EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:41 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 20  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:41 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
Iowanic wrote:
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2009/05/07/does-maine-have-a-deer-management-problem/

A peek at how Maine's doing....



Nope , no one has given me any answer as to why the hunting industry is "producing" deer as usual but not surprised because NOT ONE hunting forum I have been to could a wildlife serial killers explain all that "production" of deer from hunting industry .

Here is a question..

Should Hunting be held accountable for human injuries and death from DVA?

http://mathew5-7.blogspot.com/2009/11/s ... e-for.html

Make sure to read to the end but then I know it won't absorb into your scull because you don't want to hear the truth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:06 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
Reeves wrote:
"Can someone still provide me the answer as to why "deer management" website always uses the words pertaining to "adding" deer if its about "reduction" because so far an answer that should be very simple was never given."

I'll answer based on what I have understood about wildlife management and its use of hunting: Deer management is about both adding deer and reduction. It depends what one is being added and reduced. The act of hunting itself results in a reduction of existing deer numbers at the time. Depending on what deer are being targeted, per deer management policy, one can reduce or add bucks, or one can reduce or add does, or add/reduce the number of born fawns of one or other gender or both. Both together, reducing and adding, they constitute keeping the numbers overall in check.

"Come now if its about "reduction" we should not be seeing words such as "produce" , "provide", "fawn recruits", "fawn crops", "restoration " (of deer that is), "kill varmints that are a threat to the "recruits", "provide for millions of hunters every year" etc etc etc. I have posted the same question at least 3 times already and everyone been dancing around it. Here I will give it to you again …"

Terms such as "produce" , "provide", "fawn recruits", "fawn crops" and deer "restoration " may show that there has been a reduction or addition of certain deer as a result of either previous deer management plans, and/or a heavy winter or drought, and/or other factors. The terms also can entail reducing and/or adding certain deer for the next or existing hunting strategy. Again, hunting as a management tool is about the continuation of sustainable deer populations that can survive within the limitations of their habitat. This requires reducing numbers, reducing/maintaining/adding/restoring some deer age/gender and reducing/maintaining/adding other deer of particular age/gender.

""Some people disagree with shooting antlerless deer; they reason that protecting them -- thus maintaining a maximum breeding base -- will assure large numbers of antlered bucks because terrific numbers of deer will be born each year and button bucks wouldn't be harvested. "PA. Game Commission "

There's a limit to which resisting shooting female deer can assure a maximum breeding base and larger numbers of antlered bucks due to increased numbers of deer born each year. Deer management programs that don't incorporate commensurate antlerless harvests will promote too much growth within the herd. Long-term resistance to shooting antlerless deer and so long-term application of hunting just antlered bucks and not harvesting other bucks could lead to increased number of deer and decreased amount of forage, which leads to underdeveloped antlers in males and eventually low reproductive rates among females, which all overtime will leads to weaker deer and mass die-offs, and in the end no quality specimen deer to hunt = end of hunting. Would hunters jeopardize their sport, and would game managers advocate less than maintaining wildlife populations at levels consistent with the quality of the overall ecosystems?

""Thus, late fall up to early winter is very important for deer herd managers to impact and influence fawn production, so make sure the plant communities on your property is properly managed deer habitat. " Deer Hunting and Management TREATMENT"

One needs to know why this is being done to influence fawn production. Is fawn production so low? Imo, this could take place in areas where there aren't enough hunters to make hunting a viable management tool and where deer populations are so reduced or unhealthy in terms of quality deer that mother nature is unable to restore numbers and health. Again, one doesn't want too many fawns produced as it can end hunting altogether.

""Historically in all states, including West Virginia, hunting regulation have been restrictive during the period of deer restoration with mainly short buck-only season to protect does and encourage deer population growth." Fundamentals of Deer Management W. VA."

Sounds logical. Restricting deer hunting in order for the deer population to come back. A number of factors may have contributed to the reduction of deer (winter mortality, urban sprawl, posted land, not enough hunters, deer management policies) that now requires deer restoration, or increasing deer by restricting antlerless hunts. Also, see above on limits of antlerless shoots.

"Here is more that I have collected and even the "carrying capacity" chart I found on QDM website talks about "low recruitment" when its "above carrying capacity". Wow, why would they even consider "recruitment" at all if its about deer herd "reduction" because of Deer Vehicle Accident injuries and death and deer overpopulation , "starvation" etc.? "

Again, different factors besides or including hunting policies can result in "above carrying capacity" (a couple of mild winters, not enough hunters, deer management programs). Hunting, as with predation, is always ongoing. Deer populations are dynamic, not static. See comment at the beginning of post in re adding and reducing deer.

"So many left wounded and crippled and all you do is make excuses and lies and your comment are a broken record the same old, same old of "ethically kill" that I hear from other wildlife serial killers."

I never said that wounding and crippling deer and not recovering them (ending their misery) were "ethical" or "ethical kill[s]."

