WHAT'S WRONG WITH DEER HUNTING?
The purpose of this document is to provide animal protection
activists with a set of rational counter-arguments against the most
common reasons given by hunters to justify killing deer for sport.
It deals primarily with deer hunting in North America, and the United States in particular..
"Hunting controls deer populations effectively."
Hunters can certainly try to argue - although their case isn't as
clear-cut as it may at first sound - that the current system of
artificial predation is kinder to the deer, but they cannot argue
that it is "natural". They also cannot argue that it is best for the
deer, most efficient, or even the most scientific approach. They can
only argue that it gives them the most reliable supply of healthy
"surplus" deer to "harvest" each year.
Killing the most magnificent specimens is hardly the way to ensure the
long term viability of the herd. If deer hunters really wanted to do
their part for the health of the deer herds, they would hunt as do
natural predators, by killing old, sick, injured and emaciated
animals, and even fawns unable to find enough food, as their first
choice. Again, don't expect that to happen for the foreseeable future.
* Bucks lose their antlers every Winter or Spring, and have to
completely regrow them the following year.
* Antler size is directly dependent on the amount of high quality
forage the buck is able to eat.
* Deer depend on their teeth to process most plant foods for
digestion.
* "Trophy Bucks" are so-called because of their magnificent antlers
and large size.
Trophy bucks are usually from three to five years old, so instead of
killing "old" animals, trophy hunters are killing deer that range in
human- equivalent age from 18 to perhaps 50. They are killing bucks
who are still in their prime, and they are killing many more before
they can even *reach* their prime. This is hardly an act of kindness
or of beneficial selection. A related claim is that killing Trophy Bucks allows younger bucks to
"get their chance to reproduce". This would happen anyway, if the
dominant bucks were allowed to 'age out' of their position in the
herd, instead of being killed before their natural work of breeding is
finished, as is the case now. Deer didn't evolve over a million years
aided by human hunters; they did it on their own, and under conditions
that current hunting practices do not duplicate...or even attempt to
duplicate.
"People who oppose deer hunting suffer from "Bambi Syndrome." It's true that some hunting opponents tend to assign to animals
like deer attributes that are more human-like than may be appropriate.
This "Bambi-ism" is not as universal as hunters would like to believe,
however, and the real irony is that hunters themselves suffer from
their own anthropocentric delusion. This delusion is that, by killing
healthy deer, they are "saving" them from the very population control
that they have experienced for approximately a million years.
Starvation for deer is certainly not pleasant, but it is the natural
(and let's not forget the importance that hunters place on that
concept) way for deer to die when they are overpopulated. It is much
more natural, in fact, than for them to be killed while plump and in
their prime - or younger. Killing a starving deer may well be a
kindness, but killing a healthy, well-fed deer is not.
"Humans have a natural instinct to hunt."
If so, then we are certainly remarkably bad at expressing this
alleged instinct. Less than 8% of the
activists with a set of rational counter-arguments against the most
common reasons given by hunters to justify killing deer for sport.
It deals primarily with deer hunting in North America, and the United States in particular..
"Hunting controls deer populations effectively."
No, it doesn't, for two reasons. First, buck hunting, which is the
mainstay of this "sport", is virtually useless in effectively managing
deer populations. Why? Because deer are not monogamous, and a single
surviving male in a population of deer can impregnate all of the
surviving females. Doe hunting can offer some measure of control, but
despite their claims to the contrary, most sport hunters have merely
a slight interest in hunting does. The only really effective lethal
controlling measure against deer, however, is killing does. Our
current system of game management allows does to be killed mainly to
leave enough forage to produce another year's worth of "Trophy Bucks".
There must always be a yearly "surplus" of deer to satisfy the hunters
who are essentially the paying customers of wildlife managers. This
arrangement places the interests of the hunters above the goal of
having a biologically ideal, diverse deer population.
Second, not only does killing substantial numbers of male deer not
prevent an immediate resurgence in population, it actually works to
help bring about this resurgence. Why? Because most wild animal
populations have evolved a response to large die-offs: they produce
more offspring. In the case of deer, especially whitetails, does who
would normally have one or two fawns will 'respond' to a drop in herd
population by having two or three fawns the following year. This is
due both to the increase in high-quality food brought about by the
reduction in the herd and to the herd reduction itself; the sudden
drop in population appears to be a direct trigger for increased
reproduction .
mainstay of this "sport", is virtually useless in effectively managing
deer populations. Why? Because deer are not monogamous, and a single
surviving male in a population of deer can impregnate all of the
surviving females. Doe hunting can offer some measure of control, but
despite their claims to the contrary, most sport hunters have merely
a slight interest in hunting does. The only really effective lethal
controlling measure against deer, however, is killing does. Our
current system of game management allows does to be killed mainly to
leave enough forage to produce another year's worth of "Trophy Bucks".
