|
previous wildlife population page subsequent wildlife population page home
September 2, 2003 submitted to Times Leader
Resident Canada Geese
Smith's article should be titled: "It's time to get aggressive with wildlife
management agencies." Smith blames the geese for overpopulating in his
transparent attempt to bring on more hunting. If he were really interested in
lowering the population of Canada geese, he would be tackling the source of the
problem: the US Fish and Wildlife Service and state game agencies. Sadly, these
agencies have turned our wildlife into living targets for hunters. They've
done that for two reasons: Wildlife management agencies profit from the excise
tax on firearms and ammunition, and bows and arrows; and state wildlife managers
' salaries are paid with hunting license fees. Wildlife managers spend their
days and our tax money thinking of ways to increase "game" species for
hunters so that individuals can be shot while the population continues to produce
enough for the gun for the following year. That's all game management is.
Understand that raccoons, skunks, and snapping turtles are predators of Canada
goose eggs and goslings. Coyotes will predate upon adult geese. To say there
are no natural predators is nonsense. Additionally disease lowers the
population, and in any clutch of 5 eggs, about two will never hatch. It's absurd to
say there are no natural checks on the population. In fact, wildlife management
agencies turn trappers loose on animals that lower populations of game animals
so that they don't reduce the population! Game managers are now intent on
killing mute swans because they reduce the number of huntable waterfowl. Game
managers have been increasing the "resident" Canada goose population since the
1960s. Due to their mismanagement, they have created a nuisance situation for
people in urban and suburban areas. Allowing these guys to trick us further
into resolving the mess they intentionally created would result in
perpetuating it. What we need are the many effective, non-lethal solutions for dissuading
geese from areas where they aren't wanted. Those methods are tried and true,
and also happen to be humane in addition to being effective and sensible.
Please see our websites: at <A HREF="http://www.canadageese.org/">www.canadageese.org</A>
and <A HREF="http://www.wildwatch.org/">www.wildwatch.org</A>
Let's insist on an investigation of the game management agencies for their impact
on the general public, and their mismanagement and abuse of wild animals who
were to be held in public trust for all the people and not a handful of hunters.
Anne Muller, President Wildlife Watch, New Paltz, NY
August 6, 2003 The Philadelphia Inquirer
Preventing Overpopulation
Your editorial expressed support for a bear hunt in New Jersey ("Bear
Necessity," July 11). This follows a pattern of lethality in our
treatment of other species of animals as indicated by "deer culls" and
"geese gassings." We eliminate predators and create perfect habitats
for some species of animals such as geese and deer and are surprised
when these species of animals multiply. Parks, playgrounds, golf
courses, corporate parks and ponds are ideal habitats for geese.
Suburban gardens are like banquets to deer; garbage cans and bird
feeders irresistible to bears. Before the killing of these animals due
to "over-population" will stop, we will need to make significant changes
in our own lifestyles. Included in these changes would be bear proofing
garbage cans and bird feeders, geese proofing ponds, playgrounds, golf
courses and corporate parks; stopping our insatiable desire to bulldoze
and develop every acre of open space and natural habitat, and voting to
support legislation to protect these areas in perpetuity. We need to
also lower our own population, eliminate urban sprawl and support
multiple housing units close to urban settings.
David Sauder, Coordinator, Animal Rights Activists of New Jersey
Letters to the Editor
I note that in John Brand's recent article "Hunter, Take Heart" that Jorge L. Coppen is quoted as saying that hunting is the best mechanism to maintain carrying capacity and cultural carrying capacity. Aside from the fact that his statement ignores the natural biological mechanisms possessed by deer that naturally limit their numbers, it is misleading to speak of carrying capacity as if it were an unchanging number. Carrying capacity is a term biologists use to refer to the amount of animals a given area can sustain. It is not a steady number, as game agencies would have us believe, but varies according to the vegetation, the weather, the number of other animals competing for the same food supply, and numerous other factors. Changes in any of these factors can produce major fluctuations in deer as has been shown in published studies. In an article devoted to deer and their relationship to habitat in the Biology and Management of the Cervidae, published by the Smithsonian Institute, Fred Bunnell states, "It appears that 'carrying capacity' is a Holy grail for deer managers--highly desirable, frustratingly elusive and of questionable authenticity."
