Deer control. (I know Jack)

[FarmerDave]

Jack, first allow me to apologize. I kinda misread the original question. I guess it was because you used would and are in the same question (derivatives of could and is). My mistake

To answer your original question …

I wonder if anything other than speculation would lead one to believe that deer/vehicle collisions are reduced by hunting.

The smartass answer would be of course it would, if it were happening. :lol:

The way you worded it makes the answer tricky so i will split the question into two parts if you don't mind. There is information out there other than speculation that would lead one to believe that the population can be controlled to reduce DVCs. the problem is they have not been doing that in PA. At least not up to at least the 1990s. There is no doubt it can have this effect (which is how I read it), but has it? Probably not in PA. it really was a 2 part question that requires some massaging IMO.

Hunting is the best management tool we have for managing the herd. However, like any tool, it has to be used properly for it to be effective. PA did not use that tool for that purpose in the 20th century. They sarted to shift in that direction towards the end of the century, but it was like pounding nails with a screwdriver.

For a very long time, the herd was managed for large numbers for what was perceived as better hunting opportunities. that is in agreement with the info you quoted. There was no real attempt at reducing the herd. But that is changing.

Let me offer this. Up through the 80s, the herds were managed for maximum sustainable numbers. in about the 90s, but there was more of an attempt at controlling the herd by offering more doe tags, and then allowing 2 deer harvest, one of them antlerless. Then there were bonus tags. One year, you could shoot 3, but only 1 buck. In some places some of these tags went unclaimed. However, more recent changes very much could be, having an effect. I'm not convinced yet. I'm talking on a large scale. In suburban and urban areas (where you have more of these accidents), it would be very difficult for hunting to be effective at reducing herds.

Anyway, I am in favor of healthier herds. The tradition in PA has been for maximum numbers for a long time, and it is very difficult to break that tradition. Gary Alt started it and the game commission is trying, but there are still large numbers of hunters who think we are shooting too many does, and some who think we should only shoot bucks. I know people who have bought doe tags with no intent to use them, just to reduce the number of does shot by 1. This has been a problem ever since they started annual doe harvests in the late 50s (I think it was 57, but that is before I was born). It will all boil down to how good they are at selling their new plans. they are phasing changes in slowly, so we need to be patient. It won't work if the hunters don't allow it to work. I used to be a skeptic of the new plans. You know me and tradition. I also thought it was stupid to have buck and doe seasons together, but mostly for safety reasons. I used to think Ohio had their management all screwed up. But you know, Ohio ranks 4th in trophy bucks. So, now I don't think so. In Ohio, I can shoot 2 deer a year, only 1 of which can be antlered. Also, I can shoot more if I get urban tags. The urban tags are doe only. Like you said yourself, the emphasis in PA has to be shifted more towards harvesting does, rather than harvesting the biggest bucks. I find that the deer are much healthier in Ohio. When i was a kid growing up in NWPA, if someone told me they shot a 200 pound local deer, I'd have called them a liar (until my brother shot one when I was 17). In Ohio, 200 pound bucks are common. The average live weight of a mature PA buck in gun season is only 140 pounds (with the weight loss during rut). I don't know the average weight over here.

Someone was talking about far less deer now in NCPA. He didn't prove this, and I don't know if it is true or not, but call me a fool, I do believe him. why shouldn't I. The problem is, some regions of the state cannot support as many deer per square mile. Segmented forests and farm land can handle more. Heavy mature forests like NCPA simply can't. The game commission divides the state up in to management regions. If they manage for health of the herd in each region, and health of the forest, they will manage for less deer in those areas.

Like you pointed out, deer can regulate their own numbers, but it will be for maximum sustainability. This means more stabation, disease, etc. asnd also causes lots of destruction to forests, and agriculture... and increases deer/human conflict. animal rights orgs. are OK with this for the most part. I'm not. There are all kinds out there, and each has an opinion. Check out table 2 on page 32 in the link. I'm one of the people who want a healthy herd.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/deer/pdf/Management__Plan6-03.pdf

 

[JackM]

