Why hunt?, peta cant argue any of this.

[Probie]

Economic Impact
 
Natural Resources Boost Michigan's Economy
Michigan ranks 3rd in the nation in licensed hunters (more than 750,000) who contribute $1.3 billion annually to our economy. Some 2.6 million non-consumptive users contribute $1.2 billion to our economy.
Michigan ranks 8th in the nation in numbers of licensed resident and nonresident anglers who contribute $2 billion annually to our economy.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366-121641--,00.html

The Economic Impact of Hunting
 
Rather than give instruction this month, I want to share some information with you that I recently came across regarding the Economic Importance of Hunting in the United States. Hunting is much more than a traditional American pastime. It is also an immensely powerful part of our collective economic fabric, creating more than 700,000 jobs nationwide.

                In 1996 the United States Fish and Wildlife service in conjunction with the U.S. Census Bureau conducted a National survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.  My friend Rob Southwick of Southwick Associates, a resource-economics consulting firm, together with the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) compiled this information for its members, but many of the details are also vital for sportsmen in every state.

                The first point I want to make is that the 1996 study showed that annual spending by America’s 14 million hunters amounts to $22.1 billion. By comparison, and if hypothetically ranked as a “corporation”, that revenue figure would put hunting in thirty-fifth place on the fortune 500 list of America’s largest businesses at that time. When that spending figure was “crunched” by economic analysts the findings were that hunters created a nationwide economic impact of about $61 billion. They supported 704,600 million jobs, created household income or $16.1 billion, added $1.4 billion to state tax revenues and contributed $1.7 billion in federal income taxes, which equates to almost half the entire federal budget for commerce.   

                It’s important to remember that the 704,600 jobs supported in 1996 by hunters having spent $22.1 billion aren’t just jobs in sporting-goods stores, but can include everyone from health-clinic employees to your local telephone repairman. Here is an example of how that works.

                Let’s say that you go into an independent sporting-goods retailer and buy a new gun. Part of the money you spend then goes to pay the salary of the manager who may have just bought a new vehicle down the road at the local dealership. The dealership made a profit, paid salaries and commissions and bought more inventories.  Part of the money goes to the store’s overhead, paying for things like the electric bill which in turn pays more salaries and supports more jobs.  Part of the money goes to the company that made the gun and they pay parts and material suppliers, insurance agencies and myriad other expenses as the amount of your original purchase ripples through the country’s economy.

                On a national scale, the cost of a single gun isn’t very significant, of course. But when 14 million hunters spend $22.1 billion in twelve months, the result in jobs, wages, and other economic effects is both extraordinary and at the very foundation of America’s economic health.

                Economic effects can be calculated at various levels; regionally, by state or even based on the kind of game being hunted. Deer hunting, for example, generated $10.3 billion in nationwide hunter spending during 1996, while supporting nearly 312,000 jobs nationwide. Migratory bird hunting (ducks, geese, doves, etc.) added almost $3 billion in spending and accounted for nearly 96,000 jobs. Upland bird (quail, grouse, pheasant) hunting meanwhile added $1.9 billion in spending and about 55,000 jobs.

                Similar effects calculated at the state level can be especially important. In California for example, the impact of hunters spending added up to $2.1 billion, supporting 26,800 jobs, creating $618 million in household income (salaries and wages), and creating $66.5 million in state tax revenues. Wisconson, which is a major deer-hunting state, deer hunting alone accounted for $897.9 million in hunter dollars spent and supported 16,761 jobs. Those are the kinds of numbers that should turn the head of any state legislator or politician

                While hunting gets a wide acknowledgement as a traditional activity based on healthy wildlife habitat, it tends to get little recognition as a major economic force locally, regionally, and nationally. Obviously hunting is much more important than just the dollars and jobs it produces for the economy but this analysis shows that Americans have more reasons than ever before to preserve and enhance fish and wildlife habitat – an effort that greatly benefits wildlife and the country as a whole.

http://woolleyshooting.com/Articles/economics.html

More than 82 million U.S. residents fished, hunted, and watched wildlife in 2001. They spent over $108 billion pursuing their recreational activities, contributing to millions of jobs in industries and businesses that support wildlife-related recreation. Furthermore, funds generated by licenses and taxes on hunting and fishing equipment pay for many of the conservation efforts in this country.

Wildlife recreationists are among the Nation’s most ardent conservationists. They not only contribute financially to conservation efforts, but also spend time and effort to introduce children and other newcomers to the enjoyment of the outdoors and wildlife.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/01fhw/fhw01-mi.pdf

SPORTSMEN & CONSERVATION

“There is no doubt that waterfowlers and other hunters are the
most passionate and sincere supporters of wildlife habitat
conservation. We certainly see this within our own organization.
DU was founded by a group of far-sighted sportsmen 70 years
ago, and, today, 90 percent of our members are active hunters
who want to give something back to the resource.”
DU Executive Vice President Don Young


• Spending by America’s 14 million hunters annually generates roughly $25 billion in retail sales, $17 billion in salaries and wages, and employs 575,000 people.

• Hunters spend a total of 228 million days in the field, averaging 18 days per person. 

• Hunters annually spend $605 million on retrievers and other hunting dog breeds, more than snow skiers spend on their equipment.

• Each year, hunters spend $2 billion on food for hunting trips than Americans spend on Domino’s pizza.

• Hunters support over ½ million jobs in America.  That is more jobs than the combined employees of all the major U.S. airlines combined, including the workforces of American, United, Delta, Northwest, Continental, US Airways, Southwest, Alaska Air, and American West.

• The $2.4 billion in annual federal income taxes generated by hunters’ spending could cover the annual paychecks of 100,000 troops. That is the equivalent of eight divisions, 143 battalions, and 3,300 platoons.

• Each year, hunters and target shooters alone contribute $500 million to state fish and wildlife agencies through license fees, wildlife stamps, and excise taxes.  These funds have helped conserve over 5 million acres and pay 65% of state Fish and Wildlife Agency budgets.