There must always be a yearly "surplus" of deer to satisfy the hunters
who are essentially the paying customers of wildlife managers. This
arrangement places the interests of the hunters above the goal of
having a biologically ideal, diverse deer population.
Second, not only does killing substantial numbers of male deer not
prevent an immediate resurgence in population, it actually works to
help bring about this resurgence. Why? Because most wild animal
populations have evolved a response to large die-offs: they produce
more offspring. In the case of deer, especially whitetails, does who
would normally have one or two fawns will 'respond' to a drop in herd
population by having two or three fawns the following year. This is
due both to the increase in high-quality food brought about by the
reduction in the herd and to the herd reduction itself; the sudden
drop in population appears to be a direct trigger for increased
reproduction .
This information is not secret or controversial. Quite
the contrary: game managers include it in their calculations when they
decide how many deer are to be killed. If these managers were truly
interested in controlling populations for the benefit of the deer, as
opposed to keeping them at artificially high annual levels, they would
ban most buck hunting and instead issue licenses to kill only does,
and only when needed - generally once every two to three years. Such
hunts would only be needed every few years because only does can
replenish the herds by increasing fawn births. Between that and the
ban on bucks, however, this kind of lethal control would be wildly
unpopular with hunters, and so will not be enacted. Remember, however, that when game managers really need to
reduce populations of deer, they increase the number of doe killing
permits issued. "Hunting is the natural way to control deer populations." This argument is both widely used and widely accepted, but it ignores
a crucial fact: many prey populations increase and decrease much more
quickly than predator populations. If nonhuman predation really were
the primary factor in controlling wild populations of deer, then one
would expect to see relatively stable populations of both kinds of
animals in the wild. Instead, what has been observed in the absence of
human intervention is a gradual but pronounced 'up and down swing' in
both deer and predator populations, with the predator populations
lagging behind both the increases and decreases. Why does this happen?
Because it is starvation, not predation, that is the primary control
on most truly wild deer populations. (Deer living in mature forests,
with wolves as their primary predator, do tend to have more stable
populations. This is because food in this environment is more limited
on an ongoing basis, as long as the forest remains undisturbed.) When a herd of deer first enters an area with abundant nourishing
plant food, their population increases rapidly over the course of two
or three years. As the population of deer 'explodes', the number of
carnivores who prey on them, like canids and large felines, begins to
increase, albeit at a slower rate. The plants upon which the deer feed
are unable to replenish themselves as quickly as they are consumed or
damaged, and the food supply eventually undergoes a rapid decline.
Before the population of predators can expand enough to effectively
halt the growth of the deer population through predation, the food
supply runs out. Deer begin to starve, and over the course of another
one to three years, the population of deer collapses, leaving only
some of the strongest individuals. As the "doomed surplus" deer die of
starvation, the predators receive what may at first seem like a
blessing: plenty of easy prey to eat and scavenge. Their populations
continue to expand
Once the mass starvation of deer has slowed and then stopped, however,
the predators in turn face starvation. Some of them relocate over
large distances to find food, while others die. It is this sequence of
events that produces the 'lag' in deer predator populations compared
with prey populations, and it is this cycle that disproves the myth
that it is predation that naturally controls wild deer populations
outside of mature forests.
the contrary: game managers include it in their calculations when they
decide how many deer are to be killed. If these managers were truly
interested in controlling populations for the benefit of the deer, as
opposed to keeping them at artificially high annual levels, they would
ban most buck hunting and instead issue licenses to kill only does,
and only when needed - generally once every two to three years. Such
hunts would only be needed every few years because only does can
replenish the herds by increasing fawn births. Between that and the
ban on bucks, however, this kind of lethal control would be wildly
unpopular with hunters, and so will not be enacted. Remember, however, that when game managers really need to
reduce populations of deer, they increase the number of doe killing
permits issued. "Hunting is the natural way to control deer populations." This argument is both widely used and widely accepted, but it ignores
a crucial fact: many prey populations increase and decrease much more
quickly than predator populations. If nonhuman predation really were
the primary factor in controlling wild populations of deer, then one
would expect to see relatively stable populations of both kinds of
animals in the wild. Instead, what has been observed in the absence of
human intervention is a gradual but pronounced 'up and down swing' in
both deer and predator populations, with the predator populations
lagging behind both the increases and decreases. Why does this happen?
Because it is starvation, not predation, that is the primary control
on most truly wild deer populations. (Deer living in mature forests,
with wolves as their primary predator, do tend to have more stable
populations. This is because food in this environment is more limited
on an ongoing basis, as long as the forest remains undisturbed.) When a herd of deer first enters an area with abundant nourishing
plant food, their population increases rapidly over the course of two
or three years. As the population of deer 'explodes', the number of
carnivores who prey on them, like canids and large felines, begins to
increase, albeit at a slower rate. The plants upon which the deer feed
are unable to replenish themselves as quickly as they are consumed or
damaged, and the food supply eventually undergoes a rapid decline.
Before the population of predators can expand enough to effectively
halt the growth of the deer population through predation, the food
supply runs out. Deer begin to starve, and over the course of another
one to three years, the population of deer collapses, leaving only
some of the strongest individuals. As the "doomed surplus" deer die of
starvation, the predators receive what may at first seem like a
blessing: plenty of easy prey to eat and scavenge. Their populations
continue to expand
Once the mass starvation of deer has slowed and then stopped, however,
the predators in turn face starvation. Some of them relocate over
large distances to find food, while others die. It is this sequence of
events that produces the 'lag' in deer predator populations compared
with prey populations, and it is this cycle that disproves the myth
that it is predation that naturally controls wild deer populations
outside of mature forests.
Weather and other environmental conditions
have also been observed to have a more pronounced effect on deer
populations than do predators: a harsh Winter will decimate deer herds
on a scale that wolves and big cats don't approach, although this can
be partially masked by predators killing starving or stranded animals
that are destined to die in any event. The interactions between
predator and prey populations can be quite complex, but if we want to
reduce them to one simplistic scenario, then for typical deer herds at
least, that scenario is not "predators control prey populations". It
is, instead, "prey populations control predator populations".
populations than do predators: a harsh Winter will decimate deer herds
on a scale that wolves and big cats don't approach, although this can
be partially masked by predators killing starving or stranded animals
that are destined to die in any event. The interactions between
predator and prey populations can be quite complex, but if we want to
reduce them to one simplistic scenario, then for typical deer herds at
least, that scenario is not "predators control prey populations". It
is, instead, "prey populations control predator populations".
Food supply primarily controls the prey populations. Human habitation and,
especially, agriculture have greatly changed the original dynamic, and
it is thus hard to argue against some kind of human intervention in
deer herd populations. We do have plenty of reasons, however, to argue
against the current system, which is run by game managers for the
benefit of hunters.
especially, agriculture have greatly changed the original dynamic, and
it is thus hard to argue against some kind of human intervention in
deer herd populations. We do have plenty of reasons, however, to argue
against the current system, which is run by game managers for the
benefit of hunters.
Hunters can certainly try to argue - although their case isn't as
clear-cut as it may at first sound - that the current system of
artificial predation is kinder to the deer, but they cannot argue
that it is "natural". They also cannot argue that it is best for the
deer, most efficient, or even the most scientific approach. They can
only argue that it gives them the most reliable supply of healthy
"surplus" deer to "harvest" each year.
Deer have gone from being completely wild animals to being essentially semi-wild "resources", subject to both artificial measures (like forestry) that increase
their numbers, and to being "harvested" by hunters who are deluded
into thinking that they are acting out some age-old drama of carnivore
and prey. We convert old-growth forest (which tends to limit deer
breeding by limiting the food supply) to farm fields that allow deer
to breed unchecked, while displacing them from their increasingly
scarce wild habitat into the suburbs that we build over it...and then
we blame the deer.
Another, related argument used by hunters is that hunting keeps deer
populations "healthy". If one accepts that natural selection has
proven itself to be the most effective way for populations to survive
and adapt, then current deer hunting practices are, if anything,
counter-productive. By hunting plump does and prime "Trophy Bucks",
deer hunters are in fact practicing a form of 'unnatural selection'.
their numbers, and to being "harvested" by hunters who are deluded
into thinking that they are acting out some age-old drama of carnivore
and prey. We convert old-growth forest (which tends to limit deer
breeding by limiting the food supply) to farm fields that allow deer
to breed unchecked, while displacing them from their increasingly
scarce wild habitat into the suburbs that we build over it...and then
we blame the deer.
Another, related argument used by hunters is that hunting keeps deer
populations "healthy". If one accepts that natural selection has
proven itself to be the most effective way for populations to survive
and adapt, then current deer hunting practices are, if anything,
counter-productive. By hunting plump does and prime "Trophy Bucks",
deer hunters are in fact practicing a form of 'unnatural selection'.
