roads provide more edge habitat than deer can use. Illegalfeeding, or unintentional feeding (ornamental plants or gardens), and wintershelter from homes all cause overpopulation. It has been observed that yardingdeer will often seek the warm of a home as a windbreak above conifer stands.Before hunting regulations the white-tail deer was near extirpated from NewYork. In fact New York did lose the wild turkey, Meleagris gallopavo from the 1850s until it was reintroduced inthe 1950’s. Now because of artificial help they’re doing better than ever, andthey’re doing especially well in communities without hunting. Suburban deer area nightmare in the world of wildlife biology.

               Withoutnatural predators and with all the artificial help deer can get, it’s no wonderthey are largely overpopulated in many areas. Most harvestable species arewhat’s called compensatory. State agencies only have hunters kill a proportionof the population that will be eliminated with or without humans. For example,roughly 20% of the mallard population, Anasplatyrhynchos will die every year. USFWS aims for hunters to take around10-11%. No matter if you have a very liberal season or a very conservativeseason, the amount of ducks dead does not change. We could allow the full 20%to die off and lose the economic value (hunting license, gas, coffee, ammo,staying at hotels, camping, etc), but in the case of many species that revenueis critical in protecting them. Humans destroy habitat, pollute ecosystems, andbuild projects right over key habitat. Without that revenue we wouldn’t have aDEC or DNR to clean spills, conduct environmental impact statements, monitorpopulations, or survey for T&E species.

Carrying Capacity  

               It istrue you cannot have more species alive than the environment can support. Wesee an S shaped curve for the carrying capacity of many rabbits. The populationbooms, then busts. The problem with deer is we support them above the carryingcapacity indirectly. Many areas in Long Island, NY are overrun by deer with nopredators and no hunters. In some urban cases agencies hire trained sharpshooters to come and kill deer in the middle of the night. Eventually, yes youdo see the deer population drop, but it’ll come right back with the problemsassociated. Why allow individuals to die of from disease and starvation when wecould be generating revenue for most other species, wildlife refuges, andbiologists to monitor the ecosystem. When DDT’s were decimating the eaglepopulation in the 1960’s and 70’s Robert-Pitman money generated by hunters surehelped state research scientists like Peter Nye (In NY) to figure out what wascausing the problem and how to fix it.

               Inshort, hunting is extremely important. The way humans are you wouldn’t havedeer without regulatory hunting. People would definitely poach illegally and decimatepopulations without regulation (like what happened to the Passenger Pigeon) orunintentionally produce an overpopulation through simply owning a home andgarden. Overpopulations of deer encourage the very factors (disease, stuntedgrowth, early death (i.e smaller antlers)) hunters don’t want to see. If theright amount of people harvest deer, you won’t have population booms and busts,you’ll only have that compensatory portion of the population utilized. Thearticle also says that good genes are weeded out through hunting. The strongaren’t necessarily the ones who survive when it comes to natural deaths, it’s agame of luck. The article argues that only trophy animals are hunted so thepopulation’s genes suffer, but hunting seasons begin during the end of thebreeding season. So any of the ‘trophy’ deer that are harvested will stilllikely have offspring because they are usually the first to breed. It also doesnot give deer the credit they deserve. The biggest bucks are typically theoldest and they didn’t get to that age by being stupid. It’s arguable that theyrecognize the hunting season and will stay hidden away or in extremely ruralareas to avoid it. The majority of hunters will probably never even see deerpast the age of three years old during hunting season. Here is a journal thatattempts to determine the causes of the decline in bighorn horn sizes (theproblem mentioned in the article). It does not seem that hunting pressure is one of the main causes, even with thelargest trophies being sought out.

Finally my biggest issue is theending paragraph because they are so incredibly correct! And then they go tothe other extreme. No, not every person in America should hunt. That would becompletely unrealistic and decimate wildlife. People cannot be trusted when itcomes to moderation, and excess harvesting is no exception. For the same reasonthat everyone hunting wouldn’t work, everyone becoming vegan would not work.Agriculture does a lot of native habitat damage and when harvested with machine(which would be unavoidable if every person was vegan) results in mass animaland insect death. The only way for everyone to be completely cruelty free is toeither sustainably gather wild edibles or grow your own food, preferablyharvesting wild invasives and growing plants without pesticides. Even thatposes a problem, if every person harvested their own wild edibles we’d depletethe natural resource. 

