(letters)

Deer in the Headlights

It is a sad forest that Ted Williams exalts in "Wanted: More Hunters" [Incite, March-April]. In it, hunters assume the role of wolves and cougars (incidentally, killed off by hunters), and deer are killed to rid the world of Lyme disease. Natural predators kill the weakest and sickest members of prey species; human hunters prefer the best-as trophies. By removing the least fit, natural predators improve gene pools. By killing the healthiest and strongest-and leaving the most diseased-hunters weaken the species' gene pool. Williams writes, "Less than 10 percent of the public are hunters." In truth, it is about 6 percent: a tiny special-interest group linked to the weapons industry that helps fund wildlife management. Killing has never been a good ethical answer. May I remind you: We are not gods.

Constance Young
Wildlife Watch Inc.
New Paltz, NY

It is with great shock that I read "Wanted: More Hunters." Several towns in New Jersey have already hired sharpshooters at huge sums of taxpayer dollars to "wipe out" the deer population. Many of these deer are not shot outright; many spill their blood and run off wounded. Many communities are finding out that hiring hunters is really no "quick fix" [but] only serves to increase deer fertility in coming years.

Rita Eisenberg
Basking Ridge, NJ

Ted Williams was able to get the message out to the general public about basic wildlife biology and ungulate population management. Deer populations can recover in three to five years if the habitat is in good shape. Habitats, on the other hand, can take 30 years or more to recover from an overabundance of deer. Birth control for deer works fine in the lab, but it is still impractical to implement in the field.

Brent Mitchell
Flathead Audubon Society
Kalispell, MT

It would be difficult to disagree more with an article than with "Wanted: More Hunters," by Ted Williams. It encourages killing one species to "save the environment and many kinds of birds." As usual, the human being is going to "successfully" rearrange the elements of nature. The essence of the problem is that the human being has taken [the deer's] environment away from them. The human being, not the deer, is responsible for creating the habitat problem. Why don't you allow space for views that present a more enlightened approach to our relationship with the animal world?

F. T. Julian
Pinehurst, NC

Ted Williams's article angered me. I admit I do not know the intricacies of the booming deer population. However, I do know a biased article when I read one, and this piece was slanted to the core. It demeaned animal-rights groups, which care deeply for deer and the environment, and it failed to address the growing human population that helped to create this deer crisis and has inflicted more damage to our planet than deer ever could. No one suggests eliminating humans to ease the mass environmental destruction they cause every day. But when it comes to deer-that's being humane. Is it really?

Lea Werber
New York, NY

Ted Williams replies: Wolves and cougars were not "killed off by hunters." They were killed off by government predator-control agents for stockmen. Hunters do not "weaken the species' gene pool." The world's leading deer authority, Valerius Geist of the University of Calgary, points out that "trophy bucks" are the slackers, the animals that didn't compete for does and therefore have large, perfect racks. By culling them, hunters improve the gene pool. No one suggests killing off "one species of animal" to save another. We're just trying to reduce individual deer for the benefit of all wildlife, including deer themselves. I agree that "the human being, not the deer, is responsible for creating the habitat problem." That's why Audubon is promoting efforts to fix the problem. I did not "demean" animal-rights groups; they demeaned themselves. All I did was report their anti-wildlife behavior. Sharpshooters almost never wound deer. Virtually every one dies instantly.

Editor's Note: For more letters on deer, see below.

Shoring Up Shorebirds

Thanks to Audubon for publishing Don Stap's "Living on the Edge" [March-April]. Shorebirds deserve greater conservation attention. Besides the significant work for shorebird conservation described in the article, numerous governmental and non-governmental organizations, including Audubon, have collectively developed a U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (703-358-1828). The plan's council is working with Audubon to identify shorebird sites for inclusion in the Important Bird Areas program.

