Living with Deer refuted

In April of 2000, the Fund for Animals, a radical Animal Rights group, published their pamphlet “Living With Deer: A Comprehensive Guide.” This guide, such as it were, combines a few kernels of truth with a large proportion of falsehood, in the time-honored AR style. The report, authored by the Fund’s “Ecology Consultant,” one Dr. Thomas Eveland, can be seen on line here.

In this essay, I’ll examine the claims made in the Fund’s pamphlet, one by one. The Fund pamphlet’s text will appear in red, my rebuttals in black.

This report is hardly a cure-all for every farmer, tree nursery owner, gardener, part-time landscaper, or orchard operator contending with white-tailed deer. Rather, it's a combination of ideas and recommendations that may help people more comfortably live with deer.

That is certainly their intent; however, under scrutiny, the Fund’s recommendations fall well short even of this modest goal.

Beyond the discussion of means of mitigating deer impacts, this document makes an implicit appeal for humans to exhibit greater tolerance for wildlife.

Translation: “We will appeal to you to never, ever kill a deer, no matter what the reason.”

Historically, people have routinely killed -- by shooting, trapping, or poisoning -- wildlife as a matter of convenience, as a way of dealing with a conflict. Such prejudice and intolerance for wildlife is, however, less acceptable today.

Actual data disagrees. A Gallup survey published in 1997 revealed that slightly over 78% of Americans either ‘supported’ or ‘strongly supported’ scientifically managed hunting as a means of wildlife management.

The ethical challenge is to secure our convenience and our livelihoods and to let wild animals live in peace.

This is a false premise. Wild animals almost never ‘live in peace.’ They can die of starvation, disease, auto accident, or a hunter’s bullet or arrow. Rarely, if ever, do deer die peacefully of old age.

It is axiomatic that wild animals -- in the course of their search for food, shelter, and other daily needs -- will have an impact on people. Chipmunks, for instance, are notorious for unearthing freshly planted bulbs. Squirrels find their way into partitions and attics. Field mice prefer the lower chambers of the household -- eventually moving into basements. And skunks and raccoons tip over garbage cans to gain the goods. Sometimes wildlife come in bigger, and seemingly more dangerous, packages. Yet people, in many instances, have demonstrated a remarkable ability to live with these animals. Alaskans adjust to brown bears and moose traveling through their backyards at night.

Alaskans also do not hesitate to kill problem bears, and many Alaskans still rely on an annual moose for meat.

In Florida, people have learned to have alligators safely removed from swimming pools and transplanted unharmed back into area swamps and rivers.

They have also learned that another alligator will swiftly occupy the vacated habitat. See here and here for more information.

And even in some housing developments in the Pocono Mountains of northeastern Pennsylvania, residents live harmoniously with black bears, by doing such things as placing their refuse in bear-proof garbage cans.

Well, not exactly; the Fund would be well served to do some actual research into how ‘harmoniously’ PA residents really do live with bears. In Pike County, PA, which is 75 miles from New York City, bears broke into 50 homes in the same housing development in 1996-1999. On one night, Oct 24, 1998, three different bears attacked several animals in two locations in Pike County. In the first, a bear killed one 185 lb Nubian goat. Another attack that involved two bears at once left the an 187 lb pig severely injured, requiring $300 in treatment from a veterinarian. Later the first farm was revisited by the same bear and a rare (only 327 registered in all of the United States in 1997) pregnant Finnsheep estimated to weigh about 150 lbs was killed and partially consumed.

Between 1960 and 1980, at least five hundred people were injured by black bears in the national parks.1 Most injuries were minor, requiring less than twenty-four hours of hospitalization.2 There were 23 deaths due to black bears from 1900 through 1980. Over 90% of the injuries are attributed by one source to bears "habituated to people and conditioned to eat human foods."3 From 1964 to 1976, 107 people were injured by black bears in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park of Tennessee. Over 35% of these injuries were related to people feeding or petting bears.4 In a two year period in the mid-70's , black bears were responsible for nearly 4,000 raids on campsites in Yosemite National Park. Over a three year period, black bears damaged nearly 1500 vehicles, smashing windows to obtain food in cars. Yosemite officials later implemented a plan to stop people from feeding bears, and to keep bears out of human foods by closing dumps and improving food storage systems.5

In between the squirrels and the bears -- in size and abundance -- is the white-tailed deer.

