JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,324
I wonder if anything other than speculation would lead one to believe that deer/vehicle collisions are reduced by hunting.
I wonder if anything other than speculation would lead one to believe that deer/vehicle collisions are reduced by hunting.
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
Very nice deer, especially if it is from NCPA.
There are a lot less deer where I grew up in NWPA too compared to when i was a kid. Even though we see a fraction of the deer we used to see, they are bigger and healthier. I remember my first year hunting. We counted 63 deer on opening day. Only one had any antlers, and it was a small spike. it is more exciting to see lots of deer, but I'm not convinced that those were better times.
Of course I never hunted much up in the big woods, so it's apples to oranges. In other words, I'm not saying you are wrong either.
There are a lot less deer where I grew up in NWPA too compared to when i was a kid. Even though we see a fraction of the deer we used to see, they are bigger and healthier. I remember my first year hunting. We counted 63 deer on opening day. Only one had any antlers, and it was a small spike. it is more exciting to see lots of deer, but I'm not convinced that those were better times.
Of course I never hunted much up in the big woods, so it's apples to oranges. In other words, I'm not saying you are wrong either.
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
Before I LOL, I have to ask you this. Are you serious Jack?
JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,324
Absolutely serious. Laughter is neither evidence nor argument to me.
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
OK then...
lol
:lol:
Seriously, I am still having a hard time believing you are serious on this one. It's common sense. Fewer deer means fewer human and deer interactions. Also, I can absolutely gaurantee that that deer in the picture I provided earlier has not been hit by any automobiles in the last two years and that is not speculation. what more do you need?:-D
Last year, there was an estimated deer harvest of 361,560. Knowing that the overall herd is usually somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4 million, that is about 30 percent of the herd that no longer gets in the way of cars. Of those harvested deer, 226,270 were antlerless deer. Lets say for argument, 200,000 of those were actually doe (allowing for antlerless buck). Most of those does are already pregnant when they are harvested, and the ones that aren’t, most likely would get that way soon. Lets use a conservative number of 1.5 fawn per doe (it also makes the math easier). This number varies depending on the health of the herd, but it is probably conservative at 1.5. That’s 300,000 fawns that were not hit by cars this spring. born. So, that is over 600,000 deer that have not been hit by cars this year that otherwise could have been if they were not harvested.
Hunting is used to manage a healthy herd. Without it, the pops would explode.
Jack, maybe you are still in trout mode where a little bit of harvest makes no difference in the overall population because of super high birth rate, and high natural mortality. Deer birth rates are relatively small, and so is their mortality rate (excluding mortality from hunting). Harvesting a third of the population has quite an impact. Without it, the population would soar in the short term. More deer means more collisions. This is not speculation, it is common sense. Maybe you are looking at it long term. It is true that if you removed mortality from hunting, eventually the population would stabilize at a different level with higher mortality from starvation and disease and Buicks.
I could go on and on, but I think you would just view it as speculation. The truth is, you don’t need a scientific study for this one, however, there is lots of info out there if you care to look. I don’t care to look, because I don’t need convincing. But i will throw you this one bone.
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=458&q=150818
Go to the last section ("Management").
Bambi is not always the good guy.
JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,324
Dave, that's not gonna cut it. I don't have time right now to pick apart your attempt to befuddle me with your logic, but I will later.
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
then just go to the link and look at the last section. No need to trust me when you can trust the Game Commission. I can think of lots of other sources too if you are really serious about this.
SlumpBuster
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2006
- Messages
- 89
FarmerDave I wouldn't even bother arguing with JackM he dosen't belive any thing even with well presented and backed scientific evidence. I don't think he would even belive there was a bigfoot if it pinched him in the face/
JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,324
The game commission article did not support its claim. You at least made the effort. I would think data harvest variations along with populations of both deer and people and statistics of accidents would be able to be compared. For instance, in years following high harvest or low harvest as the case may be, are the auto/deer collisions greater or less, assuming static human population in the area concerned. If you have that kind of support, it would be convincing.
JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,324
Still smarting, eh? Maybe you can help Dave out with some data. Let me know if Big Foot pinches you on the face. As I said, I have no problem with people wanting to kill Bambi, but there is no need to look for artificial justifications for doing so. I'll keep my eyes peeled for the deer, you can keep yours peeled for Big Foot.
SlumpBuster
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2006
- Messages
- 89
Just give back what you put out. Just by you saying people killing bambi makes hunting sound bad. I don't shot fawns but I would have killed him when he grew up. Also I don't wear horns and wield a pitch fork when I hunt so you should be nicer to hunters. I hunt to eat and for the sport of it.
P.S. Bigfoot is real man.
P.S. Bigfoot is real man.
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
jack, when they talk about high and low harvests, those numbers don't vary by much more than plus or minus 10 percent, and they adjust antlerless permits accordingly year to year. This is statistically insignificant because you can get that much variation due to the effects of weather. You would have to look at smaller models where hunting was actually eliminated for a period of time. Take for example Aurora, Ohio. Hunting was outlawed for about 3 years, and the number of deer related accedents tripled. Between that and the loss of landscaping, they brought back hunting. I don't know if I can find that in writing or not, but i know it to be true because I lived there. Furthermore, there really wasn't all that much hunting going on there in the first place, so the changes would be much more substantial in more rural areas. Other neighborhoods employ snipers to reduce the herds. why do you suppose they do that? Ask the City of Solon Ohio why the do that from time to time. It's common sense. All you need to know in this case is the population would explode short term, because most does have twins, and the natural mortality rate is very low without hunting. The population would increase by more than 50 percent the first year alone on average. However, this rate of increase would decline somewhat in following years because of the decreased health in the overall herd until eventually you would have a collapse due to starvation and disease. Then the cycle would start all over. It is just the way it works when there are no predators.
Talk to the Penn State deer farm. they know their chit.
I really don't have time to look into this much further at this time, but there are studies out there if one took the time to look. Is hunting a perfect management tool. Of course not, but it is the most effective we have right now, and certainly most cost effective.
Ask your auto insurance company for statistics. they might be able to provide some.
albatross
Well-known member
I'll take a crack at this.
Lets look at the extremes on either end of the spectrum. If the deer population were zero, then I don't think its too big of a stretch to assume there would be zero deer vehicle collisions as well.
On the other extreme, as the deer population approaches infinity we'd all be knocking them down like dominos as we back out of our garage.
Now, if we are willing to assume that the relationship between deer population and deer vehicle collisions is monotone increasing (doesn't go up and down, but rather goes up smoothly), then it follows that fewer deer will lead to fewer deer/vehicle collisions.
It remains to show that hunting affects deer population. I know personally that right after I pull the trigger there is one less deer than there was right before I pulled the trigger. I also know what I've seen in the big woods of north central PA where the PGC increased the doe license allocations and essentially wiped out the deer (a strategy made possible by the high ratio of ground open to public hunting).
Dave, that's a Cameron County ten point my son shot. Its easier to get a 6x6 bull elk up there than a ten point buck.
JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,324
Well, Albatross, there are two issues
1. Does hunting ultimately reduce deer populations; and
2. Do smaller populations reduce collisions.
The second issue I won't deal with right now, and it seems intuitively simple. But the first issue is of more interest and less intuitively simple and it is the one I think FramerDave and Slumpbuster have been selectively educated on.
Speaking of the auto insurance angle,
This article in PDF format exerpt seems to be done from the insurance industry perspective. With the incentive to find and analyze studies of the effect of hunting in reducing deer-vehicle collisions (DVCs), they suggest that though hunting is often "used' to reduce DVCs, studies on the effectiveness are "rare." (See page 212 of Article).
And I'm sorry to do this, but the only way I could quote this material is to get it from a deer-hugging advocacy group, with which I share little in common other than my skepticism about hunting reducing DVCs:
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.
