The same but for me England is “over there”. Even in places like PA in the good old USA hunting seems effective. Just ask residents of places like Fox Chapel. If nothing else, it gives the deer a sense of fear of humans and that helps in addition to culling the herd.
Huge issue here in Texas, to the point where they’re pretty much telling people to shoot feral hogs on sight, as they’re a plague to agriculture, huge disease vectors, and reproduce like rabbits… or maybe rabbits reproduce like feral hogs?
I was hunting pigs in Texas near the Mexican border. I couldn't help but notice more bobcats than I have ever seen anywhere else in a 4 day period. They were as common as feral cats in city parks. I have to believe they are preying on baby pigs, anything under about 20# they could easily kill. I am really surprised that coyotes haven't filled that niche and kept the pigs under control. Only way I can explain it is that they stay close to mom and she does a good job protecting them.
Agreed - in addition to the raw population density, the distribution of deer is a problem (that is, it would be a problem for uncontrolled hunting) - a place only needs to be the slightest bit ‘wild’ to find them there - they aren’t a ‘way out in the woods’ thing, they’re an ‘everywhere that there is a bit of grass and a few trees’ thing. That’s not to say that I perceive them as a nuisance - I don’t - but I can find deer within walking distance of my house quite easily - and I live in a large village on the outskirts of a major city.
In fact, there isn’t really any such thing as ‘way out in the woods’ in most of the UK. There isn’t any wilderness of the type you could really lose yourself in - on a couple of days’ break from work recently, I went off for a solitary(well, with the dog) walk in the New Forest - my usual objective is to get away from humanity for a day - but even in the New Forest National Park, you’re never more than a few miles from a road - and never more than half a mile from a footpath or another human.
Several different Americans discussing history, pointing out what a huge step Forward it was that in the US, a free man could go out with his weapon and shoot any animal, unlike Britian/ Europe, where often the forest (and animals in it) belonged to the Nobility or state, and hunting most animals (esp. higher-ranking) was historically reserved for Nobility.
Now, if in the past decades the attitude of “I have a right to hunt” has changed to “obeying the Limits to protect ecology is important” has changed, then I did not yet hear about, but it’s good to know.
There is also a geographical difference (depending on which US state we are talking about) where several are far less densely populated by humans, with lots of empty Areas where deer can breed greatly (and possibly out of control) making it quite a different Problem from densely populated Europe, where deer can only live in forests and can’t grow out of control.
From different anecdotes and Statements by American - like the several Posters here who “know hunters”.
I’ve actually seen roe deer in central Bristol, in the city parks and in the car park of an industrial area at night.
The article in the OP was a little vague about what species are becoming a problem, viable control methods for red deer are probably going to be a bit different to muntjac (which are introduced).
For fun, I compared the population density of the least dense English county (Northumberland) to the lowest population density county in this state (Esmerelda). Almost 750x more dense. In that county (or the hunt unit roughly corresponding to it, minus a substantial corner), during “any legal weapon” antlered mule deer season, there were only 23 deer taken in 2016 and 58% of hunters were successful.
There are even less dense counties in the US, looks like the lowest density county-equivalent (census area), in Alaska, is ~5400x less dense (probably some serious rounding error here).
English deer are also smaller than North American deer, though the Scottish red deer is closer to elk size (humongous).
Not forgetting refuse. In rural England - a lot of which has fortnightly rubbish collections causing overflowing bins near to collection day - I can easily imagine hungry wolves finding the easy pickings of discarded meals extremely attractive, bringing them uncomfortably close to homes, cattle barns and lambing sheds etc.
Exactly, which is why I’m asking questions. Obviously, there will be differences in law and Problems with deer and other animals between states, so it’s difficult to give one answer. If I had current and comprehensive Information instead of seperate anecdotes from different Areas, I wouldn’t Need to ask.