Jon Andrew
U.S. Shorebird Conservation
Arlington, VA

The "Pill" for Deer

Although I thought the article "Birth Control for Deer?" was well presented, I am disturbed by its implications. I believe this is yet another instance of sanitizing nature to fit into certain narrow-minded urbanites' view of the world. Creatures die. That is inescapable. Sanitizing it with birth control darts does not change that fact. This brand of touchy-feely "environmentalism" hurts the cause, and it does absolutely nothing to protect the places and things we should be fighting to protect. Killing deer is not pleasant. If people could bloody their own hands and accept that deer must die, it [would] bring the reality of life and death that much closer to us. It allows an acknowledgement of what must happen to bring food to our table. I kill deer. I buy organic produce. I support local farmers. This connects me to the earth. I have much work to do. I still consume too much and leave too strong an environmental impact [on the earth]. But I am trying.

Matthew L. Miller
Boise, ID

I enjoyed the article on deer overpopulation by Matthew Schermann, "Birth Control for Deer?" But as an ethicist who studies and teaches the issue of animal rights, I strenuously object to: "People will also have to make emotional decisions, and that is why immunocontraception researchers think their products will find a market." The concept of an "emotional decision" is a contradiction in terms: A decision is either based on reason or no decision at all. Nor is it accurate to say that the question of the moral status of humans and animals can only be settled by consulting our emotions. If we are to resolve disputes about animals, we should begin by adopting the method of action unique to the human animal: rationality.

Irfan Khawaja
Department of Philosophy and Religion
The College of New Jersey
Ewing, NJ

Deer Wars

I was excited when I read David Seideman's editorial in the most recent issue of Audubon magazine, and I commend you for what I think was not only courageous, but an important contribution to helping diverse readers focus on a common goal--ecosystem management. Your editorial highlighted a problem whose time has come: the ecological impact of too many deer. The wildlife-management profession has increased its efforts over the past decade to make sportsmen aware that their responsibilities as stewards of our resources extend beyond nurturing game species and habitat to ensure harvestable surpluses. The term "ecosystem management" has been introduced as an alternative to single-species management. The criticism your editorial has received from animal-welfare advocates shows the extent of work needed on that side of the debate as well. They are no less guilty than hunters of filtering issues through a narrow set of values. Perhaps the latest issue of Audubon broadened the perspectives of some of those readers. It will take courageous articles such as your editorial, and those produced by Ted Williams over the years, to get us thinking "outside the box." I hope Audubon will accept the political risks and continue.

Ben Peyton
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI

For most of my 70 years of life, I have been an avid anti-hunting advocate. With this one Incite piece by Ted Williams, I have now softened my position. I believe if Ted Williams writes something like this, it must be true. Almost every day we are made more aware of how our forebears came too close to destroying our ecologically wonderful country. What a shame that we must now kill these prey animals whose natural predators have virtually disappeared from their environment. At least, the animals that are killed to alleviate this situation can serve a useful purpose by being used as food for poor people.

Sherman Robinson
Bellaire, TX

Killing more wildlife is not the answer. When deer are killed, the surviving deer simply adjust their reproductive rates according to available habitat and food supplies, and therefore their numbers rebound in the spring. Hunting has been in place for decades and deer kill numbers are at their peak, yet we still have deer population levels on the rise. Hunting is clearly not a valid, long-term population-control method, but rather a commitment to a permanent problem. When a neighborhood decides to allow sharp shooting, it will be dependent on that system every year. The long-term solution is to accept the presence of deer in our neighborhoods and modify our behavior to minimize the problems.

We have to remember that ecosystem succession is a natural process, with various stages over time. Deer browsing only suppresses vegetation temporarily. Once the food supply is scarce, deer reproductive rates lower, allowing the vegetation to regenerate. Problems arise when we start assigning higher values to certain stages of succession or certain species. Some bird species thrive with large populations of deer, while others do not. Why should the lower-deer-population stage be better? It is not more biologically sound just because it's more aesthetically pleasing to some people.

Long-term solutions for residential areas are available. Gardens can be "deer proofed" by using fencing/meshing, repellents, and unpalatable vegetation. Deer/car collisions can be avoided using Strieter-Lite reflectors, fencing, and wildlife crossings. For Lyme disease, the scientific and medical communities stress education and prevention. Reducing deer numbers only leads ticks to congregate at higher densities on the remaining deer or switch to alternate hosts. In short, hunting is not the answer. We have the tools to coexist with wildlife, and we have an obligation to do so.

