EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:29 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 20  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:03 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
Iowanic wrote:
http://iowafarmbureau.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/iowa-deer-population-at-tragic-numbers/

Here's a interesting article. I'm not sure which 'side' this supports :lol: but I think it's worth including in the debate.



"If state officials would examine their policies on the size of the deer herd a herd that has been estimated to have tripled in the past decade there would be fewer accidents and fewer deaths. Allen Farris, then the head of the fish and wildlife division for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, testified to lawmakers in 1997 that he thought the deer herd should be between 80,000 and 90,000 in the state. Today the herd is estimated at 475,000. "

Wow, all that hunting really blown the deer population way up high. I think this mans family should file a lawsuit against the DNR in Iowa and someone should explain to them about Compensatory Rebound Effect and all those food plots too. Those deer herd size is to satisfy the hunters because if they were so "concerned" about the high deer number they would have use deer contraception years ago. I was looking into Iowa and deer hunting and boy is it big there and that is why they keep the population up high and even encourage food plots and creating land to put more deer.

The person who wrote the article better realize that killing is going to create more deer. Kill, kill kill is not the answer because obviously hunters been doing that for many years and instead brought the deer herd size up not down. Plus imagine how dangerous it will be to the innocent public when you have hunters with guns shooting the deer left and right I mean its bad enough hunters shoot themsevles and each other in hunting accidents all the time.

http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/accident-center.html :-

Plenty of food availability and mass killing from either lethal "culling" or hunting with sudden drop in deer population will be like mowing lawn, it will have to be done year after year after year with no end in sight and as human continue to die from DVA's but the "mowing lawn" part is good for those who profits out of the deer killing like in sports hunting or the deer killing company like Anthony DeNicola and white buffalo.

IC Deer Birth Control is now EPA and FDA approved for field implementation though it was able to be used years ago but DNR in every state rejected it. Now its time to USE IT and stop playing games with innocent human lives and causing so much pain and suffering to non-human sentient lives. !!

I say LAWSUIT to the DNR. Human Fatalities from Deer Vehicle Accident should be murder one!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:23 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
Iowanic wrote:
You noted that, too, AL?
Note also: the study was a MATHAMATICAL study: not a actualle 'in-field' study.
Interesting, eh?

Caroline is still struggling to provide proof that hunting is the main cause of deer over-population.


Yes, she is. In fact the science daily article did the opposite of what was intended, which only goes to show she is just parroting information and picking bit and pieces and she clearly doesn't understand or bother to completely read.
So much for the attempt to use non AR material.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:32 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
animallover wrote:
As has been already stated....you pick bits and pieces of what is said and you also missed key words like "can".
There is nothing conclusive or absolute in that article and it is something we/they already do and something that that adjustments have already been made for.
The article is from 2006. Like I keep saying...old. This is 2010

You also missed the last paragraph completely. You know where it states it is all in the timing/seasons of when the animals are hunted/culled for the best desired results in all cases.

Try again.



2006 is "old"? lol. and it does mentions CRE and its not an ARA site. The last paragraph is to prevent deer extinction from wildlife disease epidemic that is why it mentions the times of hunting and you see how useless hunting really is? Admit it , you just don't have the answer to my questions because so far no one has been able to give me a straight answer. Agains I ask whats with "production""provide","restore"(as in deer herd size), "fawn recruits", "fawn crops" and "kill varmints" so who wants to raise their hands first and explain what those words in "deer management" websites means.? Plus you know "deer management" use CRE

