JackM wrote:
FarmerDave, I think you mistook Mr. Putnam's input for that of the advocacy group. Putnam wrote a book, the group used his conclusion to serve their agenda. Nothing I saw showed Putnam to have an agenda. The examples of the parks were from the advocacy group not Putman.
Jack, it was late for me (I get up at 3), and I probably just misread that part. I apologize to Mr. Putnam if he read that. It doesn't really matter, because I already agreed with Putnams facts. The Game Commision uses much of the same information in their explanation for using hunting as a management tool.
The point is, deer can and will regulate their own populations. But since we have a whole lot more impact than just hunting, it becomes much harder for the deer to accomplish this. What you would have is lots of starvation every winter, billions of dollars in damage to agriculture, disease, etc. If you take away all or at least most human impact on their environment, it would certainly be less chaotic, but we can’t really do that without removing humans. I’ll try to explain a little further, but I’m not a writer or a biologist.
Here is a brief summary. The population would initially explode because of the other impacts that we have on their environment. You would have the same birth rates we have now because there is plenty of food from human impact. The result would be large die-offs in late winter from starvation and disease, and the cycle would continue the next year. PETA is OK with this. Not only that, but it is the bucks that would suffer most, meaning the reproduction rates would not decline all that much. There would still be plenty of food Spring through fall meaning healthy does. The result would be the average deer herd of PA would increase dramatically and with huge fluctuations.
The greatest determining factor for the health of a deer herd is diet. More food means higher reproduction, Less food means lower reproduction. They don't have the intelligence to decide not to breed as much during hard times. The reproduction rate is purely physical, not mental. It is as simple as that. It’s the same with most animals. In somewhat confined areas with minimal human impact (agriculture, etc), the population will eventually become more stable, but at maximum capacity.
But here is the wild card. Since white man has arrived, the terrain has changed. Instead of the entire state being covered by mostly stable but smaller food supply (unbroken mature mostly conifer forests which have relatively low biodiversity), we now have broken forests and fields which have a much greater and variable food supply. The forests are almost all secondary growth now which has higher biomass for the herbivores. Then you have the forest edges which support even greater biomass. Then you have agriculture which adds even more food, but for only part of the year. The agriculture part is a huge variable (and there are others). The young are born in the spring, and all the deer have plenty of food all summer (for the most part) leading up to breeding season, so you have high birth rates. But the fields are harvested in the fall, taking away a large part of what they fed on all summer leaving only forests and back yards. So, what you have is a large reproduction rate even though the forests cannot sustain it during the winter. The result is starvation and disease if the population were left unchecked. The bucks suffer the most leaving lots of does to reproduce. So, in areas where deer are overpopulated, you will still have healthy does in the fall breeding seasin because of the summer feed, but a shortage of bucks. Deer are not monogamous. Some bucks will survive, so the does will get impregnated. One buck can mate with dozens of does. Does go into estrous, and if they don’t get impregnated, it doesn’t end there. The does will continue to go into estrous each month until they get impregnated. I’ve personally seen 2 or 3 month old spotted fawns in February. I almost hit one with my car a mile from my house in the burbs where hunting was prohibited. They weren’t born 6 months early, they were born 6 months late because the does were bred 6 months late. If it weren’t for the mild winter, they wouldn’t have survived.
And I mentioned this before, but I’ll say it again. A side effect of over-browsed forests is the deer have to go to where the food is, which includes right of ways, including road right of ways. More contact with automobiles. Why do you think there are so many lying dead along I-80 and the pike.
The reason for managing the population is not just to reduce accidents. It is to reduce human/deer conflict which also includes impact to farm land, etc.
Like I said, things are different in areas where the herds are somewhat confined and in areas that are not impacted heavily by current human activity (farming, etc.) which is the case with at least some of the examples provided. So, what they are saying is true, but they are cherry picking. In most of the state, the herd must be managed to reduce human/deer conflict which includes accidents as well as damage to agriculture, etc, (I couldn’t care less about the suburban landscaping, but that is another one). Of course another reason for managing the herd is to provide a quality hunting experience, but each person’s definition of a quality hunting experience is different. It is a balancing act.
And the Game commission does set their regulations to harvest more does than bucks.
I think I supported my side fairly well. I did use some personal experience, but only to support fact that is out there. Although I did not provide explicit sources for these facts, there are sources out there. US Forestry, DCNR, Game Commission, Penn State deer farm... Feel free to dispute any of it with fact. Ask PETA. They might argue that this chaos in deer populations resulting from other human impact is acceptable, but they cannot prove any of it wrong with facts.
P.S. Of course you know I was just pulling your chain in the earlier responses, but I really wasn’t sure if you were serious. I didn’t know you had already sipped the PETA cool-aid. ;-)
