New York declares war on Deer -bout time

[Mojo2]

Until I was fourteen years old, I ate far more venison than beef. Prepared right, it is not gamey, unless you are stupid enough to shoot a buck in rutting season. There was a special agricultural season in Montana not long ago, seven deer allowed per hunter. One of my cousins and four freinds got 32 deer. Dressed them out, had a truck with a cooler, and took one for each family, the rest went for the families in their churches that were having a rough time of it.

If they are going to have that many allowed per hunter, there should be some rules specifiing that the meat not be wasted, and go to where it is needed. And the deer population can get rapidly out of control. I really don't think bringing in cougers and wolves into areas of fairly high population density is a reasonable solution. And cayotes are not going to take deer except in a starvation winter. Too dangerous for them, they are not large animals at all.

As for sport hunting, never saw the sport of killing an animal with a weapon that can shoot farther than they can identify you. But hunting for meat is quite a differant matter. And, prepared right, I prefer venison above any other meat I have had so far.

Hunting INCREASES the deer population.

 

[Vox]

Until I was fourteen years old, I ate far more venison than beef. Prepared right, it is not gamey, unless you are stupid enough to shoot a buck in rutting season. There was a special agricultural season in Montana not long ago, seven deer allowed per hunter. One of my cousins and four freinds got 32 deer. Dressed them out, had a truck with a cooler, and took one for each family, the rest went for the families in their churches that were having a rough time of it.

If they are going to have that many allowed per hunter, there should be some rules specifiing that the meat not be wasted, and go to where it is needed. And the deer population can get rapidly out of control. I really don't think bringing in cougers and wolves into areas of fairly high population density is a reasonable solution. And cayotes are not going to take deer except in a starvation winter. Too dangerous for them, they are not large animals at all.

As for sport hunting, never saw the sport of killing an animal with a weapon that can shoot farther than they can identify you. But hunting for meat is quite a differant matter. And, prepared right, I prefer venison above any other meat I have had so far.

Hunting INCREASES the deer population.

no, it does not.

depends on the numbers.

did you read the study you are referring to?

 

[Vox]

If you're not gonna eat it you shouldn't shoot it.

In your opinion should vegans be able to hunt wild pigs even if they won't eat them?

vegans won't hunt.

 

[Mojo2]

Sorry to burst all of you all's ideas of deer population control, but...

Hunting actually spurs the growth of the herds. By removing competition for food sources Mother Nature concludes there is ample food for increased numbers and she sends the message to all the would-be deer parents that the green light is lit to GO forth and re-populate.

Therefore, hunting increases deer numbers.

The best way to reduce the herd is to let Mother Nature do it.

It might take a season or two for their numbers to diminish naturally, but that's the only sure way to do it.

And the funny thing is that the game wardens and those folks understand this dynamic.

Maybe they are trying to just get hunting introduced in that county. It is a great thing for those hunters living in and around that area. They won't have to drive as far to get some meat and their hunting groove on.

Here, I found this to substantiate my, admittedly, counter-intuitive claim.

A text titled "Wildlife Ecology and Management" by William Robinson states quite clearly:

"The general theory of harvesting animals is based on the premise that when animals are not harvested at all, growth and recruitment are balanced by natural mortality and that the average growth rate of a population at its carrying capacity is zero. Harvesting reduces the population size, but the reduction results in an increase in the growth rate of the population. This increase in growth rate is brought about because of higher birth rates and lower death rates resulting from decreased competition for resources. This increased growth rate provides a surplus of individuals above the number required to replace the population, and this surplus can be harvested."​

Hunting only lowers deer numbers on a temporary basis. A study by Richter & Labisky, "Reproductive Dynamics and Disjunct White-tailed Deer Herds in Florida," in The Journal of Wildlife Management, determined that the "incidence of twinning was 38% on hunted herds and 14% on nonhunted sites."

Hunting serves no purpose other than to provide hunters with game, the DEP with funding, and residents with a feeling that "something" is being done about deer numbers, while ensuring that those numbers will replenish by the next hunting season, ad infinitum.

That's why, according to the FCMDMA, even after a concerted effort of killing deer for so many years, populations have not decreased. Their solution would be to hire sharpshooters who are more efficient than recreational hunters, erroneously citing Harvard's Andrew Spielman as supporting a 10-12 deer population per square mile, claiming that Lyme disease would be eliminated.