Jennifer Allen
Program Coordinator
The Fund for Animals
Silver Spring, MD

Ted Williams replies: Deer do not suppress vegetation "temporarily" when they remain permanently overpopulated. In Pennsylvania, for example, they have suppressed vegetation for the better part of a century. Ms. Allen seems worried only about people and their gardens. I'm worried about native ecosystems, which cannot be "deer proofed," and native plants such as the endangered relict trillium. When native plant communities are razed by deer, exotics worthless to native wildlife take over. I find no comfort in the fact that "some bird species [starlings, cowbirds and house sparrows, for example] thrive with large populations of deer." It's true that "hunting has been in place for decades," but, as I explained, it has been rendered ineffective by superstition. Adequate hunting--targeting does--is by no means a perfect solution; but it is the only solution.

Thanks to Ted Williams for validating the old adage that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." As a scientist involved in wildlife fertility control from its inception, I can say you have painted picture of it that is negative, undeserved, incorrect, biased, and greatly oversimplified. Immunocontraception is a viable management tool presently in use in several species, including white-tailed deer on Fire Island National Seashore--certainly not a captive population. Your narrow-windowed perspective and summary dismissal of this developing tool for management of selected wildlife populations damages the research effort toward more human solutions to modern wildlife problems and does a disservice to the very principles of the Audubon Society. I believe we must develop whatever measures possible to minimize the killing of the many animals that we humans have thoughtlessly confined to parks and so-called "preserves." Let us be more positive about finding non-lethal solutions. No life should be taken for convenience.

John W. Turner Jr., Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Physiology and Molecular Medicine
Medical College of Ohio
Toledo, OH

Ted Williams replies: I am familiar with Turner's work on immunocontraception, which is being funded by the Humane Society of the United States. While I admire that work and believe it should continue, Turner and his research associate stand virtually alone in the scientific community in believing that it has current, practical application in the field.

Editor's Note: For coverage of the Fire Island project, click here.

Yes, we do need more deer hunting. But let's include cougars in our plans. Quite likely we have a sparse population of cougars in the East now. We need more. They would be especially helpful in reducing deer numbers in those deep woods where few hunters venture.

Helen McGinnis
Harman, WV

I was incensed by "Wanted: More Hunters" by Ted Williams. The article showed such bigotry against animal rights and [bias toward] hunting that I was amazed Audubon would even print it. I would appreciate it if Audubon would confine itself to publishing articles with true scientific merit. Your magazine would be of a better quality if it did not pander to the individual agendas of its authors.

Francesca Heap
Plainville, CT

Ted Williams replies: The campaign for adequate deer hunting was conceived and implemented by the Audubon Society without my input. The article was the magazine's idea, not mine, and neither I nor the society have any "agenda" other than protecting native ecosystems.

I want to commend you for having the courage to publish your recent editorial on habitat destruction by deer, as well as Ted Williams's Incite concerning the need for hunting as a deer-management tool. I fully realize that, as with any ecological problem, the issues surrounding white-tailed deer densities and their management are inherently complex. I am a wildlife veterinarian grappling with disease issues such as bovine tuberculosis in deer, and I'm immersed in these issues daily. As someone who has dedicated his life and career to animal health and welfare, I think very hard every time I look down the barrel of a gun at a deer, pull the trigger, and watch it fall. In no way do I take the death of any animal lightly. [Yet] I cannot ignore the habitat destruction that far too many deer have inflicted on the landscape. I for one am not prepared to allow the diversity of life to be imperiled by any one species, be it deer, humans, or anything else. Those willing to consider the big picture will inevitably realize the pivotal role that hunting and hunters continue to play in environmental conservation.

Daniel O'Brien
Williamston, MI

© 2002  NASI

Sound off! Send a letter to the editor about this piece.