TIME magazine weighs in on the hunting issue, disgracefully.

534

This post is the first installment in a series on this issue. Stay tuned.

This morning I spent almost two hours trying to fire a note to the editors of TIME magazine without success.  I wanted to reply to a piece they ran on Dec. 9th (see cover above), entitled America’s Pest Problem, Why the rules of hunting are about to change, probably one o the most irresponsible articles they have done in decades of highly questionable journalism.  The exercise proved to be profoundly frustrating. 

It’s puzzling but true that if you want to send a letter to TIME using the Internet, you might as well become an spelunker, for the TIME managers seem to have hidden their editors’ mailbox in the deepest bowels of their system.  And finally, when you locate a form apparently designed for this purpose, it invariable malfunctions sending up all sorts of errors.  It would seem that the TIME website operates as efficiently as the Obamacare site, an incomprehensible disgrace for an outfit as big and rich as this media giant.  In any case, here’s the text of my note, a model of restraint considering how I really feel about this filthy article and what I would really like to say to these folks face to face. (Let my modest note serve as an intro to the materials included in this post, starting with a superb reply to the same story penned by Susan Russell, Wildlife Policy Director of Animal Protection League of New Jersey.)

TIME Magazine

To the Editor:

When you call deer, bears and other animals “pests” I’m ready to call that shabby, loaded journalism—or no journalism at all. Where’s your sense of fairness, not to mention professionalism?

Frankly I expected more from TIME in connection with this important and often painful issue, at least a semblance of objectivity, which this piece simply lacks. Further, if the author is a hunter himself, which is not made clear, decency alone would have required him to say so and recuse himself from such an assignment.

As it stands, this tendentious screed by David von Drehle is a smear job, a false flag on animals, a call to unleash an all-out orgy of killing on the basis of spurious science and illusory solutions, with only hunters and their cronies as the obvious beneficiaries.

Haven’t we done enough to non-humans on this planet that in 2013 we should still be seeking to “control” animals by simply blasting them away, poisoning, etc., without looking at the wider issues—like constant human destruction and encroachment of animal habitats on every corner of the globe? The absence of a serious debate on humane ways to establish a civilized balance between human and animal needs speaks volumes about the thinly-veiled savagery of our culture and the corruption and laziness of those who claim to be our intellectual lights.

D.P. Greanville
Editor
The Greanville Post
https://www.greanvillepost.com/

______________________________

Response to “America’s Pest Problem: Why the rules of hunting are about to change” TIME Magazine, December 9, 2013

By Susan Russell, Wildlife Policy Director, Animal Protection League of New Jersey

Despite mounting evidence that killing bears, mountain lions, or coyotes solves few problems and creates new ones, TIME’s cover story, “America’s Pest Problem,” (December 9) advocates a sweeping expansion of hunting, ostensibly to reduce conflicts. Writer David Von Drehle, whose wildlife background is not clear, doesn’t hide his preferences, nor does he include countering information.

“America’s Pest Problem” is indistinguishable from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ (AFWA) stated public relations strategy (“Bears in the Backyard, Deer in the Driveway”) of instilling fear of wildlife, defeating wildlife protective legislation and initiatives, countering “propaganda,” and advancing recreational hunting and trapping as the “only effective solutions.” The AFWA and its “Industry/Agency Coalition” represent state and federal wildlife regulatory agencies, firearms, archery, ammunition and equipment manufacturers, fur interests, and other wildlife-use trade associations. (See: AFWA: Ammo, Guns, Fur, and Bows).

Say that Again?

“What can keep [wolves, lions, and bears] away from our neighborhoods?” asks Von Drehle. “Only the push back from the No. 1 predator of them all: the human being.”