• Sportsmen contribute $54 every second, $3,240 every minute, $194,400 every hour, $4,7 million every day, adding up to $1.7 billion every year for conservation.

• Between 1991-2001, hunting expenditures increased 29 percent, while hunting-related investments in 4x4 vehicles, campers, vans, cabins, and boats increased 183 percent.

• Nationally, more than 986,000 jobs—including pilots and guides—are supported by the shooting sports industry—more people than work at Corning, Hewlett Packard, and Time Warner combined.

Source: www.sportsmenslink.org, 2006

This little nugget brought to us by current DU(Ducks Unlimited for any AR's reading this) employee and wonderfull PS member Xine.

Hunting Is A Vital Part Of Canadian/American Culture
Hunting is an important and traditional recreational activity in which 20,000,000 Americans 16 years old and older participate. Hunters have been and continue to be among the foremost supporters of sound wildlife management and conservation practices in the United States and Canada. Hunters and organizations related to hunting provide direct assistance to wildlife managers and enforcement officers at all levels of government. Hunting is an essential component of effective wildlife management, in that it tends to reduce conflicts between people and wildlife and provides incentives for the conservation of wildlife habitats and ecosystems on which wildlife depends. Through legislative programs designed to channel funds back into the conservation process, hunters have restored populations of deer, moose, caribou, elk, antelope, turkeys and ducks to record numbers.

Hunting contributes over $30 billion to the economy each year, supporting over 1,000,000 jobs in the United States and Canada. (National Shooting Sports Foundation) Hunting provides food for people. For nearly a decade, hunters have provided thousands of pounds of game meat through donation programs such as Hunters Sharing the Harvest and Hunters for the Hungry. Hunting helps manage animal populations resulting in less human/animal traffic accidents.


http://www.huntingoutfitters.ca/

Thank you to one of Canada's finest and current Mod on this forum, Gangler for the above info.

How you AR supporters like those stats. I beg of you to give me some credible info that proves peta does more. Try as you might, you won't find it because it doesn't exest.

Herd Stress Management

Like humans, whitetails are at their healthiest when their stress level is low. Is your herd too "stressed out" to reach its potential?

By David Morris

What do all of the following have in common?

In the Peace River region of northern Alberta, bucks seldom live to more than 4 years of age, despite low hunting pressure.

In the Southeastern U.S., whitetails are often covered with ticks and deer mites.

In South Texas, only about 30 percent of the adult does still have surviving fawns when fall arrives.

In the Central Texas Hill Country, you can ride rural highways almost anytime of day and see deer feeding.

In the river bottoms of eastern Montana, Wyoming and the western Dakotas, hemorrhagic disease sweeps through the whitetail herd about every six to eight years and kills off much of the population.

And finally, bucks in many places aren't nearly as big as they were 25 years ago.

Again I ask the question: What do all of these situations have in common? The answer is simple: stress!

Over several decades of hunting and managing deer, I've come to realize just how insidious stress is in a herd. It can affect size, behavior, health and even survival. Stress can and does result in smaller, less healthy deer that are more vulnerable to predation, sickness, parasites, disease and death.

What is stress? For our purposes, we'll define it as a condition wherein the animal's potential to grow, function and survive is impaired.

And what can cause stress in whitetails? Several things. One, of course, is a prolonged period of extreme cold or heat. Under such conditions, the introduction of other complicating factors, such as feral dogs, predators or even something as benign as cattle, can quickly take a toll on deer. (If you doubt cattle can be a factor, consider that when temperatures top 100 degrees in South Texas, fawns can die simply after being jumped by cows and forced to relocate.)

The effects of extreme cold and deep snow are well known and can even detrimentally alter a herd's social and behavioral patterns. For instance, in 1998 in western Montana, record snow fell suddenly before the rut and virtually trapped deer in isolated pockets. This disrupted movement to the winter range, the rut and normal social behavior. All of this initiated stress that, along with an eventual lack of food, ultimately led to a 60-80 percent herd die-off.

The rut is another source of stress, especially in bucks. The high level of activity, reduced feeding and the general physical abuse bucks endure place great stress on them. In fact, more otherwise healthy bucks succumb to "post-rut mortality" than to any other form of natural death.

As noted, livestock can stress deer. But the harassment and/or displacement by people, dogs, development and/or heavy equipment can as well. I saw this back in my early years on Middle Georgia's Burnt Pine Plantation, where feral dogs were a big problem. They constantly chased deer and kept them on edge and under stress, resulting in low reproductive success and lower body weights -- and perhaps other problems not readily apparent.

Obviously, disease and parasites bring plenty of stress, but as often as not, these ailments are the result of stress, not the original cause of stress. So what is at the root of this problem?

Malnutrition is the principal source of stress in herds across North America, and it lies at the root of many of the problems herds face today: diseases, parasites, low tolerance for extreme weather, low reproductive rates, low body weight, poor rack development and, believe it or not, even road kills. Healthy, well-fed deer can usually ward off the effects of other contributors to stress, but a malnourished deer is under constant stress and can be thrown into a tailspin by almost any added adversity that comes his way.

Let's look at some specific examples of stress-related problems. I mentioned that even road-related mortality can be related to stress. How can that be? It's simple. Hungry, stressed deer have to move and feed often and are willing to expose themselves to dangers they otherwise would avoid, including highways. The simple fact that they move more increases their chances of being hit by vehicles. Couple increased movement with the attraction that green, often clover-laden roadside rights of way offer hungry deer, and you have a recipe for a lot of insurance claims.

Until the big winter kill of 1998, the Swan Valley of western Montana, which is heavily wooded with little agriculture, was terribly overcrowded with deer. It wasn't unusual to see upwards of 100 hungry deer feeding along a 20-mile stretch of highway. It was no wonder the Swan Valley had more deer collision insurance claims than anywhere else in the state. One fellow hit five -- yes, five -- and he did it all in one night, in 50 miles! The deer were on the road because they were starving, and the right of way offered the best food available. Sadly, this isn't an unusual situation.

