previous wildlife population items               subsequent items                            home

Sent to the Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2003

As Brendan Miller described in his article of October 30, modern bows can scarcely be classified as primitive weapons even though they make it more difficult to kill.
Because they are an extremely inefficient method of killing, the main purpose seems to be more to give hunters more days afield than to cull the deer population. Several
statements in the article substantiate this:

"I've watched my arrow fly straight for its mark only to have it sent careening off at a 90 degree angle by a nearly invisible twig."

"Even a clear shot can result in a miss" as deer react to the sound of the bowstring.

Out of three million bowhunters "relatively few will bag their game".

To argue that being struck with an arrow is "a more humane death for the animal than starvation from overpopulation or death by minivan on the highway" ignores studies showing that over half the deer struck by arrows are never recovered.  If they don't die from loss of blood within a few hours, they are most likely to succumb to infection weeks or months later. During this time they must negotiate woods and weedy
field margins with arrows sticking out of them. State game departments advise hunters to wait at least half an hour before starting to track a wounded deer in order to give it time to die or at least weaken from loss of blood.

Incidentally, what most people consider deer overpopulation is the direct result of hunting regulations providing for more males to be killed so that more does survive to produce more fawns in the spring. Known as "scientific game management,"
this is done to please hunters and sell more hunting licenses. The artificially large population, allbeit combined with habitat loss to human development, has caused deer to consume more farm crops and even move into villages and cities where they
destroy gardens and valuable ornamental plantings to say nothing of more expensive deer/car collisions. In addition, the longer seasons make the outdoors less safe for outdoor workers and other outdoor recreationists.
                                                                                                               Bina Robinson
                                                                                                     CIVITAS, Swain NY

The Buffalo News  EVERYBODY'S COLUMN   August 31, 1993

It's all about development, not deer
When I went to the meeting regarding the deer management plan, I assumed the Amherst Town Board would listen to what the people had to say and then vote accordingly. But this wasn't the case at all. The board members told the audience how they would vote. It didn't matter what anybody said; their minds were already made up.  Let me just say this about the whole issue: It's obvious to me that the developers want the deer out of the way so they can have the land. All those crocodile tears about "saving human lives" and "providing venison for the poor" are simply the stock and trade of politicians who want to mollify the public and make it seem as if they have the people's good in mind.

But think about it: Do we really need more crowding? Will our lives be any happier if we are packed tightly together like sardines? Do we want our roads filled with even more cars and trucks?

This is still a nice place to live because there are some spots of greenery left. We need the trees and woods and the animals that live there. This is what gives this town its character, its better quality of life. If we take away all the green spaces, what have we got? Just another big metropolis.

And remember: Overdevelopment eventually means higher taxes for everyone, because we need more schools, roads, police, etc.

So let's not be fooled. This isn't about homeowners complaining about the deer. If this is the case, they can always put up a fence.

As far as car accidents are concerned, the greater the density of the human population, the more accidents there will be. Car-deer accidents are less likely if the public is made more aware, if there are adequate deer signs posted and if there is strict enforcement of speed limits.

And whatever happened to birth control of deer? This was proposed several years ago. Why was there no mention of it in the plan? This issue is really about development, not deer.

SHIRLEY SWEDE
Williamsville NY

Letter to the Editor:
Let me see now. In his editorial "Mismanaging Deer, Pennsylvania Style" (Tuesday, May 28, 2002) Ted Williams, editor-at-large of the Audubon magazine, says there are "too many" deer in Pennsylvania and suggests that we kill more females; Audubon is also ready to kill Tundra swans if there are "too many." Pennsylvania hunters and others would like to kill geese because there are "too many" and they "do nothing but eat and poop." In the West, there are "too many" prairie dogs, so they are killed by the thousands despite the fact that biologists tell us they are a cornerstone species and the main food of the black footed ferret which we have spend millions to try to save from extinction. In Yellowstone and surroundings the Department of Livestock is harassing and killing buffalo, the only truly wild herd remaining in the United States, because they might spread disease although there is no authenticated case in which the buffalo have, in fact, spread disease and the vast majority of those killed are not tested for disease.

One might think that these animals that eat and poop are taking over the world while in truth, it is those animals with the big brains that they don't use, who also eat and poop, but in addition kill and kill, who have taken over the world. Welcome to the killing fields of the United States of America.
                                                                                                            P. Cohn, Ph.D.

previous wildlife population items       subsequent items