Read it again and see if you can find it


“By keeping the deer population below the carrying capacity of the available habitat, more forage (nutrition) is available per deer.
Thus, does are healthier, reproductive success is higher and more does are able to carry two fawns. Ironically, this can result in a greater deer harvest each year. Depending on the relationship of the population and the carrying capacity, an „optimum sustained yield‟ can be achieved where a relatively high reproductive rate allows an abundant harvest each fall. With high-quality habitat and increased nutrition, the percentage of
doe fawns that breed their first fall increases (sometimes up to 25 percent).
Also, a higher percentage of yearling does produce two fawns instead of one. Because fawns are born at approximately a 1:1 sex ratio, more bucks may be born each year. Therefore, in some areas, you actually can increase the number of bucks born by shooting more does.” “Quality Deer Management: Guidelines for Implementation,” 6. Agricultural Extension Service, The University of Tennessee. http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publicat ... pb1643.pdf (last accessed November 2008)


"Some people disagree with shooting antlerless deer; they reasn that protecting them -- thus maintaining a maximum breeding base -- will assure large number of antlered bucks because terrific numbers of deer will be born each year and button bucks wouldn't be harvested. But bear in mind, a smaller herd in balance with its habitat can produce as many fawns as an oversized herd on poor range. Does have fewer young when habitat quality is lacking" PA Game Commission

There is more but I am sure you will see it here. I am off to bed so nite all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:48 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:38 pm
Posts: 213
““By keeping the deer population below the carrying capacity of the available habitat, more forage (nutrition) is available per deer. Thus, does are healthier, reproductive success is higher and more does are able to carry two fawns.”

Isn’t this a good thing – for the deer?

“Ironically, this can result in a greater deer harvest each year.”

The point is the quality of deer and habitat are better. Yes, without acute mortality factors, the deer are going to have to be harvested somehow – more quickly by nonhuman predators, or more slowly by inclement weather/disease/starvation/malnutrition while in the meantime the quality of habitat, the deer herd and the fate of other animals may become negatively impacted, or deer can be more quickly (and humanely) harvested by humans.

“a smaller herd in balance with its habitat can produce as many fawns as an oversized herd on poor range. Does have fewer young when habitat quality is lacking"”

What’s better for the deer and quality of environment – a small healthy herd with lots of healthy fawns with quality food and cover, or a struggling oversized herd with fewer fawns produced from less nourished mothers on poor quality range?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:07 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:38 pm
Posts: 213
Not sure how precise this really is, but the situation seems to be that humans have colonised a lot of land. We have fragmented landscapes without connecting migration corridors because we've built highways, shopping malls, parking lots, housing developments, etc., etc., and we have animal and crop farming, orchards, gardens, and household pets, and more. Our human habitation caused certain predators to be removed for our safety and prevent re-introduction of some of them as well. In reducing the parcels of land that deer can inhabit as well as removing original animal predators and our introduction of mass crop ag we also made the deer more population invigorated. So, hunting (a management tool) is not at fault for a flourishing deer population; we all contribute.

The less the parcel of land, the lower the carrying capacity (meaning fewer deer for optimal habitat quality for cover and food, and a number in deer that we will tolerate so they don’t interfere in our lives and safety). But, at the same time, with fewer nonhuman animal predators and enticing crop land and gardens means appetizing food and more deer capable of breeding and producing offspring. Without predation, there are fewer acute mortality factors to kill the deer more immediately and keep deer population down. What is left to manage deer populations are more chronic mortality factors – like bad weather, malnutrition, disease – where deer can live a longer time before dieing, and in the meantime devastate the quality of their habitat (and their own herd quality not to mention suffer themselves). So, though non-human predator prey relationships do exist, and other non-human decimating factors, both acute chronic, we have left this important predation ecological vacuum where deer are certain to adapt and multiply.

Again, deer populations can and do eventually manage themselves, but can do so at an enormous cost to their own species’ survival, their habitat – what may be left of it – and to all the other animals that depend on that habitat to sustain them. The way deer manage themselves on their own – without the usual non-human acute mortality factors like predation - can be devastating to their future survival, the quality of the environment and those who live in the same habitat. This has been shown time and time again, when deer are left alone to nonhuman nature’s course.

As such, and since humans aren’t going to stop building and using land for crop ag and aren’t going to bring back the deer’s original nonhuman animal predators, humans must take it upon ourselves to fill that ecological vacuum by simulating the effects of predator-prey relations. Human predation in the form of systematic (e.g., seasonal), carefully controlled and scientifically managed hunting may not be the best, but it’s the nearest thing we have at present that causes the least stress to the deer, other critters and the environment that sustains them. Other things like immuno-contraception can work in control groups where those implementing fertility control know every deer by sight. But, in larger free-ranging wild deer herds there are implementation problems, logistical and practical (and medical and safety), many of which would cause stress to the animals and interfere with the environment.

In the end, nature herself informs us that the best way to control deer populations is through predator-prey interaction. Hunting by humans is the nearest tool we have. Deer will always reproduce until their food supply is exhausted. Yes, nature sorts it out some by fewer fawns being produced of one gender and more of another. But, as the situation is - with fewer predators and our land use/living practices – more deer can remain at higher population levels for many years. So, a number of deer have to die or be killed somehow so that the land can maintain quality deer and quality habitat. That’s the point: To have healthy deer living in numbers where optimal habitat can be maintained. It’s preferable that they die via an acute method rather than dieing over time so that they don’t have time to impact negatively on their own, their habitat and other critters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:38 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
Reeves wrote:
““By keeping the deer population below the carrying capacity of the available habitat, more forage (nutrition) is available per deer. Thus, does are healthier, reproductive success is higher and more does are able to carry two fawns.”

Isn’t this a good thing – for the deer?

“Ironically, this can result in a greater deer harvest each year.”

The point is the quality of deer and habitat are better. Yes, without acute mortality factors, the deer are going to have to be harvested somehow – more quickly by nonhuman predators, or more slowly by inclement weather/disease/starvation/malnutrition while in the meantime the quality of habitat, the deer herd and the fate of other animals may become negatively impacted, or deer can be more quickly (and humanely) harvested by humans.

“a smaller herd in balance with its habitat can produce as many fawns as an oversized herd on poor range. Does have fewer young when habitat quality is lacking"”

What’s better for the deer and quality of environment – a small healthy herd with lots of healthy fawns with quality food and cover, or a struggling oversized herd with fewer fawns produced from less nourished mothers on poor quality range?



This is not about "healthy environment" to "benefit" the animals its to "benefit" the wildlife killing community and thus with the abundance of deer causing high deer vehicle accidents. Deer can thrive well the way nature intented not with mass killing and using CRE to produce more deer with "high quality" food (which is also not "natural" part of wildlife) just so you can "produce" more deer for killing. There is nothing "caring" about growing deer for sports killing leaving thousands wounded and crippled every year. In Wisconsin in 2008 hunters did not recover 68,000 wounded deer? How about the other hunting states how many did they leave behind??
<img src="http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/tinkerbell47_2009/WICONSINWOUNDEDDEER-2.jpg">

(look at the last line)

Plus remember the human lives lost from deer vehicle accidents. Its better not for the deer to be produced for hunting opporutunities and keep the number of deer low with IC deer birth control and to stop the food plots and lethal killing.


People like you make all the excuses that deer are going to die this "horrible death" unless sports wildlife killers are there to kill them "ethically" which we all know that is the biggest crock.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:42 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
Reeves wrote:
Not sure how precise this really is, but the situation seems to be that humans have colonised a lot of land. We have fragmented landscapes without connecting migration corridors because we've built highways, shopping malls, parking lots, housing developments, etc., etc., and we have animal and crop farming, orchards, gardens, and household pets, and more. Our human habitation caused certain predators to be removed for our safety and prevent re-introduction of some of them as well. In reducing the parcels of land that deer can inhabit as well as removing original animal predators and our introduction of mass crop ag we also made the deer more population invigorated. So, hunting (a management tool) is not at fault for a flourishing deer population; we all contribute.

