Hi, I've read an article named "hunting myths and facts" when I was searching for arguments for and against hunting, and what do you think about it? It says that baiting deer with human food is dangerous and that wildlife agencies artificially raise deer populations before hunting season.
Hello, Iâm glad you asked! Before I get into it I just want to say that Iâm grateful you are doing some research, are willing to ask questions, and that we can have this conversation peacefully. I looked up the article that you are referencing and it does make some seemingly good points, but also seems biased and only scratches the surface. For anyone else who would like to read it: link. My partner is going to help me answer this because it is a very multifaceted topic- thus this will be a long post. Please note most of our experience is based on New York state.
Letâs first address the artificial overpopulation argument.The article seems to say that state agencies purposely create habitat that willincrease deer populations for hunting. They mention clear cutting and plantingfood plots.
It is true due to colonial clearcuts we have lost much of our old growth stands in America. However, allforests should not be old growth. In a natural setting forests go throughdisturbance (ice, wind, fire, natural inundation, etc), this resets what istypically referred to as forest succession. Some trees like the pitch pine Pinus regida have whatâs called aserotinous cone. These serotinous cones are glued shut and can only open torelease seeds once fire has partially burned them. They have adapted thisstrategy as they would be out competed by other trees which are less resistantto fire, so this tree saves its seeds until fire comes through. In the animalworld we have species like the Kirtlandâs warbler Setophaga kirtlandii, these birds can only nest in jack pines, Pinus banksiana less than 15 years old.The New England cottontail, Sylvolagustransitionalis is declining more than ever due to a lack of earlysuccession (freshly disturbed sites).
The main problem is disturbance forforests will also disturb humans. We suppress natural disturbances like fire.By encouraging sustainable logging (plant whatever you cut) you can maintainevery stage of forest succession while still providing forest products, jobs,and specialized habitat. For every species I mentioned that needs earlysuccession, thereâs an alternate species that requires old growth, or mid stagesuccession.
State agencies boast better deerhunting through clear-cutting because itâs true. It incentives the public bygetting clear-cuts on their side. Clear-cuts improve deer by improving theirhabitat â this is not the same thing as overpopulating deer. The bottom line iswhether it is for deer or not, clear cuts are necessary in a world where humansoccupy and control so much habitat.
        In mostcases food plots are not encouraged by state agencies. However, this does vary fromstate to state. As a former employee of the bureau of wildlife in the NYSdepartment of environmental conservation I want everyone to understand wildlifemanagement is more human management than anything else. When feeding deer wasfirst banned in New York it was such an ingrained practice in the Adirondackregion (I.E region 5 & 6) that not only did the people not stop, but policeofficers in the area refused to enforce the law. Most recently while I wasworking in region 3 we were seeking to eradicate mute swans, Cygnus olor. The mute swan destroysrooted plants, is incredibly aggressive, and without getting into too muchdetail is simply a horrible invasive species which is bad for native waterfowland wetlands. It seems like a no brainer, if we can aim to eliminate theharmful hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelgestsugae why not another destructive invasive species? In short the publicwas so outraged that the state government wanted to kill the âsymbol of loveâthe management plan was rapidly scratched. Just because something makes sensefrom a management perspective does not mean it can be implemented! My salary isnot paid by the tax payers, all management is not aided by nature lovers,hikers, bird watchers, or animal rights groups. My salary is paid by theRobert-Pittman act and hunting licenses. When you buy a gun and a huntinglicense youâre not just helping deer, youâre helping most species. State agenciesopenly want better deer hunting, however overpopulated deer do not generallymake for good hunting.
Would a Wildlife Management agency support hunting?Absolutely. People rarely raise money for biologists any other way. Thatâs alltrue. Hunting is not an incentive for the biologists who genuinely want to seea more sustainable ecosystem and understand wildlife, but rather the incentivefor the public to support them. What wildlife management units want is toencourage farmers to manage their land in a way that supports and preserveswildlife, instead of just pushing wildlife out and solely favoring âgameâ/deerto hunt. I donât think wildlife management workers have ever called for addingfood plots to state/federal land and refuges. Even though its public land it istypically illegal for the public to disturb the land by planting anything.Biologists are free to manage it as best for all wildlife and we can see thatfood plots to artificially boost deer populations are not part of the plan.This article is focusing on private land, where a biologists canât see afragmented and unhealthy habitat and just decide to fix it. They need toconvince the land owner that it will benefit them and most often land ownerswill only cooperate if it supports better hunting (even though itâs reallybenefiting soil, plants, birds, entire ecosystems, etc on top of it). Severalstate agencies even have programs to incentivize agricultural land owners totransform farmland into wetlands (wetland reserves programs) to decrease theeffects of soil erosion and support all native wildlife.
        Highways,lawns, agriculture, and roads provide more edge habitat than deer can use. Illegalfeeding, or unintentional feeding (ornamental plants or gardens), and wintershelter from homes all cause overpopulation. It has been observed that yardingdeer will often seek the warm of a home as a windbreak above conifer stands.Before hunting regulations the white-tail deer was near extirpated from NewYork. In fact New York did lose the wild turkey, Meleagris gallopavo from the 1850s until it was reintroduced inthe 1950âs. Now because of artificial help theyâre doing better than ever, andtheyâre doing especially well in communities without hunting. Suburban deer area nightmare in the world of wildlife biology.
        Withoutnatural predators and with all the artificial help deer can get, itâs no wonderthey are largely overpopulated in many areas. Most harvestable species arewhatâs called compensatory. State agencies only have hunters kill a proportionof the population that will be eliminated with or without humans. For example,roughly 20% of the mallard population, Anasplatyrhynchos will die every year. USFWS aims for hunters to take around10-11%. No matter if you have a very liberal season or a very conservativeseason, the amount of ducks dead does not change. We could allow the full 20%to die off and lose the economic value (hunting license, gas, coffee, ammo,staying at hotels, camping, etc), but in the case of many species that revenueis critical in protecting them. Humans destroy habitat, pollute ecosystems, andbuild projects right over key habitat. Without that revenue we wouldnât have aDEC or DNR to clean spills, conduct environmental impact statements, monitorpopulations, or survey for T&E species.
        It istrue you cannot have more species alive than the environment can support. Wesee an S shaped curve for the carrying capacity of many rabbits. The populationbooms, then busts. The problem with deer is we support them above the carryingcapacity indirectly. Many areas in Long Island, NY are overrun by deer with nopredators and no hunters. In some urban cases agencies hire trained sharpshooters to come and kill deer in the middle of the night. Eventually, yes youdo see the deer population drop, but itâll come right back with the problemsassociated. Why allow individuals to die of from disease and starvation when wecould be generating revenue for most other species, wildlife refuges, andbiologists to monitor the ecosystem. When DDTâs were decimating the eaglepopulation in the 1960âs and 70âs Robert-Pitman money generated by hunters surehelped state research scientists like Peter Nye (In NY) to figure out what wascausing the problem and how to fix it.
        Inshort, hunting is extremely important. The way humans are you wouldnât havedeer without regulatory hunting. People would definitely poach illegally and decimatepopulations without regulation (like what happened to the Passenger Pigeon) orunintentionally produce an overpopulation through simply owning a home andgarden. Overpopulations of deer encourage the very factors (disease, stuntedgrowth, early death (i.e smaller antlers)) hunters donât want to see. If theright amount of people harvest deer, you wonât have population booms and busts,youâll only have that compensatory portion of the population utilized. Thearticle also says that good genes are weeded out through hunting. The strongarenât necessarily the ones who survive when it comes to natural deaths, itâs agame of luck. The article argues that only trophy animals are hunted so thepopulationâs genes suffer, but hunting seasons begin during the end of thebreeding season. So any of the âtrophyâ deer that are harvested will stilllikely have offspring because they are usually the first to breed. It also doesnot give deer the credit they deserve. The biggest bucks are typically theoldest and they didnât get to that age by being stupid. Itâs arguable that theyrecognize the hunting season and will stay hidden away or in extremely ruralareas to avoid it. The majority of hunters will probably never even see deerpast the age of three years old during hunting season. Here is a journal thatattempts to determine the causes of the decline in bighorn horn sizes (theproblem mentioned in the article). It does not seem that hunting pressure is one of the main causes, even with thelargest trophies being sought out.
Finally my biggest issue is theending paragraph because they are so incredibly correct! And then they go tothe other extreme. No, not every person in America should hunt. That would becompletely unrealistic and decimate wildlife. People cannot be trusted when itcomes to moderation, and excess harvesting is no exception. For the same reasonthat everyone hunting wouldnât work, everyone becoming vegan would not work.Agriculture does a lot of native habitat damage and when harvested with machine(which would be unavoidable if every person was vegan) results in mass animaland insect death. The only way for everyone to be completely cruelty free is toeither sustainably gather wild edibles or grow your own food, preferablyharvesting wild invasives and growing plants without pesticides. Even thatposes a problem, if every person harvested their own wild edibles weâd depletethe natural resource.Â
So to conclude: things are neverever cut and dry. Yes, wildlife management does encourage hunting but thatargument does not necessarily provide all the facets that go into thatdecision. Yes, feeding deer with human food is definitely dangerous (hereâsa little handout about that), but farmers can be incentivized to plant thingslike clover that they will eat. Hunters can be jerks, Iâm not denying that, buthunting is not inherently about raising deer or trophies to kill for sport.Vegetarians are not wrong. Vegans are not wrong. The irony is we need ALL ofthese lifestyle variations to survive.Â