"Here is a story of a boy who hit wounded deer over the head with a tree limb to "end the suffering"

http://www.theleafchronicle.com/article ... with-stick"

Is this standard hunting practice? I rather doubt it. So, I'm not sure what your point is.

" Yup lots of "ethical" hunters out all right. There is something terribly wrong with humans who enjoy killing and call it "sports" so the words "ethic" will never fit into what these sports wildlife killers do."

One can enjoy hunting and make an ethical kill at the same time. Killing animals, respecting animals and enjoying the process of procuring one's own food are not mutually exclusive. This may be difficult to behold for some people who have relinquished their responsibility to others to procure their animal food, choosing to either give up the meat they once indulged in, or eating meat slaughtered on their behalf out of sight, out of mind.



"Situations like Borden's are not uncommon — though his method of putting the deer down was certainly unconventional. Dale Grandstaff, an officer with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, said the agency often fields calls from residents who have a wounded deer on their property because a hunter didn't finish the job."

About that man who bashed the deer over the head with a limb from a tree to "end" the suffering.

I think wildlife serial killers are stuck on that word "ethical" like we are to believe those who enjoy killing for amusement could give a damn about "ethical". Those are just one of the many whitewash words used by the wildlife serial killers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:10 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
Still no comments on Jay Kirkpatrick's views on hunting?

And do you have any info indacating any deer herds larger then 'more then 200' have ever been used in a successful birth-control program?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:08 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
CarolineTC wrote:
Nope , no one has given me any answer as to why the hunting industry is "producing" deer as usual but not surprised because NOT ONE hunting forum I have been to could a wildlife serial killers explain all that "production" of deer from hunting industry .


Evidently you're not being sufficiently clear on what you mean by "production". I've seen answers as to why herds are managed the way they are, which often requires that some be culled. If that very excess isn't what you mean by "production", then what do you mean, Caroline?

Digressing just a bit, you should consider that hunters don't have to answer to you in the first place.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:54 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:14 pm
Posts: 785
Location: In the woods near Evergreen, Colorado
CarolineTC wrote:
Grizzly Bear wrote:
Wow. If CarolineTC would lay off the ad hominem fallacies and the self-righteous, venomous diatribes perhaps we could actually have a rational discussion about deer populations. The subject of deer population management, particularly white-tails, is a complex, not simplistic, subject. It is covered constantly in papers published in professional wildlife management journals. There is no one single cause, and no one single solution, to the problem that some ( not all, I might add ) deer populations are too large. Causes for increased number of deer include the following:

- lack of natural top predators in many areas. Top predators would include species such as wolves, mountain lions, and grizzlies.

- increase in intensely cultivated agricultural lands in the past century. Deer are attracted to crops like corn, soy beans, and the like as an easy food source.

- the expansion of the suburbs. Deer are attracted to vegetable gardens, flowers, bushes, certain tree species, etc. found in suburban yards. Many places that are now suburbs were once rural deer habitat, but the deer do not leave. This is especially true in the heavily populated east coast.

- in many areas where deer population is considered high, there are private lands that are closed to hunting

- poorly thought-out deer hunting regulations/management that does not encourage the culling of enough females from the population. Many state wildlife agencies are now starting to realize that this is a factor and are adjusting their management strategies accordingly.

- a declining number of hunters because of today's highly urbanized/suburbanized society

As one can see, there are a myriad of things that could play a part in an increase in a given deer population. As such, to make a statement such as "hunting causes deer populations to increase" is actually quite irrational. Many ARs float out "deer contraception" as an alternative to hunting as a management tool. Deer contraception is not particularly viable as a solution in most cases. First is the poor cost-effectiveness of the operation, as it is extremely labor intensive. It is estimated that when both the labor and the cost of the drug itself are combined, it costs an average of $1000 to deliver one single dose of deer contraceptive. Second, is the fact that these drugs do not last a long time. One dose typically lasts one year, then the population has to be re-treated. Third, unless a particular deer population is isolated from other populations, it is difficult to treat enough does to achieve a net population decline, as new, untreated does can enter the population from other areas. Fourth, contraception does not produce an immediate decline in population, unlike hunting or other lethal control methods which produce immediate mortality in the population. It would take several years to notice a statistically significant decline in a contraception treated deer population if there is a lack of predators and/or it is not combined with a lethal form of population control. Fifth, is the possible ecological effects of using this, especially large-scale. We still do not fully understand the possible long-term implications for other wildlife by introducing these drugs into the food chain. And once the proverbial genie is let out of the proverbial bottle, it cannot be put back in. Deer contraception is simply a management tool available to biologists. It can be effective in certain situations, but not all, and probably not most. To push it as some kind of cure-all solution based on a knee-jerk, emotional dislike for hunting is reckless, irresponsible, and unwise.

I noticed the subject of Chronic Wasting Disease ( CWD ) was brought up in one of CarolineTC's rants. The air desperately needs to be cleared of the falsehoods and speculations in that post, as they are grossly irresponsible. These are the HARD FACTS about CWD:

- there has never been a confirmed case of a human contracting CWD

- the World Health Organization has determined that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that CWD is transmissible to humans. However, as biologists do not yet completely understand all aspects of CWD, it is advised that animals killed in known CWD-infected areas be tested for the disease and not consumed if they test positive.

