An area of land can only hold a species for so long before that land has become depleted of its natural resources. As the population of the species grows the land becomes limited. In time the land will not be able to support any life at all. Contraceptives are now being given to overpopulated wildlife species (Blumig and Hanback, 1993). This will control the population and ensure there is enough food and land for the species to live on with out destroying it completely. Since this world has limited land for the wildlife we must control the populations as best as we can or there will be no land left.
A group in favor of wildlife contraceptive is the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This organization's main goal is to make sure animals are well cared for and treated fairly. Right now their biggest concern is to stop the killing of animals to control the population. That is the main reason this organization has taken in the responsibility of introducing contraceptives to wildlife. National Parks Service (NPS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have also helped in the introduction, providing and raising funds, testing, and usage. The members of the organizations feel contraceptives are a humane solution (Blumig & Hanback, 1993) vs. being inhumane and killing and animals. In 1995, two years after its start with the HSUS, the NPS had their funds revokes because the use of contraceptive is still being studies. The long term uses and effects are still not known (Anonymous, 1995).
The characteristics of the ideal contraceptive program are as follows: at least 90% effective, the ability to deliver the agent remotely with out capture, reversibility of the contraceptive effect if need be, safety for use on pregnant animals, absence of significant side effect long and short term, no passage of the contraceptive to the food chain, minimal effect upon individual and social behaviors, and low cost. This list was originally created for wild horses contraceptives and not all items may be applicable to all species. For example, reversibility of contraceptive action is essential for wild horse population but may not be considered desirable for urban deer (www.all-creatures.org, nd).
A group that is caught in the middle is an agency known as The National Audubon Society. This organization along with Animal Defense Management uses lethal control on the overpopulation. But, The National Audubon Society has turned in favor of wildlife contraceptives, Funds are limited, so this group is slowly falling apart. The National Audubon Society is trying to take on too many other things, such as the study of wildlife. When you start to think about the deer that need to be treated those numbers can add up and it's no wonder why The National Audubon Society has to reconsider being involved in the contraceptive control program despite being in favor of it.
Funding for wildlife contraceptives is something we all must think about. The birth control alone can cost roughly $359 per antlerless deer (Winand, nd). This figure assumes that the deer were darted once. This fact is important, because presently there is no one-shot contraceptive currently available, and should also take into consideration that misses will also occur (Winand, nd) and may cost upwards to $600 to $800 depending on the location and the program for other wildlife (Reiger, 1994). Multiply that times the number of female animals who give multiple births (for larger animals such as deer, it would be single births) that scientist feel would keep the population down to an appropriate level. Then calculate the costs of rounding these animals up, which cost upwards of $800 (Reiger, 1994), and pay the salaries of the thousands of people you would have to hire in order to deliver the millions of contraceptives to the reproducing female animals in the Unites Stats alone. A program would easily be able to find local students willing to volunteer and perhaps scientists as well, but not enough to establish a well rounded and put together program.
Hunters feel wildlife contraceptives are a waste of time and money. They also feel it is just another idea from the people who are for animal rights to protest against hunting, claiming it is inhumane. The HSUS claims this is not the case. Hunters feel their actions keep the animals in check and the population in control. This is considered the lethal way to control the population, the contraceptives non lethal. These views are causing emotions to run high as the battle continues for population control.
So this leaves us with so many questions, such as, are animal contraceptives really necessary? If we feel wildlife should be put on birth control, where will the money come from to keep funds available for this project? After the birth control has been administered will this cause an imbalance in nature? Should man be allowed to choose that an animal have its reproductive system altered? These topics will be discussed in this paper.
Currently many studies are being halted for animal birth control and the effects. We should look at a few sides of the ongoing battle and determine whether or not giving birth control to wildlife is honestly a problem serious enough to spend the time, effort, and money. Or, should we let mother nature take its course the way it always has? Many people are choosing to just ignore this topic, but they need to be informed as well as their voices are heard. Not everyone is voting for the use of birth control, so this is where the set of battle lines are being drawn involving the conflicts over the animal population control problem. On one side we have those who are for controlled hunts and the other side is those who prefer natural thinning.