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.
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.
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....
These advocacy groups also are able to produce isolated anecdotal reports to support their point of view:
HUNTING INCREASES DEER POPULATIONS
When a large number of deer are removed from a herd through hunting, competition for food, water, space and breeding opportunities is reduced. The herd reacts to the sudden kill with increased breeding, and, with plenty of food to go around, more females become pregnant, and twin and triplet births often occur.
In their 1990 report, "An Assessment of Deer Hunting in New Jersey," Fish and Game offered a detailed example of this process. It says: "One of the most dramatic examples of the effect of habitat improvement or food availability on reproductive capacity occurred in the Earle Naval Ammunition Depot in Monmouth County. Range conditions improved in this case by an annual removal of deer by hunting.
Between 1968 and 1973 the reproductive rate almost doubled, an indication that the herd was in much healthier condition. The estimated fawn crop in 1969 was 116 fawns produced by 122 females, a reproductive rate of 0.95 fawns per doe, compared to 1974 when 78 does produced 133 fawns, or 1.70 fawns per doe." (Burke et al. 1975).
Fish and Game's report shows that even during hunting seasons in which killing female deer was the objective, the remaining females had increased birthrates that not only replaced the ones killed, but increased the overall size of the herd.
EXAMPLE: MONMOUTH BATTLEFIELD STATE PARK
In 1990, Fish and Game pushed through an annual deer hunt at Monmouth Battlefield State Park. They said that this was to be a "deer reduction hunt," and that hunting was the only way to reduce the size of the deer herd. After nearly a decade, and the slaughter of 600 deer, hunting has completely and utterly failed to reduce the deer herd.
Before hunting was implemented at the park, Fish and Game stated that the population was 200. Other estimates showed the population was even lower, at 150. On March 28, 1998, Fish and Game performed an aerial deer census of the park. 254 deer were counted, a 27% increase since the hunts had been initiated.
EXAMPLE: LEWIS MORRIS COUNTY PARK
The Morris County Park Commission is using the Washington Valley Area to compare the size of the deer herd in the years before and after the Lewis Morris Park hunts. In 1997, an aerial survey counted 363 deer. In 1998, after more than 200 deer had been slaughtered, the count was 502, a 38% rise in the deer population since the hunts had been initiated.
The Park Commission's own documents also reveal a rise in birth rates after the implementation of hunting. In their 1997-98 report on the hunt, their data showed that the percentage of pregnant females rose 7.4% after the first year of hunting.
One participant in the Lewis Morris County Park deer hunt revealed the true nature of the hunts. His reason for killing deer? "I came for the pleasure," he said. (Daily Record, Nov. 20, 1997).
EXAMPLE: PRINCETON
Princeton has had annual bowhunting seasons for decades, but in 1991 they reinstituted a shotgun hunting season, claiming it would reduce the deer population. From 1991 to 1997, 1,052 deer were killed. Before the shotgun season began, it was stated that the deer population was at 800. After a thousand deer were killed in just 7 years, the stated size of the deer population for 1998 was 1,200, a 50% rise in the size of the deer population.
EXAMPLE: GREAT SWAMP WILDLIFE REFUGE
In 1974, a hunt was initiated at the Great Swamp Refuge to "reduce the deer herd." Hunters have killed more than 4,000 deer at Great Swamp, and yet the deer herd is larger than ever. When asked has hunting stimulated or made a healthier population, William Koch, Manager of the Great Swamp Refuge, replied, "We have healthier animals, and they have healthier reproduction." There have been more than 25 years of hunting at the refuge, and no reduction in the size of the deer herd.
1. Does hunting ultimately reduce deer populations; and
2. Do smaller populations reduce collisions.
The second issue I won't deal with right now, and it seems intuitively simple. But the first issue is of more interest and less intuitively simple and it is the one I think FramerDave and Slumpbuster have been selectively educated on.