So to conclude: things are neverever cut and dry. Yes, wildlife management does encourage hunting but thatargument does not necessarily provide all the facets that go into thatdecision. Yes, feeding deer with human food is definitely dangerous (here’sa little handout about that), but farmers can be incentivized to plant thingslike clover that they will eat. Hunters can be jerks, I’m not denying that, buthunting is not inherently about raising deer or trophies to kill for sport.Vegetarians are not wrong. Vegans are not wrong. The irony is we need ALL ofthese lifestyle variations to survive. 

[frombehindthepen]

Oh, Deer! 🦌

Oh, Deer! 🦌 #Wildlife #Deer #AnimalPopulation

Image Credit: George Hodan The deer population has become a serious concern in many parts of our area. Many residents complain that they are a nuisance and also a danger where serious accidents are occurring from them darting, without warning, in front of vehicles. But recently, complaints have risen, although it is deer hunting season (when people hunt for preparing venison), and residents are…

View On WordPress

[investmart007]

MINNESOTA | DNR’s first statewide deer plan aims to increase transparency, build relationships

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/ecgvyN

MINNESOTA | DNR’s first statewide deer plan aims to increase transparency, build relationships

MINNESOTA– A new statewide deer plan released today by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources sets new goals and priorities, increases formal opportunities for citizens to influence deer decisions, and aims for a disease-free deer population.

The plan reflects a two-year planning effort that involved statewide meetings and hundreds of in-depth conversations with citizens and stakeholders.  It includes input from a 19-member citizen advisory committee, dozens of public input meetings and open houses, more than 1,100 submitted comments and letters from tribal governments, hunting organizations and others.

“We’ve listened, and the plan reflects that,” said Tom Landwehr, DNR commissioner.  “The document is largely about sharing a vision, clarifying expectations and improving two-way communication among hunters and other stakeholders for the benefit of deer management.”

The 50-plus page plan is available on the DNR website at mndnr.gov/deerplan.

Leslie McInenly, the DNR wildlife manager who coordinated the plan, said the document will help forge stronger and deeper relationships with stakeholders in the years ahead.

“The vision communicates our commitment to long-term, sustainable deer management, hunting and recreational opportunities, and habitat conservation,” McInenly said.  “We’ve placed a high priority on working with citizens to discuss how best to collectively work toward our shared goals.”

Goals of the plan

The plan’s eight broad goals cover topics ranging from research, to keeping Minnesota’s deer populations healthy to how the DNR and the public work together on deer management.

The DNR will also increase two-way communication with hunters, landowners and others by convening annual deer management discussions with interested citizens at the area wildlife office level and creating an ongoing statewide deer stakeholder input group.

Local meetings will provide hunters and others with a forum for sharing their observations, hearing the DNR’s management proposals and identifying opportunities to improve deer management.

The plan supports Minnesota’s hunting heritage through efforts to recruit, retain and reactivate hunters while also minimizing deer damage to native plants, agricultural crops, forest regeneration or negative societal impacts such as deer-vehicle collisions and urban deer conflicts.

More frequent and regular deer hunter and public attitude surveys will help gauge satisfaction and identify areas needing improvement. And a suite of performance measures will track and communicate progress.  One new measure is a harvest target that will be used as a secondary, statewide check on success in meeting population goals.

Responding to chronic wasting disease (CWD) in Minnesota’s wild deer herd will be a top priority for the agency in the near term. The plan provides direction to eliminate CWD in wild deer and minimize the risk of new introductions.

“The long-term health of Minnesota’s wild deer and the need to work aggressively to eliminate the disease if possible was a key concern raised by the advisory committee and members of the public during plan review,” McInenly said.

In addition to goals, the plan includes specific performance measures that will help the DNR and the public track progress over time.  One performance measure is a statewide harvest target. The DNR will track annual harvests in relation to a general statewide harvest target of 200,000 deer per year.  This number reflects the approximate statewide harvest when deer populations are generally within goal range in most permit areas.

