View Full Version : liberal deer population theory

December 31, 2000, 02:50 PM
By changing hunting, land management policies, and human
development practices, we can better control deer
populations. Some or all of the following measures should
be employed.
Ban sport hunting.

Reintroduce natural predators, such as wolves and mountain lions,
where possible. Maintain existing populations of natural predators.

Ban clear-cut logging.

Allow fires to burn naturally in wildlife areas. Limit new human
habitations in wildlife areas, decreasing the risk of property damage in
the event of a fire, and making controlled burns a more acceptable
wildlife management tool.

Prevent humans in residential areas, state parks, and federal parks
from feeding deer. Deer should be reliant on their own habitat for food.

Erect high fencing around crops and plants. Electric and sturdy fencing
increase the effectiveness of this deterrent. Fences should be at least
eight feet high and buried one foot deep. Openings in the fence
should be small. Contact a university agricultural extension office or
landscape business before purchasing and installing your fencing.

Steps can also be taken to reduce conflicts with deer.
Automobile Safety: Drive slowly and cautiously, scanning the road
and roadside at sunrise, sunset, and in the first few hours after the sun
has set.
Remove vegetation from roadsides to reduce the attractiveness of
roadside areas to deer.

Keeping Your Yard Safe
Prevent deer from eating your precious yard plants and trees by
installing fencing, as suggested above.
Individual trees can be protected with mesh and netting. Contact a
nursery to find out what types of netting are effective.
Plant native plants tolerant of deer browsing.
Plant plants that repel deer through smell and taste. Contact your
nursery to find out more.
Use flashing lights or loud noises to startle deer away.


I am going to a wildlife sub group meeting of COG on Wednesday. The above is the attitude of the Fund for Animals people that are running the show. I need some web resources on immunocontoception of deer populations.

The liberals think Norplanting deer is the solution.

At 1000 bucks a head per year i have serious doubts.

This is really an effort for the liberals to fund an operation to end sport hunting.


December 31, 2000, 03:25 PM
I note that several of their ideas include fencing in areas such as crops and yards. Why? And who is going to pay to fence in my yard, or better yet my 47 acre field?
Everybody has the right their opinion, but it seems to me that the enviormentalists will stop at nothing to end hunting.


December 31, 2000, 05:19 PM
This is radical, but we could shoot the deer.

Oh. Sorry.

December 31, 2000, 09:17 PM
yep, contraceptives might work to spress further growth but what we need is a reduction

heres alot of data:


December 31, 2000, 11:46 PM
Yes!!! Contreceptives are a great Idea, we should disperse them freely, and liberally at all of these "fund for animals" meetings, and possibly install sturdy electric fences around the buildings occupied by these ^&$*#@^ MORONS!!!!!

"reintroduce natural predators...maintain existing populations of natural predators..."

What the hell are humans? space-age cyborgs?? Come on retards, humans are as natural of predators as friggen wolves are!!!!

"Drive slowly and cautiously, scanning the road and roadside at sunrise, sunset, and in the first few hours after the sun has set." ?!?!?!

Better yet, lets just friggen walk everywhere, wearing blaze orange vests and sirens that go off every two seconds to warn the poor deer of our presence. -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- are these people thinking?? Are we going to belittle ourselves to stupidity and humiliation by molding every facet of our daily lives to these grass-recycling vermin? If I drive slow around dusk it's for one reason, my safety and my car, oh, and it's easier to spotlight the little F*****'s when you're going slow:D

Some people are just never going to get it, but they're right about the conreceptives, we need to nueter these damn idiots before they breed.

Art Eatman
January 1, 2001, 01:58 AM
DZ, ask them to define a "wildlife area". Does a farmer's field become a wildlife area if deer move into it?

Fencing: T-Posts on 20-foot spacing will run $1,500/mile, plus labor. Plus stays in between. Plus brace posts and corner posts at bends. 8' sheep/goat wire will run about $1,500 to $2,000 per mile. And let's don't forget gates. And more labor. :)

"Remove vegetation from roadsides." Duh? Burn the shoulders and borrow-ditches? There is more moisture on the side of the road than inside the fence, because of the runoff from the pavement. Therefore, there are more herbs and forbs between the pavement and the fence than inside the fence. Therefore, during dry times, the deer prefer the borrow-ditch area to their "proper" pasture.

How do you prevent people from feeding deer? Why, you pass a law! That's why nobody ever drives too fast, gets drunk in public, or smokes Progressive Pall Malls!

"Use flashlights or loud noises to scare..." Yeah, right. Folks going out at 2AM to see if deer are into the flowers? Sorry; some folks work for a living, and have a day job. Shame these "wildlife" folks don't; it might give them something worthwhile to think about...

The primary deer-habitat in Texas hasn't seen clear-cutting since before the squabble at the Alamo.

Ending "sport" hunting would do two things: First, it would turn the poachers loose, since there would be no money for game wardens. Second, the deer herd would expand faster than poachers and wolves/lions/bears could deal with it all.

Going on memory, one year in Llano, Mason and Brady Counties, Texas, the hunter kill was 17,000 deer. The winter kill was 15,000 deer. A mountain lion will happily kill a deer a week, if the deer are available. They probably wouldn't kill much more than that, if more deer were available. Let's give 'em one each four days, though. That's 90 deer per year per lion. 17,000 divided by 90 means right at 200 lions, just in Llano, Mason and Brady Counties! Hmmm. Ever think a lion might like sheep and goats more than deer? Or find them easier to kill?

Beam me up, Scotty!


January 1, 2001, 03:58 AM
If it's only $1,000/deer, count yourself lucky.

In Kalifornia they were paying $30,000 per deer! First of all, they needed to refresh the norplant every few months. Second of all (and the largest cost factor) was the friggin helicopter and sharpshooter, who had to down deer one at a time. Helicopters are very expensive.

Other liberal states have HIRED "specialists" to thin the population. I guess the theory is that if you pay someone to do it, it's better than letting the citizens hunt for free. Okaaaay. And the most insane part of the whole deal is that these "specialists" got to do everything that we can't, ie, hunt at night with night vision goggles and use suppressor.

I guess the upside is that at least we got some use out of all those expensive JBT's that our tax dollars are paying for.

January 1, 2001, 08:48 AM
yep its a goofy issue but the fund for animals folkes PAY their staff to go to these meetings!

Here is whom was at the last meeting:
Wildlife Subgroup Meeting
December 6, 2000
10am - 12:15pm

In attendance:
Jennifer x - Program Coordinator, The Fund for Animals
Erin xr - Outreach Coordinator, The Fund for Animals
Patti x - Volunteer at Second Chance Wildlife Rehabilitation Center
Bob x - Pres., MD Alliance for Greenway Improvement and Conservation
Steve x - Public Safety, Metro. Washington Council of Governments
Rob x - Wildlife Ecologist with MNCPPC - Montgomery Parks
Robin x - Citizens for the Preservation of Wildlife
Billy x - National Rifle Association
Joe x - Citizen

According to Joe, the FfA people are running the show and are attempting to get the Wildlife Subgroup funded as an oversight committee. Lets see oversight of a budget of millions with an extreme anti hunting bias.

Not on my watch!

Do you want them spreading steriods by airplane?
Advances in delivery systems, coupled with improvement in the efficacy of antifertility agents, may improve the prospect for limited applications of deer
contraception in the future. The cost of manpower and materials, and the practicality of treating an adequate number of deer, will likely limit the use of
immunocontraceptives to small insular herds. Managing free ranging white-tailed deer populations over large landscapes will present problems not found
with more isolated deer herds. Deer contraception experts believe that isolated populations, such as those found on islands or in large fenced-in
grounds, have the greatest potential for success. Unless contraception agents can be developed that work through the animals digestion system and can
be added to foods, the cost of administering the contraceptive agent to each female will be high. Once delivery systems have been perfected and
approved for free ranging deer, the technique may be an important part of an integrated program for controlling population growth. Since fertility control
has no short-term effect on population size, pre-treatment culling will be an essential part of the timely resolution of deer problems with fertility control.

We need to get involved to save our heritage!


January 1, 2001, 09:34 PM
Why not ask what is wrong with human beings killing deer? Try to get these folks to explain their position on using "natural" predators like lions, wolves, and bears rather than "sport" hunters. (Seems to me that the deer probably don't have any opinion on what species prefers them for lunch!) Why are some humans so dead set against other humans eating these creatures?

And, why is it somehow more "humane" for a wolf to drag down and begin devouring a still living deer than it is for a human to dispatch the deer in a much quicker and efficient manner? (The deer is ultimately just as dead.)

And, how do these people intend to monitor the effectiveness of contraceptives? If the birth control chemicals are widely dispersed, how can we know that just the deer will be affected? Will other wildlife also be at risk for consuming these hormones? What will the effects be on them?