Speaking of the auto insurance angle,
This article in PDF format exerpt seems to be done from the insurance industry perspective. With the incentive to find and analyze studies of the effect of hunting in reducing deer-vehicle collisions (DVCs), they suggest that though hunting is often "used' to reduce DVCs, studies on the effectiveness are "rare." (See page 212 of Article).
And I'm sorry to do this, but the only way I could quote this material is to get it from a deer-hugging advocacy group, with which I share little in common other than my skepticism about hunting reducing DVCs:
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.
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.
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.
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....
These advocacy groups also are able to produce isolated anecdotal reports to support their point of view:
HUNTING INCREASES DEER POPULATIONS
When a large number of deer are removed from a herd through hunting, competition for food, water, space and breeding opportunities is reduced. The herd reacts to the sudden kill with increased breeding, and, with plenty of food to go around, more females become pregnant, and twin and triplet births often occur.
In their 1990 report, "An Assessment of Deer Hunting in New Jersey," Fish and Game offered a detailed example of this process. It says: "One of the most dramatic examples of the effect of habitat improvement or food availability on reproductive capacity occurred in the Earle Naval Ammunition Depot in Monmouth County. Range conditions improved in this case by an annual removal of deer by hunting.
Between 1968 and 1973 the reproductive rate almost doubled, an indication that the herd was in much healthier condition. The estimated fawn crop in 1969 was 116 fawns produced by 122 females, a reproductive rate of 0.95 fawns per doe, compared to 1974 when 78 does produced 133 fawns, or 1.70 fawns per doe." (Burke et al. 1975).
Fish and Game's report shows that even during hunting seasons in which killing female deer was the objective, the remaining females had increased birthrates that not only replaced the ones killed, but increased the overall size of the herd.
EXAMPLE: MONMOUTH BATTLEFIELD STATE PARK
In 1990, Fish and Game pushed through an annual deer hunt at Monmouth Battlefield State Park. They said that this was to be a "deer reduction hunt," and that hunting was the only way to reduce the size of the deer herd. After nearly a decade, and the slaughter of 600 deer, hunting has completely and utterly failed to reduce the deer herd.
Before hunting was implemented at the park, Fish and Game stated that the population was 200. Other estimates showed the population was even lower, at 150. On March 28, 1998, Fish and Game performed an aerial deer census of the park. 254 deer were counted, a 27% increase since the hunts had been initiated.
EXAMPLE: LEWIS MORRIS COUNTY PARK
The Morris County Park Commission is using the Washington Valley Area to compare the size of the deer herd in the years before and after the Lewis Morris Park hunts. In 1997, an aerial survey counted 363 deer. In 1998, after more than 200 deer had been slaughtered, the count was 502, a 38% rise in the deer population since the hunts had been initiated.
The Park Commission's own documents also reveal a rise in birth rates after the implementation of hunting. In their 1997-98 report on the hunt, their data showed that the percentage of pregnant females rose 7.4% after the first year of hunting.
One participant in the Lewis Morris County Park deer hunt revealed the true nature of the hunts. His reason for killing deer? "I came for the pleasure," he said. (Daily Record, Nov. 20, 1997).
EXAMPLE: PRINCETON
Princeton has had annual bowhunting seasons for decades, but in 1991 they reinstituted a shotgun hunting season, claiming it would reduce the deer population. From 1991 to 1997, 1,052 deer were killed. Before the shotgun season began, it was stated that the deer population was at 800. After a thousand deer were killed in just 7 years, the stated size of the deer population for 1998 was 1,200, a 50% rise in the size of the deer population.
EXAMPLE: GREAT SWAMP WILDLIFE REFUGE
In 1974, a hunt was initiated at the Great Swamp Refuge to "reduce the deer herd." Hunters have killed more than 4,000 deer at Great Swamp, and yet the deer herd is larger than ever. When asked has hunting stimulated or made a healthier population, William Koch, Manager of the Great Swamp Refuge, replied, "We have healthier animals, and they have healthier reproduction." There have been more than 25 years of hunting at the refuge, and no reduction in the size of the deer herd.
