Anyone versed in wildlife ecology and management knows that without hunting/killing, “growth and recruitment of the [deer] population are balanced by natural mortality; therefore, the average growth rate of a population at carrying capacity is zero.” This means, that hunting (killing) deer INcreases the deer population. Every hunter knows, and Mr. Conners is no exception, that a deer population grows the most when the animals are “managed” at half of their carrying capacity—it is called “maximum sustainable yield” (now, optimum sustainable yield). This is how state wildlife agencies ensure that there are always enough deer as living targets. The biological term is “compensatory effect, where increased mortality (via hunting) means more food available for the surviving deer, which means more offspring. People like Mr. Conners pursue their own killing agenda, and they perpetuate the myth that killing (hunting) deer will reduce the deer populations. Mr. Conners is wrong. Even his comment that culling is like mowing your lawn, apart from appalling, has been twisted as a positive thing when in fact the comparison was made early on to show that it is negative...after every killing spree there will be new deer to take the places of the deer removed and then the hunters will argue that the deer need to be killed again and again. All this does is, it satisfies those who like to kill other animals, while it leaves communities caught in a killing cycle. It gives hunters access to our towns and cities where they don’t belong.
Anja Heister - 9 years ago
And I'm sorry (for the deer) to hear that you, Robert, don't allow empathy do be part of your view of deer. The view of deer as "pest" and "things to kill to control..." is quite nauseating. How you just described deer applies more to humans than to any other beings--humans adapt, human reproduction and uses of resources is clearly out of control, humans destroy and make everyone else suffer-- yet, we don't "manage" ourselves. If we don't kill ourselves for population control, why would we require this of other beings?
Marcy K. Schwartz, Esq. - 9 years ago
Mr. Connors' comments about a "properly managed deer herd at Vassar" are not factual. Unfortunately, his unfailing recitation of a hunting creed in place of the facts is a disservice to the Poughkeepsie Journal readership, as Mr. Connors is a columnist. I am the individual who started the grass roots organization Save Our Deer to stop Vassar College from arrogantly wiping out our local wildlife. In that role, and as a lawyer, I did extensive research into the facts, which are as follows. First, the white-tailed deer is an indigenous species that pre-date European settlers in our area by thousands of years. The tiny deer herd that exists today does not belong to Vassar College, and ranges throughout our local area, which may or may not include Vassar Farm. Second, having read all of the underlying Vassar College studies initiating the deer kills, I can attest that the whole endeavor was not evidence-based, but caused by one professor who hates deer because she thinks they eat ground-nesting birds. (They don't.) Third, the little deer herd of about 50-60 animals remained at a relatively stable size without any "culling", such that the herd fails to meet the scientific criteria for "overpopulation" which typically precipitates "deer management". In other words, there was no scientific basis in wildlife management for the Vassar College slaughters. Fourth, as Mr. Connors is aware, State law requires that the meat from any culling be donated to charity. This was not generosity on Vassar College's part, and there is in any event a health controversy about providing venison shot with lead bullets. Indeed, I would like to see Vassar College serve its locally shot venison in its college cafeterias and see the negative student and faculty reaction that would no doubt ensue, on both moral and health grounds. Finally, I was born in Poughkeepsie 60 years ago, and grew up here. Throughout my entire childhood I saw no deer. Today, the surrounding farms and forest have been developed, leaving the few deer left with no choice but to enter our now suburban neighborhoods as part of their range. I have personally witnessed these animals to be highly intelligent and extremely affectionate within their small family groups. My dog understands 300 words; the deer are smarter. Most people are fine with co-existing with such beautiful and nonthreatening animals. The court this week made, in my estimation, a decision that was wrong on the facts and the law, to defer to the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation in its issuance of a killing permit to the college. SOD is considering its options, and will pursue all options, as necessary, to prevent such a travesty from recurring.
Robert Grossman - 9 years ago
I'm sorry Anja if you think that I don't know or understand about deer behavior but you are incorrect. I have watched and been around them all my long life (63 years) and I know that they will adapt to living around humans to such an extent that they will over populate. Without a responsible management plan which includes herd population control everything suffers. These are wild animals that we are talking about which do not have the power of controlling their own numbers. There are other ways to control their population that does not mean killing them but you must get down to a reasonable number to start with.
