I have several years experience in the environmental field, and ecology. Some of you might consider some of my views "green", but I hunt and I ride ATV's. (Not all environmental people are radicals - most of us are pretty reasonable!) I was formerly opposed to hunting, until I saw the number of dead deer on the highways, the number of deer in public places (we had one in a hotel lobby in Pittsburgh recently), and realized some basic concepts of ecology.

We humans have created an environment for animals where natural predators to the deer (wolves, etc..) are so rare that they can't control the deer population, as nature would do on it's own. Too many deer are not only bad for the deer, but harmful to us (i.e. road kill and the damage to cars and drivers, deer eating your garbage, garden etc., and too frequent human-deer encounters.) Would people rather the deer overfeed, and exceed the carrying capacity of the land, and end up starving to death? What is more cruel?

Since we have created this situation, we also have the responsibility to do something about it. Hunting is a way to try to control the deer population. Game Commissions in states sell an appropriate amount of licences to curb the number of deer. The system is far from perfect, but is the best we have.

I'll be the first to tell you that using a gun or bow gives the hunter some advantage, but not as much as you might think. The deer are fast, have better eyes, better smell, better hearing, and know the area better. They know where you are usually before you know they are there.

Too often, hunters are portrayed as stupid, poor, teeth-deficient, red-necks with a gun and the need for something to shoot with it. How far from the truth. Hunters I know eat what they shoot, many even give a portion to food banks where it is greatly appreciated. These people are sportsmen, who care about the environment - and want it around for their kids to enjoy, as they have.

Until somebody comes up with a better method, this is what we have. Some have suggested that the government agencies use birth-control laced food to control the population. Yeah right. Who's gonna pay for that? How is dosage going to be controled? It won't work.

Just my two cents.

 

jburgland,

Great post, you hit the nail on the head.

The deer population in Iowa has exploded in the last ten years. Hunting is a needed means of population control in our state. It is even rumored that the DNR has released mountain lions in certain areas to try to control the deer population.

 

Word here in PA is that the Timber Wolf will be (or is being - not sure) reintroduced in some of the more rural areas. I don't know if the reason is for deer control or not, but I can't imagine that a few wolves will have all that much effect. The real problem with deer in PA is in the semi-rural areas, just outside the suburbs. Houses are too close together to hunt safely (and we all want that), but there is enough cover for the deer to live pretty well. The state can't put Timber Wolves in these locations, or any other predator to control the deer population.

On the flip side, there is always the debate about the wolves killing livestock etc.. there is no getting around that this is a tough issue.

I agree with re-introducing wildlife, if the environment is right for the animal. Unfortunately, there isn't much virgin area left in the east for any signifigent re-introductions of top level predators. Hence - the need for hunters.