Stress simply forces deer to be more visible. If you ride through the Hill Country of Texas, where deer are notoriously overcrowded, you'll see them moving around during all hours of the day. You'll even see them lying in suburban yards like so many cows. Why? Because hunger-induced stress has removed their natural caution and forced them to abandon their natural low-light movement patterns. They must scrounge around all day, often in places no self-respecting whitetail should be.

The fact is that severely stressed deer essentially become tame, their hunger overcoming their natural instincts and fear. That's one of the reasons I say fair chase suffers in cases of severe overcrowding. Conversely, well-fed deer on good natural habitat are largely nocturnal, quick to respond to hunting pressure, wild as banshees and hard to hunt. It's a matter of stress, or the lack thereof.

Stress has strange ways of taking a toll. When I first bought my ranch in South Texas, stress killed deer, or allowed them to be killed, in ways I never imagined. One of my first jobs on the ranch was to get a handle on the status of the herd, including natural mortality. I assigned my ranch manager the job of cruising the place every day, checking for dead deer by watching for telltale activities of buzzards, caracaras (another scavenging bird), and/or coyotes.

In that first year, two surprising forms of mortality showed up. One, during the hottest summer days, when the temperature topped 100 degrees, we frequently found dead fawns, many of which showed no visible reason for death. The other surprise was the mortality of pregnant does heavy with fawns. In one six-week period in June and July, we found 16 does killed by coyotes, nearly all of which were about to give birth. (The rut is far later there than in much of the rest of North America.)

What could this have to do with stress? First, the herd was badly overcrowded and stressed when I bought the ranch. In that stressed condition, the does had a hard time supplying enough quality milk to fawns. As a result, the fawns were badly stressed. When the temperature hit three digits, the fawns, their tiny bodies unable to adequately insulate their vitals, were vulnerable to heat prostration. This vulnerability was exasperated when anything, real or imagined, spooked the fawns.

Does being chased by coyotes certainly might have also suffered from heat, but more likely the nutritionally stressed does simply didn't have the stamina necessary to escape pursuing coyotes when hampered by advanced pregnancy.

Evidence that stress was a major contributing factor to both of these forms of natural mortality came when the nutritional plane was raised through food plots. Once plenty of high-quality food was available, both types of deaths were virtually eliminated.

Another form of stress-related mortality was also very evident on my ranch, but it wasn't unexpected and certainly isn't unique to my ranch. I'm talking about post-rut mortality. This is a fancy way of saying buck deaths related to rut stress. It's real and it can be high, accounting for the death of as many as 30 percent of active breeders.

True, not all post-rut (or rut) mortality is directly related to stress. Often, death comes from fatal injury, usually from fighting but also from rut-induced carelessness and foolishness, or from becoming locked with another buck. Even the healthiest bucks are vulnerable to such fates, but stress can greatly increase post-rut mortality.

When I was managing Burnt Pine Plantation, there was a time during the early years when 4 1/2- and 5 1/2-year-old bucks seldom showed up, despite the fact that we limited the mature buck harvest to a number that should have ensured the presence of a reasonable number of such deer.

I finally figured out what was happening. At the time, we were overcrowded; the state had greatly reduced the number of days during which does could be shot. This also led to a relatively poor buck:doe ratio. Because we were just getting into our management program, we had a fairly young buck age structure, with only about 15-20 percent of the bucks being 3 1/2 years old or older.

This meant that relatively few mature bucks were serving as the dominant breeders in a herd with a disproportionate number of does, resulting in great stress on the mature bucks. As a result, the active breeders came through the rut beat up, worn out and as much as 30 percent lighter than they were when the rut began. Exhausted, hungry and with dangerously low body reserves, many fell victim to post-rut mortality, especially when their plight was exasperated by prolonged periods of cold and/or wet weather, harassment from feral dogs or coyotes, or any number of other challenges.

I have seen the same lack of older bucks in northern Canada, even through the region has very little hunting pressure and a lot of good food -- at least, during the warm season. What kills the bucks? Stress-related post-rut mortality.

Even though the bucks go into the rut in great condition, the rigors of rutting activity stress them enough to make them vulnerable to the extreme cold and deep snow that inevitably come to that harsh land. There, just a little stress can make the difference between life and death. That's why you don't see high populations in the northern fringes of the whitetail's range: The population must stay low enough so that every deer has enough of the highest quality food to maximize its body condition and thus its chances of surviving brutal winter conditions.

Stress is an open door to disease and parasites. Once such scourges take hold, stress increases even more; the slide down the slippery slope to poor quality/health and ultimately death is accelerated.

An earmark of stressed herds is external parasites, particularly ticks and deer mites. If you see whitetails with heavy tick loads, you can be sure those deer are nutritionally stressed. The immune system of healthy, well-fed deer is capable of rejecting major infestations of ticks and most other external parasites, but that's not so with poorly fed, stressed deer.

When I bought my ranch in South Texas, deer there were loaded with ticks and deer mites. But since we implemented our food-plot program five years ago, we've eliminated ticks and deer mites from our deer. The last time I saw a buck with ticks was three years ago, when my son-in-law shot an ancient, nearly toothless buck that was clearly stressed and starving. I've also seen parasites disappear with the arrival of high nutrition in many other places.

Interestingly, I've seen heavy parasite loads on deer in parts of the Midwest, where agriculture is generally thought to provide awesome nutrition. It does just that -- where the right agricultural practices exist. But it's a catch-as-catch-can deal, wherein good deer food exists sporadically from place to place and year to year. In any given year, the Midwest offers great nutrition -- in certain places, and in a sense, by accident. If you're a deer manager, you don't want to depend on happenstance. Food plots take the guesswork out and put consistency in.

Nowhere is the disease potential of a stressed herd more evident than on the river bottoms of Montana, Wyoming or the Dakotas. Here, ribbons of trees and brush trace the river courses and provide limited cover in the middle of wide-open plains and prairies. Irrigated alfalfa fields along the bottoms and wheat fields on the adjacent uplands provide a super abundance of high-quality food.

For all practical purposes, here you have a contained herd (the open prairies essentially are a "high fence") supported by a nearly year-round food-plot program. Alfalfa offers high protein during the warm season; wheat provides energy during much of the cool season. It's a perfect "food plot" program . . . to a point.