In 1993, studies were started to gather a herd of white tail deer and inject them with GnRH, a form of birth control, to see if the deer will not become impregnated (Blumig & Hanback, 1993). In 2009 death threats have been made over the lives of the white tale deer. Biologist and Ecologist have studied alternative methods for controlling the deer population but professors at major universities feel that controlled hunting is the only way to keep control of this deer population. They feel that contraceptives can only be useful in small controlled settings and will not work for larger areas where the deer are free range (Herb, 2009).
Whether animals are migrating or simply searching for food, they may have to cross human paths that intersect with their habitats. Unfortunately, many find themselves victims of autos that travel a great deal faster. Many animals fall prey to this problem. Another problem for an overpopulated deer herd is starvation. Starvation is a slow, long, and sometimes painful death. In searching for food many deer are eating farmers' crops, resulting in a great loss for the farmer. They are frequently crossing the roads, which can cause serious accidents. Many states have Animal Crossing signs warning motorists that they need to drive more carefully along highways and country roads where deer may cross. These are just a few of the problems causing scientist and others to try contraceptives on animals, especially deer. These problems are not an acceptable form of population control.
Game hunting is a very popular pastime, especially in the northern states. I personally have heard many complaints, from family and friends, about the restrictions placed on hunters who seek out these creatures. States could differ slightly, but in Michigan, after you pay the fee to obtain a license, and a special permit to hunt doe, you are then told of a specific area you may conduct your hunt in. This area is usually land owned by the state. For private property, permission must be given by the owner for hunters to use such property. Then if you are fortunate enough to make a catch, it may only be one doe and two bucks. No fawns are allowed, nor are does that look like they are expecting. After they have been killed they must be tagged and registered with the local game organization. If you are caught hunting outside the assigned areas, selling venison, or have more than the amount of deer allowed, you could face fines of thousands of dollars and/or time in jail. Some suffer the loss of obtaining a license permanently. Hunting in Michigan is taken very seriously, but with these restrictions it is hard to help control the population problem.
It is obvious the population is a problem. It plagues the plant and animal diversity throughout the northeast (Herb, 2007). Perhaps we should look into adopting Germany's policy on hunting. Germany allows hunters to shoot and kill with a rifle, instead of an American shotgun. They also cut off many of the restrictions America has, which helps them do a good job of controlling their population. German hunters go through a set of tests and training classes before they are allowed to hunt with a rifle (Reiger, 1994). Germany also seems to be less sentimental about their deer. Most hunters go out searching for food knowing this may be the only source of food supply they may receive. Venison is a low-cost, high food value enjoyed by people in Germany. If we look at the German's way of handling the population of their animals, then maybe we can begin to control our own without the high costs of contraceptives.
Most hunting occurs in large areas, in the forest. How do homeowners control the population of the deer that have car collisions, eat crops, or trample the lawns? In Princeton Township, located in New Jersey they have passed the Princeton Plan which requires gun hunters to be bow hunters that can hunt on private property with permission of the landowner. The town voted against contraceptive use and studies showed this plan worked well and wildlife biologists were surprised (Blumig & Hanback, 1993). This is also a low cost, effective way to control the population that should be looked into.
Americans tend to be very sentimental about our wildlife. Americans spend millions of dollars each year seeking out soon to be extinct animals in hopes of changing their environment. This will either bring them together to produce more. For some animals it seems we have too many. The HSUS has said that letting a hunter go into the wilderness and kill a deer is inhumane because it causes pain. Hunters say a clean bullet through the head is instant death giving the animal no time to feel pain.
