Hunting Fact Sheet #2
White-Tailed Deer: Creatures or Crops?
Q: AREN'T DEER HERDS INCREASING?
A: In the last century, the U.S. deer population has grown from fewer than 500,000 to more
than 20 million. This is primarily because state wildlife agencies view themselves as providers
or producers of deer for sport hunting.[1] Because of a growing human population and
increased development infringing on wildlife habitat, deer densities appear to be higher than
ever in suburban areas. People are coming into more contact with deer due to factors that
include ornamental shrubs, private and commercial gardens and orchards that are attractive to
deer, the "edge" habitat created by roadsides, suburban lawns, and deserted farmlands that
generate large amounts of grazing and browsing for deer, roadways and highways that tend to
concentrate deer in certain areas, and the eradication of predators such as wolves and
mountain lions.[2]
Q: HOW MANY DEER ARE HUNTED?
A: Hunters in the U.S. kill approximately 4 million deer each year, representing 2% of the
200 million animals killed annually by sport hunters.[3] It is interesting to note that while
hunters try to justify their entire sport based on deer overpopulation, deer represent only a
minuscule fraction of overall hunting activities. The millions of mourning doves, rabbits,
squirrels, waterfowl, and other animals hunters kill are never considered overpopulated.
Q: ISN'T HUNTING DONE TO KEEP DEER FROM OVERPOPULATING?
A: Hunters and wildlife agencies are not concerned with reducing deer herds, but rather with
increasing or maintaining the number of targets for hunters and the number of potential
hunting
license dollars. Thus, they use deer overpopulation as a smokescreen to justify their sport. The
New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife states that "the deer resource has been
managed
primarily for the purpose of sport hunting,"[4] and hunters readily admit, "deer hunters want
more deer and more bucks, period."[5]
Q: BUT WE NEED SOME MANAGEMENT, DON'T WE?
A: The current system of wildlife mismanagement has been directly responsible for the rise in
conflicts between deer and people. While some forms of nonlethal management may be
appropriate, managing deer herds for the sole interest of providing enough targets for sport
hunters has wreaked havoc on deer and on the animals who share their ecosystems. For
example,
Michigan has a "Deer Range Improvement Program" (DRIP) that earmarks $1.50 from each
deer
hunting license sold into a fund specifically designed to increase deer reproductivity and to
maximize sport hunting opportunities. According to a 1975 newspaper report, three years after
the DRIP program began, "The DNR's Wildlife Division wants to keep clear-cutting until 1.2
million acres of forest land -- more than a third of all of the state-owned forest -- have been
stripped . . . the wildlife division says it is necessary because a forest managed by nature,
instead
of by a wildlife division, can support only a fraction of the deer herd needed to provide for
half a
million hunters."[6] Since that prophetic 1975 report, the number of hunters in Michigan has
doubled and the state's deer herd has tripled.
Q: DOESN'T HUNTING KEEP DEER NUMBERS DOWN?
A: While it is indisputable that hunting removes some animals from the population, it does
not keep deer populations at a continually reduced level. While the average fall hunting
season may remove 20% to 30% of the deer from a population, surviving deer will have less
competition for food and increased nutritional health. Several scientific studies indicate that
better-nourished deer have higher productivity,[7] lower neonatal mortality, increased
conception rates,[8] and increased pregnancy in yearlings.[9] In hunted populations, does are
more likely to have twins rather than single fawns, and are more likely to reproduce at a
younger age, thus helping the population grow even faster. One study even indicated that
"twinning was 38% on hunted and 14% on nonhunted" deer populations.[10] Because hunting
pressure is focused on bucks, hunting skews the sex ratio of deer herds and leaves more
females to reproduce (there have been reports of "does outnumbering bucks by as much as
30-1").[11] In these skewed sex ratios, a single buck can impregnate every doe in the
population. Since hunting may cause the reproduction rates of a deer population to double or
triple, hunting is not a solution to a problem, but a commitment to a permanent problem.
Q: DON'T WE NEED HUNTING TO STOP DEER FROM INVADING SUBURBAN
AREAS?