Hunting has increased deer population, not reduced it - GreenwichTime

If, and that's a big 'IF', the referenced research is true, there would still be serious destruction to the ecosystem when one herbivore no longer had any predation. Yes, the population would only expand so far. But the limiting factor would be starvation. Before they starve they would destroy a huge portion of wilderness.

Oh, and even if (still a big 'IF') the above referenced research is valid, hunters do, in fact, provide. In NY the provide something like $35million in extra fees and taxes. Most of that goes into conservation coffers.

I am a proponent of hunting.

I watch the hunting TV shows and I subscribe to the magazines. I own firearms.

And the research does sound crazy but it is true.

Hunting increases the herd numbers and thus, provides greater hunting opportunities. Hunters aren't thinning the herd so much as they are harvesting the surplus that results from Mother Nature's trying to achieve the right balance of deer numbers vs the amount of available food.

Google it.

 

[Mojo2]

If you're not gonna eat it you shouldn't shoot it.

In your opinion should vegans be able to hunt wild pigs even if they won't eat them?

vegans won't hunt.

Maybe not. But I know a guy who refuses to eat pig meat who says he would gladly kill wild boar just for the sport.

Sounds more like he'd do it just for the thrill of killing.

 

[Mojo2]

Until I was fourteen years old, I ate far more venison than beef. Prepared right, it is not gamey, unless you are stupid enough to shoot a buck in rutting season. There was a special agricultural season in Montana not long ago, seven deer allowed per hunter. One of my cousins and four freinds got 32 deer. Dressed them out, had a truck with a cooler, and took one for each family, the rest went for the families in their churches that were having a rough time of it.

If they are going to have that many allowed per hunter, there should be some rules specifiing that the meat not be wasted, and go to where it is needed. And the deer population can get rapidly out of control. I really don't think bringing in cougers and wolves into areas of fairly high population density is a reasonable solution. And cayotes are not going to take deer except in a starvation winter. Too dangerous for them, they are not large animals at all.

As for sport hunting, never saw the sport of killing an animal with a weapon that can shoot farther than they can identify you. But hunting for meat is quite a differant matter. And, prepared right, I prefer venison above any other meat I have had so far.

Hunting INCREASES the deer population.

no, it does not.

depends on the numbers.

did you read the study you are referring to?

I have known of this counter-intuitive dynamic for years.

I only found this article on the spur of the moment to satisfy those of you who, I knew, would find it hard to believe if I just said it without substantiation.

It's absolutely true.

 

[Vox]

In your opinion should vegans be able to hunt wild pigs even if they won't eat them?

vegans won't hunt.

Maybe not. But I know a guy who refuses to eat pig meat who says he would gladly kill wild boar just for the sport.

Sounds more like he'd do it just for the thrill of killing.

but he is not a vegan, right?

veganism is a philosophy to some degree at least. Therefore I can't envision a real vegan hunting.

a vegetarian - is a different story, but even them are usually veggies because of the concept of it.

as to the article you have provided and the study on twinning it quoted - the conclusions on the facts observed is not necessarily the one that the authors make as they do not take into consideration some physiological specifics of the facts they are describing.

However, in order to ba a factor in controlling the population, hunting can not be sporadic, but a constant one - as it was when farmers were hunting deer without any limits ( doesn't mean they were exterminating them, they were a natural factor in the equation).

so yes, rare to moderate hunting one year but not the other will not control the population much, but a moderate constatnt one - will.

 

[Vox]

Hunting INCREASES the deer population.

no, it does not.

depends on the numbers.

did you read the study you are referring to?

I have known of this counter-intuitive dynamic for years.

I only found this article on the spur of the moment to satisfy those of you who, I knew, would find it hard to believe if I just said it without substantiation.

It's absolutely true.

no it is NOT.

it just proves you did not tike time to read the ORIGINAL article ( and some others, at least abstracts) and to THINK over it.

it's a theory of the authors based on some facts observed.

Moderate constant hunting is a factor of the limiting the population, but is has to be a constant one, not a sporadic decision by some agency. as it used to be.

 

[Mojo2]

vegans won't hunt.

Maybe not. But I know a guy who refuses to eat pig meat who says he would gladly kill wild boar just for the sport.

