An article in Science Daily about there being too many deer in some English wild areas suggests the wrong solution to the problem. Their solution is to encourage human hunters by promoting the consumption of wild venison. This seems wrong on too many levels.
Human hunters are not the best way to control just about any animal. They either over hunt or hunt the wrong animals. Hasn’t that been proven over and over again? Also, isn’t hunting by humans a steadily decreasing activity? It is here in Oregon, but I don’t know about Britain.
What they should do is reintroduce the deer’s natural predators. Yes, wolves. It’s the best way to re-establish balance to the ecology. That, I believe, has been proven as well.
The human population density of England is higher than almost all US states. There is no practical habitat for wolves to live in, short of a few reserves where deer population isn’t really an issue anyway.
The reason the population is expanding in some areas is due to deer foraging crops from farms, and I can assure you the farmers don’t want wolves around, killing their livestock and pets (which would be a lot easier to catch than wild deer).
It would maybe be possible for wolves to be reintroduced in some of the remoter areas of the Scottish Highlands, but in the over 400 years since they have played any part of the English ecosystem, the landscape and habitats have been changed to something completely unsuitable for wolves.
Sounds great, until the wolves grow in number because THEY don’t have any natural predators. They will also become accustomed to humans and start attacking humans and and pets.
It’s happened with coyotes here. A woman I know was reading in her yard in Gloucester (MA) (not the boonies at all) and turned around to see a coyote walking up behind her. They have attacked pets and kids.
It’s happened with coyotes here. A woman I know was reading in her yard in Gloucester (MA) (not the boonies at all) and turned around to see a coyote walking up behind her. They have attacked pets and kids.
[/QUOTE]
*"Coyote attacks on people are very rare…Often, coyote attacks are preventable by modifying human behavior and educating people about ways to prevent habituation. In many human attack incidents, it turns out that the offending coyote was being fed by people. In many other instances, people were bitten while trying to rescue their free-roaming pet from a coyote attack. Less often, people are bitten by cornered coyotes, or even more rarely, rabid coyotes.
There have only been two recorded incidences in the United States and Canada of humans being killed by coyotes. One involved a child in Southern California in the 1980s and the other a 19-year old woman in Nova Scotia in 2009."*
The population of an animal at the top of the food chain is constrained by the food supply. You’d get as many wolves as could live off the deer population, but if the wolf population increased beyond what the deer population could support, first the deer population would crash, as the excess wolves ate them up, and then the wolf population would crash because of the deer shortage.
ETA: I still wouldn’t want wolves in a land that didn’t have much wild country. They’re pack animals, after all, and as the deer population crashed, you’d likely get packs of wolves attacking people. Not good.
Are you talking about importing tame Disneyesqe wolves, or wild and deadly 125 lb/56 kg pack hunters? Once the deer population has been decimated, which preditor will you bring in to cull the wolf population?
Sometimes, animal populations need to culled. Let the English bowman practice their woodland skills and feed their families at the same time. Venison is delisious. Deer hide is soft, supple, and useful. It’s made out of leather, don’t-cha-know. Tallow can be made into candles. It’s a win-win.
Hunting has been successfully used as a deer management tool in the past, and it results in a healthier herd.
*Hunting gives deer-damaged forests in state parks a shot at recovery
Regulated deer hunts in Indiana state parks have helped restore the health of forests suffering from decades of damage caused by overabundant populations of white-tailed deer, a study shows. A research team found that a 17-year-long policy of organizing hunts in state parks has successfully spurred the regrowth of native tree seedlings, herbs and wildflowers rendered scarce by browsing deer.
…Jenkins said that while hunting may be unpopular with some, it is an effective means of promoting the growth and richness of Indiana’s natural areas.
“We can’t put nature in a glass dome and think it’s going to regulate itself,” he said. “Because our actions have made the natural world the way it is, we have an obligation to practice stewardship to maintain ecological balance.”
…The health of deer in state parks also dwindled as their food sources shrank.*
In a strictly closed system that would be true. Reality is much more complicated. Wolves, like any other predator, are going to take the easiest prey available to them - be that deer, livestock, pets, small mammals, etc. When the population of the easiest prey dwindles, they target the next easiest. The wolf population won’t crash until all of the prey populations have.
In this sense, “easy” means “requires least energy expenditure and lowest probability of injury” AKA “readily available and relatively defenseless”.
Professional hunters could be part of the solution to deer overpopulation in suburban areas. I’m not crazy about the idea of having relatively untrained hunters firing away in my neighborhood, lest they mistake family pets, humans and inanimate objects for their intended targets.
Does the increased risk of hunting-related mishaps justify the lowered risk of serious/fatal injuries from deer bounding into the path of cars? Not entirely sure about that.
I think it’s a question of cultural difference. If it’s normal for rural People to get a hunting license to shoot animals for fun (or Food) and control is lacking, then probably there will be a lot of the wrong type of animals being shot.
If, on the other Hand, some hunters are public employees as part of forest Management, and only few select People get a hunting license, after learning a bunch of rules and passing a difficult exam, and are assigned a certain district together with a forest warden (how it’s done here - I don’t know about the British), then the hunters usually follow the rules to cull similar to natural predators, not for trophy or Food (they can eat if they like, but that’s not their purpose, they have to fulfill a Job since we eliminated most wolves and bears before 1900).
If you have “mishaps” I think your hunters are not professional enough.
How much do you want to lower the deer-car accident number? Every year in autumn, car Drivers are warned that deer can jump without looking. If there is more than one deer in the area, then the possibility is there.
In Bavaria, most of the forest are state-owned, thus have forest wardens, who care about keeping the whole System intact, not only trees or deer *. A part of These forest are on mountains and specially protected because they protect the Valleys against avalanches and similar. There, keeping the deer low to protect the trees is more important than the deer.
at least, that’s what the law says and what I’ve heard from the forest wardens and official hunters themselves. Nevertheless, every autumn, some Ministers and big-wigs still think it’s okay to meet in a forest to shoot deer - guys who never use a rifle the rest of the year. To get a hit for this state-hunt, the wardens have to have an unreasonable high amount of deer around, which several were rather bitter and angry about. But aside from These idiot bigwigs, People seem to be doing a good Job keeping the deer at reasonable numbers.
The new Problem are the wild pigs, which are too smart for traditional hunting methods, and have multiplied rapidly with several warm winters and rich maize fields to vandalize near the forests. Some are discussing changing the hunting laws to reduce them, because wild pigs often are aggressive towards People Walking in the forest, and a heavy pig charging at you is dangerous.
This may be a case for follow the money. Eliminating predators so people can have more food can be viable and has been when not over done. Historically the ‘powers that be’ have limited this ability and thus forced people into buying from the taxed system.
Wolves introduced to some environments such as Yellowstone Park have seemed to create some interesting results, but that does not mean it is an answer everywhere.
The real problem is hunting is on the decline, so such populations such as deer are on the rise, if they can turn around the negative views of hunting I seems like a good solution.
What are you talking about, is “rural” just your way of saying dumb? Every rural person I know who likes to hunt is capable of reading the regulations. They’re also capable of making sure they’re hunting in the right game management units, and are targeting the right animals. They also, as a group, generate over a billion dollars annually for wildlife management and conservation.
Tallow can be made into candles. It’s a win-win.