Whitetailed deer, of course, present a much different management problem than either squirrels or bears; Dr. Eveland’s comment is nonsensical.

Principally, because of wildlife management practices designed to increase deer numbers and land use practices that result in the creation of suitable deer habitat, more deer may now inhabit the eastern half of the United States than at any time in the past 150 years.

Wildlife management practices in the last thirty years have struggled to control deer populations in the eastern US, (see also here and here) not increase their numbers. Dr. Eveland is constructing a Straw Man argument.

The problem is that whitetailed deer are marvelously suited to live in close contact with humans. Suburbs interspersed with small farms, as in much of the Eastern Seaboard, provide an ideal habitat for deer.

Of course, many people are fond of deer, cherishing an opportunity to catch a glimpse of the graceful creatures. Others, however, claim they are little more than overgrown pests, browsing vegetation and crossing roads. Such polar views inspire the debate over deer management. Specifically, while some people claim deer should receive protection, others claim they must be hunted.

Deer are the smaller-sized, but the wider-ranging relatives of elk and moose in the United States. While moose inhabit the northernmost states (WA, OR, ID, MT, ND, WY, CO, MN, WI, MI, NY, VT, NH, ME) and elk in the western states (WA, OR, CA, NV, AZ, NM, CO, UT, ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, OK, KS), deer inhabit every state except Hawaii. From sitka deer in Alaska to sika deer in Maryland, from black-tailed deer in Oregon to white-tailed deer in Iowa, and from mule deer in Arizona to key deer in Florida, deer in slightly varying sizes and colors, are America's widest ranging large mammal.

Some subspecies are, of course, less wide-ranging than others. The key deer, for instance, is close to extinction, with only slightly more than 100 individuals surviving; for them, the key to survival is more habitat and less direct killing by poachers and automobiles. Like Florida's diminutive deer subspecies, the Columbian deer, which inhabits the Pacific Northwest, is also a federally listed endangered species. But there is often more talk of the abundance of deer than of their scarcity. The white-tailed deer, for instance, which inhabits all areas of the Rocky Mountains, numbers in excess of 15 million individuals nationwide (including 4 million in Texas). There may be as many as 5 million mule deer, which mull around the Rockies and other portions of the western landscape.

Also correct. This is about the extent of Dr. Eveland’s accuracy in this piece.

One of the most controversial issues within the field of wildlife management concerns deer hunting.

It’s not at all controversial to wildlife professionals; biologists who are trained and paid to manage wildlife consider hunting to be an indispensable tool in population management of cervids.

While it is clear that deer can sustain an annual kill and not be severely depleted, that is not the same as saying that deer must be hunted.

In fact, it is clear that many land areas across the United States -- varying in size and location -- maintain healthy deer herds, but no deer hunting. For instance, the Natural Park Service -- which manages 80 million acres of land -- generally operates with a no-hunting credo (except for some large land areas in Alaska). Acadia, Shenandoah, Everglades, Big Bend, Voyageurs, Rocky Mountain, Yellowstone, Glacier, Grand Canyon, and Sequoia are just a few national parks where deer hunting is outlawed.

Yellowstone is close to an environmental meltdown from overgrazing by elk and bison. Rocky Mountain National Park is suffering from overpopulations of deer and elk.

However, there is an even greater flaw in Dr. Eveland’s argument. Population pressures in these areas are still, to some extent, ameliorated by migration of animals from overcrowded areas to less crowded areas; that is, areas where hunting is allowed. Dr. Eveland would advocate removing this check on populations, and so doom our national parks to overbrowsing, and their cervid populations to death by starvation.

Also, deer reside on hundreds of smaller-sized areas, such as state and city parks, where no deer hunting is permitted.

The same argument applies; further, many small communities are having significant problems with rising deer populations. Illinois communities are having enough trouble with deer that the IL Department of Natural Resources has formed a commission to deal with the problem.

Such areas occur in all regions of the country, from the Pacific Northwest to the Southeast to the heart of the Midwest. These land areas provide ample evidence that there is no absolute biological need to have human hunters kill deer.