Sounds more like he'd do it just for the thrill of killing.

but he is not a vegan, right?

veganism is a philosophy to some degree at least. Therefore I can't envision a real vegan hunting.

a vegetarian - is a different story, but even them are usually veggies because of the concept of it.

as to the article you have provided and the study on twinning it quoted - the conclusions on the facts observed is not necessarily the one that the authors make as they do not take into consideration some physiological specifics of the facts they are describing.

However, in order to ba a factor in controlling the population, hunting can not be sporadic, but a constant one - as it was when farmers were hunting deer without any limits ( doesn't mean they were exterminating them, they were a natural factor in the equation).

so yes, rare to moderate hunting one year but not the other will not control the population much, but a moderate constatnt one - will.

The vegan issue was a strawman. But the second guy, who hates pigs and said he'd enjoy hunting wild pigs but not eating them, he is for real!

Again, I am PRO-hunting.

I believe you'll be surprised, and then convinced, once you check on the validity of the phenomenon of hunting increasing deer populations.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sorry to burst all of you all's ideas of deer population control, but...

Hunting actually spurs the growth of the herds. By removing competition for food sources Mother Nature concludes there is ample food for increased numbers and she sends the message to all the would-be deer parents that the green light is lit to GO forth and re-populate.

Therefore, hunting increases deer numbers.

The best way to reduce the herd is to let Mother Nature do it.

It might take a season or two for their numbers to diminish naturally, but that's the only sure way to do it.

And the funny thing is that the game wardens and those folks understand this dynamic.

Maybe they are trying to just get hunting introduced in that county. It is a great thing for those hunters living in and around that area. They won't have to drive as far to get some meat and their hunting groove on.

Here, I found this to substantiate my, admittedly, counter-intuitive claim.

A text titled "Wildlife Ecology and Management" by William Robinson states quite clearly:

"The general theory of harvesting animals is based on the premise that when animals are not harvested at all, growth and recruitment are balanced by natural mortality and that the average growth rate of a population at its carrying capacity is zero. Harvesting reduces the population size, but the reduction results in an increase in the growth rate of the population. This increase in growth rate is brought about because of higher birth rates and lower death rates resulting from decreased competition for resources. This increased growth rate provides a surplus of individuals above the number required to replace the population, and this surplus can be harvested."​

Hunting only lowers deer numbers on a temporary basis. A study by Richter & Labisky, "Reproductive Dynamics and Disjunct White-tailed Deer Herds in Florida," in The Journal of Wildlife Management, determined that the "incidence of twinning was 38% on hunted herds and 14% on nonhunted sites."

Hunting serves no purpose other than to provide hunters with game, the DEP with funding, and residents with a feeling that "something" is being done about deer numbers, while ensuring that those numbers will replenish by the next hunting season, ad infinitum.

That's why, according to the FCMDMA, even after a concerted effort of killing deer for so many years, populations have not decreased. Their solution would be to hire sharpshooters who are more efficient than recreational hunters, erroneously citing Harvard's Andrew Spielman as supporting a 10-12 deer population per square mile, claiming that Lyme disease would be eliminated.

Hunting has increased deer population, not reduced it - GreenwichTime

And in this particular instance, being that I have a lot of knowledge of the Ithaca area, morons are FEEDING the deer. Which is causing them to move into areas off limits to hunters. Affording additional food sources and ultimately, increasing ther population od deer to the point of it being a problem. Hunting IS a solution to overpopulation of these animals, and putting city limits, etc on where hunters may go only exacerbates the problem.

 

[Mojo2]

no, it does not.

depends on the numbers.

did you read the study you are referring to?

I have known of this counter-intuitive dynamic for years.

I only found this article on the spur of the moment to satisfy those of you who, I knew, would find it hard to believe if I just said it without substantiation.

It's absolutely true.

no it is NOT.

it just proves you did not tike time to read the ORIGINAL article ( and some others, at least abstracts) and to THINK over it.

it's a theory of the authors based on some facts observed.

Moderate constant hunting is a factor of the limiting the population, but is has to be a constant one, not a sporadic decision by some agency. as it used to be.

I'll leave it up to you to continue arguing this matter.

In your own mind.

I'm convinced.

And with all due respect, I'm done with discussing the matter.