Not according to the September 20 edition of Science Magazine, which reports that “a growing number of wildlife researchers say that shooting a predator often doesn’t solve the problem, because it merely opens territory to another animal.” LINK

Science reports that with the onset of heavy hunting pressure in Washington State, cougar deaths “sky- rocketed—but so did complaints about problem animals.” “No. 1 predator” had set in motion a veritable cascade of dysfunction. Hunting decimated the senior adult males who stabilize a cougar society by patrolling territory and protecting the kittens of several females. When seniors died, young males killed kittens to drive females into estrus. In response, females moved their cubs to “areas they would normally never use, where they eat prey they normally wouldn’t eat,” including endangered species. The younger males, who hadn’t learned to avoid people, attacked livestock. “They’re the ones that haven’t learned to avoid people and get into trouble,” said one of the study’s authors.

Hunting, says Von Drehle, prevents “an invasion of fangs and claws.” The researchers noted that “California, which bans sport hunting of cougars, has one of the largest mountain lion populations (about 4000) and the lowest rate of livestock depredations. In contrast, other western states with lion hunts also have high depredation rates.”

Science reports a high tolerance for black bears in Western states. In Durango, Colorado, the “bear approval” rate is almost 100 percent, despite human-bear conflicts. “People love bears,” said one wildlife official.

Studies in Wisconsin show that hunting did not address problem bears. Based on 10 years of data, wildlife researchers concluded that the age and sex of bears killed by hunters “differed significantly from those of bears trapped at nuisance and complaint sites.” Hunters took “significantly younger bears and a lower proportion of males.” Finally, “the most common method (shooting over bait) produced age-sex profiles most different from bears live-trapped after nuisance complaints.” LINK

Bins vs. bullets: Restricting access to garbage and bait

Easy access to garbage and hunters’ bait changes black bear behavior and foraging habits. Feeding can lead to food conditioning, habituation to humans, conflicts, and property damage. Researchers attributed 35 percent of human-bear conflicts in Yosemite National Park to conditioned bears. The majority of other incidents are due to human error. Feeding, via trash or bait, also leads to increased reproductive rates, physical size and numbers, and reduces bear range.

To prevent human-bear encounters, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), a world-class authority in reducing human-wildlife conflicts, recommends requiring and helping the public to secure food and garbage, and enforcing the law.

“The good news,” writes WCS, “is that efforts to reduce the availability of anthropogenic food to bears can be quite successful at reducing bear-human conflict, as evidenced by some of our case studies. An important message from the New Mexico case study is that when food was made unavailable, bears were capable of living in close proximity to humans without conflict.” LINK

WCS’s caveat: “Although in reality black bears pose little threat to human safety, they are sometimes feared. The species’ power in the public eye can lead to intense public safety concerns and, thus, extreme management reactions. . . In this discussion, however, it is important to recognize that humans are a root cause of many of these issues, and that focusing on bears as a public safety threat or as an economic nuisance is largely counterproductive. To solve these problems, the central focus needs to be human behavior.”

Von Drehle knows better. He acknowledges that securing garbage and human-derived foods, as “argued” by “anti-hunting activists” in New Jersey (it is wildlife researchers who recommend securing garbage), “would help control the population of bears and other wildlife.” He opines: “But suppose, that all these steps were taken tomorrow, and the black bears of New Jersey and elsewhere were instantly restored to their paleo diet. Slow starvation is no happier way for a bear to die than by a hunter’s bullet or arrow. And in the process of starving, animals cut off from their human feed are likely to become more desperate and brazen. They start eating pets instead of pet food.”

“Slow starvation” and “eating pets” are sensational, but the research is already in. WCS has stipulated that when human food sources are removed, bears, omnivores who are largely vegetarian, can live near humans without conflict. There is an ample supply of natural foods for New Jersey bears. Many localities in the U.S. and Canada already restrict trash. Humans and pets are intact.

In the U.S., the governments of Teton County, Wyoming; Juneau, Alaska; Eagle County, Colorado; Glenwood Springs and Snow Mass Village, Colorado, and many more, have mandated bear resistant bins and dumpsters. Aspen officials advise that the ordinances are in place “to ensure your safety and the safety of our wildlife. When wildlife has access to trash, it brings them closer to our homes, creating a potentially dangerous situation for animals and people.”