The less the parcel of land, the lower the carrying capacity (meaning fewer deer for optimal habitat quality for cover and food, and a number in deer that we will tolerate so they don’t interfere in our lives and safety). But, at the same time, with fewer nonhuman animal predators and enticing crop land and gardens means appetizing food and more deer capable of breeding and producing offspring. Without predation, there are fewer acute mortality factors to kill the deer more immediately and keep deer population down. What is left to manage deer populations are more chronic mortality factors – like bad weather, malnutrition, disease – where deer can live a longer time before dieing, and in the meantime devastate the quality of their habitat (and their own herd quality not to mention suffer themselves). So, though non-human predator prey relationships do exist, and other non-human decimating factors, both acute chronic, we have left this important predation ecological vacuum where deer are certain to adapt and multiply.

Again, deer populations can and do eventually manage themselves, but can do so at an enormous cost to their own species’ survival, their habitat – what may be left of it – and to all the other animals that depend on that habitat to sustain them. The way deer manage themselves on their own – without the usual non-human acute mortality factors like predation - can be devastating to their future survival, the quality of the environment and those who live in the same habitat. This has been shown time and time again, when deer are left alone to nonhuman nature’s course.

As such, and since humans aren’t going to stop building and using land for crop ag and aren’t going to bring back the deer’s original nonhuman animal predators, humans must take it upon ourselves to fill that ecological vacuum by simulating the effects of predator-prey relations. Human predation in the form of systematic (e.g., seasonal), carefully controlled and scientifically managed hunting may not be the best, but it’s the nearest thing we have at present that causes the least stress to the deer, other critters and the environment that sustains them. Other things like immuno-contraception can work in control groups where those implementing fertility control know every deer by sight. But, in larger free-ranging wild deer herds there are implementation problems, logistical and practical (and medical and safety), many of which would cause stress to the animals and interfere with the environment.

In the end, nature herself informs us that the best way to control deer populations is through predator-prey interaction. Hunting by humans is the nearest tool we have. Deer will always reproduce until their food supply is exhausted. Yes, nature sorts it out some by fewer fawns being produced of one gender and more of another. But, as the situation is - with fewer predators and our land use/living practices – more deer can remain at higher population levels for many years. So, a number of deer have to die or be killed somehow so that the land can maintain quality deer and quality habitat. That’s the point: To have healthy deer living in numbers where optimal habitat can be maintained. It’s preferable that they die via an acute method rather than dieing over time so that they don’t have time to impact negatively on their own, their habitat and other critters.



I have never heard so much drivel. Plus man is no "natural predator" in the animals kingdom you are a bunch of widllife serial killing bafoons (read my back comments already repeated about the store bought "predators"). Plus I can see my questions I have given has never been answered yet, instead just bunch of pointless babbling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:41 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
http://www.wcfcourier.com/news/regional ... a8a03.html

A bit of news on iowa deer-numbers. Seems to be some debate about the numbers...(Note the words 'declining'....after hunts leaning to doe-heavy-takes. Interestin, eh? Seems to work, eh?)

Tell ya what, Caroline....
Since you have yet to prove hunters are more responsible for deer numbers(Compared to habatate and food factors) perhaps your questions need restating; so we can better see what you are attempting to accomplish....

What questions do you want answered, Caroline?

By the way: did you ever get around to figuring out the largest herd of deer ever actually treated for birth-control?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:01 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
http://www.deeralliance.com/index.php?p ... ticleID=93

A little info regarding the deer hunt and car accidents.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:18 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
Iowanic wrote:
http://www.wcfcourier.com/news/regional/article_d2e650f7-2aec-5bf9-af56-b442d41a8a03.html

A bit of news on iowa deer-numbers. Seems to be some debate about the numbers...(Note the words 'declining'....after hunts leaning to doe-heavy-takes. Interestin, eh? Seems to work, eh?)