G'day.

 

[WinterBorn]

Sorry to burst all of you all's ideas of deer population control, but...

Hunting actually spurs the growth of the herds. By removing competition for food sources Mother Nature concludes there is ample food for increased numbers and she sends the message to all the would-be deer parents that the green light is lit to GO forth and re-populate.

Therefore, hunting increases deer numbers.

The best way to reduce the herd is to let Mother Nature do it.

It might take a season or two for their numbers to diminish naturally, but that's the only sure way to do it.

And the funny thing is that the game wardens and those folks understand this dynamic.

Maybe they are trying to just get hunting introduced in that county. It is a great thing for those hunters living in and around that area. They won't have to drive as far to get some meat and their hunting groove on.

Here, I found this to substantiate my, admittedly, counter-intuitive claim.



Hunting has increased deer population, not reduced it - GreenwichTime

If, and that's a big 'IF', the referenced research is true, there would still be serious destruction to the ecosystem when one herbivore no longer had any predation. Yes, the population would only expand so far. But the limiting factor would be starvation. Before they starve they would destroy a huge portion of wilderness.

Oh, and even if (still a big 'IF') the above referenced research is valid, hunters do, in fact, provide. In NY the provide something like $35million in extra fees and taxes. Most of that goes into conservation coffers.

I am a proponent of hunting.

I watch the hunting TV shows and I subscribe to the magazines. I own firearms.

And the research does sound crazy but it is true.

Hunting increases the herd numbers and thus, provides greater hunting opportunities. Hunters aren't thinning the herd so much as they are harvesting the surplus that results from Mother Nature's trying to achieve the right balance of deer numbers vs the amount of available food.

Google it.

Why were the numbers of deer so low at the beginning of the 21st century? Deer were almost hunted out of existence in the US.

Yes, they adapt to high predation numbers. But a single study in FL does not prove much. The fact that people have moved out into the suburbs more, thereby providing a safe haven for deer, has shown to be a reason for higher deer populations as well.

 

[WinterBorn]

In your opinion should vegans be able to hunt wild pigs even if they won't eat them?

vegans won't hunt.

Maybe not. But I know a guy who refuses to eat pig meat who says he would gladly kill wild boar just for the sport.

Sounds more like he'd do it just for the thrill of killing.

I know a few people who don't eat much of what they hunt. But they donate it to food banks and soup kitchens ect.

As for feral hogs, anyone who wants to should go and shoot several of them. The population is getting wildly out of control.

 

[Politico]

If you're not gonna eat it you shouldn't shoot it.

would you shoot a violent and rabid dog

other then that the deer will get eaten

You know what I meant tool.

I can see what kind of day this is going to be.

 

[hazlnut]

That seems like a lot of $$ for a deer.

Are these deer edible?

Kill two birds with one stone -- so to speak.

 

[WinterBorn]

That seems like a lot of $$ for a deer.

Are these deer edible?

Kill two birds with one stone -- so to speak.

If properly prepared they are delicious!

Many hunters donate meat to various food banks and the like. Safari Club International, for one, donates hundreds of thousands of pounds of low-fat, low-cholesterol, preservative-free, high-protein meat every year.

 

[whitehall]

Notice no rifle hunters need apply? You have to download a permit and freaking submit a "hunting log" of your activities even if you didn't get a deer. How are they going to enforce that one?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Notice no rifle hunters need apply? You have to download a permit and freaking submit a "hunting log" of your activities even if you didn't get a deer. How are they going to enforce that one?

i have been on a few within the city limit deer hunts

high powered rifles were not allowed in those areas too populated

the log is to help the state figure the herd out i guess

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/dmfalogextra.pdf

 

[jon_berzerk]

That seems like a lot of $$ for a deer.

Are these deer edible?

Kill two birds with one stone -- so to speak.

the permit and tags are free

yes they are edible

 

[Coyote]

Notice no rifle hunters need apply? You have to download a permit and freaking submit a "hunting log" of your activities even if you didn't get a deer. How are they going to enforce that one?

i have been on a few within the city limit deer hunts

high powered rifles were not allowed in those areas too populated

the log is to help the state figure the herd out i guess

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/dmfalogextra.pdf

In my area of WV, we've had a few deer hunts in more populated areas but it's strictly bow.

It seems to work well