Spencer Hunt, reports in the Columbus Dispatch (November 4, 2008) that by 1904, after decades of unlimited hunting, the white-tailed deer was wiped out in Ohio. But, a century later, state wildlife officials estimate Ohio's current deer population at 650,000, an estimate that doesn't include thousands of deer living in metro parks, suburban areas and city fringes. John C. (Jack) Fisher, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation executive vice president, (Our Ohio Magazine, March/April/May 2007) said just 20 years ago, Ohio had only 150,000 deer.
Mike Tonkovich, the state's deer biologist, and Lisa Petit, Cuyahoga Valley National Park's science and resource manager, said, "Deer coexist well with nature when there are 15 to 20 per square mile of habitat." The Ohio Department of Natural Resources estimates that deer exceed 25 per square mile in 23 Ohio counties, primarily in the east and southeast.
Habitat Improvement By Housing Development
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) sheds more light on the problem: "Deer thrive and find abundant food in habitats where woodlands are interspersed with open areas. When wooded areas become housing developments, some sections are cleared for roads and home sites, while with others remain forested; new homeowners then plant ornamental shrubs and seed the yard. When open farmland is developed, new residents plant trees in addition to shrubs and seeded lawns. Both of these types of development actually improve habitat for deer. At the same time, hunting within the forested or agricultural landscapes is either eliminated or restricted, affording deer both improved habitat with reduced mortality, resulting in elevated deer populations."
Lisa Petit said that when deer exceed that population density, they begin to overgraze, killing out wildflowers and tree seedlings. Severe destruction of native plant growth in state forests can result. And, as a consequence, that leaves fewer habitats for other animals, including ground- and shrub-nesting birds such as hooded warblers, wood thrush and Acadian flycatchers. "It also affects a forest's ability to replace older, dying trees with new growth," Tonkovich said.
Highways and Farms
Making things worse, the herd has grown while open space has shrunk, so as the states turn their habitat into housing tracts, they're forcing the deer onto freeways and farms. This is costly in dollars and in human injury.
Making things worse, the herd has grown while open space has shrunk, so as the states turn their habitat into housing tracts, they're forcing the deer onto freeways and farms. This is costly in dollars and in human injury.
And, of course deer overpopulation increases automobile accidents. According to the Ohio Department of Public Safety, 26,304 deer-vehicle collisions were reported in 2007. There were 10 deaths and 1,022 injuries. There were 24,590 deer-vehicle collisions in 2008, down 6.5 percent from the crashes reported in 2007. There were 6 fatalities and 979 injuries caused by these crashes.
The Insurance Information Institute (III) says vehicle damage from deer collisions averages about $3,000 per claim nationally. Crashes that include bodily injury could increase costs significantly. The Ohio Insurance Institute estimates Ohio auto damages approached $73.7 million in 2008 based on average costs per claim.
Most deer crashes occur in the months of October through January, followed by May. The highest-risk periods are from sunset to midnight, followed by the hours shortly before and after sunrise. Using its claims data, State Farm predicts the likelihood of a deer-vehicle collision over the next year at 1 in 161 in Ohio. This compares to the U.S. likelihood of 1 in 208.
Hunting Does
While deer produce more fawns when they are better nourished, reducing the population won’t necessarily increase breeding rates among the remaining deer because deer are already producing at their maximum rate, Larry Katz, director of Rutgers Cooperative Extension said. “Deer thrive in close proximity to people,” said Katz, “We’ve created the environment for a large deer population. If we don’t control it, it gets out of hand.”
“When you’re dealing with free-ranging animals that can move in and out over a large landscape, the only tool available now is hunting,” said Paul D. Curtis, a Cornell professor and extension wildlife specialist.Trophy hunting for bucks won’t cut it, however, because just a few bucks can repopulate a herd, said Mr. Curtis, so only females should be targeted.
Proposed Solutions
1. The first option usually championed by the non-hunting public is non-lethal means. One technique is trap and transfer. Opponents say the high cost is between $2,000 and $3,000 per animal with taxpayers footing the bill.Their research has shown that some animals perish during the process from stress or physical injuries. Still more succumb to stress after being released. And many of the remaining survivors later perish as a direct result of being transferred to a new/foreign environment. (Bob Humphrey, www.bowhuntingmag.com) Besides, where would you put them when this transporting is ill-advised, and may be illegal.
2. The other non-lethal means is immunocontraception. The most common contraceptive drugs available require two treatments the first year, followed by an annual booster--for every breeding female in the population. Some treated does may continue to cycle as many as five times. In addition to the high number of treatments, opponents of immunocontraception say that due to their survival instincts, it is difficult to trap a large number of deer. It is also very time consuming and costly. Failure rates range from moderate to high under tightly controlled FDA experimentation. Additionally, all untreated deer must be prevented from entering the area, or all the efforts are for naught.
3. The first lethal solution often considered is sharpshooters or culling. Opponents say these methods may be acceptable in the short term but are also expensive and even an abuse of public trust since deer are public property, therefore owned by the citizens as a renewable, harvestable, revenue-generating recreational opportunity. If so, then, how can the State tax people to pay professional "hit men"? (Bob Humphrey, www.bowhuntingmag.com) Also, the potential for accidents from high-powered firearms is not a risk that most city councils and parks departments, not to mention local residents, are willing to take. This method may not be be cost effective either.
4. According to Tom Brissee ("Urban Deer Control," www.strictlybowhunting.com, 2000) bowhunting has been proven to be a safe and effective way for the public to reduce deer population. Brissee says the cost to the city councils and parks departments is minimal.In fact, the hunters involved in these highly organized hunts are often trained volunteers who donate their time. Although opponents claim these animals endure prolonged suffering before they collapse and die while surviving deer remain unfound and are are merely wounded and crippled, bowhunters disagree.
When the deer are harvested they can be taken home by the hunters themselves or donated to local food shelfs, providing much needed, inexpensive nourishment for the needy. Brissee believes one of the keys to success is educating the non-hunting public.
Local bowhunting co-ops are also springing up in some exurban areas. They recruit members who can demonstrate experience and responsibility. They then match them with property owners. Most provide their services for free, and many carry insurance that removes any liability from the property owner.
Groups such as the Ohio Bowhunters Association work closely with the Ohio Department of Natural Resource as well as with the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance. Also, the International Bowhunting Organization is an active resource in the buckeye state.
No comments:
Post a Comment