Not surprisingly, deer densities -- as influenced by climate, vegetation, composition, forest maturity, and abundance of predators -- differ by region. For instance in Vermont, where the growing season is relatively short and winters can be severe, deer densities are rather low: 10 deer per square mile on average. In the West, especially west of the 20-inch rain line, water is more of a limiting factor, especially as it affects the vegetative community, and deer densities are correspondingly low. In the mid-Atlantic states, however, where winters are not severe, where human suburbia creates "edge" habitat, and where few predators exist, deer densities can be significant: more than 30 deer per square mile.

Though deer densities may be relatively high in certain regions, it does not follow that hunting must be employed to limit deer numbers. Ultimately, natural regulating factors will limit deer numbers in those regions as well. For instance, deer populations are limited by a variety of decimation factors, death by disease, extreme heat or cold, parasites, predation, or starvation.

Well, that’s sure compassionate. Here’s Dr. Eveland’s idea of ‘compassionate’ deer management:

"First the fat over the rump and saddle disappears, and then gradually the fat that lies between the hide and body cavity will be absorbed...The next step of fat absorption occurs within the body cavity proper. That around the kidneys and on the intestines disappears, and the last to be absorbed within the body cavity is the spot of fat on the heart. A really critical stage in the life of our deer is now approaching. He can still jump and run, and he looks bright and snappy, although his coat is looser and rougher. You think he is in good condition, but the truth is that he has only one more reserve of fat to use...Now the deer begins to absorb those fat cells [in the bone marrow]. Gradually the marrow turns [from solid and creamy-white to] red and finally becomes jelly-like, which means that the fat cells have been absorbed.

The deer is still apparently full of life. He can jump and run, but he is only living on borrowed time, and in a few days when you jump him from his bed he springs up and starts off but soon staggers and falls; he gets up and tries again only to stagger and fall again, this time to stay down. The next day or so, you find his body..."6

It’s staggering to think that anyone would find this preferable to a near-instant death by a bullet or arrow.

If some of those factors do not exert a significant impact in a particular region (e.g. absence of predators), the other factors exert a proportionately greater influence.

The other factors being disease or parasite infestation, either of which is far less pleasant than starvation.

Populations do not maintain equilibrium, however, just by the death of individuals. Surviving deer also decrease their rate of reproduction under less than ideal conditions.

That should read, “Starving deer also decrease their rate of reproduction.” That’s true, but there’s more to it than Dr. Eveland lets on. And, according to studies done by Louis Verme and John Ozoga, the white-tail reproductive rate is high even under quite adverse conditions, and fawn mortality under such conditions may also be high. A 1982 study by Drs. Verme and Ozoga found:

"...acute malnutrition of pregnant does commonly results in heavy neonatal mortality which can disrupt herd dynamics for years."7

The age of the doe is also a factor. Dr. Verme found that yearling does on poor diets, averaged 1.14 fawns per pregnancy while mature does on the same diet averaged 1.58 fawns per pregnancy. Dr, Verme goes on to state:

"Only 11 of 19 litters consisted of twins, a comparatively small proportion for physically mature female deer."8

Verme also notes that yearlings on poor diets have a much lower pregnancy rate, as their advance to sexual maturity is delayed by poor nutrition. A similar phenomenon is seen in human females. In addition, he notes that the ratio of male fawns to female fawns changes from roughly 46% males for well-fed prime-age does to nearly 80% for poorly-fed prime-age does.

It is clear that the reproductive rate of even poorly-nourished white-tailed deer is sufficiently high that the birth rate will more than simply replace the parents. In Verme's study, 19 poorly-nourished does bore 30 fawns. That’s a slightly greater than 50% increase in one year. If we assume that the number of bucks in the herd equalled the number of does who bore fawns, the herd's population increased by nearly 80%. Bear in mind also that these were poorly-nourished does; the implications regarding reproduction rate for deer that are not poorly-fed are significant.

In a summary of his earlier studies, Verme lists the average reproduction rate of prime-age does (as determined from three studies) as 1.15 fawns per doe for poorly-nourished does, and 1.73 fawns per doe for well-nourished does.9 In one of these studies [Trans. 32nd N. Am. Wildl. Conf., p. 412; 1967.], the rate was as high as 1.85 fawns per prime-age doe when the diet was at least adequate.10

For instance, rather than produce twins or triplets, does will produce a single fawn or won't produce at all.

This phenomenon is not exclusive to deer. Outside of Yellowstone National Park, where coyotes are hunted, trapped, and poisoned, females produce six to eight pups per litter. Inside Yellowstone, where they are protected, coyotes produce two to four pups per liter.(sic) It's nature's way of tightening the reproductive faucet.

Deer demonstrate some other noteworthy reproductive strategies to limit their numbers. John Ozoga and Louis Verme of the Michigan Department of Natural resources point out that does will bear more males than females in times of stress.

Dr. Eveland fails to mention the adverse consequences of this, listed above; he likewise evades the fact that overall replacement rates remain quite high even in malnourished populations.

This alteration of normal sex ratios decreases the reproductive potential of the population; obviously, males do not bear young. Thus, the fewer the number of females in a population, the less reproductively capable the population.

The point is, nature ultimately regulates deer numbers. As stated in White-Tailed Deer Management and Ecology, the bible of deer management for wildlife managers, "Most wildlife biologists and managers can point to situations where deer populations have not been hunted yet do not fluctuate greatly nor cause damage to vegetation. Certainly deer reach overpopulation in some park situations, but the surprising thing is how many parks containing deer populations have no problem."

And, wildlife professionals in many States can point to many more areas where overpopulations of deer have caused significant damage to biotic communities.

There are, however, select circumstances when deer do have a visible impact on a forest community. Generally speaking, the deer are not reducing plant biodiversity, but reducing plant biomass.

Not true; areas in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Catoctin Mountain Park in Maryland, and Saratoga National Historical Park in New York have all suffered from overbrowsing and the resulting regrowth of low-quality woody brush due to overpopulation of whitetailed deer.

Some noted ungulate ecologists point out that such impacts are short term. Says Dr. Grahaem Caughley, "I do not know of any system dislocated permanently by a bout of overpopulation. The phenomenon is temporary and its remission spontaneous. Most treatments of overpopulation are justified by a dire prediction of what might have happened had the treatment been withheld. A more convincing case would be made by demonstrating that the effects of untreated abundance is irreversible."

The most famous example, Arizona’s Kaibab Plateau, was over fifty years recovering from an overpopulation of mule deer. See here and here for details.

Thus, the question of deer management is not one of the biological carrying capacity, but of the cultural carrying capacity -- how many deer will people tolerate in their environment? Of course, this depends not so much on the behavior of the deer population, but on the options of the human population.

Two people, for instance, may view a deer eating a yew in the backyard in an entirely different manner. One person may be happy that his or her backyard is providing food for a deer. Another person may be angered that "his" yew tree is being aesthetically damaged by deer browsing.

Fundamentally, it is a question of attitude, not science. Ungulate ecologist Caughley sums up the controversy: "Is containment of an eruption (dramatic rise in deer numbers) necessary? That is a scientific question and I interpret the evidence available as implying that it is seldom or never necessary.

This is the AR tactic I call The Cherry Picker. Dr. Eveland has found one ‘ungulate ecologist,’ who is listed only by last name, with no supporting documentation, who will corroborate his view; many more will disagree.

Is containment of an eruption desirable? That is not a scientific question. I can boast no qualifications that would make my opinion any more valuable than those of my two immediate neighbors, a garage mechanic on one side and an Air Vice-Marshall on the other."

Just like any wild animal, deer will behave in ways that occasionally inconvenience people. Expensive ornamental plants used to enhance the value of a home and to increase the landscaping aesthetics can be planted one day only to be severely browsed overnight by local deer. After long hours of work to produce a small vegetable crop, gardeners can have their broccoli, corn, beets, carrots, and other vegetables eaten by deer. Still other people plant a few fruit trees for the fruit as well as a hobby. These, too, can be heavily damaged by local deer in a short time. And, people who move to the country may not be accustomed to watching for deer while driving the roads. As a result, deer/auto collisions can occur.

To the tune of about 500,000 per year, causing an average of 100 human deaths. See here for details.

These concerns are ineradicable, as long as we choose to allow wildlife to live in our midst. In some areas, these problems can seem severe. In Pennsylvania, for instance, vehicles struck an estimated 40,000 deer in 1990. Deer browsing of ornamentals around New York was estimated to cost homeowners hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in the mid 1980s. And landowners in certain parts of Rhode Island have complained in recent years that growing simple vegetable gardens is almost an impossibility.