Tell ya what, Caroline....
Since you have yet to prove hunters are more responsible for deer numbers(Compared to habatate and food factors) perhaps your questions need restating; so we can better see what you are attempting to accomplish....

What questions do you want answered, Caroline?

By the way: did you ever get around to figuring out the largest herd of deer ever actually treated for birth-control?



Look who says "reduce deer numbers" a bowhunter and a DNR "biologist" or the "Division of Nature Rapers" LOL. Don't you remember the last link you posted about the high deer population in Iowa and how the DNR has "mistaken" their number and how deer killed a motorcyclist etc. Your "reduced" deer herd is quoted from a bowhunter and Division of Nature Rapers (DNR) is from 2008 and the "high Deer population" article is from 2009. Helloooooo is there anyone home? LOL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:23 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
CarolineTC wrote:
Plus I can see my questions I have given has never been answered yet, instead just bunch of pointless babbling.


Your questions have been answered, you just don't like the answers.
You still cannot support one claim you have made or parroted off an AR website or U-Tube.

You have displayed little to no knowledge of what you so "passionately" (I use the term facetiously) rant about.

However, you have yet to answer the questions I have asked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:44 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
Iowanic wrote:
http://www.deeralliance.com/index.php?pageID=4&articleID=93

A little info regarding the deer hunt and car accidents.



That pro-hunting website has been known for years and how they mislead the public about IC and that is why I put this video together last year. Look how it even has the pathetic "hunt to feed" program and gee I thought those deer are eating gardners tulips that means it must have pesticides in the carcass plus other wildlife disease which are not tested by the USDA.

Anyway here is the video

Wildlife Agencies and Hunters continues to lie and mislead the public about deer birth control

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-SWquvLZR8

Pro-kill website has been lying forever that is why there is so much deer overpopulation problems to this day and high DVA's. Still have not come up with the answer to the question I have given you huh? If you have "forgotten" the questions just scroll back you will find it for its been written several times already.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:50 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
Was the 2009 article a OPINION or NUMBERS article, Caroline? If you'll go back and read the post the 2009 article was on, you'll note I stated I wasn't sure where it fit, but I thought it should be put out that for discussion. As I said before; info is useful and I thought presenting articles from a number of viewpoints assists others in seeing all aspects of the issue. I'n not afraid to present all sides of a arguement; even if the info presented sometimes isn't in-line with my views.

also...

1) you haven't restated your questions...

2) you haven't presented any info regarding the size of the deer-herds birth-control has been tested on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:55 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
Regarding the deer/car accidents....

Let's see a STUDY that proves hunters are the cause.....

You say it's caused by hunters...
The article I presented suggests there are other factors...
Anything from a non-ARA article to back your point up?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:56 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
CarolineTC wrote:
Iowanic wrote:
http://www.deeralliance.com/index.php?pageID=4&articleID=93

A little info regarding the deer hunt and car accidents.



That pro-hunting website has been known for years and how they mislead the public about IC and that is why I put this video together last year. Look how it even has the pathetic "hunt to feed" program and gee I thought those deer are eating gardners tulips that means it must have pesticides in the carcass plus other wildlife disease which are not tested by the USDA.

Anyway here is the video

Wildlife Agencies and Hunters continues to lie and mislead the public about deer birth control

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-SWquvLZR8

Pro-kill website has been lying forever that is why there is so much deer overpopulation problems to this day and high DVA's. Still have not come up with the answer to the question I have given you huh? If you have "forgotten" the questions just scroll back you will find it for its been written several times already.


Stop with the u-tube videos..... and support your claims with facts.....you have yet to do that.
All these videos after videos after videos show is that you don't get out much.

Now with the amount of time spend on U-Tube and the name calling, level of discourse, lack of knowledge on your chosen topic and the unyielding willingness to believing what you read and watch on AR sites and u-tube videos as if it were gospel, you also appear not to be an adult....somewhere around the age of 14-18.


Last edited by animallover on Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 20  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group