previous wildlife population info        subsequent wildlife info                   home       


January 29, 2004  Times-Herald Record
Slaughter barbarity
    David Dirks' recent column exposed his ignorance and callousness with regard to the deer herd living on the property of the Minneapolis Water Works. The 78-acre, fenced-in Water Works property held captive fewer than 70 deer. Sterilizing and releasing this small herd would have been a relatively simple task, but instead the deer were violently massacred. Witnesses described frightened deer crashing into the
fences. A doe was seen trying to protect her two fawns, but the killers slaughtered her and her babies in cold blood. So much death and violence because state wildlife agencies are funded by the sale of hunting permits and excise taxes on firearms and bows and arrows.  This unspeakable barbarity is all about the almighty dollar. The
true agenda of state game agencies is to manipulate wildlife for financial gain. The barbaric practice of sport hunting has no place in a civilized society.
                                 Joe Miele Vice President, Wildlife Watch Inc., New Paltz NY

January 23, 2004  The Leader
Rationale for upcoming coyote hunt called into question
In his column of Jan. 12, George Smith detailed an upcoming coyote hunt. The
purpose of this hunt is supposedly to eliminate a natural predator of the
Pennsylvania deer herd. The supposed "sportsmen" are doing this to protect the
herd.  However, in a column of Dec. 26, 2003, in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Don
Hopey said that since 1998 the deer population has grown by 20 percent from 1.2
to 1.6 million. Even an annual kill of 500,000 in each of the last three
years has barely slowed the growth. The growth of the herd continues despite
expanded hunting seasons and an increase in the number of deer permits.If someone
can then explain the logic of a coyote hunt, other than to satisfy a certain
blood lust, I would be happy to be informed. Remember the old saying "Don't mess
with Mother Nature" We would do well to heed those words.

Wes Eustice, Lakeland FL

December 26, 2003
Letter to editor Pittsburgh Post Gazette:
I am responding to the article about the state's deer population.
The opening line of the article states that despite the best efforts of deer
hunters the herd is still growing. The fact is that the hunters, and the Pa.
Game Commission, which they control, is actually causing the problem.

For weeks now I have read story after story in various publications about how
the hunters are whining that they are not seeing any deer. At the same time there are counter stories about how the herd is at record numbers. Studies have shown that hunting actually increases deer populations by spurring regeneration of lost populations. Simply put, nature abhors a vacuum and is replacing the individuals, especially the young and healthy targeted by hunters, artificially removed from the herd.

There are several key actions that need to be taken to reduce the deer herd;
Change the current system of allocating deer licenses. Instead of allowing
anyone with a license to kill a buck anywhere in the state they should be
required to take a doe instead. Buck should be taken only with a specific license
(one buck can impregnate many doe who in turn give birth to twins and even
triplets). Also, all licenses need to be issued based on the new Wildlife
Management Unit system.

Seasons such as archery need to be shortened or even eliminated. These cause
the deer to be wary of humans, especially in the rural areas. Thus, by the
time the rifle season (which has the most participants by far) opens the herds
have clustered in the deep woods or other havens.

Residents of urban and suburban areas need to take action to reduce the
buffet they are providing in the form of gardens and landscaping. Fencing, chemical
deterrents, deer averse plants, even free roaming dogs all have proven effective in reducing damage.

Most importantly we need to wrest control of the Game Commission from the
hunters. So long as they are in charge the number of deer will continue to rise
so that there are plenty of live targets for them to enjoy. We need non hunters
on the commission especially as the wildlife belongs to and impacts all of
us. Not just the single digit minority who hunt.

The current system is akin to having long haul truckers in control of PennDOT.

David Kveragas

c. December 20, 2003
Letter to Home News Tribune:
  Vince Prybeck's response (12/19/03) to my anti-hunting letter calls me
"emotional and irrational," indicating that he finds an emotional response
to cruelty both irrational and worse than the cruelty, itself.

An emotionally appropriate response to cruelty does not conflict with
rational thought; ignoring one's own empathetic responses in order to
victimize others, does. Bertrand Russell said, "I find that much unclear
thought exists as an excuse for cruelty."

Prybeck attacked my lack of wildlife conservation education. A conscience is
the only requirement for, and mandates that, we speak out against cruelty.

He says that, "Hunting is, for some, the pursuit of happiness." So are a
lot of other depravities, which is why every religion came up with its
version of the Golden Rule.

If "killing is not the reason for hunting," Prybeck can observe or
photograph animals, instead of killing them. He accuses animal activists of
being terrorists, while ignoring the terror caused to his victims.

Rarely, despite what Prybeck says, are those maimed or killed by hunters
prosecuted, let alone punished, as the incidents are invariably dismissed as
mere hunting accidents.

The hunter harassment laws exist to protect  armed  hunters against non-violent
protesters. Their intent is to save hunters from the inconvenience of having
their killing called into question, and to  prevent people from saving the animals
from their killers. It IS legal to  trespass on un-posted property, as long as the trespassing is for hunting.

He claims that animal activists have injured dogs and wildlife, in order to
stop hunting. Projecting one's own repellant traits onto others is long-time
tactic of the dishonorable.

Prybeck bristles at hunters being "rudely" called cowards. I would rather be
rude than cruel.

Since Pythagoras (500 BC), evolved humans have spoken out against hunting.
Prybeck can lie to himself that hunters are honored members of society, but
the majority of the public sees them for what they are.

He said that animal activists use funds for lawyers, while hunters use their
funds for "conservation." Money from hunters conserves only one thing -
hunting. It goes to habitat manipulation, access roads for hunters,
government bureaucracies that cater to hunters, importing non-native animals
as live targets, and other activities to ensure that there are always
animals available to suffer and die for hunters.

Larry Lehman, president of the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's
Clubs stated, "We could not have won this fight [for a bear hunt] without
the help of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance. They provided the expertise and
financial help."

OUR money goes to save, not take, lives.

Prybeck is partly correct when he says, "It is a wildlife-conservation fact
that fewer hunters means fewer animals." When hunters are not causing
extinctions, they are artificially increasing animal populations and then
demonizing the species in question, so that they can claim a hunt is the
only solution to the fictional or intentionally created overpopulation.

Hunters act out of greed and selfishness. Those opposed to hunting do so out
of love for animals and to end one of the most egregious forms of violence
in our world.
                                                                                                      Susan Gordon

Previous wildlife population info      subsequent wildlife info