Too Many Deer Not Good For Anyone
November 14, 2007
Here’s an article some of you may be interested in reading. It’s written by Tim Eisele of the Capital Times in Wisconsin. It’s an interview with Keith McCaffery, a retired research biologists for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. McCaffery shares his ideas of why too many deer are not good for much and also touches on some negative aspects of quality deer management programs.
It is bad for deer because it has cheapened their value. It is not good for hunters because non-hunting constituencies tend to blame hunters for having badgered the DNR into allowing higher population goals and permitting herds to grow.
It is bad for DNR because it gives the appearance that the DNR is incapable of managing deer at goal levels.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this article check these out:
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
Very interesting article and definitely a different side of the QDM arguement. One that I have never read before. Interesting to say the least.
Arthur, I am not really any sort of authority on QDM and therefore have pretty much avoided the subject in my articles etc. But I do know a lot of hunters are into it and believe in it. I do see both sides and as always, I will probably land on the side of science.
Tricky to compare Wisconsin to the rest of the country but some of his points are really valid.
Keep in mind that one of the “victories” we claim as hunters is the re-establishment of game populations…particularly whitetail deer and turkeys. Both of these are now becoming nuisances in many areas, even to the point of presenting an actual threat to humans (deer/car collisions).
Then we turn around and claim (truthfully enough)that hunters represent the only means of population control/management. Yet the populations are still spinning out of control, and hunting is beginning to show only negligible progress at controlling or curbing the spread.
While we pat ourselves on the back for all of this, are we also shooting ourselves in the foot?
I think now is a good time to look at these questions from within, because I have no doubt they’ll soon start surfacing from without.
Agreed that we take at least a certain amount of credit and blame for this. Can you suggest some cures? Is this an entrepreneur’s dream come true to open up a sharpshooting business? How about perfecting birth control? Working at increasing the number of hunters? Educating people about the necessities of opening their land up to hunting for herd control?
If you look at where the nuisances are, it is quite clear that it is in more populated areas where there is no hunting allowed. Not all states have the same nuisance or overabundance of deer as others but often the problems run in pockets.
So, what are the best methods of dealing with this?
Wish I had more answers, which is one reason I’m cautious in my criticism. As an old journalism teacher once told me, “any fool can point out the problem. Genius is in pointing out a solution.”
Unfortunately, most of what I could come up with off the cuff would be in retrospect, since the problems we have today are generally the result of actions in the past. However, some of the solutions do include urban/suburban hunting. This can help the herd, and provide an additional opportunity to sportsmen and women. One of the most common reasons hunters are giving up the sport is lack of opportunity or access to hunting land.
Contraception simply doesn’t make much sense unless you’re in an isolated geography (e.g. an island or peninsula). With very rare exceptions, every trial has been a failure. I’m sure that, at some point, someone will come up with something that works… but short of spay and neuter for wildlife, there’s not much that can really be relied on.
Culling is really the only other effective method, and as I’ve said before, sport hunters aren’t the vehicle to achieve the necessary ends. It’s not fun to kill dozens or hundreds of animals without regard to age or sex. People here in CA have complained loudly about the professional killers hired to remove hogs and other non-native species from the Santa Cruz Islands, but the fact is that sport hunters haven’t been able to make a dent in them.
Once you’ve culled the herd, managing the regrowth is the next big problem. Urban deer or turkeys (or hogs) will come right back due to the absence of predators and the abundance of food. You can’t reintroduce mountain lions, wolves, or grizzlies in the urban environment, but maybe we can do things to control the food sources. This is where it really gets tricky.
One of the big things that would help is for law enforcement to crack down more seriously on people who are feeding wildlife. Where it’s not illegal, it should be, and the law should be enforced strictly.
As far as QDM as a culprit, I don’t know about that. I am not a big supporter of QDM on public lands, but I don’t think it’s necessarily contributing (in general) to overpopulation problems.
Wildlife management is still a nascent science, and I’m hardly an expert. I’ve worked and studied with some experts, though, and through that experience it’s pretty clear that we’re still a long ways from figuring out how to maintain a balance.
It would be interesting to know just what species Philip wants to ban the feeding of. Are song birds and squirrels included?
All you have to do is ask…
I’m primarily opposed (as are the authors of the article) to feeding big game…namely, deer… in unnatural habitat. So, for example, food plots on your back 40 would be fine, while dumping a bucket of feed in the backyard to bring them out of the woods so you and the kiddies can stare and take pictures is not.
You would think it would stand to reason that people wouldn’t feed animals like bears, but it happens every year in places like Lake Tahoe, CA and Boulder, CO … usually followed by the local constabulary being forced to kill the bears when they become a nuisance or a danger. Fed by humans equals dead by humans…especially when it comes to bears.
But I’m willing to go further, and say that I’m personally no big fan of any kind of backyard wildlife feeder that changes natural movement or habits. It’s screwing with a cycle that we’ve already thrown off-balance. I won’t go so far as to advocate banning bird feeders, but you won’t find one in my backyard.
Bring the Family to a Big Bear Vacation Rental…
With vacations few and far between and the difficulties that arise with attempting to coordinate a handful of busy schedules, when a trip is planned it better be worth the trouble. The best bet is to choose a destination with a little bit of everything…