Road to the plan

For more than a year, a 19-member citizen’s advisory group helped the DNR draft the deer plan.  The group’s members had knowledge of deer management, interests related to deer and familiarity with different areas of the state.

“We’re incredibly grateful for the work of the advisory committee and the public’s involvement in developing this plan,” Landwehr said. “We know differences of opinion are inherent in deer management, but individuals who contributed to this plan worked very hard to understand different perspectives.”

As part of its new outreach effort, the DNR is encouraging the public to contact their local wildlife manager for additional information or to address any questions they may have about the deer plan.  A list of area wildlife offices is available online at mndnr.gov/areas/wildlife.

SOURCE; Originally published July 24, 2018 by NEWS.DNR.MN.US

[sabrinawhill]

Rising Deer Population

Cathy Isom fills us in on what has experts so concerned about the rising population of deer in urban and metropolitan area.  That’s coming up on This Land of Ours. Hear Cathy’s report and learn more. →

View On WordPress

[thestoryplant]

Mary Marcus: Bambi Be Damned

New Post has been published on http://thestoryplant.com/mary-marcus-bambi-be-damned/

I’ll have the Bambi with a nice Cabernet, please!

Hunters are cruel, sadistic men with orange vests and vile natures. They swagger into the forest and slaughter, then hang the bloody carcass’ on the roof of their four wheel drive vehicles, chugging beer all the way home. That’s the cliché we liberals have bought into. I’m thinking ofBambi, the Disney movie. I’m thinking of Tawny, the wonderful children’s book by Chas Carner. We’ve all grown up to worship deer.

I used to love the deer: and in fact, I still love their beauty, their grace, and how they come so quietly among us.

But deer are a big problem here on Long Island and also in Connecticut as well. Here in East Hampton there are two factions. The so-called Pro Deer Faction who say, no hunting, or very little hunting. And the other faction, The Pro Hunting Faction who want to bring professional hunters in to thin out the population. Lately, the anti-hunting folks have been winning. Their newest brainchild: the deer sterilization program is a crummy way to tame nature. No I don’t like guns. But, I like shooting deer a lot better than I like the alternative solution: a sterilization program that seems creepier, more sinister than hiring a bunch of professional hunters.

Doe have been turning up recently, pregnant, septic, emaciated, and vets are then brought in and forced to kill them. All at the taxpayers expense. Is this more humane than professional hunters who could even donate the meat to food pantries to feed the hungry? Or sell the venison to restaurants.

Because hunting is so politically incorrect, Lyme disease is endemic. So is Rocky Mountain spotted fever. Traffic accidents caused by deer grow every year. No one can have a garden without ten-foot deer fencing. No one can have an intact tree without a fence around it. The deer eat everything.

The other day when Henry and I were driving into town to pick up my husband at the train station, a doe and I were stopped in town at the same red light. The doe looked at me, I looked at the doe, and the doe sauntered off, perfectly blasé down the nearest driveway. I made a right hand turn toward the station, all the while thinking, what’s wrong with this picture? When I first started coming out here, the deer were actually afraid of me. Now I’m afraid of them.

Let’s not be so sentimental, kill them cleanly, eat them for dinner, just the way one eats one’s steak, pork chop, or chicken. When you eat meat you are eating the blood of other creatures. I can’t believe that a factory farm is more humane than a hunter aiming his rifle and downing a deer with a clean shot. I couldn’t do it. No, I couldn’t kill, gut, hang, butcher, though for years, I did the (to me) fun part: sautéing, browning, roasting, seasoning and serving the results to my family. These days, I make side dishes and salad, and my husband is responsible for the meat. My peculiar logic is, I can’t kill it so I’m not going to eat it.

But, I have no objection to people who do, and by extension hunters.  What I object to is pretending the stuff one buys pre-cut and packaged in plastic at the grocery store is on a morally higher plane than some animal shot in the woods, schlepped home, hung, cut up and so on.

Bambi, be damned!

Mary Marcus is the author of The New Me and the newly released Lavina. Visit her website for more.