SlumpBuster
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2006
- Messages
- 89
I don't have time to read all of this right now but I did see one word that was repeated over and over again, SLAUGHTERED. You know Jack using words like that is something that you shouldn't do on a forum such as this. You should take your PETA BS somewhere else and preach about it. If your going to use words like that you shouldn't fish because in the minds of the people that wrote these reports your giving fishing is probably just as bad. It hurts the fish and is mean to them. If we're gonna follow the way of the tree hugger we might as well destroy our civilization because everything we do it bad to the enviroment including just being alive.
guttrap
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 51
Maybe I'm wrong here Jack, but by that logic the period in our state history after the depression should have seen herd numbers sky rocket. During that time the herd was decimated by families trying to feed themselves as well as market hunters. The Game Commission had to resort to transplants from Michigan just to have a viable herd. Sorry I can't buy that one.
guttrap
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 51
Slumpbuster-
I've never seen a bigfoot but Capt Matt claims he has. I'd like to believe in it, I've just seen no proof thus far. Although I do trust Capt Matt's judgement, I'm just wondering if he possibly had a few too many cold one's that day.
I've never seen a bigfoot but Capt Matt claims he has. I'd like to believe in it, I've just seen no proof thus far. Although I do trust Capt Matt's judgement, I'm just wondering if he possibly had a few too many cold one's that day.
JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,324
Slumpbuster, your unwillingness to read what I presented resulted in your making wild and silly accusations that I took the time to disassociate myself from. My initial post made it clear I couldn't care less how many deer you choose to kill. However, I wish to be spared the propaganda that you are doing me and everyone else a favor by hunting unless you are prepared to prove it.
The factual-scientific basis for the advocacy group's opinions was the book by Rory Putnam entitled "The Natural History of Deer." So far as I know, Mr. Putnam had no agenda in common with these groups that used his findings to support their deer-hugging advocacy. I believe he was making scientific observations and scholarly conclusions about how deer populations react to hunter predation.
I could have gone through the article and eliminated every inflamatory term (such as "slaughter") but that would have been dishonest. Instead, I decided to acknowledge the source was such an advocacy group "with which I share little in common other than my skepticism about hunting reducing DVCs".
If knowledge that learned individuals disagree with your presumptions upsets your world in some way, then stick to getting your information from Bow Hunting Magazine or whatever.
The factual-scientific basis for the advocacy group's opinions was the book by Rory Putnam entitled "The Natural History of Deer." So far as I know, Mr. Putnam had no agenda in common with these groups that used his findings to support their deer-hugging advocacy. I believe he was making scientific observations and scholarly conclusions about how deer populations react to hunter predation.
I could have gone through the article and eliminated every inflamatory term (such as "slaughter") but that would have been dishonest. Instead, I decided to acknowledge the source was such an advocacy group "with which I share little in common other than my skepticism about hunting reducing DVCs".
If knowledge that learned individuals disagree with your presumptions upsets your world in some way, then stick to getting your information from Bow Hunting Magazine or whatever.
JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,324
I suspect that decimation of the herd (a fact I will accept from you as I have no independent knowledge of it) was a result of acute overharvest during a discrete period of time. The information I posted quoting Mr. Putnam did not speak to such an issue. As FarmerDave's figures suggest, hunting harvest is less than or around 1/3 of the herd each year. Is there any evidence that the herd is getting smaller at that rate? If not, how can you "buy" the claim I am contesting that deer hunting reduces deer-vehicle collisions?
These discussions are interesting to me as a perennial student of human nature. Contest people's assumptions about an issue relating to one of their avocations and their ability to reason objectively becomes weakened substantially.
shipnfish2006
Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 579
I do see Jacks view on this in some degrees. I don't think hunting will ever kill enough deer to satisfy the forestry and auto insurance industry, its a hobby and some nonhunters feel there needs to be a justification other than just the enjoyment of the sport and being able to harvest your own meal.
