Use nonlethal methods to manage deer herd
Posted 7/16/08
(Enlarge) Enid Feinberg
Thank you for my turn to respond to the story "Thinning the herd," which ran in the July 9 Towson Times and on the Web site www.towsontimes.com.
As a resident who lives close to Loch Raven and as a member of Department of Natural Resources' Deer Stakeholders Group, I oppose the slaughter of the deer in the Loch Raven Reservoir area.
DNR's Wildlife Division gets the majority of its funding from hunting-related activities. Since licensed hunters have declined by 50 percent to only 2 percent of Marylanders, DNR officials are literally fighting to keep hunting alive. They argue that deer must be killed to protect the water supply in order to scare the public. Their job is to give hunters more hunting opportunities as evidenced by this statement in Mid- Atlantic Game & Fish magazine: "Local hunting organizations are trying to open up more areas of the watershed to hunting during the upcoming seasons by applying political pressure on local officials. No form of hunting is currently permitted at Loch Raven Reservoir. ..."
Their work group comprised all pro-hunting participants, including bowhunters, so it is no surprise that they recommended killing the deer.
I am one of three founding members of deersolutionsmd.com.
Both the biologist and ecologist we brought into Loch Raven found minimal deer damage, especially in comparison with the runoff caused by illegal mountain biking paths. In areas such as watersheds where deer are blamed for understory loss, most often the forest canopy is too dense, not allowing enough sunlight through. Heavy root systems of large trees steal water away from new growth and small trees. Without adequate sunlight and water, new growth has a limited chance of survival. This is compounded by long dry spells in the summer and the serious droughts in past years.
Bowhunting has negatively affected the lives of property owners whose land adjoins both reservoirs and parks from Sept. 15 to the end of January during bow season. In the few days since the above-mentioned article was published, people have called to describe deer carcasses in driveways, razor-sharp arrows in their backyards, injured pets and heated confrontations.
In Maryland alone this past year, two hunters were killed by other hunters who shot at moving bushes without first determining what they were shooting at. There were hundreds of deaths and accidents throughout the United States. There is no proficiency exam given to bow hunters in Maryland that tests the hunter's ability. Do we have to wait until a hunter miscalculates and kills someone in areas where there's an abundance of joggers, bikers, horseback riders, pets and children?
Nonlethal solutions are available, but they won't work if they are not used.
It took years to get the Streiter Deer Reflectors installed on the city portion of Dulaney Valley Road, and they have resulted in an over 90 percent reduction of deer car collisions, and everyone is amazed at their success.
Thinning out forest canopies would work much better long term, than the assault of hunters in an otherwise nonviolent park environment.
Thank you for this opportunity to show both sides of a difficult issue.
Enid Feinberg
Founding partner of www.deersolutionsmd.com
user comments (6)
user catalavos says...
Perhaps the readers should wait until the City of Baltimore reveals the details associated with this managed hunt (which has still NOT been approved by the Mayor's office, by the way.) before they rake it over the coals. Has anyone considered that the group of concerned government agencies who have given their input on this subject is comprised of professional scientists, biologists and natural resource managers who take this kind of decision very seriously? Do some of you really think that hunter's groups and other pro-hunting organizations have influenced the decision of Baltimore City watershed managers and Baltimore County Government officials? According to Ms. Feinberg, hunters comprise "...only 2 percent of Marylanders". I find it very hard to believe that the collective political power of "2 percent of Marylanders" is enough to influence two municipal governments and the Department of Natural Resources. I find this a naive point of view. In another statement Ms. Feinberg says, "They (DNR officials) argue that deer must be killed to protect the water supply in order to scare the public." I do not believe the intent of professional scientists is to "scare the public". The fact of the matter is that for many reasons, there is a very large population of white tailed deer that live in and around Loch Raven Reservoir. This population of deer is eating every bit of green vegetation (beneficial trees and otherwise) under six feet tall. I know this because I see the effect the deer have every time I hike the trails throughout the reservoir. I have even found what appear to be "study enclosures" in the forest which are fenced-in and are designed to keep deer out of certain areas. The amount of vegetation growing in these fenced in areas is astounding. These fenced-in areas show very dramatically just how well the forest can regenerate when it's not getting eaten by deer.
Posted 10:04 PM, 07.17.08
user says...
