On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:21:02 -0400, Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
FarmI writes:
...
Oh, I take an /interest/ in them, all right. I just don't buy the lie
that everything is dying.
There are *more* deer in the area now than there were a dozen years ago.
And it was some years back that I read a report from PGC making the case
that there are more deer in Pennsylvania now than there ever have been,
throughout all of history, primarily because their only predator is man,
and we've legislated ourselves into non-combatant status via seasonal
hunting.
With the exception of Sundays and 12 days ending on Christmas, the
statewide deer seasons in 2008-2009 ran from Oct.4 through Jan. 10.
The fact that spotty overhunting occurs, such as Ann claims,
does not reflect on the whole state.
What I wrote was: "I live ... in the traditional "big woods" hunting area
of Northern PA." That's not an insignificant, "spot" region when
discussing PA wildlife resources.
Does no one else read the occasional
reports about the need for actual herd culling in municipal and state
parks, due to deer overpopulation and their consequent tendency to move
out of desirable habitat, into more human-controlled spaces,
Those "human-controlled spaces" must be desirable or the deer wouldn't
feed there.
causing no
end of difficulty such as dramatically increased number of car crashes?
No reasonable person would deny that - particularly in the 'burbs -
deer/vehicle collisions are a problem. Probably the Erie Insurance
company has done the most to actually study the causes and inform its
policy holders.
The two week rifle deer season is part of the problem:
"Drivers should be extremely alert for deer while driving in November,
which is peak mating season for deer and a time when a large number of
deer claims occur. In Pennsylvania, the two-week hunting season that
begins the Monday after Thanksgiving, is also a time when a large number
of deer claims occur, particularly on opening day and the first Saturday
of the season."
http://auto.erieinsurance.com/Deer-car-crashes.aspx
Last summer, here in rural Beaver county, there was a local problem of
excess Canadian geese that inhabit Brady Run. Weirdly, for a place where
hunting and culling is normally respected, there was a lot of
argumentation over whether to off a few dozen birds.
I'm going to assume that's tongue-in-cheek. A search of the
Tribune-Review archives produces a number of articles about Canada Geese
being "dealt with" in your area. Of course procedure does have to be
followed; they are protected under the Migratory Bird Act.
It's interesting to see that when someone like me makes an observation
about my area, the cry goes up, "That is a local effect only! The
bigger picture is horrible!" But if those others make an observation
about (just to pull an example out of the air) overhunting in their
area, and claim extrapolation to The Greater Everywhere, no one is
allowed to make the contrary argument, "You have a local effect only,
the rest of the state is fine." It's a fun double standard to watch.
Have you forgotten that you wrote: "The fact that spotty overhunting
occurs, such as Ann claims, does not reflect on the whole state." You at
least seem to be claiming that what you observe in your area is the norm.
The fact that I make these observations about my "tiddling place" does
not restrict their validity to only these few small acres of my
"tiddling place." I make my observations so as to provide a context in
which to be able to make a reasonable claim that there is an
(over)abundance of wildlife all around me (e.g. the state game lands a
few miles away are chock full of critters), throughout the whole area of
western Pennsylvania outside the cities, not /just/ on my "tiddling
place," and that there is precious little actual risk to the whole. I
As to Ann's whine about what would happen if everyone hunted the local
wildlife to feed their households... The question is inapposite, as the
whole point is that all this wildlife just goes through their merry
lives with seasonal hunting only. Generally speaking, modern humans in
North America don't actually feed their households by hunting; by far,
most folks get their meat from a grocer or butcher, neatly insulated
from the inconvenient ickiness of killing their own. It was merely the
observation that I could do so (and phrased just as such), not a claim
that it is happening, or should happen, or is about to begin.
The exchange was:
Karl wrote:
"I could feed my household using nothing but a crossbow, without ever
having to step outside the yard immediately surrounding the house. All
I have to do is wait for the game to show up."
Ann wrote:
"But for how long ... assuming everyone else in your deer's range did the
same thing?"
It wasn't a "whine", just pointing out how ridiculous your claim that you
"could feed your household" was.
For kicks, just now I went surfing for info on Pennsylvania deer
population. The following may be the report I referenced above, but
it's been so many years since I first saw it (this is dated 1991) that
it could be just another in a long series of similar reports. I haven't
yet taken the time to read it fully.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/vi...context=ewdcc5
"The Need and Difficulty of Bringing the Pennsylvania Deer Herd Under
Control"
...
There is no current risk of impending doom *at all* to Pennsylvania's
wildlife, least of all to deer.
You're kidding; that report is based on 1981-1990 data. One of the authors
is from the Warren lab (ANF) and if you look at their later work, you'll
find that some of the tree regeneration problem they attributed to deer is
in fact due to exhaustion of soil buffering capacity due to acid rain.
You (and Ann) have mere local effects. I have the general observation,
supported anecdotally in my area, but then more fully supported with
actual studies by the sorts of people who track and manage such
questions for a living.
Depends on what you call "local effects". My observation of deer numbers
parallels that of hunters in my (Tioga) and adjoining counties, many of
whom hunt public lands. According to what I've found, about 4% of Beaver
County is public land; three Game Lands and one State Park, for a total of
19 square miles - the largest of which is Raccoon Creek State Park (7,572
acres). By contrast, about 30% of Tioga County is public land; one State
Forest, four Game Lands, the COE holdings, and several State Parks, for a
total of 341 square miles - the largest of which is Tioga State Forest
(160,000 acres).
If you have any interest at all in the opinion of hunters, see the United
Sportsmen of Pennsylvania website:
http://www.unifiedsportsmenpa.org/
The organization has sued the PGC, claiming it has mismanaged the deer on
public land, because: "The PGC does not have a credible system for
determining deer harvests, and consequently does not have an accurate
count of how many deer actually exist in the Commonwealth."
You might also Google for PA hunter web forums,
Disclaimer: No, I haven't or am not now predicting the imminent demise
of the white-tail deer in PA.