- the mean numbered of infected animals in the population is actually quite low. For example, in the combined areas of northern Colorado and southern Wyoming, where CWD is most prevalent, it is 5% for mule deer, 2% for white-tail deer, and >1% for elk.

You can learn more about the facts about CWD here:

http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php



"Wow. If CarolineTC would lay off the ad hominem fallacies and the self-righteous, venomous diatribes perhaps we could actually have a rational discussion about deer populations. " GB


Hunters get insulted by something that is true, because I say you are a wildlife serial killers that is "insulting'? You kill right? Serial killing means killing more then one and its wildlife you are killing so what "ad hominem" about that when when we call you as is. Wildlife serial killers.

"- lack of natural top predators in many areas. Top predators would include species such as wolves, mountain lions, and grizzlies." GB


Are you reading what I have written? I don't think so because you know its the hunters killing deers natural predator and is encouraged.

"Varmints, specifically coyotes, are the biggest threats to fawn recruitment on most land throughout the United States. "Deer Management TX"

Hunting is NOT "natural" and is nothing like what naturals predators do. Man is no predator in the wild they are bunch of wildlife serial killeing dingbats who enjoy killing innocent animals for sports and trophy and destroy the natural balance and creates more deer thus higher Deer Vehicel Accidents.


"- increase in intensely cultivated agricultural lands in the past century. Deer are attracted to crops like corn, soy beans, and the like as an easy food source." GB

Must have missed the food plot parts of my comments

"- the expansion of the suburbs. Deer are attracted to vegetable gardens, flowers, bushes, certain tree species, etc. found in suburban yards. Many places that are now suburbs were once rural deer habitat, but the deer do not leave. This is especially true in the heavily populated east coast.

- in many areas where deer population is considered high, there are private lands that are closed to hunting" GB

What happens is deer seek refuge from gunshots and terrorist in the forest and that is why you find deer where there are no hunting. Hunters created large deer herd then start killing them each season and deer do not want to stay around where there is danger.

"- poorly thought-out deer hunting regulations/management that does not encourage the culling of enough females from the population. Many state wildlife agencies are now starting to realize that this is a factor and are adjusting their management strategies accordingly. " GB

again you did not read my comment clearly because it even talks about doe hunting to create more male fawn birth and its been "poorly thought-out" for very long time because they are not about long term deer herd reduction is that so hard for you to understand? What part of my comments did you miss?

"- a declining number of hunters because of today's highly urbanized/suburbanized society" GB

More reason the time has come for using IC wildlife contraception.

As one can see, there are a myriad of things that could play a part in an increase in a given deer population. As such, to make a statement such as "hunting causes deer populations to increase" is actually quite irrational. Many ARs float out "deer contraception" as an alternative to hunting as a management tool. Deer contraception is not particularly viable as a solution in most cases. First is the poor cost-effectiveness of the operation, as it is extremely labor intensive. It is estimated that when both the labor and the cost of the drug itself are combined, it costs an average of $1000 to deliver one single dose of deer contraceptive. Second, is the blabhallllaha..." GB

Again you did not read my comment about the "1,000 dollar a deer" lies from the hunting industry. You have not read a single thing I have written either that or you cannot read.

[color=#0000FF]Here is part of what Jay says in the video

"I know that quiet a few "expert" has found their way into Pittsburg both from Agencies (hunting) and other academic institutions and primarily their message has been "this doesn't work"..umm its interersting that "expert witnesess" who paraded themselves thru Pittsburg who never themselves been involved in wildlife contraceptives projects of any scales and they have offered to you a varities of opinions and ideas, congectures and assumptions but they haven't given you any numbers, they haven't given you any datas..." Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick, deer contraception expert, explains the startling successes in deer contraception, its authorization for use and availability. Dr. Kirkpatrick is the founder and Director of the Science and
Conservation Center, Montana. He has worked with
contraception on 90 species of animals, including wild horses, several species of deer, African elephants and water buffalo .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aANcNyYbLpw



I noticed the subject of Chronic Wasting Disease ( CWD ) was brought up in one of CarolineTC's rants. The air desperately needs to be cleared of the falsehoods and speculations in that post, as they are grossly irresponsible. These are the HARD FACTS about CWD:

- there has never been a confirmed case of a human contracting CWD

- the World Health Organization has determined that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that CWD is transmissible to humans. However, as biologists do not yet completely understand all aspects of CWD, it is advised that animals killed in known CWD-infected areas be tested for the disease and not consumed if they test positive.

- the mean numbered of infected animals in the population is actually quite low. For example, in the combined areas of northern Colorado and southern Wyoming, where CWD is most prevalent, it is 5% for mule deer, 2% for white-tail deer, and >1% for elk.