FarmerDave, I'm not good at statistics and things like that, so I can't really see what you want me to derive from the table. However, I am relieved that we are at least speaking the same language now. Anyhow, the only thing that I'm not sure we can now agree to is whether allowing the herd to regulate itself without human predation through hunting would result in an overall increase in the herd or not. And, as a consequence whether the natural regulation route would result in less DVC either directly because of a herd reduction (just assuming this for the sake of argument) or because of behavioral changes resulting from elimination of the armed predator. I am not saying that I believe the natural route would reduce the herd, but I have not seen evidence one way or another. I'm also not sure whether we could get such evidence since I believe no state has outlawed whitetail hunting. Also, even if there were evidence that the natural route would reduce the herd and DVC, I don't favor that. I would still feel that hunters deserve an opportunity to enjoy their hobby, hunt for food or sport, etc., even if there would be a social cost in terms of DVCs. I am not nor have I ever been a member of PETA or any other radical "animal rights" organization. My religious beliefs tell me animals lack souls and without a soul, the concept of "rights" is meaningless.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

I actually think they upped the limit to three deer statewide in OH last year, Dave. Not that I'm ever at risk of needing that......

 

[FarmerDave]

OhioOutdoorsman wrote:
I actually think they upped the limit to three deer statewide in OH last year, Dave. Not that I'm ever at risk of needing that......

I'll assume you mean without additional urban tags. I think you are correct. I was told by a personal friend that in our district the normal limit was indeed raised to 3 deer, but I wasn't able to back that up with documentation. So I didn't mention it. All I could find on the Net was last season't regulations. I don't have to buy a license to hunt my own land and haven't yet this year, so I didn't get a hard copy. When counting urban tags, I think you could legally shoot something like 5 deer last year? Maybe it was 7. I don't remember other than it was more than 2 and i only shoot 1 because it is enough meat for us.

Jack, I am working on a response for you. I think it will surprise you.

 

[FarmerDave]

...Then again, maybe it won't surprise you.

If left alone, most if not all animal species will try to reach their maximum sustainable population. When the population approaches that point, that is when reproduction decreases and there is also an increase in mortality rate. So, without human influence the deer population would stabilize, but at what point. Throw in human influence, and it becomes less stable. So, I cannot answer whether or not the herd would ultimately increase or decrease if hunting (only one of many human influences) was eliminated.

Lets talk about Mr. Putnam’s info that you quoted earlier. I could use other info, but this is easier. I'm going to show you how his information actually supports what I was saying better than it does Honor and Non-Violence.com's anti-hunting agenda. I don’t know who he is, or how he feels about hunting, but lets use just the info cherry picked by Honor and Non-Violence.com, who is against hunting. I wish I had Putnam’s book.

Deer authority, Rory Putnam explains in the Natural History of Deer, that deer, like other animals, can regulate their number even in the absence of predators. Increases and decreases in the density of deer in a given area trigger biological and behavioral changes that regulate deer numbers. For example, if a large number of deer are removed by culling or hunting, the remaining animals reveal compensatory rebound. Younger than normal deer breed, mature does give birth to a larger than normal number of fawns, and with less density a population vacuum is created into which other deer will move. The end result is that in an area where deer are hunted or culled, deer reproduction increases and mortality decreases.

I am not questioning the accuracy of that paragraph. It is in fact very accurate. It says resulting in: “reproduction increases and mortality decreases.” What that doesn’t say is population increases. If the numbers culled are large enough, it will more than compensate for the increased in reproduction and decreases in mortality. However, if not enough are culled (lets say 10 percent), you will probably have an increase in population because of the short term improvements in the health of the herd, combined with the deer movement to the now (temporarily) better food source. It does cause some instability. The mortality decreases are mostly less dying from starvation. By the way, when old deer die I predator free environments, it is usually due to starvation because there teeth wear out.

“These biological and behavioral changes are reversed in conditions of high deer density. Fewer than normal fawns breed, mature does may not come into estrus every year as they do under less dense conditions, and therefore do not reproduce every year. Those does who do breed will have single births rather than the usual twins or even triplets. In areas of high deer population density, competition increases and the mortality rate of the young increases. Concurrently, fertility decreases and deer leave the area in search of better conditions. This is how stable deer herds exist in a number of parks, wildlife preserves and large tracts of private property where there is no hunting.”

What that is saying is deer will reach high densities, and only then will the population adjust (levels off). That is exactly what I said. And this is in preserves and such. Can you imagine if the whole state were that way. Where would they go. How big would the herd get?

In the presence of natural predators, the poorer health animals are removed which means a stable and more healthy herd. Unfortunately there is no way to achieve that short of bringing back all the predators.

Understanding the population dynamic of the white tail deer reveals it is not necessary to cull deer to keep their numbers from constantly increasing and why it is mistaken to believe that the lack of predators will allow the herd to increase to destructive numbers.