I've made some of these points previously, but I'm going to do it again, and make some new points too. If you've read my previous posts on this subject you'll recognize some of them, but read through it because I've made some new ones also. Loch Raven has a browse line that is 6 feet off the ground. Liberty, and Prettyboy have browse lines that are at 3 feet off the ground. Neither is good, but the impact of bowhunting on the ecosystems is clearly apparent to anyone who spends time around the lakes, and even moreso to learned ecologists, and environmentalists. Reputable environmentalists ascert that one square mile of forest can support eight to ten deer without a negative effect on the forest. Loch Raven contains at least 6 times that number on average. Add to that, deer are edge feeders, and don't do well in the deep woods, so the suburban environment only causes higher rates of reproduction when deer feed on the lush plantings in landscaped lawns. Couple that with the fact that far too many people like our friend Enid spent years feeding these deer, ignorant of the fact that a derr population's rate increases as the nutritional value of what they eat increases. Enid, and friends have been unknowingly, or uncaringly increasing the reproductive rates of the der around Loch Raven that much more. Some people want to make this about whether we can live with the deer. They need to do that to deflect the issue from the two main points that this whole controversy is about. That issue is not about the impact of deer on humans, but it's about the impact of deer on the ecosystem around the lake, and the fact that the forests, and woodlands can not survive these deer. We've been discussing this topic for years, and the forest has paid the price for it. The time to act is now, and the way to act is with what we know works. It's too late to begin trying nonlethal methods that are ambiguous, and dangerous. I've hunted deer for about 15 years, and have been a bow hunter for three. I grew up in Owings Mills out in the woods before there was any real developement there, and back then you might have seen a deer once a year. We, as a human population have chosen to develope their environment, and forced them into tighter, and tighter spaces that can't support the numbers that the larger spaces did. Enid lives in a home that is the product of reducing deer environment, and seems to not even realize it. We've created two situations that are not workng. We've decreased areas to which deer can retreat with developement, and increased food sources for deer with that same developement, thereby increasing their reproductive rates. This doesn't help the forests because deer will strip the woods of young plants first before coming out in the open to feed, which we all see them doing every day. Today dead deer litter our roads, and highways, damage our cars, injure, and on rare occasions kill our drivers. What comes next is inevitable. We need to reduce the numbers. We have some options available. We can hire people to go out at night with silenced rifles, and kill them by the truckload at a cost of about $200 per animal. We can try the animal lover's solution, and dart the females with hormones twice a year at a cost of $500 per animal, which creates the problem of hormone laced meat ending up on the table of a hunter's family, and in soup kitchens all over the State that gladly accept otherwise hard to get fresh meat. Finally, we can allow hunters to pay the State for the opportunity to thin the herds. hunters will increase the State's coffers, and show up in numbers far greater than we could ever contract out in the way of snipers, and darters. Of the options available to us, hunting is the most effective, and certainly the least costly as it's done in the black, and not in the red. Enid continues to say that we need to use "nonlethal methods" to reduce the deer populations, but fails to recognize that the methods she wants used are untested, costly, and actually have been lawfully banned in some places. They've been banned because of the very legitimate fear that using chemicals, and hormones on female deer would likely have a similarly disastrous effect on wildlife as DDT had previously. As I mentioned, the concern of human men, women, and children consuming the meat of deer that have been rendered chemically sterile is really bad enough, but aside from that these deer will still be hit by cars, and killed. What of the scavenging animals like foxes, crows, buzzards, and even the bald eagles that are finally recovering from the last time we used chemicals without enough forethought? This is no magic solution, and will most assuredly create more problems down the road. To what extent we can't know. As for addressing the" Bow-hunting is inhumane and ineffective" issue, with today's modern equipment a deer will usually die in between 4-12 seconds. Bowhunting is very humane. Deer that are hit properly with razor sharp broadheads often never know that they have been hit. I've shot deer, and seen them continue to graze before they layed down, but most of the time they are startled because they felt something, run a short distance, and when they don't see a threat they walk off as if nothing happened. I said originally that I was going to inject some truth here, and so I'll include all of it. The rare inexperienced, and careless bowhunter will at times make a less than perfect shot. Sometimes these deer survive, sometimes they do not. The rare deer that is not recovered is not wasted. Nature wastes nothing. I've got private land I pay to hunt, but I'm looking forward to hunting Loch Raven this season. Not because I think that it will be easy pickings(I preffer the challenge of the more wary animals that have less human contact) but as a responsible steward of the land I feel a duty to do my part in thinning a herd that is grossly overpopulated. The Loch Raven situation will be a great opportunity to have young hunters experience early success, and I hope many of them get a chance to experience that siccess. One last point; Enid talks about the reflectors along Dulaney Valley Rd. near the lake as a viable solution. She's proud of those reflectors. She worked a long time to gewt them put in. Consider this though; She claims the deer accidents have ben reduced on that stretch of road by 90%, and I won't argue that figure. What this has saved is damage to cars, and injuries to drivers, and that's a plus, but they've also saved the lives of deer too, and these deer are now alive, and consuming the forest. The reflectors actually increase the deer population around the lake, making them an additional detriment to the ecosystem. We can all live with the deer. They are certainly beautiful animals, but the forest around Loch Raven is actually being killed by these beautiful animals, and we certainly can not live with that. Allow the hunters to do what we can do, and know how to do. If you have concerns we'd love to address them. Finally, one must wonder with all the support that this hunt has among people that have been posting here for over a full week, why Enid AGAIN gets a voice in print, and the hunting community, and it's supporters are relegated to reaching only those who come here for information. How about it Towson Times? Thank you for reading my thoughts, and the facts I've presented here.
Posted 7:40 PM, 07.18.08
user stevetowson says...
Here's a web page with some very detailed information addressing the very issues being raised here. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/pdfs/Comp%20review%20_2_.pdf
Posted 9:23 PM, 07.18.08
user waltallensworth says...
Just to set the record straight... No non-hunter has ever been killed by a bow hunter in Maryland.
Posted 1:54 PM, 07.23.08
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement