Found here and heard on a recent television show:
*
Researchers believe that the United States has more deer today than when Columbus landed in the New World. *
How do you estimate 15th century deer populations?
You look for old remains of deer, you look for historical records of insurance companies paying out for deer-related damage to farmers’ fields, you look for contemporary accounts of hunters and how hard or easy it was for them to find deer, you run ecological models based on the amount of forested land and the wolf populations at the time, you look at current and recent trends of deer numbers and extrapolate them.
You might also estimate the number of predators which have been largely removed in modern times and their effect of keeping the deer population in check.
It’s also not entirely unreasonable based even on recorded history.
There are more deer now than 100 years ago. We effectively eliminated predation from wolves, cougars, bears, alligators, etc, and we don’t hunt as much as we used to. The predator/prey cycle is totally busted.
The problem is actually working to limit deer overpopulation. There are several different methods for doing this, including forced relocation, sterilization, controlled hunts, and even attempts to reintroduce predators to the wild.
Is there a breakdown on which species of deer are more populous and which are endangered(or even extinct)? Just because there are more overall might not be for the good.
I don’t know what the deer population was in Columbus’ day, but it’s NOT at all hard to believe there are far more deer in many places than there used to be.
In most respects, a modern American suburb is a much more hospitable environment for deer than it was 500 years ago. Seriously, humans drive out all the predators that used to eat deer, they plant nice lush green lawns, they plant yummy bushes and flowers, and they water those lawns and plants all year long.
Sure, a few deer here and there get hit by cars, but otherwise? In suburbs, humans have created ideal places for deer to live and breed.
You may infer something from historic ecological systems. In the 15th century, most of eastern North America was forested. Today forests cover only a fraction of their former area. Deer are not creatures of the forest, but rather creatures of the edge, the ecotone between forest (where they prefer to hide and sleep) and grasslands or mixed vegetation (where they like to feed). Think of “farm country” with fields separated by hedgerows and forested bottomlands (where row crops are not economic) versus solid forest. Today’s habitats are far more deer friendly than the forests that greeted Columbus.
We have deer overpopulation now, resulting in massive deer death by starvation every winter. That cycle wouldn’t continue if the ratio to predators had been maintained. On the other hand, we have a lot less of other species.
I suspect this data is rather scarce for the 15th century in North America.
Seeing a deer used to be worth stopping the car for. They were beautiful, mysterious creatures.
Now I see them eating from flower pots in front yards on a daily basis. They are pests.
This change happened within my lifetime and I’m only 32.
Not just because of the absence of farms; the concept of property insurance didn’t arise until after the (second) Great Fire of London in 1666. Before that, insurance only existed in the form of shipping cooperatives who would help merchants pool the risks associated with transporting goods by sea.
Certainly, though, we can look at 18th+ century records and establish trends.
The number of deer in the 15th century is clearly not well established, but we can look at fairly accurate numbers for deer population now, and populations now in other areas similar to 15th century North America and make some reasonable assumptions, even though they aren’t conclusive.
Yeah, those 15th century suburbs were harsh! 
This is also true for crows. We’ve had a number of threads on how crow populations are soaring. Probably more coyotes and rodents, too.
I thought Chronos was kidding about that! If not, I’d love to know the earliest instance of insurance payoff for crop damage due to deer depredation, just for grins and giggles. I’ll be surprised if it’s earlier than the 19th century, and astounded if earlier than the 18th.
Regardless, I suspect there are far too many confounding circumstances spread over a huge geographic area for this to have any utility in establishing trends. Things like kinds of crop grown and seasonality of crop (influencing attractiveness to deer), types of agricultural practices (homestead farms, commercial farms, row crops, livestock, forestry), social and economic factors influencing insurance availability, prevalence of market hunting of deer, and lots more.
I still think that a general vegetative analysis, even just “forest versus not-forest”, will be easier, as well as a better predictor of probable deer population levels.
I think I know why there are more deer now. Propaganda and brainwashing.
Perhaps some have been counting those deer statues and cutouts people put in their yard also.
More deer, certainly. Probably more coyotes, armadillos, opossums, crows, and all the other animals that have learned to exploit urban and suburban environments.
This (probably) does not come close to balancing the loss of bison, wolves, cougars, seals, otters, beavers, and every other creature.
Anyone who has been driving for the last 30 to 40 years or so can tell you there are more deer here in the mid-Atlantic region. Back in the day, you’d seldom see deer. I remember the first time I spotted a road kill deer on the way to work, because it was something to mention around the coffee pot. Now it’s a once a week occurrence. I’ve hit one myself, and had 2 close calls.
And you kids get off my lawn.
A factor unmentioned so far is that deer live in forests, and forest is increasing.
I know that sounds impossible but it’s probably true; as much as people love to cut down trees, they also love to prevent and control forest fires, and in recent years they’ve also gotten a lot better (at least in North America) at replacing the trees they cut down with more trees. Deer also flourish in suburbs, golf courses, and other land areas that are not technically “forest” as defined by the people who define such things.
Deer, like a lot of animals, will generally grow to the limits of their habitat; they can’t grow beyond the limit of the available habitat, or they starve. The recovery of North American forestation levels has a lot to do with deer populations increasing.
RickJay, please see Post 7. Deer use forested areas for shelter, but less so for food. A solid forest will support very few deer. Break it up with cleared areas, whether fields or suburbs, and the ecotones support far more deer.