Killing the most magnificent specimens is hardly the way to ensure the
long term viability of the herd. If deer hunters really wanted to do
their part for the health of the deer herds, they would hunt as do
natural predators, by killing old, sick, injured and emaciated
animals, and even fawns unable to find enough food, as their first
choice. Again, don't expect that to happen for the foreseeable future.
"It's ok to kill "Trophy Bucks". They are old and will die soon anyway." This one is just nonsense. Why? Because of the following facts:
* Old deer usually die of starvation, unless they are injured.
* This starvation, unless due to an inadequate food supply, occurs
because their teeth have worn down to the point where they no longer
function well enough to adequately chew food.
because their teeth have worn down to the point where they no longer
function well enough to adequately chew food.
* Bucks lose their antlers every Winter or Spring, and have to
completely regrow them the following year.
* Antler size is directly dependent on the amount of high quality
forage the buck is able to eat.
* Deer depend on their teeth to process most plant foods for
digestion.
* "Trophy Bucks" are so-called because of their magnificent antlers
and large size.
What all this means is that any buck able to grow a set of "trophy"
quality antlers has perfectly adequate teeth, and is thus *not*
particularly old. Most "Trophy Bucks" are generally between the ages
of three and five years, while "old age" with its attendant worn-out
teeth usually begins no earlier than seven to nine years of age. Deer
with constant access to soft food that doesn't require thorough
chewing have been known to live into their mid-teens and beyond. Tooth
wear is a good enough indicator of age that it is often used by
wildlife biologists to estimate age. A genuinely old buck will be at
least slightly emaciated, and will have small, misshapen antlers. You
won't find many of these though, because the average age of bucks
killed by hunters is now down to about two years - less in some areas.
quality antlers has perfectly adequate teeth, and is thus *not*
particularly old. Most "Trophy Bucks" are generally between the ages
of three and five years, while "old age" with its attendant worn-out
teeth usually begins no earlier than seven to nine years of age. Deer
with constant access to soft food that doesn't require thorough
chewing have been known to live into their mid-teens and beyond. Tooth
wear is a good enough indicator of age that it is often used by
wildlife biologists to estimate age. A genuinely old buck will be at
least slightly emaciated, and will have small, misshapen antlers. You
won't find many of these though, because the average age of bucks
killed by hunters is now down to about two years - less in some areas.
Trophy bucks are usually from three to five years old, so instead of
killing "old" animals, trophy hunters are killing deer that range in
human- equivalent age from 18 to perhaps 50. They are killing bucks
who are still in their prime, and they are killing many more before
they can even *reach* their prime. This is hardly an act of kindness
or of beneficial selection. A related claim is that killing Trophy Bucks allows younger bucks to
"get their chance to reproduce". This would happen anyway, if the
dominant bucks were allowed to 'age out' of their position in the
herd, instead of being killed before their natural work of breeding is
finished, as is the case now. Deer didn't evolve over a million years
aided by human hunters; they did it on their own, and under conditions
that current hunting practices do not duplicate...or even attempt to
duplicate.
"People who oppose deer hunting suffer from "Bambi Syndrome." It's true that some hunting opponents tend to assign to animals
like deer attributes that are more human-like than may be appropriate.
This "Bambi-ism" is not as universal as hunters would like to believe,
however, and the real irony is that hunters themselves suffer from
their own anthropocentric delusion. This delusion is that, by killing
healthy deer, they are "saving" them from the very population control
that they have experienced for approximately a million years.
Starvation for deer is certainly not pleasant, but it is the natural
(and let's not forget the importance that hunters place on that
concept) way for deer to die when they are overpopulated. It is much
more natural, in fact, than for them to be killed while plump and in
their prime - or younger. Killing a starving deer may well be a
kindness, but killing a healthy, well-fed deer is not.
"Humans have a natural instinct to hunt."
If so, then we are certainly remarkably bad at expressing this
alleged instinct. Less than 8% of the
Humans are and always have been opportunistic omnivores, and for us hunting has always been something that we did to acquire food or fur or skin, and also to varying degrees as a cultural activity, not one that we are driven to engage in by our very natures. Even if one accepts the shaky proposition that we have an instinct to hunt (and biologists are becoming increasingly reluctant to use the word "instinct" to describe any human behavior), this "instinct" is clearly a weak one, and, like some of our other less than noble inclinations, we would be the better for ignoring it. There are far more rewarding ways for us to interact
with and protect our environment than by killing for sport. by Michael Cerkowski.
with and protect our environment than by killing for sport. by Michael Cerkowski.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment