Population Control Of The North American White Tailed Deer

The national Park Service viewed the environmental impact of the deer population based on the high percentage of deer that was destroying field crops. And what was the best means of control for the problem with no adverse effects on the environment. The National Park Serviced environmentally preferred alternative is,

In conclusion each side has so much evidence that proves that method unsafe, and unhealthy for the deer that I feel that another alternative should be found. If hunting increases population, influences children to kill, leaves unclaimed deer to suffer a slow death and leave only unhealthy males to breed I wouldn’t want that to be used as a solution. It would seem logical then to reintroduce natural predators that were long ago exhausted by hunters because this is what the original population control solely was. Sadly though the deer’s natural habitats have already been taken away, along with their natural predators. The deer can no longer control their population by themselves. They will continue to breed and reproduce until their food supply is exhausted which leads to disease, starvation and habitat degradation. If nature were originally let free in the first place to run it’s course, hunting would not be a necessity. However it is not possible to reintroduce the wolf and mountain lion into these places that they originally occupied because now these areas are populated with humans.

According to the Sierra Club W.I.N. Committee regarding deer in Harriman State Park (NY) the hunting of deer creates a terribly inhumane situation. The hunting of these deer results in devastating health conditions for the whole population of deer, as well as its predators. A lot of people say that the “starvation argument” is nothing more than an excuse to hunt deer—often with disastrous consequences for deer, large predators, and natural lands where habitat is destructively manipulated. ( Sierra Club W.I.N. Committee, 1982)

According to the New Jersey Animal Rights alliance or the (NJRA) hunting increases deer populations. “ When hunting is introduced to a stable herd, everything is thrown out of balance. When a large number of deer are removed from a herd, competition for food, water, space, and breeding opportunities is reduced. The reaction of the herd, to the sudden kill, is increased breeding.” (Chaifetz, 1997, p.2) The department of Environmental Conservation and hunting circles seems to agree. “ Hunting maximizes fawn production…more animals are produced for the gun.” Dozens of state game management and university studies show that deer instinctively regulate their pregnancy rates based on the forest food supply. When competition for food is normal, a mature doe may bring one fawn into the world. But if the does are well fed—as when hunters drastically reduce the population—the surviving females will produce many more deer that the forest can feed. They will have twin fawns, or will become mothers at age one instead of the normal age of two, which results in an overpopulation problem the following year. (Syracuse Post Standard, 2001)

If birth control means that these deer would be suffering deformed fetuses, abortions, a major and unnatural change in the sex ratio and an interrupted breeding season that results in deer who produce young that will probably not survive the winter, I’d rather not be forced to make such a decision myself. You’re generally required to choose the lesser of two evils, which doesn’t seem fair to the deer that are being tossed around.

Some topics in this essay:
Kirkpatrick Turner, WIN Committee, Hunters Hungry, Joe Ognibene, Bell Peterle, Post Standard, Environmental Conservation, Fed Register, Animal Rights, North America, population control, deer population, natural predators, regulated hunting, birth control, club win committee, win committee, national park, club win, sierra club, sierra club win, nettles 1996, win committee 1982, post standard 2001, produce probably survive,