And when removing human foods to restore the natural ecology of Yosemite’s black bear population, park personnel reported that black bears in Yosemite Valley simply returned to more natural weights:

“Our results showed reductions in the size of bears in YV (Yosemite Valley) since the 1970’s and consistency in size with bears in other areas of California. These results indicated that bears in YV returned to a more natural physical condition, following reductions in the availability to bears of human-provided food and garbage.”

Baiting begs the question of hunters fattening their own or others’ trophies. Historically, the average weight of a New Jersey adult male black bear is approximately 400 pounds (NJDFW, Black Bear Biology and Behavior, May 2012). During the 2011 New Jersey hunt, a hunter killed a “trophy” or “record” male black bear weighing 829 pounds on December 9. On December 8, a hunter checked in with a 776 -pound male. The largest bear shot in the previous year’s hunt weighed more than 750 pounds. In 2009, a Pennsylvania man was caught poaching a 700-pound” “record” black bear over pastries (Field and Stream, 2009).

Merchandising the Black Bear

Inaugural black bear hunts, lotteries, and deregulation are stirring fierce controversy in New Jersey, Nevada, Maryland, California, Kentucky, and Oklahoma. No matter how low or tenuous the bear population (see Maryland, Nevada, Kentucky, Oklahoma), the recreational hunts are usually justified as “population control.” The purpose of bear lotteries is hunter recruitment and retention (R&R).

The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency’s “Industry/Agency Coalition Council to Advance Hunting & the Shooting Sports” is a partnership of “trade organizations” and “leaders from state and federal agencies.” Its goal is to “recruit and retain” hunter- clients.

The industry has prescribed “big game” (black bear) hunting lotteries as an important marketing tool. As described by Arizona Game and Fish Department recruitment and retention specialists: “Opportunities to hunt including increased chances of success in the big game hunt permit- tag draw, are important to hunter retention.”

In 2005, the Wisconsin “Learn to Hunt Bear Program (LTHB) is another tool to expose novice hunters to the hunting experience and recruit new hunters into the sport.” (May, 2011- Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources).

The 2009 inaugural Kentucky hunt, alternately promoted as “First Black Bear Hunt Ever!!!” and “The First Bear Hunt in 100 Years,” exemplifies R&R exploitation despite low populations.

Nowhere in Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife news releases or related news articles was the 2009 estimated black bear population stated. That is because the true number was both low and unknown. In 2007, the department described its information as “based on limited data” and the black bear’s future in Kentucky “uncertain.”

Nevertheless, Kentucky game officials moved forward with a permit bear season in 2009. The reason: “The League of Kentucky Sportsmen and others have pushed for a Kentucky black bear hunt for several years,” according to the Kentucky Department of Wildlife. “Sportsmen and sportswomen of Kentucky should be very excited . . .,” said Steven Dobey, black bear biologist for the department. “The 2009 hunt quota is a conservative one of 10 bears, or 5 females, whichever limit is reached first.”

For more lottery case studies and population data, please see: “Firearms/Agency Trade Associations Client Retention and Recruitment Black Bear Lotteries.” LINK

“There is no difference between a bait station and a dump”

Baiting for bear and deer, a practice that elicits strong public disapproval, contributes to human-wildlife conflicts and forest degeneration. It is used extensively in states where it is legal, and, in particular, in conjunction with bow hunting, an especially cruel method of kill promoted in “America’s Pest Problem.” Killing over bait is controversial throughout North America and responsible wildlife biologists are moving to discontinue the practice.

Item 157 of a trade media guide/survey advises: “In particular, avoid discussing hunting techniques that infringe on the public’s perception of ‘fair chase,’ such as hunting using high-tech gear (only 20% of Americans support), hunting over bait (27% support), and use of special scents to attract game (36% support).” LINK

Baiting is a major bone of contention in the New Jersey bear dispute and figures prominently in legislation attacked by Van Drehle. He addresses, in some detail, the human foods available to bears in New Jersey. A conspicuous omission: bait.