The term cultural carrying capacity, recently coined, has nothing to do with biological conditions, but is a term referring to how many animals are tolerated by the culture, namely, the people living nearby. It is not a scientific term at all, although there are some who like to mention it in the same breath as carrying capacity to make it sound as if it were. Cultural carrying capacity, as the name implies, depends upon the human culture of that area and may well vary as people learn more about the animals that are under discussion.
Game agencies see their mission as providing game animals for hunters to kill. To justify this, they often engage in double talk, half truths, and questionable practices, such as artificially increasing deer numbers by supplying them with shelter and an abundance of food, often involving clear-cutting, and so forth. It is time for ordinary people to take control of the wildlife that belongs to all of us. -Priscilla Ferrater-Mora, Ph.D. Villanova, PA.19085
Times Leader, Jul. 31, 2003
Bill creeping through House takes aim at property owners
Unbeknownst to many if not most suburban and rural landowners and residents, there is a bill in the (Pennsylvania) State House that will adversely affect their lives if it is allowed to become law. This is HB 565 which will reduce the safety zone for archery hunters from the current 150 yards to a mere 50 yards.
A safety zone is the area around a house, farm building, playground and other occupied structures where hunters are not allowed to discharge a weapon or even pass through in order to drive or disturb game. Currently there are several counties around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh where this law has already taken affect. They are termed special-regulation zones. Now, the archers are pressing to have this rule made statewide. There is no valid reason to change this law in such a manner. If anything, the law should be changed so that the zone is measured not from the building but the property line. Yet the hunters claim that the change will help alleviate damage to homeowners landscaping and avert auto-deer collisions.
Like so many things hunters claim, neither is valid. Studies conducted by auto insurance companies actually show that hunting activities increase the rate of vehicle-deer collisions - by as much as 500 percent on the opening day of the season. As for damage to landscaping and other plantings, there are simple common household items that can be used as deterrents. Including a popular deodorant soap that can be scraped on the plants or placed in beds. Not to mention a long list of decorative plants that deer do not bother.
This bill passed the House Game and Fisheries Committee (which is made up of sportsmen) without public hearings and little if any publicity. There should be a series of hearings held throughout the state to allow the public's input on such legislation. Of course, the hunters fear that if such hearings are allowed the bill will never pass. Thus the stealth-like manner in which it is being handled. Archery hunters commonly dress up in full camouflage, including full masks. Is this someone you want getting within 50 yards of your home in an attempt to kill a deer? How long before dead and dying deer start turning up in people's backyards? Not to mention the hunters themselves trespassing in order to track and retrieve their kills.
Under current law, a property owner can forgo the safety zone law simply by granting the hunter permission to hunt near their buildings. The problem, at least for hunters, is that safety zones often cross property lines and a property owner cannot infringe on the rights of their neighbors. Thus, the true nature of the proposed change. It is another attempt by the hunters to force property owners to cede their legal rights so that others can pursue the privilege of hunting. David Kveragas Newton Township Lackawanna County
Thanking hunters
I am writing in response to a Sayso item suggesting we should thank hunters for all that they do for us.
I thank them for our excessive deer population, a result of game management for "maximum sustained yield" to furnish them with more animals to kill. Killing bucks as most hunters prefer to do tends to increase rather than reduce the deer population as they claim.
I thank them for the excessive number of deer/car collisions that we all endure to give them more targets to shoot at.
I thank them for making the woods and fields unsafe for bird watchers, hikers, cross country skiers and snowshoers.
I thank them for the safety concerns they inflict on farmers, woodcutters and other outdoor workers. David Robinson, Canaseraga NY
previous wildlife population page subsequent wildlife population page
|