Anja Heister - 9 years ago
The comments above indicate the main problem inherent in so-called wildlife conservation: deer and other wild animals amount to nothing more than trees or now in an even more degrading fashion, a lawn that needs mowing. How unscientific to put deer in the same category as non-sentient nature such as trees and grass. It's time for people like Mr. Grossman and Mr. Conners to learn about deer behavior and life history. It's high time to move on from Leopold's outdated and wrong analogy of wild animals with a "crop" that the land produces and that can be harvested. So long as wildlife conservation is highjacked by mostly men obsessed with killing other animals, there will be no co-existence with anyone.
Robert Grossman - 9 years ago
Culling the deer herd is the correct way to go about thinning the herd. The deer herd needs to be kept at a manageable level so we all can survive at a natural level. There is a delicate balance in nature and we all need to realize this. The more deer there are the less area that each one has to live in. There isn't an unlimited area for them. We all feel sorry when we see a deer get hit by a car and that is the fate of too many deer with the overpopulation of the herd. Starvation is not a worry in the Vassar College area because of all the vegetation around. There are no natural predators in this area so the herd must be kept in check by culling the herd.
Bill Conners - 9 years ago
"There land is being taken away with building and destroying their habitat so where are the animals suppose to go." That is at least part of the problem,,, relocating can cost more than a thousand dollars per animal (well over that much in some cases) and where can you send them and will they stay there and will they then cause the same problems in their new home? Most places are suffering with the same management issues. You also run the risk of relocating more than the animals, you may be relocating any number of diseases they often carry.
Bill Conners - 9 years ago
Culing the deer herd is much like mowing your lawn; if you keep it trimed and under control it will stay healthy and provide years of value through maintaining the curbside appeal of your home and providing visual enjoyment and even recreational enjoyment. A properly managed deer herd at Vassar will provide wildlife watchers hours of enjoyment and the meat from the cull will provide meals for the needy. The last successful cull at Vassar provided almost 9,000 meals for needy citizens in this region. Deer are a naturally renewable resource. The people opposed to the cull refuse to acknowledge that, as pretty as they may be, an uncontrolled deer herd may thrive at the cost of other important species. In their irrational exuberance to "Save the Deer" they may be causing environmental damage and loss of other species from the ecosystem.
FS - 9 years ago
Way to much killing these days. There land is being taken away with building and destroying their habitat so where are the animals suppose to go. Why weren't they relocated to another wooded area, that is if that kind of place could be found.
Anyone versed in wildlife ecology and management knows that without hunting/killing, “growth and recruitment of the [deer] population are balanced by natural mortality; therefore, the average growth rate of a population at carrying capacity is zero.” This means, that hunting (killing) deer INcreases the deer population. Every hunter knows, and Mr. Conners is no exception, that a deer population grows the most when the animals are “managed” at half of their carrying capacity—it is called “maximum sustainable yield” (now, optimum sustainable yield). This is how state wildlife agencies ensure that there are always enough deer as living targets. The biological term is “compensatory effect, where increased mortality (via hunting) means more food available for the surviving deer, which means more offspring. People like Mr. Conners pursue their own killing agenda, and they perpetuate the myth that killing (hunting) deer will reduce the deer populations. Mr. Conners is wrong. Even his comment that culling is like mowing your lawn, apart from appalling, has been twisted as a positive thing when in fact the comparison was made early on to show that it is negative...after every killing spree there will be new deer to take the places of the deer removed and then the hunters will argue that the deer need to be killed again and again. All this does is, it satisfies those who like to kill other animals, while it leaves communities caught in a killing cycle. It gives hunters access to our towns and cities where they don’t belong.
And I'm sorry (for the deer) to hear that you, Robert, don't allow empathy do be part of your view of deer. The view of deer as "pest" and "things to kill to control..." is quite nauseating. How you just described deer applies more to humans than to any other beings--humans adapt, human reproduction and uses of resources is clearly out of control, humans destroy and make everyone else suffer-- yet, we don't "manage" ourselves. If we don't kill ourselves for population control, why would we require this of other beings?