The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources advises: “One of the biggest problems pertaining to the public and black bears is caused by baiting. Whether it’s feeding wildlife in your back yard or spreading bait in front of trail cameras, black bears tend to hang around bait as long as it is available. . .They will begin to associate humans with food, which increases the chance of a human and bear encounter.” (ADCNR, Black Bear Sightings Increase in South Alabama, 2008). LINK

In a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the director of the Pacific Northwest Region of the National Park Service stated his opposition to baiting: “Biologically, there is no difference between a bait station and a dump. Bait stations habituate bears to human-generated food, contributing to the potential for conflicts between bears and people in the park” (in, HSUS, 2009).

In Canada, researchers found that “hunters contribute significantly towards the development of problem or nuisance bears,” leading to a “downward spiral of increased aggression, food- seeking travel to obtain food from camps, eventually ending in bear mortality” (Larry Pynn, “Hunters, bears at risk because food, debris are left at campsites,” Vancouver Sun, December 1, 2003).

The negative ecological impacts of baiting extend well beyond habituating bear and deer. The Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre gathered available science-based information on the ecological and human social effects of artificial feeding and baiting of wildlife into one readily accessible document: LINK

The authors summarized: “In Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the increased potential for disease transmission and outbreak is perhaps of greatest and immediate concern. Nevertheless, even if spread of disease is prevented, other significant ecological concerns exist. Disruption of animal movement patterns and spatial distribution, alteration of community structure with reduced diversity and abundance, the introduction and invasion of exotic plant species and general degradation of habitat are all major negative effects that have been documented at different locations throughout North America.”

The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources cites “multiple studies” that link deer feeding/baiting to forest degeneration. Other negative impacts are increased predation on ground-nesting birds and an increase in deer-vehicle collisions: “Deer feeding/baiting may affect surrounding habitats and may cause ecological damage that affects a wide variety of wildlife that also depends on those habitats…Providing supplemental feed or bait may negatively impact populations of wild turkeys and other ground-nesting birds by concentrating predators, such as coyotes, raccoons, and opossums, near feeders.” “In South Carolina, deer vehicle collisions are 9% greater in the low country, where baiting occurs, than in the upstate, where baiting is illegal. This is despite the fact that human population densities in the low country are 31% less than human population densities in the upstate.” LINK

Twenty-six states do not allow the baiting of deer. Bear baiting is banned in 18 of the 28 states that allow bear hunting (Humane Society of the United States, 2009). In recent years, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming have moved toward restricting baiting (Alabama Department of Natural Resources). Citizens in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts passed initiatives to prohibit bear baiting. And New York recently banned bear baiting to prevent potential human-bear conflicts.

New Jersey’s Massive Deer and Bear Feeding Program

New Jersey allows both deer and bear baiting. State hunters distributed an estimated 1,000,000 pounds of corn and other foodstuffs for deer bait in 1998-99. Since then, the number of deer hunters who hunt deer over bait has risen to 41 percent or higher (a 2010 New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife survey of bow hunters in New Jersey showed that 60 percent hunted deer over bait).

Through baiting, large quantities of supplemental food have been available to bears for over a decade, and for white-tailed deer (and bears), since 1998. Corn, a variety of grains, apples, and other food attractants have been allowed as deer bait in bear habitat, thus providing a high carbohydrate food source for New Jersey’s bears, even in years of natural mast failure.

The bear bait sites may contain bread, doughnuts, buns, pastries, rotten meat, table scraps, animal carcasses, fish guts, grease and other refuse, often covered with liquid sugar, molasses, or honey.

AFWA: Ammo, Guns, Fur, and Bows

Emerging science, the failure of hunting to address certain problems, its role in exacerbating conflicts, and the success of non-lethal approaches are not “good news” for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) and partnered commercial associations and manufacturers. State and federal wildlife regulators partnered with Beretta USA, ATK Armament Systems, Taurus International Firearms, and the Archery Trade Association rely on a marketing strategy that exploits often preventable human-wildlife conflicts, some caused by hunting itself.