How much of These have changed over the past decades - either in Response to lax quotas / enforcement before, or in Response to growing deer/ animal Population size? How many game wardens will be cut when the Budget for EPA is cut? (Or are they part of a different agency/ ministry?)
The hunter Groups, forest wardens, ministry for forests and animal rights Groups have given different opinions on whether hunting method should be changed.
Currently, the hunter sits in hide, waits for deer to Show up, checks if it’s the right type, and shoots.
This doesn’t work well for the wild pigs, who are too smart. Some animal rights experts Claim that the net type method - you put fences around, get a lot of “Drivers” making noise moving Forward in a line, and at the other end, a bunch of hunters shoot what Comes at them - once or twice a year would be far less stressful for the animals, and much more succesful, since the current method Trains animals to be cautios all year round (they never know when they might get shot), which in turn makes the hunter’s Job more difficult.
Others Claim that being cautios/ stressed/ afraid year round is natural (if wolves and bear were around), and that the “net” type method is more stressful than a quick shot suddenly.
I haven’t yet heard that they have found a solution.
Isn’t the new danger a breed-mix between wolves and Dogs pushing the coyotes out of their Habitat?
It will take some time before deer in the UK become the Problem you give, when looking at the differences in Population density and unclaimed wilderness in several US states compared to the UK.
Even for Eastcoast states, densly settled, Migration for animals from the empty places in the Mid-US is easy, compared to Swimming the channel to get to the UK.
Well, one thing seems obvious, it’s not just deer that England has an overpopulation of. But you know, wolves can help with that too 
OK, I should have known better than to suggest they reintroduce wolves there. But maybe they should be working toward creating something closer to a real wilderness where they can do that. Yes, it would take a lot of money, and there’s probably not the political will to do it properly. Or they could do it the Ukrainian way, but there’s drawbacks to that too.
So there is a neutral agency who Monitors animal populations? The EPA, or game Management? Is it at state Level or federal (since animals can cross state lines?
How often are the animal populations counted - every year, every ten years? (If the deer are hunted, they will hide, making both hunting and counting difficult. Though with infrared camera traps, that has gotten a lot easier.)
And what Population Level is considered “good”? There are different aims that determine different Levels: if you want to make hunting easy, (to make Money from Permits) and have lots of empty land, so Surplus deer don’t get into conflict with humans, you want a high Population (since hunters Waiting for 5 days to find a deer get frustrated). If you want to Keep the Population down because of disease or spreading into nearby populated Areas (or because the deer are damaging the trees), you want a lower number. If you are observing animals in a national park, you probabyl only rarely interfere at all.
I live in a Country with a different Police culture; I don’t live in rural area. I act generally towards Police with respect, as Long as they don’t go bad cop Routine. I expect my cops to be well-trained.
That doesn’t Change the many instances I’ve read about how many local sherifs in the US are elected, and thus have a Problem properly enforcing the laws vs. losing their popularity; how many rural cops are not well-trained, because there is no national Standard or Training School; and how rural cops are related or friends with the Population, often resulting in letting People go with a warning.
If it’s being measured scientifically (not just reports by hunters themselves: “Sure there are lots of animals species X left, I saw dozens!”) then yes, this is a good metric. Is this done in every state? Don’t the rules for gettign hunting Permits vary widely from state to state? Obvsiouly the local sizes of herds will vary from Region to Region, but is scientific counting required in every state, or only some?
Personally, None. Do written accounts qualify?
This seems like a direct contradiction: if you kill deer to stop the spread of diseases, why give then the tainted meat to Food Banks?
And I’m not against feeding hungry families: I’m in favour of a regular dependent System (like Food stamps) not Food Banks that fluctuate. Or are you going to shoot as many deer as you Need to feed the families? Then it’s not the ecological concern.
[Quote]
And an overpopulation will ensure that the deer will starve, as there will be less food for them. What’s better, a slow death by starvation, or a quick one with an arrow or a bullet?