Because cover and space are more limited than quality food, deer numbers grow until they finally saturate the limited cover. The concentration of deer in some of these river bottoms surpasses virtually all other known density levels. In fact, I once saw more than 200 deer file out of a 75-acre block of woods on the Milk River in Montana! That's a density of nearly three deer per acre of cover: an unheard-of number!

While an extremely high deer density can bring on stress in itself, the high nutritional quality appears to override the usual social stress of so many deer concentrated into a small area. But alas, there's a limit to everything, and at a point, the number of mouths exceeds the capacity of even this super "food plot" scheme to keep filled. Stress enters the tightly packed herd, which is living nearly nose-to-nose, and the door is thrown open to disease. The "predator" that almost always steps through that door is hemorrhagic disease, or blue tongue. In a matter of weeks, usually in the fall about six to eight years after the last outbreak, it kills from 50 to 80 percent of the stressed herd!

Yes, stress is an insidious thing, leading to smaller antlers and bodies, lower reproduction and aberrant behavior, even death. But we aren't without the means to cope with it. I'm talking about sound management, which means keeping the herd in line with the food supply.

To correct the problem, we have two choices: Lower deer densities to match the available food or increase the food supply to accommodate the number of deer we want. I like the latter option far better. And with that, I think I'll engage in a little stress relief for both the deer and myself . . . by planting some food plots!

http://www.northamericanwhitetail.com/deermanagement/dm_0104deerfactory/

2002 a Record Year for Hemorrhagic Disease
As reports trickle in from across the U.S., it becomes clear that chronic wasting disease wasn't the only major whitetail health issue of 2002. Bluetongue and epizootic hemorrhagic disease killed thousands of deer.

Although chronic wasting disease dominated the discussion of wildlife health issues in 2002, several viral diseases actually killed far more whitetails. And, the damage was widespread, with researches for the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study finding one or the other of the virus strains in whitetail tissue samples from Georgia north to Pennsylvania and as far west as Texas, Kansas and Wisconson.

The culprits were well known to deer researchers: epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD) and bluetongue (BT). These similar diseases cause high fever and are frequently fatal; infected deer often are found near water sources, where they apparently go in an effort to cool off. BT looks to be confined to the Southeast, while EHD is more widespread.

Both EHD and BT are known to be spread by Culicoides sonnorensis, a species of biting midge. Due to the life cycle of these insects, most outbreaks of the two diseases occur in late summer into autumn, and that appears to have been the case in 2002. The year's earliest virus isolation, from a whitetail in Virginia, came on Aug. 14; the last isolation came from Kansas on Nov. 5. In both of those cases, and in the vast majority of others, the EHDV-2 strain of virus was implicated.

Outbreaks historically have been seen every decade or so in many locations, especially in the eastern half of the U.S. What makes last year's massive 2002 outbreak interesting is that prior to 2002, the most recent major occurrence took place only three years earlier.

RESEARCHING DEER DISEASES
Much of the study of diseases affecting whitetails and other wildlife is done by the SCWDS, which is part of the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Georgia. Dr. David Stallknecht heads up research of hemorrhagic diseases.
 
 
Drought aids in the life cycle of the Culicoides sonnorensis midge, and dry conditions likely were a factor in both of these most recent outbreaks. However, researchers note that much more study needs to be done to understand all of the variables that control the timing and severity of HD outbreaks.

In the event you find dead deer on your hunting land (particularly during late summer or fall), contact your state wildlife agency. Although the various hemorrhagic diseases seen in whitetails are in some ways similar to Africa's virulent Ebola virus, they do not affect humans.

http://www.northamericanwhitetail.com/deermanagement/dm_aa026003/

Allowing natural predators(outside of humans)to take care of population control.
Now we all know the AR movement's standard answer when confronted with the argument hunters use of "population control". It's always the same tired old line, let natures natural predators take care of the population problem. Well, in a perfect world that would be great. But we don't live in that world and never will.

Well here's a link to an actual study that shows the benefits and hinderances of natural predators(coyotes)on deer herds.I did not throw the word wolf out as a predator as the study will show why.

Any peta troller looking at this may want to "question authority" over at peta2 and show this link. I would be more than curious as to what the rebuttles would be on this.

http://www.northamericanwhitetail.com/deermanagement/wt_102predators/

The Swarm of Whitetails

Since the moment of it’s discovery, our nation has experienced issues with the population of many animals that inhabit the continent. Not so long ago, due to our misuse of the environment, the bald eagle was near extinction. Now, I frequently see them soaring over the river valley near my home. In Iowa, the bobcat was practically non-existent due to excessive hunting. Now, tracks and live animals are beginning to be frequently sighted in many parts of Iowa. These few examples that I have mentioned only deal with the population being to few. However, there exist a species of animal in the Midwest and parts of Eastern U.S. where to population is far from lacking. The whitetail deer is an animal, which has proven to be extremely versatile and adaptable to a wide variety of habitats. In recent years, their numbers have seemed to be growing exponentially without any sign of slowing. There are several factors which may be contributing to this whitetail overpopulation in the Midwest and Eastern parts of the U.S., and there are just as many possible solutions. This paper will site reasons as to why the population is incredibly high, what adverse effects will result and it will explain what may need to be done to effectively manage the herds.

Much like the deer population, the human population is rapidly expanding as well. This is resulting in the development of land for housing that was once prime habitat for deer. These deer are now attempting to co-exist with the people in these developments. Due to the fact that these areas are considered a part of the town, it isn’t legal to hunt the deer that exist in these areas. Since they don’t have to worry about hunting pressure, there is little that can be done about the population levels in these areas. The large number of deer increases the incidence of Lyme disease transmission from deer ticks to humans. (Samuel 1996) Not only do disease transmissions increase, but the frequency of automobile/deer collisions also increase. The average amount of money spent on repairs of such collisions is about 2,000 dollars (Budiansky 1994), but even more is spent on the replacement of vegetation that is over-grazed. Many types of shrubs and trees that are used for landscaping are very popular with whitetail deer. They frequently venture into yards in search of such vegetation. The only option for property owners is to use chemical deterrents or some sort of physical barrier such as fencing of some sort. However these methods have proven to be somewhat in effective and a more effective method, which will be discussed later, must be used.

Many of the areas which are experiencing whitetail problems are areas where there exists a large amount of agricultural land. The crops supply the deer with a large amount of nutritional grain. During the winter, the grain that escaped harvest provides food for them to survive over winter. This cuts down on the number of deer that would normally die due to lack of food over the winter. With fewer dieing than normal, this allows the population to continually grow. Deer have actually been known to knock standing corn down during the summer months. I witnessed a few such areas while scouting for deer for the fall hunting season. The impact that the heavy populations leave isn’t restricted to croplands only. Their tendency to over-graze is felt rather drastically in the woodlands as well. When their primary sources of food are exhausted, such as acorns, they move to practically anything that is palatable in the under storage of the forest (National Wildlife Federation 1998). Such habits have been known to cause very adverse affects to the ecological balance. Studies have shown that as populations increase and overgrazing increases, the population of other animals is dramatically affected. Scientists have noticed that when the vegetation declines, so does the number of insects, songbirds and other animals that rely on the existence of another animal (Budiansky 1994). The deer basically disrupt the food chain when they eat some plants out of existence. If they continue to over-graze as they are now, it is very likely that they may actually destroy the seed source for many plants. Thus, eliminating the potential for that plant to continue to exist. Such problems wouldn’t exist if the populations weren’t so high that they exhaust the source of their primary foods and have to move to their secondary sources.

Since the day of our settlers, we have been a people that manipulated out environment to suit our needs. This alteration of nature has had adverse affects on the native animal life. It had caused many of the native animals to move else where due to lack of suitable habitat. One of these animals is the mountain lion. This creature once openly roamed the Midwest (Williams 1996). Now, due to lack of habitat, that cat no longer roams in the numbers it once did. This has become a problem contributing to the increase in the numbers of deer that we are experiencing. Animals like the mountain lion are natural predators of the whitetail deer (Williams 1996). They acted as a natural population control to the deer and somewhat helped prevent the numbers from getting out of control. Now that there really isn’t any form of natural predation to keep the numbers at a reasonable level, the population basically doesn’t have anything standing in its way. They can continue to grow larger without having anything to control it. Scientists say in states where the deer to lion ratio is about 135:1, the lions don’t really kill enough to make an impact on the deer population (Williams 1996). This indicates that the numbers are currently high enough that they have surpassed the “point of no return” in relation to being able to use natural predation as a method of population control.

You may be wondering what can be done about this problem that we seem to be experiencing. To begin with, it has been said that the only effective way of controlling the deer population is to hunt them to keep their numbers at a reasonable level. In Iowa, there are essentially three methods by which we are allowed to hunt whitetails. You can hunt them with a bow, a shotgun and a muzzleloader. A hunter is allowed to purchase one tag per method and thus can only shoot one deer per season. Many states in the eastern U.S. have actually allowed hunters to shoot multiple deer per season. Maryland in particular is allowing hunters to kill as many as thirty deer without requiring the hunters to purchase additional tags (Tatum 2004). In near by Pennsylvania, you can shoot up to thirty antler-less deer, however, they require that the hunter purchase additional tags for each additional deer (Tatum 2004). They have the right idea, but the fact that more tags have to be purchased for additional deer has a tendency to deter hunters from killing additional deer. This would cost hunters about 780 dollars in additional tag fees(Tatum 2004) . This is money that few are willing to spend solely in the name of deer hunting. In Iowa, hunters can only purchase one tag per season and no more than one. This means that only three deer can be killed per person per year. This doesn’t necessarily mean that three deer will be killed. In my hunting trips, I have seen herds of deer that were so big that you wouldn’t know what to think. Iowa would definitely benefit from the allowance of more deer kills per person based on the sheer amount that I have seen on my hunts.

Previously, I spoke of how the deer populations in sub-urban areas are typically very high dude to lack of hunters and predators. Many have said that the only way to keep the deer out of those areas is to have a controlled bow hunt (Samuel 1996). Repellents, fences and other deterrents have proven to be ineffective in keeping deer away. In Maryland, they have designated urban bow hunting areas (Tatum 2004). During the bow season, they allow hunters to bag as many antler less deer as they want to (Tatum 2004). This has proven to be rather effective in controlling the whitetail populations in Maryland’s suburban areas. When traveling to Des Moines through one of their many wooded suburban areas, it is quite apparent that Iowa should consider using such methods to help with population control and also generate considerable revenue from tag sales.

Lastly, the most effective way to control a deer population is to use effective management techniques to regulate the population. It is has been said through studies that when a population gets too large, there tend to be an increase in the number of males in the herd (Miller and Marchinton 1995). There for, to reduce numbers, more males need to be harvested in the herd. It only takes one buck to impregnate multiple does in the herd. So, in a population where the numbers are rather high, it would be smart to harvest more bucks than does. The whitetail population should be treated as two separate populations, the bucks and the does (Miller and Marchinton 1995). Each should be managed according to productivity and according to what the level of the birth rate is that season. Each management technique is specific to the location and the herd characteristics (Miller and Marchinton 1995).

The deer population problem that we are experiencing in the Midwest and parts of the Eastern U.S. is one with many causes and solutions. When in large numbers, they not only affect the ecological balance by destroying plant life, but they also cause thousands of dollars in damage to motor vehicles yearly. The only way that the population will come close to reaching a decent level is if we begin to effectively manage the herds through hunting and a good stewardship.

Seth Mulder

English 105

3/17/05

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mulders/deer.htm

Deer/car accidents: The number of deer/car accidents has increased considerably during the past 10 years. Average loss from such accidents in Michigan in 1995 was $1,500.

Tree and shrub damage: Deer feed on trees and shrubs both in rural forests and in suburban communities. Excessive deer browsing in forests can lead to the selective removal of certain species, such as yew, and to difficulties with regeneration of various tree species, such as pines, oaks, and cedars.