Even though these problems appear to be on the increase, there is no reason to think that such problems cannot be reduced to a significant degree.

Many people comfortably live in regions highly populated by deer. These people maintain beautiful ornamentals and bountiful vegetable gardens and safely drive rural roads. These people have learned to tolerate deer and to cope with the limited way in which they inconvenience our lives.

As described already, many of them are not coping; deer are increasingly a problem in urban and suburban areas.

Now, to give credit where credit is due, Dr. Eveland goes on from here to actually give some quite good advice with regards to fencing, repellents and other means of limiting deer intrusions into homesites, gardens and so forth. I leave the reader to go to the link provided above to read them; I’ve no particular issue with any of Dr. Eveland’s solutions to those immediate problems.

However; Dr. Eveland’s solutions - namely, fencing, repellents, netting, and so on – do not address the larger issues of deer management in North America. The items named by Dr. Eveland may serve to keep individual deer out of individual gardens; but they do nothing for the larger issue of deer populations. Dr. Evelant attempts to finesse this issue earlier in the article, but ultimately fails.

The larger issue is one of predation, of reproductive rates, and more important, of ethics. Dr. Eveland attempts to build a smokescreen, using pseudo-scientific arguments to persuade the scientifically unsophisticated that deer hunting is not ‘necessary.’ This tactic is specious and intellectually dishonest.

It is an indisputable fact that whitetailed deer have evolved under predatory pressure, and their reproductive strategies reflect that evolutionary history. Dr. Eveland attempts to downplay the role of predation in population management, but it’s significant to note how.

In order to eliminate human hunting, which he evidently finds aesthetically unappealing, Dr. Eveland is willing to let malnutrition be the controlling factor in managing deer populations. Consider the ultimate implications of this quote:

“Though deer densities may be relatively high in certain regions, it does not follow that hunting must be employed to limit deer numbers. Ultimately, natural regulating factors will limit deer numbers in those regions as well. For instance, deer populations are limited by a variety of decimation factors, death by disease, extreme heat or cold, parasites, predation, or starvation.”

Death by disease. Death by exposure. Death by heat stroke. Death by parasite infestation. Death by starvation. Dr. Eveland considers those to be more ‘compassionate’ than human predation, than death by bullet or arrow.

It’s interesting to note that Dr. Eveland lists ‘predation’ as a ‘decimation factor,’ as well, presumably one that he finds acceptable. Well, Dr. Eveland, I agree. Predation is an acceptable control on deer populations. And human predation – hunting – has the double advantage of being more humane and more easily managed than any other form of predation; further, it’s the only form of predation available over most of North America.

Another, larger, issue is the ethical consideration involved. Dr. Eveland assumes that it is somehow unethical for a human to kill a deer for food. That argument is specious as well; since humans are natural predators by virtue of a million years or more of evolution, how is the killing of a deer by a human any different from an ethical viewpoint than the killing of a deer by a wolf? Obviously, it is not; proponents of the Animal Rights agenda tend to obfuscate the fact that humans, too, are part of nature, and therefore human predation is as ethically neutral an act as predation by any other species.

Most importantly, Dr. Eveland represents a radical group with a radical agenda, and the most eloquent testimony to that fact is his own admission that, according to himself and, presumably, the Fund for Animals, management of deer numbers through the mechanisms of malnutrition and disease, with the accompanying ecological devastation, is preferable to human hunting.

That’s inhuman; the ‘alternatives’ Dr. Eveland proposes have consequences too horrible to contemplate.

In summary: The alternatives favored by Dr. Eveland are unrealistic, they are dangerous, they are cruel, and they would cause untold damage to ecosystems that provide valuable habitat to a variety of wildlife.

This sort of deliberate intellectual dishonesty has no place in American wildlife management.

1 Bear Attacks, their cause and avoidance, by Steven Herrero, Lyons Press, 1985, p.5

2 Ibid. p. 93

3 Ibid. p. 96

4 Ibid. p. 97, 98

5 Ibid. p. 106

6 Harris, J. Wildl. Man. 9(4):320; 1945.

7 J. Wildl. Man. 46(2):281; 1982

8 J. Wildl. Man. 33(4):882-3; 1969

9 ibid

10 Transcript, 32nd North American Wildlife Conference, p. 412; 1967