I absolutely loathe deer – they’re a pain in the ass. Just because they’re “cute” doesn’t make them sweet little babies. “Bambi” wasn’t a documentary.
I didn’t say anthing about being cute, or being against hunting. I was asking about how the hunting is controlled.
The Anger at simple questions seems problematic to me. If hunters are responsible, the Limits reasonable and People educated about the Problems of deer, then shouldn’t hunters be respected enough not to be so touchy and lash out in over-self-defense?
All of the US, or only one state (Idaho)?
Have the rules and quotas changed significantly in the past decades? Has the attitudes of the hunters changed noticeably? Are more or less People getting a Permit?
That seems to be a Problem to me. I would want an indepent, neutral, trained scientific study of animal species Population, not only self-reports. (And better, referenced across state lines, so the same animal doesn’t get counted twice when crossing borders). Because how do you know that the hunters don’t fudge the numbers - either out of self-interest or because they aren’t trained enough?
Wolf dogs? Dogs are wolves, just domesticated through millennia of domestication. Mixes rarely occur without humans intentionally breeding them; their lifestyles are too different to meet randomly.
If you meant to say coywolves, those are also rare. Pure coyotes are already a common pest in many areas.
Mostly state, and they are normally counted annually, at least in higher-impact areas, with probably more substantial monitoring less than annually.
Too open ended to answer.
I don’t know the laws of every single state, but yes the laws vary greatly. In some states you can buy tags outright (e.g. Wyoming I believe). In many others you need to enter a lottery.
I assume all states have a monitoring program.
Because you can’t get the disease from eating the animal. The only potentially scary one is chronic wasting disease, a spongiform encephalopathy, although one that has never been demonstrated to spread to humans. Most hunters would be safe anyway because they don’t eat the brains!
You need to do hunters’ education once, and then it is good in all states.
Self reports are one way to measure populations. They aren’t the only way - helicopter surveys, wardens monitoring signs, remote monitoring, tagging, etc.
[quote=“constanze, post:54, topic:784297”]
Personally, None. Do written accounts qualify?
This seems like a direct contradiction: if you kill deer to stop the spread of diseases, why give then the tainted meat to Food Banks?
And I’m not against feeding hungry families: I’m in favour of a regular dependent System (like Food stamps) not Food Banks that fluctuate. Or are you going to shoot as many deer as you Need to feed the families? Then it’s not the ecological concern.
The meat isn’t tainted. The deer carry ticks that also bite humans, and the ticks carry the disease. You can’t get that disease from the meat.
There is another disease similar to Mad Cow that humans might get from deer, though none have so far, but in the regions where that is found I suppose hunters can send the heads to be tested before the meat is eaten. There’s no proof so far that it’s transmissible to humans.
But there just isn’t the space to create a “real wilderness” as you suggest. Even our national parks, such as the Peak District where I now live, is scattered liberally with villages, hamlets, smallholdings and sheep and dairy farms. It also receives about 10 million visitors a year escaping the urban areas, mostly for walking holidays. And God forbid you start closing public footpaths or “right to roam” areas; there would be - quite literally - riots (well, OK, they’d be polite riots such as the mass trespass of Kinder Scout in 1932).
That’s more or less what I meant when I said they wouldn’t have the political will to do it properly. Too many people have a stake in the sorta-wild areas not being real wilderness areas to actually convert them.
Well, people interact more closely with dogs, and I’m not suggesting that people are being killed by coyotes all over. And there is a bit of space between “killed” and “attacked”; attacks have been increasing. Coyotes in eastern Massachusetts have become acclimated to humans and our garbage (which brings rats and mice, which coyotes eat). They are used to us, which is troubling.
Anyway, enough of my semi-related tangent.
FWIW, I agree with you about the benefits of using professional hunters rather than wolves to control deer. Mother Nature doesn’t magically balance things out, so a predator (other than politicians and bankers, I suppose) on a small island is a bad idea.