The Archery Trade Association (ATA), “works with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which promotes hunting and bow hunting nationwide”(www.archerytrade.org May 21, 2010). “Working with NSSF, states are reaping the rewards!” says the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for recreational and sporting firearms. LINK

State wildlife departments sell hunting licenses, which pay salaries and benefits. Seventy-nine percent of state wildlife employees are big game hunters. Manufacturers sell bows, guns, ammunition, broadhead arrows and bolts, bait stations, trail cams, magazines, and other equipment. NY TIMES LINK

“Away from the limelight”

“No other organization has a greater hand in molding state, federal and provincial resource agencies,” writes the gun manufacturers’ Wildlife Management Institute (Browning Arms, Alliant Powder, Olin Corporation, Hodgedon Powder, Blount, and so on) “typically working away from the limelight to catalyze and facilitate strategies, actions and decisions.” (www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org Jan 2000. Removed).

The beauty of the arrangement: State game employees are the trade’s communications officers. AFWA, whose public relations department markets recreational hunting and trapping and protects its unseen commercial members’ bottom line, is the likely font of many of Von Drehle’s talking points and unidentified “experts.”

The communications bible

The exuberant fidelity of “America’s Pest Problem’” to AFWA’s media strategy, “Bears in the Backyard, Deer in the Driveway,” is too close for comfort or coincidence. From the cavalcade of “examples of conflicts” and promoting bow hunting in the suburbs to dismissing New Jersey legislation to exploiting Lyme disease, AFWA fingerprints are all over “America’s Pest Problem.”

As explained by AFWA’s public affairs director, “Bears in the Backyard [Deer in the Driveway] presents “specific case studies on deer, beaver and bear” and “provides examples of conflicts between wildlife and people. . .”¹ Selected conflicts are solved by the commercial shooting sports. All communications professionals, she said, could speak with one voice. New Jersey’s director of the Division of Fish and Wildlife was a presenter at the media conference.

The AFWA media kit does not provide examples of thousands of hunting accidents – from fatalities, to, in New Jersey, bullets whizzing through toddler’s bedrooms, “errant shots that just missed a policeman and wounded a toddler,” or “a man [who] accidentally killed his wife while shooting squirrel.” Nor does AFWA provide press examples of cats and deer with razor-tipped, broadhead arrows lodged in their skulls. LINK

Distributed to the media and legislators by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife departments, “Bears in the Backyard” counters “lobbying and propaganda efforts” and ballot initiatives “banning hunting and trapping.” The report was authored by Carol Wynne and Stephanie Kenyon of Point to Point Communications, and by Robert Southwick of Southwick Associates.

Avoiding the appearance, if not the fact, of impropriety and conflict of interest, AFWA failed to disclose that Wynne is a former executive director of the Fur Information Council, and lobbyist for Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, now the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. Yet Wynne held a seat — “helping wildlife” — on both AFWA’s Animal Welfare and Fur Resources committees.

Stephanie Kenyon “directed media and marketing for the American Fur Industry.” Both Point to Point Communications and Southwick Associates specialize in fur and shooting sports reports and public relations. Point to Point is credited with obtaining “major news stories” and “front page coverage in USA Today, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.” “He who gets the word out first, wins,” says Wynne.

Honing in on New Jersey – and constructive legislation

Von Drehle portrays opposition to bear hunts in New Jersey, “where emotions run high,” as sentimental and misguided. He highlights a protest sign that says, “MOTHER NATURE IS CRYING.” But the real target is Bear Smart legislation favorably reported from committee (November 14) and earning editorial praise from the state’s major newspapers. The Star-Ledger’s editorial, “Don’t Bait Bears,” is not what AFWA wants to see. LINKHunters and their agency, the Division of Fish and Wildlife, oppose any ban or restriction on baiting bear or deer. The hunters’ game council nominates the director of the division, which serves the council.

Von Drehle cheers the bitterly controversial bear hunt, which he says “officials instituted in 2010” (the first bear hunt in New Jersey since 1971 was held in 2003) and baselessly dismisses legislation that requires the use of bear-resistant trash containers and prohibits baiting for deer and bear in bear habitat. The Bear Smart Bill is supported by state and national humane organizations and the New Jersey Sierra Club, which says that Bear Smart will do more to end human-bear conflicts than all the hunts combined.

