Like it or not, deer need to be managed
With the regular deer season just a week of so away (opening day is Nov. 18), there will be those who welcome it and also those who distain it. I hesitate to label the latter as "anti-hunters" or "animal protectionists" because I believe the majority are not. They simply don't feel comfortable with the idea and concept of killing animals ... or at least wild animals. But what is the alternative to deer hunting and hunting in general? What would happen if all hunting, and specifically deer hunting, ceased for good? And, with the declining numbers of hunters and the growing anti-hunting war chests, this is not entirely improbable.
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but the term "hunting" or "harvesting" should not necessarily be confined to the image of a person with gun or bow in search of game. It could also easily be applied to the person in a super market who's perusing the meat department's selection of processed foods. The only true difference is the latter "hunter" has allocated the "harvesting" to someone else. Whether a food, especially meat, is of wild or domestic origin, let's not kid ourselves as to its source.
Given suitable habitat, wildlife species proliferate naturally and represent an annually renewable resource. Many species, including deer, are very adaptable to changing habitat and conditions, and will continue to expand their population to excess until a major species crash occurs, via starvation or disease when food supplies are depleted. If our area of the state were all forested wilderness, with no farms, businesses, residences and roads, deer would not be as plentiful or prolific since the low-growth flora they depend on would be far scarcer than it is today. Conversely, all the manmade cultivation we've created is ideal for supporting deer and promoting deer proliferation. In fact, it could be said that it's too ideal.
State wildlife biologists have concluded, through years of study in areas of excellent deer habitat, that to keep deer densities in pace with available food sources today, about 40 percent of the deer population-primarily females – must be removed annually. Even then, should an abnormally harsh, deep-snow winter occur, thousands of deer will die from starvation. However, the cycle will begin anew in the spring following a harsh winter, and within a couple of years, deer densities will be back to their previous levels.
Study after study concludes that, without annual culling, deer would rapidly overpopulate and destroy the food sources for many years to come.
The end result would be emaciated deer that would slowly die-off in great numbers during the winter season. Since so many other wildlife species also depend on the same habitat and food sources, they, too, would be greatly impacted. In other words, the ecology of the area would be destroyed for many years to come with major negative effects on other wildlife. There are many examples of this, including suburban areas of New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, where overabundant deer are destroying the ecosystem that's critical in supporting a wide variety of other fauna and flora.
Most people enjoy seeing deer and would hate to see them disappear. But that's basically what would occur if hunting continues to decline and deer populations are allowed to keep increasing. The deer numbers would reach such a level that the food sources that were initially so abundant would become inadequate for supporting so many animals. Even with no depredation occurring, the decimated flora would take years to recover, so the deer die-off would continue until the flora recovered.
One thing no one wants to consider is what eventually happens to those graceful deer we see in areas were little or no hunting occurs. Even with absolutely no hunting or roadway mortality, no deer dies of old age. They either succumb to winter's harshness or, in a weakened physical state, are easily killed by predators. In both cases, death does not come quickly. Retired DEC deer biologist, Mike Hall had the best description of how things work in the wild when he'd say: "There's nothing 'motherly' about nature."
The economic impact of hunting in New York State is also often overlooked. According to the figures garnered by the State, hunting is responsible for $891 million in expenditures and $1.53 billion in economic output annually and supports almost 12,000 jobs. In the past seven years the Venison Donation Coalition has processed over 206 tons of deer meat that equates to 1,651,748 meals to the hungry. Last year the Coalition processed 75,695 pounds of venison for state food banks.
Those who object to deer hunting and want it stopped have become far too disconnected from the real world. They conveniently ignore the fact that those steaks or burgers came from some docile Angus or Hereford. Hunting is as much a part of the natural world as raising beef cattle, harvesting grain, or cutting timber for our homes. Regardless of the emotional rhetoric some animal rights organizations spew out, culling and controlling wildlife populations is something nature will do if we don't. And nature will be far more harsh in accomplishing it than man will.
Earlier this year there was discussion about allowing controlled bowhunting to solve the problem of deer overpopulation in Green Lakes State Park and nearby suburban Fayetteville. In the end, the emotional and irrational rhetoric of the anti-hunters won out. However, the alternatives they suggested, such as contraceptives or trapping the deer and transporting them elsewhere, were totally unscientific, exorbitantly expensive and just plain won't work. Stay tuned, as the deer densities continue to balloon there, in the process destroying the ecology of the park and wrecking havoc on residents' properties and vehicles.
Hunting, including deer hunting, should remain an important form of wildlife management and recreation. Its economic impact and importance as a tool in the total wildlife management picture cannot be overemphasized. The consequences if hunting ceases would be disastrous to the economy, agriculture, the total ecology and, lastly, to the deer.
Invasive Species Threatening Lake Ontario
The cause of the recent massive die-off of over 500 loons and hundreds of other water-based birds on Lake Ontario has been pinpointed as a toxic form of botulism caused by the combination of two invasive species that were introduced via the ballasts of ocean-going ships. The invasive culprits are quagga mussels and round gobies, a small perch-like fish.
The mussels absorb botulism spores from bottom sediment and concentrate them in their systems. Round gobies then feed on the mussels and pass the toxin on to the loons, gulls and mergansers that eat them. Another invasive fatal disease, viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS), is creating havoc on almost all species of fish in the lake, and is thought to also have been introduced via ocean-going ships that failed to thoroughly flush their ballasts before entering the Seaway.
