On Dec 31, 10:11*am, thunder wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:30:58 -0800, Jack wrote:
On Dec 31, 6:31*am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:22:17 -0500, gfretwell wrote:
The last time I was in Chuck county Md a farmer could get a permit to
shoot any deer they saw on their property, night or day. Just turn on
the flood light and blast away. They are 180 pound rats up there,
evidently.

Same here in New Jersey. *Deer are like vermin. *I would argue hunting
is not an effective way to limit populations. *Each year, here in NJ,
hunters take @ 60,000 deer. *Yet, the population has remained stable..
Bad winters, or limited mast crop seem to have more effect on the size
of the herd than hunting.

Not an effective means, huh? *Ask yourself what the population would be
like without the hunters taking 60k of them out every year?

To help you out, the herd would be... larger. *And more destructive.
Because food supplies would be strained, they'd be weak and sickly. More
auto accidents and encroachment on farm and residential lands.

That's my point. *Here in NJ, food supplies are already strained. *In
most places, the land is already at carrying capacity. *The herd is
estimated to be 200,000, of which 60,000 are taken yearly. *If it weren't
for hunting, I will agree the herd would become weak, sickly, and prone
to collapse, but as for controlling numbers, it ain't working.

Well, let's recap... You agree that if they weren't hunted, the herd
size would increase, leading to a weak sickly herd becuase of lack of
food, etc. Sounds like you agree that the hunt is *indeed*
controlling herd size. Now if you want the hunt to *decrease* the
herd size below present levels, that would take a longer, more open
season to allow more deer to be taken, but there opponents to that as
well, even from within the hunters themselves.


Thinning the herd manages its size and keeps it healthier while helping
to limit its effects on man. *That's why its called "game management"..

And exactly what is it being managed for? *It's estimated that hunters
put @ $100 million into the economy each year. *I would say that is what
the herd is managed for, not to control numbers. *Look, I don't have a
problem with hunting. *It's a great outdoor, recreational activity, but
as numbers control, I think it's myth. *As you kill deer, birth rates and
survival rates increase. *It's the carrying capacity of the land, the
food sources, the mast crop, the winter weather, that control the
numbers, not hunting, IMO.

OK, so the deer are a natural resource that is being managed and is
bringing 100M in to the state budget a year. What's the downside?
You could stop the hunting to allow them to overrun residential and
farm lands, allowing them to die from starvation and disease as their
numbers increase, while costing 10's of millions in crop and property
damage. Hunting is certainly more ethical, humane, and fiscally
responsible than that.

Look, hunting *does* control herd size. It's just being done with a
different focus in mind than you think it should be, or than you
beleive is being presented as its purpose. But in the end, hunting
controls numbers. The exact amount is managed by the hunting season
length and rules.