What's Wrong With Deer Hunting?

   This is a plain text attachment.

--






                http://www.albany.net/~mjc1/index.html

                   WHAT'S WRONG WITH DEER HUNTING?



    The purpose of this document is to provide animal protection
activists with a set of rational counter-arguments  against the most
common reasons given by  hunters to justify killing deer for sport. 
It deals primarily with deer hunting in North America, and the
United States in particular. Distribute it freely, but please don't
change the contents without my permission.





           "Hunting controls deer populations effectively."     


  No, it doesn't, for two reasons. First, buck hunting, which is the
mainstay of this "sport", is virtually useless in effectively managing
deer populations. Why? Because deer are not monogamous, and a single
surviving male in a population of deer can impregnate all of the
surviving females. Doe hunting can offer some measure of control, but
despite their claims to the contrary, most sport hunters have merely
a slight interest in hunting does. The only really effective lethal
controlling measure against deer, however, is killing does. Our current
system of game management allows does to be killed mainly to leave enough
forage to produce another year's worth of "Trophy Bucks". There must
always be a yearly "surplus" of deer to satisfy the hunters who are
essentially the paying customers of wildlife managers. This arrangement
places the interests of the hunters above the goal of having a
biologically ideal, diverse deer population.

  
   Second, not only does killing substantial numbers of male deer not
prevent an immediate resurgence in population, it actually works to help
bring about this resurgence. Why? Because most wild animal populations
have evolved a response to large die-offs: they produce more offspring.
In the case of deer, especially whitetails, does who would normally have
one or two fawns will 'respond' to a drop in herd population by having
two or three fawns the following year. This is due both to the increase
in high-quality food brought about by the reduction in the herd and to
the herd reduction itself; the sudden drop in population appears to be a
direct trigger for increased reproduction . This information is not
secret or controversial. Quite the contrary: game managers include it in
their calculations when they decide how many deer are to be killed. If
these managers were truly interested in controlling populations for the
benefit of the deer, as opposed to keeping them at artificially high
annual levels, they would ban most buck hunting and instead issue
licenses to kill only does, and only when needed - generally once every
two to three years. Such hunts would only be needed every few years
because only does can replenish the herds by increasing fawn births.
Between that and the ban on bucks, however, this kind of lethal control
would be wildly unpopular with hunters, and so will not be enacted.
   Remember, however, that when game managers *really* need to
reduce populations of deer, they increase the number of doe killing
permits issued.



       "Hunting is the natural way to control deer populations."   


   This argument is both widely used and widely accepted, but it ignores
a crucial fact: many prey populations increase and decrease much more
quickly than predator populations. If nonhuman predation really were
the primary factor in controlling wild populations of deer, then one
would expect to see relatively stable populations of both kinds of
animals in the wild. Instead, what has been observed in the absence of
human intervention is a gradual but pronounced 'up and down swing' in
both deer and predator populations, with the predator populations
lagging behind both the increases and decreases. Why does this happen?
Because it is *starvation*, not predation, that is the primary control
on most truly wild deer populations. (Deer living in mature forests,
with wolves as their primary predator, do tend to have more stable
populations. This is because food in this environment is more limited on
an ongoing basis, as long as the forest remains undisturbed.) 


   When a herd of deer first enters an area with abundant nourishing
plant food, their population increases rapidly over the course of two
or three years. As the population of deer 'explodes', the number of
carnivores who prey on them, like canids and large felines, begins to
increase, albeit at a slower rate. The plants upon which the deer feed
are unable to replenish themselves as quickly as they are consumed or
damaged, and the food supply eventually undergoes a rapid decline.
Before the population of predators can expand enough to effectively halt
the growth of the deer population through predation, the food supply
runs out. Deer begin to starve, and over the course of another one to
three years, the population of deer collapses, leaving only some of the
strongest individuals. As the "doomed surplus" deer die of starvation,
the predators receive what may at first seem like a blessing: plenty of
easy prey to eat and scavenge. Their populations continue to expand.
Once the mass starvation of deer has slowed and then stopped, however,
the predators in turn face starvation. Some of them relocate over large
distances to find food, while others die. It is this sequence of events
that produces the 'lag' in deer predator populations compared with prey
populations, and it is this cycle that disproves the myth that it is
predation that naturally controls wild deer populations outside of
mature forests. Weather and other environmental conditions have also
been observed to have a more pronounced effect on deer populations than
do predators: a harsh Winter will decimate deer herds on a scale that
wolves and big cats don't approach, although this can be partially
masked by predators killing starving or stranded animals that are
destined to die in any event. The interactions between predator and prey
populations can be quite complex, but if we want to reduce them to one
simplistic scenario, then for typical deer herds at least, that scenario
is not "predators control prey populations". It is, instead, "prey
populations control predator populations". Food supply primarily controls
the prey populations. Human habitation and, especially, agriculture have
greatly changed the original dynamic, and it is thus hard to argue against
*some kind* of human intervention in deer herd populations. We do have
plenty of reasons, however, to argue against the current system, which is
run by game managers for the benefit of hunters.

   Hunters can certainly try to argue - although their case isn't as
clear-cut as it may at first sound - that the current system of
*artificial* predation is kinder to the deer, but they cannot argue that
it is "natural". They also cannot argue that it is best for the deer, 
most efficient, or even the most scientific approach. They can only
argue that it gives them the most reliable supply of healthy "surplus" 
deer to "harvest" each year. Deer have gone from being completely 
wild animals to being essentially semi-wild "resources", subject to both 
artificial measures (like forestry) that increase their numbers, and to 
being "harvested" by hunters who are deluded into thinking that they are
acting out some age-old drama of carnivore and prey. We convert
old-growth forest (which tends to limit deer breeding by limiting the
food supply) to farm fields that allow deer to breed unchecked, while
displacing them from their increasingly scarce wild habitat into the
suburbs that we build over it...and then we blame the deer. 