Most hunters will eat what they kill. This raises two very important questions. The first one being: If a man eats what he kills, wouldn't that put him in a place on the top of the food chain for carnivores? And don't animals eat other animals? So now we have a debate on if hunting should really be considered inhumane when living things all seem to prey on each other. Everything around us is living and in order for it to survive it must consume other living things. That leaves us with the second question to consider. Since studies are still being conducted on these animals and no long term effects are know, what about our safety? Should we eat the meat of a deer given a form of birth control? Is it safe for us to eat? Some scientists and Food and Drug Administration, feel more research is needed to prove this study. They also feel the chemicals in the contraceptives could someday cause a problem with our ecosystems (Blumig & Hanback, 1993)
A much larger animal causing an uproar on the contraceptive debate is the elephant. At Kruger National Park in South Africa, elephants are also overpopulated. Park officials say they must find ways to reduce the number of elephants before the park is completely destroyed. Averages of six hundred elephants have been destroyed since the parks opening, but this practice ended in 1995 (Kirkpatrick, nd). A few ways other then contraceptives were discussed on the issue of controlling the elephants. One of which, was to start over and just make new homes for the elephants. This idea was thrown out after calculations were made regarding the amount of money the elephants bring in from tourist. Another idea was to transfer some elephants to other parks, but this idea was also thrown out when discussed the possibilities of break up a family unit could occur (Anonymous, 1996).
Once the program was underway for giving contraceptives to elephants the animal rights group and the conservationists ended up with different views and opinions. The conservationists feel that keeping the elephants brings money to Africa. Tourists come to Kruger National Park to see the elephants, other come and pay thousands of dollars to hunt these animals. They then sell the skin, tusks and the meat for profit to the local townsmen. The animal rights group feels contraceptives are a better way of handling the overpopulation problem, rather then killing (Daley, 1997).
Giving contraceptives to the elephants raises many problems. Since it has never been used on this animal, or even close to its size, scientist are hoping that one booster shot behind the ear will work for the whole year. This experiment is costing approximately five million dollars which is being funded partially by the HSUS and partially by The Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research in Berlin, Germany. Types of birth control being used in this experiment are hormone implants that work like a women's pill and usually placed somewhere behind the ear. Another is a vaccine made from pig ova's that is surgically injected to the animal's eggs, and there is the hormone treated food such as salt licks. In this experiment thirty-one elephants were used. Many problems, such as unusual behavior and side effects occurred. Elephants were going into heat at unusual times, there were lost babies due to abandonment, and dried up milk, irreversibility, cancer and urinary tract infections. Since these problems started, the experiment has been canceled (Daley, 1997). This shows us that organizations are not willing to fund projects that may cause more harm then good.
To get funds these organizations must reply on people willing to donate their money to the cause. Cardholders for Citibank Visa and MasterCard learned that unused portions of their credit may be donated to the HSUS to fund research. For the money to be donated to the organization, first it must pass a set of rules. HSUS was the only one out of fifteen to pass all six. The HSUS also offers its own credit card where every $100 spent Bank of America will donate twenty-five cents. It also offers $25 donations when making qualifying purchases. Boone and Crocket Club passed all but the last rule because the main reason for this organizations establishment was to fight for the right to hunt wildlife. All organizations were good choices until they reached the last two rules, those being; 1). Must have low costs, underlined meaning, most work must be done by volunteers and 2). Organizations had to pass an over all review given by Citibank (Reiger, 1994).
In some place's people tend to think money is no object for the purpose of contraceptives. One organization that realizes this is not true is the Animal Damage Management (ADM), formerly known as the Animal Damage Control (ADC). This group is formed through the USDA. ADM thinks contraceptives are a waste of time and funds. ADM feels they can control the population in ways they feel fit. ADM is the group you call when animals become bothersome and aren't really acceptable in the area. The general public seems to not be in favor of this particular organization. The group has tried to change the name of the organization to Wildlife Services because it sounds more humane and not so cruel on the subject of population control or pesky animals. ADM is trying to fit in with today's society after being shunned from past experiences. Group officials feel hiring more intelligent and useful people, such as college graduates, would be more beneficial to the organization. ADM can choose its ways of controlling the population, whether it is lethal or non-lethal, as they see fit (Williams, 1994).
One would think that the HSUS would think the ADM is the most inhumane group ever in the business of wildlife and protest to shut them down, but the organization is still going strong today. Contraceptives in the use of wildlife population control have turned into a won or lose situation. Either we use the money on research for the use of contraceptive to stop population growth or we use the money on research for products to stop these over populated animals from damaging themselves, and human things. It doesn't matter which you choose, someone wins and someone loses.