What assurance is there that deer will not suffer adversely from these hormones; developing cancers or producing genetically defective offspring? Seems to me that we have enough environmental disasters going on already without adding more to the mix!

What are they (in the quote) referring to when they say "deer problem"? I am not aware that there is any kind of "problem" other than some wrong-headed thinking about how to manage wildlife!

Where do these people come from?!??!?

Art Eatman
January 2, 2001, 12:59 AM
jbgood: There is a good bit of strange psychology involved in the "thinking" of these people.

1. They don't really like people; they don't really like themselves.

2. Because of the above, they've seized upon the idea that somehow, modern homo sap is not part of nature. We are all enemies of "nature", by definition. (Hey, I didn't say I thought they were truly sane!)

3. By and large, they are Statist in their political views. Thus is is okay for "professional hunters" from the government to shoot Bambi (soemtimes) so long as "sport hunters" are not allowed to derive enjoyment from hunting. The primary point is the dis-allowing of "fun".

Always remember that these people are driven by their feelings and not by the logic which derives from facts. It is a faith-based picture of the world, and facts are irrelevant.

But they are just as sincere as all get-out, and as serious as a heart attack that shooters and hunters are Bad People; again, by definition. Forget trying to explain any reality to these people. The only hope is to out-vote them.

January 2, 2001, 10:46 PM
Believe me, Art, I don't doubt their sincerity one bit! I suspect that like all "true believers", they are blinded by the rightousness of their own beliefs. My concern is for the as yet undecided public who rarely give much thought to Bambi's plight one way or another. They constitute the hinge pin on which our right to hunt might ultimately swing.

Seems to me, that there is an age old debate technique wherein one speaks to solutions for problems and the need to act on these solutions without ever proving the problems. Its a kind of red herring, where so much attention is directed away from the true question that it becomes lost in the heated debate over what the solutions are and how they should be implemented. (Maybe that is called "begging the question" -- its been years since I studied debate in school!) At any rate, I am concerned that John Q. Public will be taken in by the half-truths, outright lies, and propaganda put out by these folks and will, out of ignorance, support the (ridiculous) solutions to the (non-) issue of a wildlife "problem".

I suspect that one technique for exposing the illogic of these non-thinkers, is to continue pressing them on the facts. Their inability to discuss any "problems" in any context other than their feelings will eventually demonstrate to the rest of the world that their movement is without meaningful content. And, yes. We need to out vote them at absolutely EVERY opportunity!


January 2, 2001, 11:19 PM
in researching the immunocontraception data, i have found out that PZP has been observed to increase the frequency of estrus in does and increases the length of the rut.

great, bucks lose weight during rut and get a bit crazy.

We don't need an over population of suburban deer hopped up on PZP roaming suburbia looking for trouble.

Tonight, while rounding the bend on an on-ramp to interstate 270, i saw a doe right by the curb. I slowed to a stop and she & her girlfriend ambled off to the brushy area inside the curve of the on ramp. Had i been going faster, she might have bolted onto 270 right into 60 mph traffic. These Washington DC deer are not intimidated by vehicles. They feed 20 feet away from rush hour traffic!


Art Eatman
January 2, 2001, 11:24 PM
Now, dZ, you tryin' to tell us that deer are as dumb as Congresscritters?

:), Art

January 3, 2001, 02:11 PM
i would not want to malign the deer by drawing a cross species street smarts comparision between federalus beltway insideus and Odocoileus virginianus.

I told my tale of the expressway exit deer habitat and one of the fund for animals people said:
That is why we need highway deer underpasses contructed.

IMHO, we need to shoot the deer that are living inside the beltway.

Art Eatman
January 4, 2001, 12:43 AM
dZ, the same sort of folks who want deer "underpasses" were the ones who said the caribou "pass throughs" of the Alaska pipeline wouldn't work...They did work, of course.

But I doubt Beltway deer are that smart. Sorta like being in California; there's a certain IQ loss per year of residence. :)

Shoot 'em.


January 4, 2001, 02:02 AM
Art, What "caribou passways" are you refering to?? I've never heard anything about this.

January 4, 2001, 04:14 AM
to prevent male deer overpopulation, which leads to horrors like this :barf: :


(This URL is all supposed to be one line...)

Of course, the liberals probably LIKE scenes like (the above), because it "proves" that it's "natural".