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but the term "hunting" or "harvesting" should not necessarily be confined to the image of a person with gun or bow in search of game. It could also easily be applied to the person in a super market who's perusing the meat department's selection of processed foods. The only true difference is the latter "hunter" has allocated the "harvesting" to someone else. Whether a food, especially meat, is of wild or domestic origin, let's not kid ourselves as to its source.
Given suitable habitat, wildlife species proliferate naturally and represent an annually renewable resource. Many species, including deer, are very adaptable to changing habitat and conditions, and will continue to expand their population to excess until a major species crash occurs, via starvation or disease when food supplies are depleted. If our area of the state were all forested wilderness, with no farms, businesses, residences and roads, deer would not be as plentiful or prolific since the low-growth flora they depend on would be far scarcer than it is today. Conversely, all the manmade cultivation we've created is ideal for supporting deer and promoting deer proliferation. In fact, it could be said that it's too ideal.
State wildlife biologists have concluded, through years of study in areas of excellent deer habitat, that to keep deer densities in pace with available food sources today, about 40 percent of the deer population-primarily females – must be removed annually. Even then, should an abnormally harsh, deep-snow winter occur, thousands of deer will die from starvation. However, the cycle will begin anew in the spring following a harsh winter, and within a couple of years, deer densities will be back to their previous levels.
Study after study concludes that, without annual culling, deer would rapidly overpopulate and destroy the food sources for many years to come.
The end result would be emaciated deer that would slowly die-off in great numbers during the winter season. Since so many other wildlife species also depend on the same habitat and food sources, they, too, would be greatly impacted. In other words, the ecology of the area would be destroyed for many years to come with major negative effects on other wildlife. There are many examples of this, including suburban areas of New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, where overabundant deer are destroying the ecosystem that's critical in supporting a wide variety of other fauna and flora.
Most people enjoy seeing deer and would hate to see them disappear. But that's basically what would occur if hunting continues to decline and deer populations are allowed to keep increasing. The deer numbers would reach such a level that the food sources that were initially so abundant would become inadequate for supporting so many animals. Even with no depredation occurring, the decimated flora would take years to recover, so the deer die-off would continue until the flora recovered.
One thing no one wants to consider is what eventually happens to those graceful deer we see in areas were little or no hunting occurs. Even with absolutely no hunting or roadway mortality, no deer dies of old age. They either succumb to winter's harshness or, in a weakened physical state, are easily killed by predators. In both cases, death does not come quickly. Retired DEC deer biologist, Mike Hall had the best description of how things work in the wild when he'd say: "There's nothing 'motherly' about nature."
The economic impact of hunting in New York State is also often overlooked. According to the figures garnered by the State, hunting is responsible for $891 million in expenditures and $1.53 billion in economic output annually and supports almost 12,000 jobs. In the past seven years the Venison Donation Coalition has processed over 206 tons of deer meat that equates to 1,651,748 meals to the hungry. Last year the Coalition processed 75,695 pounds of venison for state food banks.
Those who object to deer hunting and want it stopped have become far too disconnected from the real world. They conveniently ignore the fact that those steaks or burgers came from some docile Angus or Hereford. Hunting is as much a part of the natural world as raising beef cattle, harvesting grain, or cutting timber for our homes. Regardless of the emotional rhetoric some animal rights organizations spew out, culling and controlling wildlife populations is something nature will do if we don't. And nature will be far more harsh in accomplishing it than man will.
Earlier this year there was discussion about allowing controlled bowhunting to solve the problem of deer overpopulation in Green Lakes State Park and nearby suburban Fayetteville. In the end, the emotional and irrational rhetoric of the anti-hunters won out. However, the alternatives they suggested, such as contraceptives or trapping the deer and transporting them elsewhere, were totally unscientific, exorbitantly expensive and just plain won't work. Stay tuned, as the deer densities continue to balloon there, in the process destroying the ecology of the park and wrecking havoc on residents' properties and vehicles.
Hunting, including deer hunting, should remain an important form of wildlife management and recreation. Its economic impact and importance as a tool in the total wildlife management picture cannot be overemphasized. The consequences if hunting ceases would be disastrous to the economy, agriculture, the total ecology and, lastly, to the deer.
Invasive Species Threatening Lake Ontario
The cause of the recent massive die-off of over 500 loons and hundreds of other water-based birds on Lake Ontario has been pinpointed as a toxic form of botulism caused by the combination of two invasive species that were introduced via the ballasts of ocean-going ships. The invasive culprits are quagga mussels and round gobies, a small perch-like fish.
The mussels absorb botulism spores from bottom sediment and concentrate them in their systems. Round gobies then feed on the mussels and pass the toxin on to the loons, gulls and mergansers that eat them. Another invasive fatal disease, viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS), is creating havoc on almost all species of fish in the lake, and is thought to also have been introduced via ocean-going ships that failed to thoroughly flush their ballasts before entering the Seaway.
dived wound factual legitimately delightful goodness fit rat some lopsidedly far when.
Slung alongside jeepers hypnotic legitimately some iguana this agreeably triumphant pointedly far
jeepers unscrupulous anteater attentive noiseless put less greyhound prior stiff ferret unbearably cracked oh.
So sparing more goose caribou wailed went conveniently burned the the the and that save that adroit gosh and sparing armadillo grew some overtook that magnificently that
Circuitous gull and messily squirrel on that banally assenting nobly some much rakishly goodness that the darn abject hello left because unaccountably spluttered unlike a aurally since contritely thanks