You can learn more about the facts about CWD here:

http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php
" GB


"biologist do not yet completely understand all aspects of CWD" they really either have no idea about the disease and the danger or they do and they are downplaying because that would ruin it for the hunting industry. Here is 2 sites I had created for the subject of CWD/CJD/Mad Deer Diseases because these are all diseases caused by prions so even though the death may not be listed as "CWD" in humans it can be considered CJD or early case of Alzheimer. CWD death can mimic other disease caused by the mutant protein called prions.

"While wildlife agencies play down any danger, they also provide stark warnings not to eat animal parts considered to be at highest risk, such as the brain and nervous tissue. Many suggest that meat from an infected animal not be eaten at all.
"It's kind of a mixed message," says Jim Woodward, a Wellington, Colo., activist who opposes the state's approach. "They seem to be comfortable in making some extremely definitive statements that humans aren't going get this disease. And that's exactly what happened in England in the 1980s," in the early days of mad cow.
Some researchers share his skepticism. Working with mice, University of Colorado neurologist Patrick Bosque has detected infectious prions not only in neural tissue but in muscle, and believes CWD may be transmissible to other species, including humans. It is a view shared by many who study the disease.
"We have to be careful about concluding that it hasn't happened," says Hoover.
"Unfortunately, both the federal and state governments are badly bungling this issue and falsely reassuring people that what happened in Britain could never happen here. The Centers for Disease Control should have made all cases of human CJD reportable to monitor the true number, but in 1999 refused to do so. " "

http://www.myspace.com/maddeer1967 (that is myspace site just put my information)

Here is the youtube

http://www.youtube.com/user/MadDeerDisease

Here is an aritcle called What the government isn't telling you about mad deer disease.

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/ ... index.html


Overall Mr. Grizzly you have no answered much of my questions instead it was ignored because you have repeated that has already been refuted.
[/quote]


Quote:
Hunters get insulted by something that is true, because I say you are a wildlife serial killers that is "insulting'? You kill right? Serial killing means killing more then one and its wildlife you are killing so what "ad hominem" about that when when we call you as is. Wildlife serial killers


No, your insults are simply YOUR OPINION. The diminish any argument you may have and paint you as juvenile, zealous, and emotional rather than rational. They speak volumes about your agenda, your character, and your maturity level. Furthermore, they are a logical fallacy because you are attacking people instead of attacking an argument. Do you understand this concept? Your use of the daft term "wildlife serial killer" shows ignorance. A "serial killer" is defined as someone who MURDERS ( key word ) three or more PEOPLE ( another key word ) over a period of thirty days or more. By definition, one cannot be a "serial killer" of animals. What you are doing is trying to manipulate the definition of a specific term in order to fit your agenda. Yet another sign of your lack of credibility.


Quote:
Hunting is NOT "natural" and is nothing like what naturals predators do. Man is no predator in the wild they are bunch of wildlife serial killeing dingbats who enjoy killing innocent animals for sports and trophy and destroy the natural balance and creates more deer thus higher Deer Vehicel Accidents.


More idiotic name calling with ZERO rational argument. And you expect to be taken seriously, madame? How old are you? 15?


Quote:
Again you did not read my comment about the "1,000 dollar a deer" lies from the hunting industry. You have not read a single thing I have written either that or you cannot read.



The estimate of $1000 per deer is not a "hunting industry lie". It comes from those who are experienced in the field who happen to disagree with Dr. Kirkpatrick's seemingly unrealistically low assessment of the cost. From the American Ecological Society: "The estimated cost of contraception is around $1,000 per deer to administer two treatments per year for two years."

http://tiee.ecoed.net/vol/v2/issues/fig ... ents3.html

From the National Audubon Society: "But the Humane Society's labor-intensive method--which costs about $1,000 per doe for the first two years of treatment--may keep it from widespread use."

http://audubonmagazine.org/webstories/d ... ntrol.html

Dale Garner, who is chief of the wildlife bureau in Iowa claims contraception costs anywhere from $300 t0 $1000 per deer:

http://www.science.siu.edu/zoology/scha ... 20Iowa.htm

The USDA claims that the GonaCon method of contraception can cost "several hundred dollars per deer depending upon many factors, such as how many deer need to be captured and whether the deer are easy or difficult to catch."

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/ ... eer_08.pdf

Quote:
Here is Jay Kirkpatrick Phd even talks about how pro-kill advocates have their own "science" and Jay kirkpatrick had 15 years in wildlife contraception and you are arguing against his knowledge.?


As one who is has an education in the field of wildlife biology, I am familiar with Dr. Kirkpatrick's work. He is not, however, the only authority in the field. Wildlife biology, like any other science, has its differences of opinions on controversial theories, ideas, and methods. Dr. Kirkpatrick's opinions and claims are not the only ones that have validity or have evidence to support them. You simply are trying to imply that is the case because it fits your agenda to do so. Dr. Kirkpatrick is on record as stating that his method was developed for controlling populations of urban and suburban deer. He has never made the claim that it works equally well in all situations. Furthermore, Dr. Kirkpatrick is a professional wildlife biologist, not an anti-hunting animal rights ideologue. He has made it abundantly clear that he not opposed to hunting. To use him as a way to support your arguments without acknowledging these important factors is a form of intellectual dishonesty.

Quote:
"biologist do not yet completely understand all aspects of CWD" they really either have no idea about the disease and the danger or they do and they are downplaying because that would ruin it for the hunting industry.


Oh puhleeeeease! How utterly idiotic. If you are going to make a spurious claim to a conspiracy such as this, THEN PROVIDE SOME PROOF! Do you honestly expect readers to believe that highly respected scientific institutions such as the World Health Organization and the Center For Disease Control "have no idea about the disease" ( while you apparently seem to fancy yourself as having it ) or are in some kind of grand conspiracy with "the hunting industry"? Your credibility sinks even further.

Quote:
Here is 2 sites I had created for the subject ...


And your scientific credentials on the subject are what?

Quote:
because these are all diseases caused by prions so even though the death may not be listed as "CWD" in humans it can be considered CJD or early case of Alzheimer.


You are either grossly ignorant of this subject and are engaging is grossly irresponsible speculation, or you are simply a flat out liar. Neither is acceptable. There is no single confirmed case of human CJD or Alzheimer's Disease being caused by consumption of a CWD infected animal. That is a fact, madame. How about a little intellectual honesty for a change?

_________________
Vegetarian: Old Native American word meaning really bad hunter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:47 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:14 pm
Posts: 785
Location: In the woods near Evergreen, Colorado
CarolineTC wrote:
Iowanic wrote:
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2009/05/07/does-maine-have-a-deer-management-problem/

A peek at how Maine's doing....



Nope , no one has given me any answer as to why the hunting industry is "producing" deer as usual but not surprised because NOT ONE hunting forum I have been to could a wildlife serial killers explain all that "production" of deer from hunting industry .

Here is a question..

Should Hunting be held accountable for human injuries and death from DVA?

http://mathew5-7.blogspot.com/2009/11/s ... e-for.html

Make sure to read to the end but then I know it won't absorb into your scull because you don't want to hear the truth.


Quote:
Should Hunting be held accountable for human injuries and death from DVA?


So we're going to hold hunting accountable because an animal steps in front of a vehicle? :roll:
If a dog steps in front of a car and the driver swerves to miss it, hits another car in the process, killing the driver, are we going to hold dog ownership accountable? If a child chases a baseball into the street and is hit by a car, are we going to hold baseball manufacturers accountable? Really, at this point, your self-serving little screeds sink further into the depths of the absurd and the irrational, although they certainly continue to be a source of great amusement.

_________________
Vegetarian: Old Native American word meaning really bad hunter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:52 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:38 pm
Posts: 213
“Nope , no one has given me any answer as to why the hunting industry is "producing" deer as usual but not surprised because NOT ONE hunting forum I have been to could a wildlife serial killers explain all that "production" of deer from hunting industry .”

We have. We’ve explained first that a number of other factors besides hunting that can and have caused increased deer numbers: They included removal of apex predators, like wolves and mountain lion, that would have contributed to the acute mortality (immediate kill-offs) of deer and controlling the deer population. Some reasons for removal of predators were because of increased human settlement and need for human safety and protection of livestock farming. Removal of predators weren’t and aren’t done by sport hunters so that sport hunters can have more deer to kill. Another reason is increased land use for crop agriculture as well as suburban living with our appetizing (to deer) gardens and orchards; being ‘edge habitat’ animals, deer thrive in areas where woodland forest meets human suburbia and farmland – and with removal of predators (for human, pets and livestock safety rather than for more deer) deer flourish even more. Deer have adapted for other reasons like certain forest clearing so the deer feed on fast-growing plants and use the remaining trees and thickets for shelter. Also, ‘protection’ of deer via land posting and urban sprawl and so hunting bans. Also, the fact that deer are prodigious reproducers anyway, maturing by 2-3 years and typically able to give birth to twins every year, which, in context of other factors described and predator removal for human safety, enables the deer to flourish in much greater numbers. These are some of the reasons, other than hunting, that can cause and have caused increased deer production.

Yes, hunting can in some scenarios increase deer production, but the increase is as a result of nonhunting factors as well (e.g., a couple of unseasonably mild winters and year-round plentiful food supply of browse, forbs and grasses [not necessarily corn, soya beans and feeding plots]) in conjunction with hunting – increases are not usually hunting-alone-induced, I don’t think. Again, as already mentioned in answer to your deer “productivity”/increase questions, wildlife management plans that use hunting as a management tool in such a way that does increase population like a bucks only to very limited doe hunt, or even the other way round.

I think what you overlook is that, as also mentioned, deer populations are never stable or stagnant for long periods. Deer populations are dynamic and fluctuate for a variety of reasons, most of which are in the hands of mother nature, but also because humans have changed the nature of nature, and less in the hands of hunting. Hunting is used to remove the surplus deer of a given deer population allowing the herd to “rebound” (another term you’ve used to illustrate hunting’s production/increase) the following year. “Surplus deer” being the difference in total deer that a parcel of habitat can support in winter vs. summer). What it does is maybe not so much “reduce” deer but keep the population healthy with quality deer (and so quality/healthy habitat). Hunting regulates or keeps in check the deer herd at a quality healthy and so at levels consistent with quality of habitat. The result of an optimal animal-habitat ratio (which is only short-lived because nature is dynamic and not static) achieved during a one-time hunt is that it leaves a healthy number of quality (healthy and stronger) deer (a number that won’t eat itself out of house and home, and fewer deer eating our vegan food crops), going into winter and early spring in better condition with less winter die-offs, and so more reproductively successful deer as well with does able to carry their twins, or triplets, to term. In this one-time hunt deer numbers have been lowered. While hunting can give deer a ‘fighting chance’, then deer increase their population all on their own during the off season to a level depending on the kind of winter, habitat changes that have nothing to do with hunters/hunting, and other nonhunting factors. Then, hunters come back the next season. Hunting doesn't reduce to a cold stop in further increase of the deer population growth as such (unless wildlife management is so badly done to cause such), rather hunting slows down a population explosion, since the deer will reproduce to a great extent without nonhuman predators and our land-use practices. Yes, some management plans do see a bigger increase in deer the following months. This happens in conjunction with other factors (that may not be all hunter/hunting caused). So, wildlife management readjusts the bag limits and kind of deer to be killed, the duration of each kind of the hunt, etc. There are other nonhunting factors involved that resulting in deer numbers every season. If one hunting season does result in exceptionally reduced deer numbers, one can use the same strategy the next season and may get the opposite effect.

You talk of how deer can control their populations without the need of serial killings by hunting. That is, nature has given the deer reproductive strategies to limit overall deer numbers, like aborting or reabsorbing embryos, having stillborns, producing single fawns instead of twins or triplets, and altering sex ratios by producing more of one gender than the other. Thereby, demonstrating hunting is not needed or can mess things up since nature already has her own way of regulating deer numbers and sustain the population in ‘balance’ with their habitat’s available food and cover. Iow, a healthy enough habitat that and can restore itself during deer population cycles and support healthy enough deer. Deer populations can increase and then crash and then rebound without too much damage to habitat quality (and other nonhuman animals up and down the food chain) and deer quality. This can be true when all elements of nonhuman nature are in place. Most especially when acute decimating factors (predators and harsh winters that result in immediate deer kill offs) and chronic decimating factors (where deer die over time from starvation, malnutrition, disease) are in place and in relative ‘balance.’ But, this situation is not had today, not since expanded human settlement:

Today, as has been explained, things are different: Top predators have been removed (not for hunting, but to keep humans and their animal property safe). This, along with things like logging practices and crop agriculture, housing and road development have enabled deer to thrive. But, without nature’s acute mortality factor, deer cannot control their populations in a healthy and balanced way. Deer, you need to understand, are a species adapted to predation and so cannot maintain stable, healthy populations if predation is removed. Harsh winters can help, but predation, too, is exceptionally important in fecund prey species control. We humans have left an important eco vacuum (predation). The main deer population controlling mechanism now is chronic mortality where deer die over time (sometimes years), which means before succumbing to death deer can degrade significantly their habitat, impacting negatively their own future survival and the survival of other fauna sustained by the same habitat. This has already happened (Kaibab).

Without nature’s predators, such an important controlling mechanism for deer populations, were we to ban hunting and other human-induced deer mortality, the deer population really would explode. Deer would decimate their cover areas of all browse, affecting all the other animals who share the same habitat (squirrels won’t have enough acorns so they’ll feed on more birds eggs, so the number of birds go down, etc., etc.), then deer will eat our crops and damage croplands. The deer can still survive even as the food base collapses. They just begin to become malnourished, weaken, starve, and over time a population crash with mass die offs and fewer births. It is less likely that the habitat can restore itself and deer population rebound and even be healthy. Fertility readjustments may not be enough to help the deer maintain enough numbers and in good enough health.

So, the choice becomes one of taking responsibility by human hunter killing some now healthy/quality deer so that the remaining deer have more plentiful nutritious browse, decreasing winter death rates and increasing birth rates = maintaining quality/healthy deer and quality habitat. Then, coming back to kill more quality/healthy deer, and doing this on a regular annual basis. Or – in context of fragmented habitat, too fewer or no top predators, land development, etc. - we can risk letting mother nature take her own course by over time degrading habitat, producing unhealthy, weak, struggling deer that become fewer and fewer and no more as food and cover disappear.

Certainly, wildlife agencies may use hunting strategies that cater to hunters’ benefit and pleasure of having the same deer numbers or more deer to hunt. Probably because hunter are the main financial contributors whose money goes to the conservation (as well as acquisition of more land, education and research, and animal preservation/nonconsumptive) for land they hunt on and the land which the nonhunting public is able to enjoy as well. What of it? Most everything has to pay for itself; otherwise it doesn’t justify its continuance. Actually, nonhunters have contributed to land acquisition and so we can use the land each in our own way – hiking, photographing wildlife, or hunting. Also, lots of nongame refuges to support and enjoy by all, hunter or nonhunter.