A: State wildlife officials have duped urban and suburban communities into believing that
hunting will solve conflicts between deer and human residents, and these communities tend to
lean toward bowhunting or muzzleloading weapons because they fear the use of high-powered
rifles or shotguns in residential areas. Yet, these two cruel and primitive methods of hunting
do
not reduce deer populations because of their extremely high crippling rates. Dozens of
scientific
studies indicate that bowhunting yields more than a 50% crippling rate.[12] For every animal
dragged from the woods, at least one animal is left wounded to suffer -- either to bleed to
death,
to become infested with parasites and diseases, or to live as a cripple. One study even
indicated
that "100-200 archers per square mile per day would be necessary to achieve a satisfactory
deer
harvest."[13] Muzzleloading equipment, because of the lengthy amount of time it takes to
reload,
also yields a high incidence of crippling. Hunter education manuals indicate that while a deer
shot with a rifle may take 5-10 minutes to die, an animal shot with a muzzleloader may take
60-70 minutes. Bowhunting and muzzleloading deer hunts may be psychologically soothing to
landowners, but wounding animals at random does little or nothing to stop conflicts between
deer and people.
Q: DOESN'T HUNTING STOP DEER FROM EATING ORNAMENTAL FLOWERS
AND ENDANGERED PLANTS?
A: Killing some deer because we want to protect certain vegetation does not stop the
surviving deer from eating those same plants. What we need are site-specific mitigation
measures that have proven to be both humane and effective. With high-tensile wire fencing,
electric fencing, and the planting of vegetation that is unpalatable to deer, nearly every deer
problem can be resolved or reduced. The California Department of Fish and Game distributes
a free brochure detailing a "complete list of deer-resistant' plants, deer repellents and fencing
techniques designed to minimize garden and landscape damage by deer,"[14] and the New
Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife donates materials to farmers and homeowners
who report deer damage -- including barbed wire and high-tensile electric fencing, and
repellents such as "Hinder" (liquid) and "Deer Away" (granulated powder).
Q: DOESN'T HUNTING REDUCE AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS?
A: While public officials tend to blame an increase in deer-vehicle collisions on an increase in
the deer population, such collisions are more often the result of more roadways being built,
more people driving, and roadways bisecting deer habitat. Killing some deer does absolutely
nothing to prevent the surviving deer from crossing the exact same roadways at the exact
same "deer hot spots." Michigan hunters, for example, killed 330,980 deer in 1993, and
Michigan drivers collided with 47,813 deer that same year. In 1994, Michigan hunters killed
362,490 deer and drivers hit 56,666 deer.[15] Clearly, an increase in deer killing does not
solve the problem of deer-vehicle collisions. In fact, there is also evidence that suggests a
direct correlation between higher deer-car accident statistics and the onset of hunting
season.[16] It has been suggested that hunting season has a disruptive effect by startling deer
and putting them more "on the run." With nonlethal and effective mitigation measures such as
driver education, reduced speed limits, improved fencing techniques, lining the roads with
vegetation that is unpalatable to deer, and the use of roadside reflectors to deter deer from
crossing roads, some communities are actually reducing the number of deer-vehicle collisions
rather than relying on the pro-hunting "shoot first, ask questions later" propaganda. Several
scientific studies applaud the use of Strieter-Lite
Reflectors (formerly called Swareflex
Reflectors) that, when installed and maintained properly on the sides of roadways, can reflect
light from a vehicle's headlights and stop deer from crossing. The Washington State
Department of Transportation recorded an 88% reduction in deer-vehicle collisions after
installation,[17] and Minnesota officials recorded a 91% decrease.[18]
Q: DOESN'T HUNTING STOP THE SPREAD OF LYME DISEASE?
A: Although deer are a primary carrier of the adult Ixodes scapularis tick -- the
"Lyme disease tick" or "black-legged tick," formerly known as Ixodes dammini --
many wildlife species carry the larval and nymph stages of the tick which are actually the
most infectious to humans. The tick can be found on 49 bird species[19] and commonly
carried by a variety of mammals, including white-footed mice, chipmunks, grey squirrels,
voles, foxes, rabbits, and opossums.[20] When deer numbers are reduced, ticks tend to
congregate at higher densities on the remaining deer[21] or switch to alternate hosts.[22] Even
during a study in which all the deer were eradicated from an island, the number of adult ticks
actually increased.[23] Lyme disease is easily treatable if it is caught in time, and nearly every
state wildlife agency and physician's office offers free brochures on how to protect yourself
from Lyme disease ticks when recreating in the woods.
Q: DEER CONTRACEPTION ISN'T REALLY AN OPTION, IS IT?
A: With the vast surge in immunocontraceptive technology over the past few years, the deer
contraceptive dart known as "porzine zona pellucida" (PZP) is a viable option for
communities.
The contraceptive, when injected into female deer, stops them from reproducing for one to
two
years. The National Park Service tested PZP on Fire Island National Seashore off the coast of
Long Island and reported a 95% success rate. The National Institute of Standards and
Technology is now using PZP at its 575-acre campus in suburban Washington, D.C.[24] If
wildlife agencies did not spend billions of dollars on hunter education, enforcement of hunting
regulations, and other hunting-related activities, that money could be better spent on more
immunocontraceptive research.
Q: WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO NEED DEER MEAT TO SURVIVE?
A: While there may be a few native cultures that still hunt for food, the overwhelming
majority
of American hunters practice the activity only for sport. Several studies indicate that the
average
price of venison from deer killed in the woods -- after calculating the costs of firearms,
ammunition, license fees, travel expenses, etc. -- is about $20.00 per pound.[25] Clearly, there
are more economical ways to eat than by spending $20.00 per pound for food. Organizations
such as "Hunters for the Hungry" are nothing more than public relations outfits that try to
convince the public that hunting is beneficial to people. If hunters really cared about homeless
or
low-income families, they could purchase a lot more food for $20.00 than a pound of deer
meat.
Q: BUT HUNTERS DON'T KILL FAWNS OR YOUNG DEER, DO THEY?
A: Despite rhetoric from hunters that they do not kill fawns, reports indicate that "of the
bucks taken" during Michigan's 1994 deer hunting season, "74.6% were yearlings."[26]
Biologists point out that "hunters continue to take about 70 percent of the yearling
bucks."[27] These are young deer within the first year of their lives. When hunters talk about
killing "antlerless" deer, they are more often killing young bucks rather than adult females.
Q: WON'T DEER STARVE TO DEATH IF THEY ARE NOT HUNTED?
A: Hunters do not search for starving animals. They either shoot animals at random, or they
seek
out the strongest and healthiest animals in order to bring home the biggest trophies or largest
antlers. While Michigan hunters, for example, killed more than 400,000 deer during the 1995
hunting season, state officials estimated that "200,000 deer" starved to death the following
winter.[28] Clearly, hunting is not stopping starvation, but may in fact be adding to the
problem
by triggering productivity. Even hunting columnists have condemned "the risk taken to build
up
the state deer herds to unrealistic levels in order to satisfy hunters and to sell more hunting
licenses each year."[29]
Q: WHETHER IT'S NATURAL FACTORS OR HUNTERS KILLING DEER,
WHAT'S
THE DIFFERENCE?
A: When animals die of natural causes such as starvation or predation, the old and the sick
animals die, leaving the strong and healthy animals to reproduce and to keep the herd strong.
When animals die of starvation, their carcasses become critically important food reservoirs for
bears, coyotes, opossums, hawks, owls, and eagles who rely on some winter mortality to make
it through long winters. There's no such thing as waste in an ecological system where deer
carcasses replenish life-supporting nutrient cycles such as nitrogen. Hunters, however, disrupt
this natural system, removing the strongest and healthiest animals from the population and
leaving animals who would normally not have reproductive success to pass on their genes. In
light of the consequences, it is no wonder some ecologists have referred to hunting as
"evolution in reverse."
For more information, or to order our 12-page brochure "Living With Deer," please
contact The Fund for Animals' campaign office at:
The Fund for Animals
850 Sligo Avenue, Suite 300
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: (301) 585-2591
Fax: (301) 585-2595
E-Mail: MikeM@fund.org
FOOTNOTES
1. J.S. Larson, "Managing Woodland and Wildlife Habitat in and Near Cities," Trees and
Forests in an Urbanizing Environment, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1971.
2. J.H. Fitch, "White-Tailed Deer Population Ecology: Implications for Management in an
Urbanizing Environment," Deer Management in an Urbanizing Region: Problems and
Alternatives to Traditional Management, The Humane Society of the United States, East
Windsor, New Jersey, 1993.
3. Compiled by The Fund for Animals with information from state wildlife agencies.
4. New Jersey Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife, An Assessment of Deer Hunting in
New Jersey, 1990.
5. K. Darwin, "Has the DNR Mismanaged Our Deer Herd?" Michigan Hunting &
Fishing, June 1993.
6. J. Schutze, "Trees Fall in Favor of Bigger Deer Crop," Detroit Free Press, January
27, 1975.
7. L. Verme, "Reproductive Patterns Related to the Nutritional Plane of White-Tailed Deer,"
Journal of Wildlife Management, 33:420-27, 1969. L. Verme, "Physical and
Reproductive Characteristics of a Supplementally-Fed White-Tailed Deer Herd," Journal of
Wildlife Management, 46(2):281-301, 1982.
8. C.W. Severinghaus and E.L. Cheatum, "Life and Times of the White-Tailed Deer," The
Deer of North America, Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1956.
9. W.D. Mansell, "Productivity of White-Tailed Deer on the Bruce Peninsula, Ontario,"
Journal of Wildlife Management, 38:808-814, 1974.
10. A.R. Richter and R.F. Labisky, "Reproductive Dynamics Among Disjunct White-Tailed
Deer Herds in Florida," Journal of Wildlife Management, 49(4):964-971, 1985.
11. E. Sharp, "Horn O' Plenty Deer," Detroit Free Press, June 14, 1991.
12. A. Benke, The Bowhunting Alternative, B. Todd Press, San Antonio, 1989. For a
complete list of scientific studies on bowhunting, please contact The Fund for Animals.
13. C.W. Severinghaus, "Effectiveness of Archery in Controlling Deer Abundance on the
Howland Island Game Management Area," New York Fish and Game Journal, Vol.
10(2).
14. B. Coey and K. Mayer, "A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage," California
Department of Fish and Game.
15. K. Cole, "Danger, Costs Soar as Herd Hits High," Detroit News, October 24,
1995.
16. Based on records of the National Highway Traffic Safety Commission and state wildlife
agencies.
17. J.A. Schafer, S. Penland, and W.P. Carr, "Effectiveness of Wildlife Warning Reflectors in
Reducing Deer-Vehicle Accidents in Washington State," Washington State Department of
Transportation, WA-RD 64.1, August 1984.
18. D.K. Ingebrigsten and J.R. Ludwig, "Effectiveness of Swareflex Wildlife Warning
Reflectors in Reducing Deer-Vehicle Collisions in Minnesota," Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, Minnesota Wildlife Report 3, 1986.
19. J.F. Anderson, "Mammalian and Avian Reservoirs for Borrelia Burgdorferi,"
Lyme Disease and Related Disorders, 1988.
20. A.B. Carey, W.L. Krinsky, and A.J. Main, "Ixodes Dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) and
Associated Ixodid Ticks in Southcentral Connecticut," Journal of Medicinal
Entomology, 17:89-99, 1980. A.J. Main, A.B. Carey, M.G. Carey, and R.H. Goodwin,
"Immature Ixodes Dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) on Small Mammals in Connecticut,"
Journal of Medicinal Entomology, 19(6):655-664, 1982. J.F. Anderson and L.A.
Magnarelli, "Avian and Mammalian Hosts for Spirochete-Infected Ticks and Insects on a
Lyme Disease Focus in Connecticut," Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine,
57:627-641, 1984. E.M. Bosler, B.G. Ormiston, J.P. Coleman, J.P. Hanrahan, and J.L.
Benach,
"Prevalence of the Lyme Disease Spirochete in Populations of White-Tailed Deer and
White-Footed Mice," Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 57:651-659, 1984.
21. R.D. Deblinger, M.L. Wilson, D.W. Rimmer, and A. Spielman, "Reduced Abundance of
Immature Ixodes Dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) Following Incremental Removal of
Deer," Entomological Society of America, 30(1):144-150, 1993.
22. D.C. Duffy, S.R. Campbell, D. Clark, C. DiMotta, and S. Gurney, "Ixodes
Scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) Deer Tick Mesoscale Populations in Natural Areas: Effects of
Deer, Area, and Location," Entomological Society of America, 31(1):152-158, 1994.
23. M.L. Wilson, S.A. Telford III, J. Piesman, and A. Spielman, "Reduced Abundance of
Immature Ixodes Dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) Following Elimination of Deer,"
Journal of Medicinal Entomology, 25:224-228, 1988.
24. K. Gambrell, "No Mommies, Deerest, at NIST," Montgomery Gazette, August 2,
1996.
25. J.G. Mitchell, The Hunt, Knopf, New York, 1980. J.G. Mitchell, "Our Wily
White-Tailed Deer: Elegant but Perplexing Neighbors," Smithsonian, November 1982.
E. Bauer, Deer in their World, Outdoor Life, New York, 1983. M. Cartmill, A
View to a Death in the Morning: Hunting and Nature through History, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, 1993.
26. Outdoor News, "'94 Deer Harvest," Michigan Hunting and Fishing, February
1995.
27. "1993 Hunt Season May Mark Watershed in Deer Management," The North Woods
Call, November 24, 1993.
28. R. Imrie, "Brutal Winter Kills Thousands of Deer," Associated Press, June 10,
1996.
29. G. Charles, "Tragedy is Looming for Wintering White-Tails," Traverse City
Record-Eagle, February 11, 1996.
| Return to Home Page |