Mr. Connors' comments about a "properly managed deer herd at Vassar" are not factual. Unfortunately, his unfailing recitation of a hunting creed in place of the facts is a disservice to the Poughkeepsie Journal readership, as Mr. Connors is a columnist. I am the individual who started the grass roots organization Save Our Deer to stop Vassar College from arrogantly wiping out our local wildlife. In that role, and as a lawyer, I did extensive research into the facts, which are as follows. First, the white-tailed deer is an indigenous species that pre-date European settlers in our area by thousands of years. The tiny deer herd that exists today does not belong to Vassar College, and ranges throughout our local area, which may or may not include Vassar Farm. Second, having read all of the underlying Vassar College studies initiating the deer kills, I can attest that the whole endeavor was not evidence-based, but caused by one professor who hates deer because she thinks they eat ground-nesting birds. (They don't.) Third, the little deer herd of about 50-60 animals remained at a relatively stable size without any "culling", such that the herd fails to meet the scientific criteria for "overpopulation" which typically precipitates "deer management". In other words, there was no scientific basis in wildlife management for the Vassar College slaughters. Fourth, as Mr. Connors is aware, State law requires that the meat from any culling be donated to charity. This was not generosity on Vassar College's part, and there is in any event a health controversy about providing venison shot with lead bullets. Indeed, I would like to see Vassar College serve its locally shot venison in its college cafeterias and see the negative student and faculty reaction that would no doubt ensue, on both moral and health grounds. Finally, I was born in Poughkeepsie 60 years ago, and grew up here. Throughout my entire childhood I saw no deer. Today, the surrounding farms and forest have been developed, leaving the few deer left with no choice but to enter our now suburban neighborhoods as part of their range. I have personally witnessed these animals to be highly intelligent and extremely affectionate within their small family groups. My dog understands 300 words; the deer are smarter. Most people are fine with co-existing with such beautiful and nonthreatening animals. The court this week made, in my estimation, a decision that was wrong on the facts and the law, to defer to the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation in its issuance of a killing permit to the college. SOD is considering its options, and will pursue all options, as necessary, to prevent such a travesty from recurring.
I'm sorry Anja if you think that I don't know or understand about deer behavior but you are incorrect. I have watched and been around them all my long life (63 years) and I know that they will adapt to living around humans to such an extent that they will over populate. Without a responsible management plan which includes herd population control everything suffers. These are wild animals that we are talking about which do not have the power of controlling their own numbers. There are other ways to control their population that does not mean killing them but you must get down to a reasonable number to start with.
The comments above indicate the main problem inherent in so-called wildlife conservation: deer and other wild animals amount to nothing more than trees or now in an even more degrading fashion, a lawn that needs mowing. How unscientific to put deer in the same category as non-sentient nature such as trees and grass. It's time for people like Mr. Grossman and Mr. Conners to learn about deer behavior and life history. It's high time to move on from Leopold's outdated and wrong analogy of wild animals with a "crop" that the land produces and that can be harvested. So long as wildlife conservation is highjacked by mostly men obsessed with killing other animals, there will be no co-existence with anyone.
Culling the deer herd is the correct way to go about thinning the herd. The deer herd needs to be kept at a manageable level so we all can survive at a natural level. There is a delicate balance in nature and we all need to realize this. The more deer there are the less area that each one has to live in. There isn't an unlimited area for them. We all feel sorry when we see a deer get hit by a car and that is the fate of too many deer with the overpopulation of the herd. Starvation is not a worry in the Vassar College area because of all the vegetation around. There are no natural predators in this area so the herd must be kept in check by culling the herd.
"There land is being taken away with building and destroying their habitat so where are the animals suppose to go." That is at least part of the problem,,, relocating can cost more than a thousand dollars per animal (well over that much in some cases) and where can you send them and will they stay there and will they then cause the same problems in their new home? Most places are suffering with the same management issues. You also run the risk of relocating more than the animals, you may be relocating any number of diseases they often carry.
Culing the deer herd is much like mowing your lawn; if you keep it trimed and under control it will stay healthy and provide years of value through maintaining the curbside appeal of your home and providing visual enjoyment and even recreational enjoyment. A properly managed deer herd at Vassar will provide wildlife watchers hours of enjoyment and the meat from the cull will provide meals for the needy. The last successful cull at Vassar provided almost 9,000 meals for needy citizens in this region. Deer are a naturally renewable resource. The people opposed to the cull refuse to acknowledge that, as pretty as they may be, an uncontrolled deer herd may thrive at the cost of other important species. In their irrational exuberance to "Save the Deer" they may be causing environmental damage and loss of other species from the ecosystem.
Way to much killing these days. There land is being taken away with building and destroying their habitat so where are the animals suppose to go. Why weren't they relocated to another wooded area, that is if that kind of place could be found.