Crop damage: Often farm fields are interspersed with forested areas. Deer frequently feed on crops grown by gardeners and farmers. Crop damage from deer in the North Central Region has increased considerably in the last 10 years.

Overpopulation: Deer herds can readily build up to very high numbers. In some cases, this can lead to increased problems for humans because of the corresponding increases in deer/car accidents and plant damage. High deer population levels also lead to problems for the deer. Food can become scarce during harsh winter weather and many deer may starve. Also, parasites and diseases can become problems when deer are very crowded. A few of these diseases, such as bovine tuberculosis and Lyme disease, pose a concern for humans as well.

http://fhm.fs.fed.us/fhncs/chapter3/whitetail_deer.htm

Colloquium Spring 03'

Since the early 1980Æs there has been a drastic increase of Whitetail deer in Northern Pennsylvania. A number of reasons account for the explosion in the population, such as increase in farmland, milder winters, and restricted hunting in some areas. The extensive deer populations is destroying the growth of healthy forests in Northern Pennsylvania. This study is designed to determine what type of vegetation Whitetail deer prefer, if any. Also this will allow us to determine how the deer are keeping a forest from becoming a beach birch and maple forest, what a healthy forest in this area should be. Our finding found that indeed the deer population are destroying the undergrowth, preventing the area forests from becoming a beech, birch, and maple forest. The preferred browse of Whitetail deer was found to be Multifloral Rose, Mountain Laurel, and Wild Raspberry respectively. These types of vegetation are not traditional eaten by deer, only when the rest of the undergrowth is consumed, are they eaten. This concludes that indeed the over population of Whitetail deer is negatively impacting the health of the Northern Pennsylvania forests by consuming all undergrowth trying to survive. Only woody shrubs such as Multifloral Rose and Mountain laurel, which are deersÆ last resort, will be found in the undergrowth.
Jeffrey Curry

http://www.lycoming.edu/biology/lycogenes/02-03/jcurry.html

The Following Article was Found
ON THE:

National Review Online Weekend, January 13-14, 2001

Outdoors

It’s Raining Deer
Out-of-control herds, out-of-control solutions.

By James A. Swan, Ph.D., the “Media Watch” columnist for
North American Hunter magazine.

Last July, actor Liam Neeson took his Harley Davidson out for a spin near his upstate New York home. The Academy Award-nominated thespian ended the day at the Sharon Hospital with a broken pelvis and multiple lacerations. Neeson, who played a Jedi knight in the latest edition of Star Wars, was not a victim of the Empire. He collided with a deer.

Not that many years ago, in many parts of the U.S., seeing deer was a rare treat. Today, they are everywhere, causing some serious problems. Insurance companies report more than 500,000 deer-car collisions annually, resulting in about 100 human deaths. Several university studies place the total number of deer hit by cars at 4-to-6 times what is reported.

The average insurance claim for a car-deer collision is $2000. Deer damage to agriculture crops and landscaping costs more than $1 billion a year. Lyme disease, carried by deer-borne ticks, has been reported in 43 states. Deer in Michigan have recently been found with tuberculosis, which can spread to humans. Let us not forget that more people are hurt and killed by deer every year than any other species of North American wild game.

What happened?

Prior to Columbus, the deer herd was kept in check by predators — wolves, cougars, bobcats, bears, coyotes, and man. Uncontrolled market hunting and loss of habitat caused by the flood of immigrants drastically reduced the original herd. There are three major species of deer in the U.S. — whitetail, primarily east of the Rockies; mule deer in the Plains; and blacktail along the West Coast.

Whitetails, especially, are quick learners and very fertile. Under ideal conditions a whitetail herd can double in a year. Natural predators are gone in most areas. Hunting continues, but the open acreage in traditional hunting areas seems to grow less in size every year. (In some states annual kills by cars and poachers now exceed the legal hunters' bag.) Whitetails have lost their fear of man, moved into farmlands, suburbs and parks. In 1900, the national whitetail herd was about half a million. Today the whitetail herd exceeds 30 million.

What do we do with all the deer?

The most obvious solution would be to expand man's role as a predator, but in some communities mention of the "h-word" only brings dirty looks, protests, threatening phone calls, and worse. Led by the nation's largest animal rights group, The Humane Society of the U.S. (which does not run shelters or spend money on conserving habitat), animal-rights groups spend millions on defaming the image of hunting. ("Education" and "fund-raising" are frequently the two largest items in their budgets.)

Armed with a new breed of attorney specializing in animal-rights law, anti-hunting groups have also forced many state fish and game departments to practice "defensive wildlife management," developing phone-book-thick environmental-impact statements to answer all anti-hunting accusations made in hearings. In California, home of more anti-hunting groups than any other state, (over 50 and counting), the stack of the annual environmental-impact statements needed to justify the regular hunting season is nearly six feet tall.

About the same time as Neeson's run in with the deer, NBC's Evening News with Tom Brokaw aired a segment called "Wildlife Out of Control." The segment started out well, with accurate statistics on the hundreds of thousands of auto accidents involving deer. Then came the remedy. Two employees of the Humane Society of the U.S. were introduced. The first was a "wildlife biologist" who was shooting does with a dart gun to inject them with a contraceptive. The cost was "about $20 per deer." His actions were backed up by another HSUS representative who asserted that the overpopulation of deer was clear evidence that "hunting as a population-control method is not doing the job." Of course, he failed to say that hunting has not been as effective a wildlife-management tool as it might be because of the opposition by anti-hunters.

Across the U.S., the HSUS and other anti-hunting organizations advocate the use of contraceptives to control urban deer. Nice idea, but according to Dr. Robert Warren of the University of Georgia, contraceptives have never been proven to be effective for wild, free-ranging herds — and the costs quickly skyrocket. To work, a doe must be given an injection of contraceptives twice a year, every year. Unless they are penned, you have to get close enough to shoot them with a syringe dart or a biobullet. The chemicals only cost $20 annually per deer, but man-hours to administer them are costly.

One Ohio suburb spent more than $1000 annually per doe for birth control. Surgical sterilization is the only permanent birth control for deer, and that is even more expensive. Another anti-option is to capture and relocate animals. The costs range from $150-$800 per animal, and upwards of one-quarter die from shock. Guard dogs and fences help, but if neighbors feed deer when they overbrowse an area, the population continues to rise. In short, Harley Davidsons, SUV's, and BMW's have become the only true predators to American deer.

When all else fails, the anti-hunters will sometimes reluctantly allow animal-control sharpshooters, using rifles, to kill off animals. The cost is about $200 to $250 per deer. Why hire a sharpshooter when there are human predators for free?

A growing number of communities across the U.S., fed up with the anti-hunters and overpopulations of deer, are allowing a seasoned corps of hunters, primarily archers, to manage their deer herds, and with great success. According to wildlife biologist C.J. Winand, special urban-archery hunting programs are very successful in metropolitan areas including Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Detroit, and Minnetonka, MN. Winand reports signing up entire cul-de-sacs in the Baltimore area to allow bowhunters into their back yards, hunting in parcels as small as one acre. Each master urban hunter must pass a course in ethics and safety, demonstrate marksmanship, and contribute a small annual fee that helps cover a $1 million liability insurance policy. Each arrow carries the name of the user to make sure they are not blamed for a nimrod's folly. (Remember there are few archery control laws — yet.)

The Anti-hunters often question the lethality of archery. In controlled studies, there is no significant difference in mortality between deer shot in the heart-lung region with a gun or a bow. Both die within 30 seconds and within 100 yards of where shot. Archery is actually a more "humane" method of harvesting an animal, for it bleeds to death and dies from loss of blood, rather than the shock of a bullet wound. Gunshots frighten people. Archery is quiet and much safer. Hunting is a very safe sport, safer than ping-pong according to the National Safety Council. Bowhunting accounts for only 2% of all hunting accidents — half of these are falls from tree-stands. To date, there have been no injuries to non-hunters in any urban deer hunts.

Some urban archers are harvesting up to 30, yes 30, deer per year. What do they do with the excess meat? In the last three years, one organization covering the Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia area — Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry — has donated more than 500 tons of venison. That's 4,000,000 meals, enough to feed everyone in Washington, D.C. for a week.

Feeding the needy is honorable work, but I would suggest expanding the definition of "needy" to lawmakers. Venison is high in protein and low in saturated fat — health food, good for the brain. FBI Director Louis Freeh has said that eco-terrorists are "The most recognizable single-issue terrorists of the present time." A few meals of venison might move our lawmakers to spend more time and money investigating animal rights groups.

For further reading:

          • Bears In The Backyard, Deer In The Driveway, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

          • Fertility Control of Urban Deer, by Dr. Robert Warren, Archery Merchants and Manuf. Organization

          • Quality Deer Management Association

          • Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry

          • National Animal Interest Alliance
            (good guys who work with animals)

http://www.mofed.org/It's%20Raining%20Deer.htm

POACHERS: A slob who kills more deer than the number set by the state that is allowed.
                Dirtbags who kill animals out of the regulated season set by the state.
                 WHAT A HUNTER IS: Those who follow all of the regulations set by their respective state
                         and more often than not go out of their way to be respectfull to what
                         mother nature has given us. Hunters usually have very good ethics and
                         take every precaution for a humane and lethal kill.

REDNECK GUN CARRYING MURDERERS: This one makes me laugh every time I hear or see an
                         AR activist use it. Odds are they have no idea what a redneck is and
                         and hunting isn't murder. Get over it.

HUNTERS FOR THE HUNGRY

This loosely knit, nationwide organization, encourages hunters and meat processors to join forces in an effort to distribute game meat to the hungry. Since its inception in 1989, more than 1 million pounds of meat have been collected and distributed across the country.

Hunters participate in the program by donating game to participating meat processors. The hunter pays the standard processing fee and various food banks pick up and distribute the meat within days of its arrival.

The Hunters for the Hungry program has drawn tremendous praise from homeless shelters and other advocacy organizations across the U.S. because it provides them with access to highly nutritious, yet often unobtainable meat products.

TNUSA Hunters for the Hungry Program
Reported by Louis Krick,
Michigan TNUSA State Director and Interim President of Michigan Sportsmen Against Hunger

TNUSA Hunters for the Hungry program is a loosely knit organization made up of volunteers whose main objective is to feed the less fortunate nutritious wild game meals that were donated by hunters and sportspersons throughout our organization. Millions of meals have been donated since the programs inception. Sharing the bounty of the hunt is a philosophy that is as old as man himself.

Ted Nugent started our Hunters for the Hungry program when World Bowhunters was in its infancy. Over the years our program has expanded to include collecting garments, domestic foods, and donations of money to help the homeless make it thru the harsh Michigan winter months. To date, most of the states in the United States that have active Ted Nugent United Sportsmen of America organizations have a Hunters for the Hungry program or are in the process of setting one up.

TNUSA Michigan is unique; in that, it has united with other sports groups and organizations to form an organization known as Michigan Sportsmen Against Hunger (MSAH). MSAH is a non-profit 501©3 tax deductible organization that operates as a facilitator to all the groups; insuring that sportsmen and sportswomen get represented in a good light for their efforts to the non-hunting public. Every other state that has TNUSA representation should pursue starting a similar organization with the other sports organizations in their states.

There is a very important reason for organizing the groups in each state as quickly as possible. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IOWA) has introduced the ìHunters Help the Hungry Actî under the pending Farm Bill. The $10 million dollars he is asking for would be used for all 50 states to pay for the butchering costs of all donated wild game. The main problem of every stateís organizations is reimbursing their processors. Processors in each state donate hundreds of hours of their own time and this would be the needed impetus to keep them going and to get others to join our cause.