So, there you have the answer again. I’m not saying it’s all true. Whatever, you may regard it as a load of drivel, that’s fine. But, don’t say no one has answered your question. Maybe you mean no one has answered your question to your satisfaction or that accord with your opinions on the matter.


Last edited by Reeves on Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:05 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:38 pm
Posts: 213
“Here is a question..

Should Hunting be held accountable for human injuries and death from DVA?

http://mathew5-7.blogspot.com/2009/11/s ... e-for.html

Make sure to read to the end but then I know it won't absorb into your scull because you don't want to hear the truth.”

The blog, imo, correctly states that deer now occupy a much reduced area, due to human colonisation, vast tracts of farmland, population density, logging practices, and this human manipulation of environment has inadvertently increased deer numbers to beyond habitat capacity and beyond what humans can tolerate. Yet, you blame 6% of the human population (hunters) for this as reason for deer expansion because (even less than 6%) deliberately sustain some deer on food plots, which can contribute (as well as other factors, nonhunting as well) to deer’s increased nutrition and, therefore, reproductive success. [Again, which is better: killing (in a relatively quick and human manner – your bow hunting stats is not the general rule) more healthy deer to maintain overall healthy/quality deer and habitat, or no hunting but weakened, malnourished, starving and diseased deer unable to survive on un-restorable degraded habit?]. From there, you (il)logically conclude that hunters and hunting are directly to blame for intentionally causing the human causalities and fatalities involved in deer-vehicle collisions. “Pre-meditated murder.”

My answer would be no, hunters can’t be held directly responsible for human injuries and death from DVA. I think you had it right the first part around. DVAs happen more because of increased human population and land fragmentation. Consider, too, that the number of deer people in a given area will tolerate does not necessarily coincide with the total number that the land can biologically support. In my state also in spring, and when the clocks fall back shortening daylight which means darkness falls earlier during peak late afternoon dive time, together with increased activity of deer (in spring when females enter the fawning season and yearlings leave their mothers, and also in autumn during rutting), can brings a rise in DVAs.

“"Situations like Borden's are not uncommon — though his method of putting the deer down was certainly unconventional. Dale Grandstaff, an officer with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, said the agency often fields calls from residents who have a wounded deer on their property because a hunter didn't finish the job."

About that man who bashed the deer over the head with a limb from a tree to "end" the suffering.”

As I thought and as I had already read, this is not standard hunting or hunter practice. First, “Situations like Borden’s”, which means situations where deer are found wounded, are not “uncommon”, which I assume to mean not the general rule either. And, Borden’s “method of putting the deer down” was “certainly unconventional,” i.e., not standard practice. So, again, I state, I don’t see what your point was. I’m not sure if you were exaggerating an exception to make it look like the general rule to further stoke the anger within you regarding hunters and hunting. Permit me to judge that I think you just dislike hunters for killing nonhuman animals, or dislike hunting as a method of killing animals and controlling populations of deer, nonhuman beings you believe can adjust their own populations sustainabley over the long term on their own.

“I think wildlife serial killers are stuck on that word "ethical" like we are to believe those who enjoy killing for amusement could give a damn about "ethical". Those are just one of the many whitewash words used by the wildlife serial killers.”

I rather doubt that hunters get amusement from annually killing deer for the sake of killing. That’s not what hunting is about and that’s not where the “amusement” of hunting comes in. If it where one wouldn’t need to bother with all that’s involved in hunter education and the concept of a clean kill with the obligation to cause no preventable suffering (again your un-recovered wounded deer are the exception not the rule, even when the numbers are unacceptably high at times). There certainly can be joy in having taken the responsibility of killing an animal quickly and relatively painlessly (surely even being ripped and eaten alive or slowly dieing of starvation is better than a bullet or arrow properly placed) to provide one and one’s family with food, rather than having others slaughter for their food, or commission others to maim and kill animals far more slowly and more painfully to provide food (e.g., all the sentient nonhuman animals **intentionally** killed or left to die painfully in the production of crops).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:57 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:38 pm
Posts: 213
CarolineTC, you cite Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick's work to support what seems like IC firtility control for most deer and as a non-lethal alternative to or means to do away with sport hunting. From reading a little I get the impression that even Dr. Kirkpatrick understands there are some limitations to current IC fertility control technology. It can't be used in every setting, particularly in larger, free-roaming deer habitats. E.g., http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/storie ... th-control : IC like PZP was developed to control localised deer herds in urban, developed areas where hunting and firearm use is restricted altogether for reasons of public safety. "More remote areas such as California’s Point Reyes National Seashore, where exotic fallow and axis deer are overgrazing the park and competing with black-tailed deer and other native animals, are another matter." Even though the Park Service has hired sharpshooters and has agreed, under the pressure from activists, to use PZP for 1,000 does, “Contraception won’t succeed at Point Reyes because the deer are wild and getting to them is going to be very, very difficult.”

