Deer hunters as ecologists

The forest is dying at this density, and its species composition is changing radically. Meanwhile, winters have been quite mild recently and the food supply is virtually infinite (think of all the cornfields, and consider how much additional fodder is supplied along edges of field and newly cleared forests). Natural predators are gone. The only thing left that is likely to make a difference in the deer population is hunting.

But what's the soundest approach? We posed this question at a conference last fall, attended by people with many interests from the Eastern US - hunters, farmers, state hunting and game regulators, native Americans, conservationists, and others. I was one of the organizers of that conference (see http://pa. audubon.org/DCP.htm for proceedings). One thing we could all agree on is that changing our approach to deer management is in the interests of all these parties, some of which have viewed their interests as being in conflict.

Now more than ever, it's time for Americans of all stripes to rethink our approach to managing deer populations. We need to develop an approach to deer management that's based on sound science and compassion for the animals and environment.

Bryon Shissler, a wildlife biologist, says state game commissions have historically approached deer hunting as if deer were an agricultural resource to be "harvested" by hunters. To a degree, this is true. What's sorely missing from hunting policy is a scientific understanding of the larger ecological environment in which deer live - of what levels of deer population are acceptable and beneficial to the environment, and at what point they cross the line. On the other side, some nature lovers who would never hunt consider the practice barbaric and, in the name of compasssion, oppose the practice altogether.

Some people advocate a "kinder and gentler" solution than hunting, such as deer contraception. But the reality is that deer contraception in the wild has no politically viable funding source, which renders it a non-option for a million-plus deer herd. Can you imagine the cost of trapping and inoculating every female deer in the herd, perhaps twice each year, and keeping track of all that? Hunting is the only way to control the deer herd in the short run, and perhaps in the long run.

I submit that the most scientifically sound and compassionate direction is for policymakers to change their approach to game management from an "agricultural" perspective to an "ecological balance" perspective, in which hunters take the place of predators and keep the ecosystem in balance.

It is a sort of "strange bedfellows" experience that hunters are actually the key to preservation of so many values we hold concerning the outdoors of the Eastern US.

It is frightening to face the future of the forest in Pennsylvania, seeing species extirpation going on at such a rapid pace. The state game commission is working with a new sense of urgency to implement the plans of its advisers and staff to bring the deer herd under control. These are responsibilities society does not necessarily welcome, but decisions made centuries ago leave us few options.

Donald L. Gibbon, a geologist with 35 years of field experience, is a consultant to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry.

(c) Copyright 2000. The Christian Science Publishing Society

Page: 1 | 2