January 4, 2001, 09:50 AM
I see and hear stories like this, and I sometimes think there are many so-called human beings who are nothing more than a virus on this planet. Are they somehow related to Jocelyn Elders, the Surgeon General who asked for "kinder, gentler bullets?" Are they related to the idiots who lay down in protest in front of a train and then wonder why people call them "shorty?" Are these the same people who wouldn't give 2 years of their lives to serving their country but now think they have the right to run it AND US?
And are these the same people who call in the so-called "experts" (ex meaning a has been and spurt being a drip under pressure) at all these insane meetings to somehow come up with a plan to control the "neanderthals" which hang out at this and many similar websites? Just checking. Back in my younger days, they called Nixon a goose stepping Nazi. I long for the good old days!

Art Eatman
January 4, 2001, 10:50 AM
Bad Medicine, in the northern reaches of the pipeline, in the caribou migration country, there are "loops" in the pipe so the caribou can walk under. I dunno; four 90-degree ells, or some such. (I'm dredging this up from memories of when the thing was built, so cut me some slack.)

At any rate, the anti-pipe folks were howling and yowling that just the noise of the oil rushing through the pipe would scare off the caribou. Yada-yada-yada. Unfortunately for their credibility, there are photos of caribou lying alongside the pipeline, chewing their cud. Warmer there, ya know! And photos of caribou walking through the pipeline "loops".

January 4, 2001, 10:55 PM

Fund for Animals

The Fund for Animals was founded in 1967 by renowned author and
humanitarian Cleveland Amory. The organization's motto, "We speak for
those who can't," illustrates a mission of speaking out against egregious
forms of animal cruelty. With the 1974 publication of Cleveland Amory's
bestselling book, Man Kind? Our Incredible War on Wildlife, The Fund for
Animals became known nationwide as a leading opponent of sport
hunting, commercial trapping, and other egregious acts of cruelty to wild

Selected readings

Body Count: The Death Toll in America's War on Wildlife
"it should come as no surprise that every state government has an agency
to mobilize and train the troops and define the rules of engagement, or
that this death by mass production is overseen by a federal
bureaucracy: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Living With Deer: A Comprehensive Guide
"Thus, the question of deer management is not one of the biological
carrying capacity, but of the cultural carrying capacity -- how many deer
will people tolerate in their environment?"

An Overview of Killing for Sport

Children in the Crosshairs: The Hunting Industry, Wildlife Agencies, and Children Hunting Children
Apparently oblivious to this mounting epidemic of children from hunting
communities killing other children with hunting weapons, the sport
hunting industry, including state wildlife agencies, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), are mounting a massive, nationwide campaign
to recruit children into hunting.

Ethical hunting: Is there such a thing?
Andrea Lococo of the Rocky Mountain office of the Fund for
Animals makes the point that "most hunters I meet profess to be ethical
hunters. It matters little to the animals that it's killed by a poacher or by an
ethical hunter. To us, the lives of individual animals are of the utmost
importance."... "we are against all hunting."

Art Eatman
January 5, 2001, 12:34 AM
navaho, sometimes being first in line ain't all it's cracked up to be!

:), Art

January 5, 2001, 05:57 PM
You know, Art, it looks like being second in line isn't exactly the best of all worlds either!

Art Eatman
January 6, 2001, 12:11 AM
I have visions of a hunter arrested for disturbing the piece...


January 9, 2001, 12:03 PM
Which buck should be shot in Navaho's picture? The one in the middle, to put him out of his misery, or the top one, for being such an young, arrogant prick that he didnt look first before proceeding with his course of action?


January 11, 2001, 08:30 PM

Art Eatman
January 11, 2001, 11:32 PM
Zorro, several decades back it was reported that the hunter kill in Pennsylvania during one season was around 40,000 deer. The highway kill was about the same.



January 12, 2001, 11:00 AM

We had/have a similar debate here in Michigan. There are "Metro Parks" in the southeastern area of the state similar to state parks. Most, if not all, have deer overpopulation problems due to public feeding (not allowed but people do it anyway) and no hunting policies. I attended a public meeting about 2 years ago on the issue concerning a nearby park. The anti's espoused the typical mantra that you have stated. They even went so far as to suggest tranquilizing deer and surgically sterilizing them. One woman said she did not see a problem even after pictures showing an obvious browse line and loss of plant species in the park.

After much debate, although I believe officials had already made up their minds, the herd was to be "professionally culled". At first this meant sharpshooters but then they decided to train and equip park personnel to do it. To this day they are still doing it but in some of the other parks they have controlled hunts. This still baffles me as most of us were willing to pay the park to hunt and would donate the meat to local charities. But then that would mean dead deer and feeding the homeless. What were we thinking!?