In conclusion, are wildlife contraceptives introducing a man-made solution to a nature related problem, thus causing an imbalance in nature caused by man or is this a man-made solution to a problem that was caused by man in the beginning? After all hunters are the ones who hunted the wolves, bears, and deer. Iit is safe to say that man should not mess with things that are of no relevance to him. Nature and wildlife around it have been taking care of itself since the beginning of its time. Studies show it was made this way for a reason, and not for humans to come along and alter it somehow. Humans need to find a compromise with mother nature and her wild life.
The HSUS is in the right by saying contraceptives are a good, humane solution to the over population problem. This is not a viable solution. The cost of providing animals with birth control is way too high and we have money other problems in the world today that could benefit more from this money. If there is money available and people are willing to donate the time then these organizations should be allowed to conduct these experiments. When conducting any kind of experiment, the research that is found could lead to answers to many other related problems. The knowledge that is gained could be useful to many other contraceptive topics surrounding scientist in the world today.
Studies have shown that chemicals are released, but not each date is available for the effects it could have on humans (Blumig & Hanback, 1993). Studies need to be conducted to see if it would be safe for humans to eat the meat of a doe given birth control, and the effect the released chemicals could have on the environment. No one is going to want to eat the meat of these does until the test results have proven its safety. Thus, the doe should be branded with a special mark to warn or notify hunter's that a particular doe is on birth control. If contraceptives are to be used, it should be in the smaller controlled areas, leaving the larger areas for hunters.
The hunter is in the right by saying he offers the least expensive, most viable solution to controlling the population. In taking a closer look at Germany's policy on hunting one can see that killing a dear to them is a way to establish food needed for survival. They kill and eat the deer the way Americans kill and eat cows and pigs. Americans are not sentimental about those animals so why should they be so sentimental about these deer? Venison should be a choice of meat in local supermarkets, like it is in Germany. Germans look at hunting as a cheap way to feed themselves, causing no overpopulations. To about 80% of Americans, deer hunting is thought of as a sport, with only about 20% eating what they kill. Just outside of Flint, Michigan is the Ted Nugent Conservation Camp. At the camp men and women are taught the proper and safe way to hunt. He also offers a camp designed just for kids. This camp also teaches students how to be precise, so that the first strike kills, leaving no room for suffering. The motto for the camp is "you only kill what you will eat, and you will eat what you kill (Nugent, nd)". This program is similar to Germany. More of these types of camps should be established across the United States. If humans were taught these basics guidelines and most restrictions places on these hunters were dropped, then maybe hunters would be the only needed solution for population control. After all, humans are a part of the food chain circle. Somewhere there is a compromise to make everyone happy.
References
Anonymous. (1995). NPS Nixes Deer Control and Wildlife Plan.
The American Hunter, 23, 7.
Anonymous. (1996). Family Planning for Pachyderms.
The Economist, 341, 89.
Blumig, C. and Hanback, M. (1993). Now it's Deer on the Pill.
Outdoor Life, 192, 68-93.
Characteristics of the Ideal Wildlife Contraceptive: Deer Population Control (Non-Lethal).
Retrieved April 14, 2009, from http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/ar-deer-char.h tml
Daley, S. (1997). Park Uses Contraception, Not Killing, to Keep Elephants in Check.
New York Times, pp. C.3.
Herb, J. (2009) Turning Deer into a Science. The Millburn News.
Retrieved April 14, 2009, from http://maplewood.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/turnin g- deer-control-into-a-science/
Kirkpatrick, J.F. A Humane Approach to Elephant Population Control.
AW I Quarterly. Animal Welfare Institute.
Retrieved April 14, 2009, from http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/05_54_2/542p 1617.htm
Reiger, G. (1994). Wishful and Wildlife Management.
Field and Stream, 99, 12.
Nugent, T. Retrieved May 11, 2009, from http://www.tednugent.com/hunting/
Williams, T. (1994). Beyond Traps and Poison.
Audubon, 96, 28-34
Winand, C.J. The Deer Pill. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from http://bowsite.com/bowsite/features/armchair_biologi st/immunocontraception/PILL2.htm