That is true depending on what they mean by distructive. If they are talking about destructive to the herd, then that statement is correct. If they are talking about destructive to the environment... not so correct. DCNR has done a lot of studies on this and public displays. It is dramatic what a deer herd can do to a forest, especially a recovering forest. And then there is Agriculture….

The increase in deer population is a direct result of state game management practices that have routinely encouraged the killing of large number of bucks, while leaving disproportionately more does, further exacerbating compensatory rebound. These unnatural conditions push the reproductive capacity of the deer herd to its maximum....

That statement has been true in PA for a long time. All they have to do to reduce the herd is cull more deer than the maximum reproductive capacity, and that capacity is not unlimited.

I won’t address the anecdotal stuff other than to say I could drive a truck through the holes in most of it.

If they outlawed hunting in PA, would the herd decline? I suppose it could in the long run, but nobody really knows with complete certainty. One thing is for sure it will increase for the next year or 2.

 

[JackM]

FarmerDave:

I didn't realize a need to clarify this until your last post, but the language you used above that I had quoted was not necessarily Putnam's. In particular, the 3rd and 4th quoted portions seem editorialized by the advocacy group. The honorandnonviolence link had some of Putnam's actual text quoted as follows:

"We noted in chapter 5 that most deer populations appear to respond to increasing density by a reduction in fecundity and an increase in mortality (particularly the mortality of juveniles withstanding their first harsh season of shortage: the temperate winter or the tropical dry season). Ultimately rates of reproduction and rates of mortality or emigration will reach a balance, so that the net rate of increase within the population becomes zero and the population numbers stabilize at some equilibrium level determined by the availability of environmental resources. Within such populations, exploitation acts to reduce numbers. In so doing, it brings the population once more below the level at which it is limited by environmental resources: effectively releasing the density-dependent brake on population growth. Reproduction increases, juvenile mortality falls, and the whole population age structure shifts towards the young animals, which have a faster growth rate and higher efficiency of food conversion. Productivity of the population rises. " (Putman, pg.169)

"This increased productivity of a population under exploitation is now well documented (e.g. Wact, 1955; Silliman and Gutsell, 1958; Gulland, 1962; and see also Eltringham 1984) The exploitation, by reducing density, lessens competition and enhances productivity: producing the surplus that is then harvested, and producing thus a sustainable yield. Exploitation is now creaming off interest on the capital, rather then eroding the capital itself." (Putman, pg.170)

"In our discussions of management, for control or exploitation, we have repeatedly stressed that most natural populations respond to reduction in numbers by increased productivity." (Putman, pg.174)

Here's a link to where you can get Putnam's book:
http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=1404

$55 OUCH. Might want to check with the local library.

 

[FarmerDave]

i already found it and am considering buying it. I meant I wish I had it right now for this discussion. :lol:

 

[JackM]

Looking at it used:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0801422833/ref=sr_1_olp_4/105-5792963-0155603?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185467051&sr=1-4

Could get it for the price of an Orvis bass poppers.

 

[FarmerDave]

Yes, I felt those paragraphs might have been editorialized. Even the first one is not actually a quote. But I didn't want to sound too critical, and I felt i could still show that their own info can argue against their stance.

They clearly don't have a problem with large deer herds where their leading cause of death is starvation, disease, and accidents. It is what they want. they also don't care about them destroying hteir own habitat and also agriculture.

I don't have a problem with the other stuff you provided either. I can look past words like exploit and slaughter.

 

[JackM]

Well, just so you know, I didn't find the Putman quotes or paraphrases by navigating to those sites from my "favorites" menu. I googled something like "Hunting and Deer Collisions" and these were the kinds of things I found. I always consider the source, but in this case, since the other site (the one I linked) actually was quoting his text and it was consistent with the other, I felt confident that the general idea was sound.

I don't care for the animal rights fanatics when they reach for extremes and that tends to be often, but I do like Pam Anderson, and I find it amusing when the PETA groups do their thing naked.

 

[FarmerDave]

"Reproduction increases, juvenile mortality falls, and the whole population age structure shifts towards the young animals, which have a faster growth rate and higher efficiency of food conversion. "

Sounds like a good think if you ask me.

 

[FarmerDave]

You know me and plastic; therefore, I am not a fan of Pam Anderson. but there are a few others that I could live with. :-D

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
Well, just so you know, I didn't find the Putman quotes or paraphrases by navigating to those sites from my "favorites" menu.

LOL! I just caught that one. Don't worry, I don't think that. Besides, some of my best friends are democrats. :lol: