Sports & Recreation >
Hunting
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould hunting be used to control deer populations?
Results so far:
| Yes | 76% | 181 votes | Total: 237 votes | |
| No | 24% | 56 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe first question that must be asked is why the deer populations need to be controlled in the first place. Then the methods for that control will make a great deal more sense and almost fall into place by themselves.
In the past centuries, deer populations started to take a nosedive. In part, this was because of the expansion of man, and in part, it was because of predation, not just by man, but also by natural predators. The expansion of man has continued virtually nonstop. However, the predation hasn't. What? Isn't hunting deer predation?
The answer is, yes it is. However, through these years, it wasn't just deer that man was hunting. Major predators that feed on deer like wolves, bears, and mountain lions; have also fallen under the bullet. The result of this is that there is no longer a natural check and balance system to keep the deer herds stable. High power weapons give man an edge, but the predators were and are uniquely qualified to continually cull the herds of weak and sick animals. Even with rifles, man cannot match that.
Adding to this, man has also incorporated strict hunting guidelines through wildlife management, to determine when deer can be hunted, how many can be taken, where they can be taken, and it isn't uncommon for areas to be closed off for hunting if it seems to work to the benefit of the deer.
The result is that in most states in the US, deer populations are on the increase. In Oregon, populations of white tail, black tail, and mule deer have been increasing by roughly 4% per year, for the past 20 years.
This is devastating for the deer. A given tract of land can only support so many deer. After that number is reached, all members of the herd suffer. It isn't just the old or weak. All of them must compete for the meager food that is available. Each mouthful of food is that much less for every other member of the herd. Yet, without adequate predation, the population continues to grow, which means that the entire herd is weakened.
A point is reached where the deer are so weakened that winterkill becomes an enormous problem, primarily due to starvation. Again, this doesn't just affect the old and infirm, it impacts all members of the herd; does, bucks, and yearlings alike.
Whether people like it or not, man has placed himself as the primary predator of the deer. If he doesn't hunt them, the deer weaken and die of starvation. If he does hunt and kill a portion of them, it is a much quicker death that allows more food for the rest of the herd, meaning a greater chance of survival for all of them. Starvation isn't a good demise for any living creature.
It may be asked if hunting actually helps control the populations, and the answer to this would also be yes. There are many examples, but one will be mentioned here.
In 2008, wildfire swept through the mountains near Elko, Nevada. The fires destroyed much of the winter-feeding grounds for the deer population in the area. Good-minded people thought that hay could always be airlifted into the mountains for the deer, but biologists quickly dismissed this. If deer aren't used to eating the hay, they won't be able to digest it, so they will still die of starvation though their bellies may be full.
With diminished amounts of food, the decision was made to open up the season for hunters to collect the second deer. Though many hunters came away empty handed, as always occurs, the catastrophic winterkill didn't happen. Enough deer were taken to drop the numbers to tolerable levels, so the herds had enough to eat. The winterkill was still high, but much less than expected, because of the additional hunt. A quarter to half of the deer population near Elko could have been wiped out if it wasn't for this simple intervening method of deer population control.
It should also be mentioned that the vast majority of deer hunters consume the meat and use the hide. Little goes to waste. So hunting isn't done for no reason. In fact, venison is far healthier and lower in fat than beef, which is usually intentionally fattened.
Either way though, if hunting isn't used to control deer populations, not only are we being cruel to the deer, they may actually be wiping out entire herds in an excruciating way: Starvation. If people truly care about pretty does and fawns, it seems to make sense that hunting would be important for not only controlling the populations, but for keeping the herds strong and vital.
Learn more about this author, Rex Trulove.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Hunting deer under the guise of conservation has never been an effective control for deer populations. The purpose of wildlife agencies is not to control deer populations but in fact, increase the population to accomadate hunters. When game commissions purposely disrupt the sex ratio or natural balance of a deer population by killing large numbers over a short period of time, the herd will increase because more food will be left for the remaining members of the herd and since deer reproduction is affected by the available food supply, increased birth rates will result.
Wildlife Agencies actually use a formula called "maximum sustained yield" for achieving maximum reproductive rates each and every year. This is done by killing about 70% of the Bucks but restricting the amount of females or Does that are killed. There is a reason why most states require hunters to purchase Doe licenses separately, they are strictly controlled for breeding purposes. Thus by insuring a large number of females are spared, this system guarantees a prolific breeding supply that will maximize the birth rate every year and yield an unlimited number of live, animated, targets for the hunters gun.
There are also other factors that are inter-connected with the "Maximum Sustained Yield" program, that wildlife agencies use to intentionally increase the size of deer herds. There is habitat manipulation, such as clear cutting forested areas to generate new growth that is the preferred food of deer. The planting and cultivation of deer browse also attracts deer and contributes to increased birth rates. The killing of natural predators like wolves and coyotes by hunters also plays a part in the reproductive rates of deer.
In nature, without the interference of man, there are biological limits on the amount of deer that can inhabit a specific area. A deer herd cannot continue to increase indefinitely. When a deer herd expands beyond an ideal level in an area that is not hunted, stress will result in die offs as a result of competition for food. If we factor in natural mortality rates as a result of old age, predation, sickness and disease, the strongest or fittest members of the herd will survive and the weakest will perish. This is nature's way of maintaining order in the natural world. This is done slowly over time, unlike the wholesale slaughter of deer during a hunting season. This natural phenomena will assure that the healthiest deer contribute to the overall biological diversity and well being of the herd. Hunting is nothing more than "evolution in reverse," because hunters kill the prime specimens and leave the weaker members to reproduce.
I am sure many of the readers here are familiar with so called "controlled hunts" in city parks, wildlife refuges, and state parks. Here in the Philadelphia area, there are several state parks that instituted hunts to supposedly control the deer population. They started as "one time" hunts and are now entering their 15th year. These hunts are taking place in suburban and urban parks all over the country with the same failed results higher reproductive rates, more deer each year, and more failed hunts. If hunting actually controlled the deer herds they would not have to continually hunt these parks year after failed year. The reason we now have more deer that at any time in the history of our nation, is solely because hunting is designed to maximize the birth rate of the deer.
Hunting is not conservation. You don't conserve something by killing it. Hunting is a huge source of revenue for state wildlife agencies and is a self perpetuating endeavor for those that promote their bloodlust for what they refer to as "sport." If we ever really wanted to control wildlife populations we would simply leave these animals alone. Mother nature is the best wildlife manager, not man.
Learn more about this author, Joseph Yannuzzi Jr..
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
