previous wildlife population info                    subsequent page                   home

February 29, 2004   Rapid City Journal
Let's try deer contraceptive program
By Adrian M. Forrette, who writes from Rapid City.
The lamentable death of a young bull moose that meandered into our town last
fall offers us a second chance in life. The South Dakota Department of Game,
Fish & Parks insists that the only alternative available was to kill the moose: "Our
local staff considered and evaluated all options known and available to us. They recommended killing the moose as the most responsible course of action." (Please see Doug Hansen's Forum piece in the Sept. 27, 2003, Journal, "GF&P had no choice.")

Mr. Hansen writes as director of the Division of Wildlife for the Department
of Game, Fish & Parks. In the conclusion of his piece, Mr. Hansen commits
himself and the agency to a review process.

As part of that review process, please reference an online Billings Gazette article, "Bear cub's short tour of city ends with tranquilizers," dated Sept. 23, 2003, that describes a busy year for animal removal in Billings, Mont. "The moose, about 2 years old, showed up Friday, and didn't appear inclined to leave. At 1,000 pounds he would have been a major traffic hazard in one of the most heavily traveled areas of the city. Two biologists from Bozeman were called in to handle the specialized tranquilizers needed to knock out the huge animal, (Kevin) Holland said. About 9:30 a.m. Sunday,
they were able to sedate him and transport him to a new home in a remote area of the Boulder River."

The facts speak for themselves. The tragic death of a Rapid City moose is an
unpleasant reality. And we are left to live with the consequences. Now, we really
do have only one choice and that is to learn from our mistakes.

At the next Rapid City City Council meeting (Monday, March 1, 7 p.m.) the council has invited the public, the Department of Game, Fish & Parks, and the Pennington County Commissioners to a discussion of Rapid City's Deer Herd Management Program. (I would like to invite the Black Hills Forest Service, as well.) Between 1996 and 2002, according to a recent Rapid City Journal article by Scott Aust, the city has spent nearly $108,000 to kill 878 deer.

Obviously, the program isn't working very well. Proponents of an annual deer
slaughter will argue that we need to kill more deer at an even greater cost to the city.

One of the most remarkable sights I have seen in my 53 years is of two fawns
at play in a sprinkler one hot summer day. Please recall how hot the summers
have been. And kindly remember that the fawns had only been on the planet
for a few weeks. In their delight at discovering something called a
"sprinkler," they ran and jumped and played in the water so long and so hard
that one of the fawns took a final step and fell over in exhaustion, not
unlike a human kid. He rested for about two minutes and resumed the play.

I love the deer, simple as that. In the vast scheme of things, I have never
considered myself to be more or less important than a deer.

In all humility, I live and work in Rapid City and struggle to pay my taxes
like everyone else. As an arm of government, the GF&P is charged with the
responsibility of considering all points of view. Whether it is the death of
a lonely bull moose or the deaths of young men and women sent into harm's
way in Iraq and Afghanistan, as taxpayers, you and I are morally
accountable.

I understand the public safety arguments. In all fairness, if I were a
public safety officer, my viewpoint might, indeed, be considerably
different. But ultimately, you and I are the government. The best
administrators and professionals at the GF&P are keenly aware that they
represent all the citizens of South Dakota.

When I was young, I hunted with my father and grandfather. Now, I am at an
age when I probably know more people who have died than are living. Life is
fragile and fleeting, important to every one of the 878 deer that have been
killed. It just didn't happen to be your life or mine.

As one component of a comprehensive and integrated deer management program,
my sister and I are offering the use of our home and land along Berry Pines
Road as a potential research site to facilitate the study of a non-lethal
method of deer population control, PZP (porcine zona pellucida)
immunocontraception.

Space precludes a detailed explanation of the strategy, but the idea is to
promote the well-being and acceptance of a relatively small band of deer in
a neighborhood, vaccinate the does with a contraceptive dart, whose effects
are reversible if desired, and then, permit deer society, which is
territorial and matriarchal, an opportunity to complete the task of
population control as the contracepted matriarchs ward off deer from
surrounding neighborhoods.

Does this imply that one contracepted band of deer serves only to exacerbate
a population problem, elsewhere? Honestly, I don't know the answer. I am
proposing a research project as one element of a comprehensive plan that
might ideally include zoning restrictions, as well.

The science of PZP is sound, effective, and has a profoundly successful
track record around the world. Would a PZP immunocontraception program
"work" in a suburban stronghold where psychological barriers are as
significant for the deer as they are for its human inhabitants?

I am grateful to all the citizens who have fought long and hard to preserve
Skyline Drive and the Greenway that wends its way through our beautiful
city. Can it possibly be the case that we are unwilling to share this parcel
of wilderness with the wild animals?

As a community, let's find non-lethal alternatives to our problems. The
spiritual bankruptcy that we face cannot be quantified.

February 22, 22004 Rapid City Journal, South Dakota
Don't revive deer kill plan By The Journal Editorial Board
Like a bad penny that keeps turning up, the Rapid City Council is  considering bringing back the deer kill program. The city council did away  with the deer kill program more than one year ago because it cost too much  money and ultimately didn't really get rid of the problem.

Let's review why the city ended the deer management program in 2002. From  1996 until 2002, shooters with the state Game, Fish & Parks Department  killed 878 Rapid City deer at a cost of $107,929. The meat was donated to  the regional food pantry.

The city's annual cost of the deer management program was $12,500 and  sharpshooters killed a quota of 110 deer per year. When the program began in 1996, the GF&P estimated there were about 1,500 deer living in the Rapid  City limits, mostly in westside neighborhoods. After seven years of deer  management, the city deer herd was estimated at about 1,300 deer. For the  cost of about $108,000, the city reduced the deer population by about 200  animals, or about $540 per deer.

Because rifles were used to shoot the deer, only deer in the area of the  shooting range near Stevens High School and in the unpopulated areas  immediately west of the city limits were harvested. Deer numbers near those  neighborhoods were reduced, but elsewhere the deer problem went largely  untouched.

It surprises us that people would move into certain neighborhoods to be  closer to the natural beauty of the Black Hills then complain when nature  pays a visit. Deer get into people's back yards and help themselves to the  fruits of gardeners' labors.
Nature, it seems, is fine if it isn't hungry  for someone's rosebushes.

Before some areas of Rapid City became housing developments, they were prime
habitat for deer. When humans moved in, the deer stayed - deer aren't  migratory, and for most of their lives, they roam a limited territory. There  are always some risks involved with wild animals. Deer can become  aggressive, and deer-car collisions can be dangerous.

Complicating the matter is the fact that some people like deer. They don't  want the deer killed just so someone's garden is undisturbed.

We are of a mind that if you choose to live in an area that deer also call  home, you should learn to live with the deer or protect your property.  The city has better uses for the money than to spend it on a deer management  program that never worked well enough to take care of the problem. There  always will be deer in Rapid City. Let's learn to live with them.
previous wildlife population info        subsequent page