   Another, related argument used by hunters is that hunting keeps deer
populations "healthy". If one accepts that natural selection has proven
itself to be the most effective way for populations to survive and
adapt, then current deer hunting practices are, if anything,
counter-productive. By hunting plump does and prime "Trophy Bucks", deer
hunters are in fact practicing a form of 'unnatural selection'. Killing
the most magnificent specimens is hardly the way to ensure the long term
viability of the herd. If deer hunters *really* wanted to do their part
for the health of the deer herds, they would hunt as do natural predators,
by killing old, sick, injured and emaciated animals, and even fawns unable
to find enough food, as their first choice. Again, don't expect that to
happen for the foreseeable future.




"It's ok to kill "Trophy Bucks". They are old and will die soon anyway."


   This one is just nonsense. Why? Because of the following facts: 


*   Old deer usually die of starvation, unless they are injured.


*   This starvation, unless due to an inadequate food supply, occurs
because their teeth have worn down to the point where they no longer
function well enough to adequately chew food.


*   Bucks lose their antlers every Winter or Spring, and have to
completely regrow them the following year.


*   Antler size is directly dependent on the amount of high quality
forage the buck is able to eat.


*   Deer depend on their teeth to process most plant foods for
digestion. 


*   "Trophy Bucks" are so-called because of their magnificent antlers
and large size.


   What all this means is that any buck able to grow a set of "trophy"
quality antlers has perfectly adequate teeth, and is thus *not*
particularly old. Most "Trophy Bucks" are generally between the ages of
three and five years, while "old age" with its attendant worn-out teeth
usually begins no earlier than seven to nine years of age. Deer with
constant access to soft food that doesn't require thorough chewing have
been known to live into their mid-teens and beyond. Tooth wear is a good
enough indicator of age that it is often used by wildlife biologists to
estimate age. A genuinely old buck will be at least slightly emaciated,
and will have small, misshapen antlers. You won't find many of these
though, because the average age of bucks killed by hunters is now down
to about two years - less in some areas. Trophy bucks are usually from
three to five years old, so instead of killing "old" animals, trophy
hunters are killing deer that range in human- equivalent age from 18 to
perhaps 50. They are killing bucks who are still in their prime, and
they are killing many more before they can even *reach* their prime.
This is hardly an act of kindness or of beneficial selection. 

   A related claim is that killing Trophy Bucks allows younger bucks to 
"get their chance to reproduce". This would happen anyway, if the 
dominant bucks were allowed to 'age out' of their position in the herd, 
instead of being killed before their natural work of breeding is
finished, as is the case now. Deer didn't evolve over a million years
aided by human hunters; they did it on their own, and under conditions
that current hunting practices do not duplicate...or even attempt to
duplicate.




      "People who oppose deer hunting suffer from "Bambi Syndrome."  


   It's true that some hunting opponents tend to assign to animals 
like deer attributes that are more human-like than may be appropriate.
This "Bambi-ism" is not as universal as hunters would like to believe,
however, and the real irony is that hunters themselves suffer from their
own anthropocentric delusion. This delusion is that, by killing healthy
deer, they are "saving" them from the very population control that they
have experienced for approximately a million years. Starvation for deer
is certainly not pleasant, but it is the natural (and let's not forget
the importance that hunters place on that concept) way for deer to die
when they are overpopulated. It is much more natural, in fact, than for
them to be killed while plump and in their prime - or younger. Killing
a starving deer may well be a kindness, but killing a healthy,
well-fed deer is not.




              "Humans have a natural instinct to hunt."    


   If so, then we are certainly remarkably bad at expressing this
alleged instinct. Less than 8% of the U.S. population hunts, and there
aren't exactly lines of would-be hunters being turned away from the
woods. Hunting is a declining "sport" as a matter of fact, and it is
extremely unlikely that we are, in the course ofjust a few short
generations, losing any genuine instinct. Humans are and always have
been opportunistic omnivores, and for us hunting has always been
something that we did to acquire food or fur or skin, and also to
varying degrees as a cultural activity, not one that we are driven
to engage in by our very natures.  Even if one accepts the shaky
proposition that we have an instinct to hunt (and biologists are 
becoming increasingly reluctant to use the word "instinct" to describe 
any human behavior), this "instinct" is clearly a weak one, and, like 
some of our other less than noble inclinations, we would be the better 
for ignoring it. There are far more rewarding ways for us to interact
with and protect our environment than by killing for sport.






                      A FEW GENERAL REFERENCES:


Predation and population:


http://mason.gmu.edu/~lrockwoo/Interspecific%20Interactions%20Among%20Populationssp02.htm


http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064058/html/82.html


http://www.courses.rochester.edu/zimmer/predation.htm


http://benthic.sc.edu/benthic/BIOL/Courses/BIOL301/West/LECTURE16.HTM


http://www.humboldt.edu/~rnb2/wldf%20422/Overabundance.htm


Trophy hunting and buck age:


http://www.gnproductions.com/vtdeerherd.html


http://gameandfish.about.com/library/weekly/aa096701a.htm


http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/PGC/newsroom/2002/nr027-02.htm


An excellent overview of North American deer, albeit from a strongly
pro-hunting perspective:



"The Deer of North America" by Leonard Lee Rue III



   It's possible to support almost any conclusion by using selective
quotations. Read the entire documents yourselves, and then draw your
own.





   Copyright 2002 by Michael Cerkowski. Reproduce freely, but do not
modify this document.