Sightings, non-threatening, or nuisance calls make up 93.4% of all complaints, or, more aptly, calls, in New Jersey. A rise and fall in state-logged complaints occurred in the years prior to the 2003 New Jersey hunt. Canadian authorities opine that climate and natural food availability, not hunting, are responsible for ebb and flow.

The unusually sharp rise in calls – the proffered reason for the 2010 New Jersey R&R bear hunt lottery – raised questions regarding a potentially political genesis of at least some of the calls. Former DEP commissioner Mark Mauriello told NBC News that he had “always questioned how we could verify to be sure the calls were real.” (NBC News, 8 Dec 2010). From May, 2007 to May, 2010, for instance, a publicly avowed bear hunt supporter called 71 times about non -aggressive bears in the area.

New Jersey’s stated “population reduction” approach has been to randomly bait and kill bears, the overwhelming majority of whom have never approached a human or a home. The salient point is twofold: Millions of pounds of bait strewn throughout New Jersey’s woodlands and the Division of Fish and Wildlife’s signal failure to address unsecured trash contributed to human-bear encounters prior to 2003 and certainly prior to 2010.

Preventing human-bear conflicts could have been achieved in a socially sustainable and humane way by restricting human-derived foods, including bait. When given the choice, 74 percent of New Jersey voters, in every geographic region of the state, prefer that the state use non-lethal methods to resolve conflicts. Yet New Jersey’s hunting lobby continues to oppose Bear Smart legislation and trash requirements already used in other states.

Beavers?

Along with bald eagles (“one has been feasting on pet dogs near Saginaw, Michigan”) and wild turkeys re-stocked by state hunting agencies (“wild turkeys swagger through Staten Island, New York”) Nature’s engineer is on the TIME hit list.

The North American beaver creates and restores wetlands, prevents flooding and erosion, and contributes to forest health. Oregon and Wyoming are using beavers to restore water, wetland, and habitat quality.

Beavers occasionally block culverts or other structures and damage ornamental or other valuable trees. Newer, larger culverts eliminate flooding problems. Fortunately, non-lethal solutions are relatively inexpensive and effective. Trees can be wrapped with special fencing. For those cases where action is required, a range of experts, from the U.S. Forest Service to state conservation districts, counsel that trapping or shooting is inefficient:

“Trapping and shooting may provide no more than a short-term solution because other beavers probably will show up if the habitat is good … the Clemson Beaver Pond Leveler, T-culverts, culvert blocks, and simple log drains can be effective. Routine maintenance is required to keep the systems from being clogged by debris” (United States Forest Service, “How to Keep Beavers from Plugging Culverts”)

Knowlton Township in New Jersey “celebrates its beavers” and holds an annual “Beaver Day.”

Deer

Equating efforts to protect white-tailed deer to the Bambi syndrome, Von Drehle reduces the profound bond between humans and animals, and nature, to a Disney cartoon. Given the tone of the article, that is not surprising.

It is not fashionable to defend this beleaguered species. Conservation groups partnered with gun, ammunition and archery manufacturers (“nature-related businesses”) energetically pursue the systematic killing of deer, even in our back yards. Commercial partners who exacerbated the problem profit from de-regulation and increased hunter access to private and public land. The trade has identified both as necessary for client retention and recruitment.

With a wink and a nod, the seminal cause of artificial abundance, and mitigating science, get little play. Both are important in resolving the problem, where it exists.

Blame for degraded conditions in U.S. forests has fallen solely on the white-tailed deer. White-tail populations did not spontaneously “explode;” the species was pushed. The first order of business is to stop the pushing.

The second is instilling a modicum of ethics in how civil society treats timid animals that are farmed as “crops” for amusement and profit.

The third is to usher interests who sell bullets out of the “conservation” business, especially when taxpayers are footing the bill. Antiquated game management policies conflict with broader science and societal needs.

