BAMBI BOOM: Animal advocacy groups argue that outdated wildlife management guidelines and land management policies contribute to deer overpopulation. For one, because hunters prize antlered males, which will mate with multiple females, a resulting ratio of eight females for every male sets the stage for a population explosion.
Image: Jupiter Images, courtesy Thinkstock
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Dear EarthTalk: Our community is talking of culling local deer herd numbers. Frankly, I think it’s the people who are overpopulated, crowding out every last inch of habitat. What happens when we finally do develop everything? Pow! There goes the last doe?—Anne Williamson, State College, Pa.
It’s hard to believe that deer, those innocuous enough vegetarian browsers that occasionally tromp through our backyards, are considered the scourge of many a suburban neighborhood across the continent. Prior to white settlement of the “New World,” tens of millions of deer blanketed the continent, but their population density was kept in check by free-roaming natural predators such as bears, wolves and mountain lions.
The white man’s rifle took out the deer’s chief predators and did a number on deer populations as well; venison was a staple meat on the ever expanding frontier. Biologists estimate that there were only a half million white-tailed deer left in the U.S. in the early 1900s due to unregulated hunting. At that point many states jumped in and began to regulate hunting to try to conserve fast dwindling resources. The new rules set limits on when hunters could kill deer and banned hunting females altogether.
In the meantime, many of the one-time farms in the eastern U.S. began reverting back to forests, creating a habitat patchwork that in some areas was ideal for deer. The ensuing rebound of white-tailed deer populations—over 20 million roam the U.S. today—is viewed as one of the nation’s greatest conservation success stories, especially since it occurred long before the dawn of the modern environmental movement.
But there is a dark side to all this “success.” Too many deer can cause problems for humans, other wildlife, and even for the deer themselves, who must compete for dwindling forage sources. “Complaints from residents are often that the deer are eating things that they have planted,” reports the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC). “Well fertilized and watered landscapes and gardens can be much more desirable to the deer than surrounding common ground areas that are likely not watered or fertilized.”
Other concerns beyond tearing up suburban backyards include damage to agricultural crops, deer/car collisions, transmission of Lyme disease, and the over browsing of habitat which deer and other wildlife need. “Increasing deer densities through time can lead residents to a feeling that they have to share too much with the deer as the damage they do becomes less tolerated,” reports MDC. It’s at this point that wildlife managers begin considering culling local herds, usually by tweaking local hunting regulations.
Many animal advocates oppose such practices. In Defense of Animals (IDA) reports that even permitted sport hunting, under current wildlife management guidelines and outdated land management policies, contributes to deer overpopulation problems. “Currently, there are approximately eight does for every buck in the wild,” the group explains. “Laws restrict the number of does that hunters may kill.” Since bucks will often mate with more than one doe, the ratio of does to bucks “sets the stage for a population explosion.” And open season on both sexes won’t solve the problem, as too many does would die, stranding needy fawns and depleting the reproductive pool—as happened in the early 20th century when deer numbers fell precipitously low. IDA and many other animal protection organizations believe that sport hunting should be banned and that deer populations should be allowed to regulate naturally.
CONTACTS: MDC, www.mdc.mo.gov; IDA, www.idausa.org.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentI agree with Anne Williamson, State College, Pa. However, there are a couple of mistakes in the article. The first is about the number of deer. The current population of deer, on this continent, is larger than it has ever been. Much larger than it ever was when Europeans first arrived. Patchwork farming, conservation, and climate change is the reason. The other is culling does. An abbreviated cull during the first month of the hunting season would leave very few if any fawns.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was hoping for science from Scientific American. I got opinion piece. I'm disappointed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is rubbish, and I agree with the first two respondents. Deer populations have increased across North America to an unsustainable level since Europeans arrived, and threaten many to eat nearly every green thing is sight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnding with the IDA's opinion made this article suspect. What does "natural" regulation look like?
It would be nice to have some science backing this opinion. My personal experience is that deer are MUCH easier to come by over the last 10 years - including an incident where one took me off my motorcycle. I do want their population managed effectively enough to prevent dangerous interaction (e.g. vehicular) and minimize costly damage (e.g. crops eaten), but we should use a scientific approach to guide us on the proper way to do so morally.
Disclaimer: I hunt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose SOB's are TASTY, organic, antibiotic free, hormone free, have a human C02 footprint of zip. And I too am an animal advocate. Few people actually care as much about wildlife and the environment as those of us who actually spend abundant time out in it, with the snow, the rain and the ticks.
I'm also a suburbanite who's nearly been taken out any # of times, including on my motorcycle. I hit one in a company car, $2500 bux. Another inch or two and it's my life. I know a woman who tells me she's hit deer 18 times! I've had deer on the roof of the car. In my county of residence there have been four count em four, two in one incident, human fatalities in the last decade. Pushing 500 (!!!) injuries.
But wait, there's more. I think it was CBS (USA TV broadcast network) that did a serious survey on the issue.
The found that there are more than a thousand deaths a year, more than a hundred thousand injuries, millions of incidents, and billions of dollars in costs.
Hey, look it up.
Holy Bambiist, Buckman!
Anne dear, how would you feel if that was your husband and child? You'd probably be buying me ammo.
I have read read read on this issue. I have hunted and eaten a bunch of them. To do so I've learned their anatomy, life cycle, habitat requirements, etc ad nauseam, spent hundreds of hours where they live. I've seen the amazing violence they inflict on each other, I've seen them hale and fat, and starved and sick. In particular I've noted the shockingly deleterious impact they have on their environment when even modestly overpopulated, to the detriment of virtually everything alive around them. Like songbirds? Shoot deer. Like wild flowers? Shoot deer. Like your woods to have succession?
Shoot deer.
And this is the bottom line: We stand as much of a chance of eradicating them from inhabited areas as we do of eradicating cockroaches. If they could be locally eradicated, good. The habitat needs a rest. But that will be merely temporary. Populations surrounding the cleared area will rapidly fill it back in. End of story.
If you want deer to be healthy and happy, what you want is low populations, and the only way I've seen to make this happen is by killing and eating a bunch of them. Hey it worked between 1492 and 1900 or so, did it not?
The article is crap. Zero facts, zero analytical balance,
deeply biased conclusions conveniently provided by a deeply biased group. A group that's just emotionally repulsed by hunting, never mind what's actually good for the animals themselves. Somebody needs to talk
To that writer about how to construct, source, attribute a factual article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right on the money! In the 70's, certain groups wanted hunting stopped in the everglades in Florida. Instead, an arbitrary line separated the area into half hunting allowed and half no hunting. After a few years the deer in the no hunting areas were diseased and decreasing in numbers. The hunting area still supported a healthy and stable herd. You can check this out with the Florida Fresh Water Fish and Game Commission.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI neglected to mention that a cousin and a friend of mine were both wardens at the time and are my source.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this