Also, at http://www.hcn.org/issues/347/17030: Dr. Kirkpatrick understands how when advocates are misleading about the use of contraception or exaggerate its success and as a way to end sport hunting, it polarizes different sides of the issue and sets back proper understanding of IC firtility control's possible uses and clear non-uses. Again, Kirkpatrick says IC birth control can be a solution to discrete populations of human-inhabited and developed urban deer that are causing problems, but not for the other millions of deer in the US, not even for deer in Marin County, CA.

He says here, again, that the technology has limitations: http://www.angelfire.com/dragon2/leaves ... unted.html: IC birth fertility is not designed for 100,000 deer in Potter County. Its one among other tools for controlling deer, especially smaller or isolated deer herds that cannot be hunted in certain, more developed, urban areas.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:26 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
Hopefully, Caroline will return for another round. I wonder if she'll change anything on her webpage regarding Mr. Kirkpatrick now?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:33 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:56 am
Posts: 53
Location: NL
Question: Where and what is the deer's natural animal predator?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:55 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
CatLady wrote:
Question: Where and what is the deer's natural animal predator?


There is not just one and it depends or varies on where the deer live.
Some examples are........ Wolves, coyotes, various cats (mountain lions, panthers, bob cats, etc), here gators and pythons will also eat deer, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:13 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
Catlady, we had a thread that touched a bit on wolves: I bumped it up if you're interested.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:33 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve ... 6641018521

Some discussion among hunters on some of the points brought up by Caroline.
NOTE: LINK CONTAINS PICTURES OF DEAD ANIMALS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:07 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
Reeves wrote:
CarolineTC, you cite Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick's work to support what seems like IC firtility control for most deer and as a non-lethal alternative to or means to do away with sport hunting. From reading a little I get the impression that even Dr. Kirkpatrick understands there are some limitations to current IC fertility control technology. It can't be used in every setting, particularly in larger, free-roaming deer habitats. E.g., http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/storie ... th-control : IC like PZP was developed to control localised deer herds in urban, developed areas where hunting and firearm use is restricted altogether for reasons of public safety. "More remote areas such as California’s Point Reyes National Seashore, where exotic fallow and axis deer are overgrazing the park and competing with black-tailed deer and other native animals, are another matter." Even though the Park Service has hired sharpshooters and has agreed, under the pressure from activists, to use PZP for 1,000 does, “Contraception won’t succeed at Point Reyes because the deer are wild and getting to them is going to be very, very difficult.”

Also, at http://www.hcn.org/issues/347/17030: Dr. Kirkpatrick understands how when advocates are misleading about the use of contraception or exaggerate its success and as a way to end sport hunting, it polarizes different sides of the issue and sets back proper understanding of IC firtility control's possible uses and clear non-uses. Again, Kirkpatrick says IC birth control can be a solution to discrete populations of human-inhabited and developed urban deer that are causing problems, but not for the other millions of deer in the US, not even for deer in Marin County, CA.

He says here, again, that the technology has limitations: http://www.angelfire.com/dragon2/leaves ... unted.html: IC birth fertility is not designed for 100,000 deer in Potter County. Its one among other tools for controlling deer, especially smaller or isolated deer herds that cannot be hunted in certain, more developed, urban areas.


I know what Jay Kirkpatrick is about but the fact is the hunting industry still lies about the effectiveness of IC deer birth control. Jay Kirkpatrick himself says this and I have already written this before of this forum but you all just countinue to ignore.



Here is part of what Jay says in the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aANcNyYbLpw

"I know that quiet a few "expert" has found their way into Pittsburg both from Agencies (hunting) and other academic institutions and primarily their message has been "this doesn't work"..umm its interersting that "expert witnesess" who paraded themselves thru Pittsburg who never themselves been involved in wildlife contraceptives projects of any scales and they have offered to you a varities of opinions and ideas, congectures and assumptions but they haven't given you any numbers, they haven't given you any datas..."

Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick, deer contraception expert, explains the startling successes in deer contraception, its authorization for use and availability. Dr. Kirkpatrick is the founder and Director of the Science and
Conservation Center, Montana. He has worked with
contraception on 90 species of animals, including wild horses, several species of deer, African elephants and water buffalo .

Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick is not Animal Right Activists he is a Wildlife Contraception expert and he is letting the public know that it works and works well. I am sure he does not want problem with the pro-kill government so he stays neutral but the fact is as Jay Kirkpatrick says "It works and it works well" and he also says "60% deer herd size reduction"

As I recall no one here has answered my question as to where all the large deer herds are coming from and why the hunting industry are PRODUCING DEER if its about "reduction"?. Here is one beside a few other time I asked the same question and all I got from all of you is song and dance.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12320&start=120

Sorry been so busy with the Global Anti-Hunting Coalition

Here is our new site beside 4 others and Anthony Marr will be starting his 50 state tour in March. =D>

http://www.myspace.com/anti-hunting_coalition

WE WILL WE WILL GAHC YOU (sung to we will we will ROCK YOU) LOL :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 20  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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