In 1977, the Journal of Wildlife Management reported that “deer herds are being managed with ever-increasing intensity, with a primary management plan of increasing the productivity of the whitetail deer through habitat manipulation and harvest regulation.”

Nationwide, from 1975 to 1985, millions of acres were logged, burned and defoliated for commercial hunting. The majority of acreage burned and logged, wrote the Department of the Interior, benefited deer by providing food and breeding range.

For decades, the killing of males produced an artificially skewed sex-ratio and forced unnaturally high reproduction, as did habitat development. Hunting itself can boost numbers by stimulating reproduction. In less than ideal habitat, 38 percent of does bear twins at hunted sites, versus 14 percent at non-hunted sites. In optimum habitat, killing keeps birth rates high. Depending on the ratio, killing females can keep a high density population “productive.”

Areas experiencing deer pressure are not ecological islands. Ultimately, local deer numbers and movements are influenced by outside management, pervasive hunting, and development.

For example, In New Jersey’s Morris County, the cumulative impacts at Morristown National Historical Park (MNHP) began to be seen during the 1980s. There are seven Wildlife Management Areas, tracts managed for hunting, in Morris County. Black River WMA “enhances” deer breeding range; on its outskirts, townships kill deer as pests. Burning and early succession, which create deer breeding range, are in current conservation vogue. The Morris County Parks Commission exacerbated matters by initiating sustained hunts at Lewis Morris Park, adjacent to MNHP, and 16 other parks. Deer respond to human predation by moving deeper into forests and unhunted tracts. Hunted does will expand their home range by 30 percent.

Game managers indict the native whitetail for not consuming MNHP’s non-native Japanese barberry, and for browsing on what is left of the native understory. Japanese barberry, once promoted by game agencies and conservationists, is highly invasive in the absence of deer, its seed spread by birds. Barberry’s roots are shallow but tough, it grows several feet tall, and it shades out native plants. Exclosure studies in Connecticut show Japanese barberry within, and without, deer exclosures.

The whitetail is a keystone herbivore that has co-evolved with forests for 3.4 million to 3.9 million years. “The Science of Overabundance” (Smithsonian) cautioned that absent adequate science, “management should not continue to reduce deer numbers systematically to enhance woody tree production because this may have dire consequences for the entire ecosystem.”

According to Yale University studies (2010), deer density is not a leading factor in determining variation in vegetation impacts across western Connecticut: “the empirical basis for presumptions that white-tailed deer cause forest regeneration failure is limited.”

“Species diversity was generally higher outside of deer exclosures,” reports another Connecticut study, “smaller canopy trees seemed to benefit from deer browsing.”

2004 studies conclude that white-tailed deer represent a significant vector of seed dispersal for hundreds of native plant species across North America landscape. The Smithsonian also makes this point.

Studies in Virginia show that deer affect “only the smaller stage classes of trees likely to die due to other limiting factors” and do not, as anti-deer activists say, affect forest canopy diversity down the line unless other disturbances are present.

Thinning tree canopies, logging, and “controlled” burning are deer range management, and will both draw deer and lead to higher reproduction.

The first sentence of “America’s Predator Problem” mentions Lyme disease. Yet leading researchers have long absolved deer as the culprit. As explained by researchers (in, the New York Times): http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/are-deer-the-culprit-in-lyme-disease/

“When deer are scarce, ticks don’t necessarily become scarce, because they have alternative hosts. Indeed, several recent studies (e.g., Jordan and Schulze, 2005; Ostfeld et al., 2006; Jordan et al., 2007) on mainland sites in New York and New Jersey found no correlation between deer and ticks.

“Second, ticks and Lyme disease are rare or absent in parts of the United States (the Southeast, most of the Midwest) where deer are abundant.

“Third, ticks are only dangerous if they are infected, and deer play no role in infecting ticks.”

The foregoing illustrates that when extolling the wholesale slaughter of wildlife in a national publication, getting both sides of the story is not only a good, if obvious, idea; it’s a moral imperative.