by Madeleine Kando
I like deer. They are elegant herbivores that often come in my yard to nibble on the birdfeeders and I often wonder how they survive the harsh winters in New England. I see them get thinner and thinner, and by the end of January, their ribs show through their matted coat, some of them limping, but always in groups, sharing the feed in the buckets that we put out for them, when we know there is nothing else for them to eat.
I like them so much that I have become involved in fighting against so-called ‘controlled deer hunts’ in my area. One hunt is underway in the Blue Hills, a 6000-acre state park near Boston. This hunt was proposed and approved by the Mass Department of Fish and Game, who did its own study and determined that there were too many deer in the Blue Hills, knowing that it gets most of its funds from hunting licenses. Do I detect the smell of conflict of interest here?
Why Blame Deer?
It is easy to blame the deer for things that people have no control over. They are blamed for spreading Lyme Disease, for causing collisions and for destroying the forest. But the only crime that deer are guilty of, is that they have the ability to co-exist with people.
Even though deer are hosts to ticks, they do not "carry" or "spread" Lyme Disease. In fact, they provide a buffer between the host (white-footed mouse) and humans by collecting the ticks on themselves, mostly adult ticks that usually are no longer infected. "There is no direct correlation between deer density and prevalence of Lyme disease", says John Rohm of the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries. “When the deer are killed, the ticks seek alternate hosts, such as pets and people.”
Many people believe that reducing the deer population will result in fewer car collisions. But over an eight-year hunting period in Millburn New Jersey, the number of deer-car collisions did not decline. There are 14million hunters in America, and most of them will argue that it’s good for the economy and for conservation, since Fish and Wildlife gets most of its revenue from the sale of hunting, trapping and fishing licenses. But this is like saying that child trafficking, if made legal, would be good for the economy because it provides jobs and is a source of tax revenue.
What happened to the meaning of the motto of the (Unisted States Fish and Wildlife Service's motto? "to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people."
Aside from the fact that killing innocent deer is an insane way of ‘conserving’ wildlife, there are humane alternatives to remove some of the threats that they supposedly pose. There is the "4-Poster” deer feed station that applies tick killer to the deer while they feed on corn. Installing of reflectors on the side of the road to discourage deer from crossing. And the use of immunocontraception to reduce the deer population is used successfully in several states in the country.
The misguided decision to kill the deer in the Blue Hills, is based on a lack of information and faulty data. Even killing one deer is too many, in my opinion, but the plan is to kill 400! We are not exactly talking bout vicious predators, with sharp canines that can shred us all to pieces.
With these non-lethal alternatives it is clear that the state has a choice. There is a way for the deer to thrive so that we can continue to enjoy their grace and beauty. leave comment here