Another important reason is that MSAH, which we are one of the founding member organizations, is affiliating with Farmers & Hunters Feeding the Hungry (FHFH), which in essence would become the National organization for all sporting groups and organizations. FHFH is a national feeding ministry whose one and only mission is to feed the hungry. FHFH and 30 affiliate states have processed and paid for and distributed over 750 tons of venison to the hungry. This figure alone could literally feed the entire population of Washington D.C. for over a week and a half on venison meat. By organizing and combining organizations and some of industrysí top companies like: API Outdoors, Inc., Knight Muzzleloaders, Bowhunters Discount Warehouse, Inc., Easton Technical Products, Mathews Inc., Loggy Bayou Tree Stands and Scent Lok, they are able to provide valuable sources of funding.

Michigan Sportsmen Against Hunger has just recently affiliated with FHFH making them the only organization recognized in Michigan by FHFH. Again, TNUSA being a member of MSAH would essentially make every state in our organization affiliated with FHFH. It still would be to every states advantage to create an organization like MSAH with all of your other sporting groups and organizations since FHFH represents them all. This also creates a medium that can be void of organizations particular politics because every ones goal is feeding the hungry.

Even though many groups have different agendas and politics they all seem to unite on the issue of feeding the homeless. How many anti-hunters have you seen or known that even care about the homeless and their plight?

For more information on Hunters for the Hungry (www.tnugent.com), Michigan Sportsmen Against Hunger (www.sportsmenagainsthunger.org), and Farmers & Hunters Feeding the Hungry (www.fhfh.org) programs check out their websites and support their cause.

http://tednugent.com/about_tnusa/hunters_hungry.shtml

I found this little nugget over at HelpingAnimals.com, another peta site. What I found interesting is that they attempt to lay twisted "facts" out there for the run of the mill AR supporter, with the assumption that nobody will ever look into their modified claims and find out that although on the surface it may make sense, when you actually research their claims you find out that information has been left out and the rest of it twisted to suit their agenda.


Although less than 5 percent of the U.S. population hunts,4 it is permitted in many wildlife refuges, national forests and state parks, and other public lands. Forty percent of hunters kill animals on public land,5 which means that every year, on the half-billion acres of public land in the U.S., millions of animals who “belong” to the more than 95 percent of Americans who do not hunt are slaughtered and maimed by hunters,6 and by some estimates, poachers kill just as many illegally.7

1. Nowhere could I find the claim that less than 5% of the U.S. population hunts. And the source of this information is coming from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Here's the link to which they are getting this information. http://library.fws.gov/nat_survey2001_landuse.pdf

2. The statement that hunting is permitted in many wildlife refuges is BS. How could it be called a refuge if hunting was permitted? Wouldn't that be counter productive to the whole "refuge" part? I'm still scratching my head over that one.

3. The claim that hunting is allowed in National forests, state parks, and other public lands is true. There is a reason for it too. Population control. Where's the big secret in that? I thought they would be spewing ground breaking information or something.

4. This one is good, "40% of hunters kill animals on public land". If you look at the survey it's worded "40% of hunters used public land", but hey, I give 'em credit for twisting that one as well. Can you say spin masters? So the numbers they tried to estimate using bogus facts is now completely useless. Irrelivant to put it plainly.  http://library.fws.gov/nat_survey2001_landuse.pdf

5. These millions of animals that are, here's the good part, "slaughtered" that the American people own who do not hunt are what? House pets? I'm confused by this. What the hell does it mean. AR supporters say it all the time, nobody owns animals. Even peta cant get their shit straight. 

millions of animals who “belong” to the more than 95 percent of Americans who do not hunt are slaughtered and maimed by hunters,6

The place this supposed information came from is United States Department of the Interior, “Public Land Statistics,” Table 1-3, Mar. 2000. I've read the entire study, and nowhere did I find any hunting information. How credible is that.

6. The use of poacher statistics(which mind you they didn't give one solid number as to how many animals are poached)to attempt to make law abiding hunters look bad is bush league. And try as I might, I can't get my hands on the article they claimed to get this information from. Odd.


The following information comes courtesy of Star, someone the AR movement wishes they still had on their side.

Hunting has nothing to do with violence or aggression. Almost every hunter will tell you they love animals. Yet, hunters kill animals. How do you explain that? It's a little like farming or gardening. People protect and care for their chickens and their vegetable plants, only to end up using them for food. Hunters support conservation of wild places and laws that protect wildlife populations, but they use some of the wildlife for hunting-not just killing, and not just eating, but to experience hunting.
The various licenses, fees and taxes on hunting and hunting equipment fund more than 90 percent of the budgets of state fish and wildlife agencies.

Since 1923, sales of state hunting licenses, tags and permits have provided more than $10.2 billion for wildlife management, habitat acquisition and enhancement and conservation law enforcement.

The Pittman-Robertson Act has distributed more than $3.8 billion to state fish and wildlife agencies since 1937.
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusfd16usc669.htm

In addition, the more than 15 million licensed hunters in the United States direct money, time and effort to conserve wildlife and habitat as individuals and through local clubs, state conservation groups, state hunting organizations and many national associations.
The 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation reports that hunting expenditures totaled $20.6 billion, with $11.3 billion going for hunting equipment, $5.2 billion for trip-related expenses and $4.1 billion for other expenses such as land leases, membership dues and licenses.

Combined with fishing and trapping licenses and taxes, the total sportsmen's wildlife conservation contribution for 2000 was over $3.7 billion.
Hunters' dollars and efforts have paid off for wildlife. In the 1920s many wildlife populations were at historic lows, but now they are booming. As the graphic shows.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba377/wildlife.gif

White-tailed deer populations had declined to approximately 300,000, wild turkey to fewer than 30,000, pronghorn antelope to only 25,000 and North American elk to 50,000; the wood duck was nearly extinct and there were fewer than 500 bison.
Today there are more than 20 million white-tailed deer, more than 4 million turkeys (with populations in every state but Alaska) and more than 1 million antelope and elk.

"Hunt Of A Lifetime"
Is a nonprofit organization with a mission to grant hunting & fishing adventures and dreams for children age 21 and under, who have been diagnosed with life threatening illnesses. We are doing what we can to make a difference in their life, a dream come true.
http://www.huntofalifetime.org/