So this is what happens when hunter-haters sterilize whitetails

[Unlicensed Dremel]

as a means of controlling populations.

I would seem that it backfired to an extent, due to creating a sort of perpetual rut... read on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...0ce_story.html

Sounds like a good hunting ground with lots of mature bucks being attracted.

[CarJunkieLS1]

HAHA serves them right! To quote Jurassic Park "life will find a way" and it most definitely did.

[mete]

Don't mess with nature !!
Just bring out the hunters !

We have some developments here where there are twice as many deer/car events as the state has so they hire professional hunters .
But the tree huggers will never learn !

[Brotherbadger]

So Cornell wastes over $77,000, when they could have just brought in some hunters for free(which they eventually did).

Oh well.

[FrankenMauser]

That story is hilarious in its ridiculousness. But...

My wife used to live right down the street.
We laughed out butts off, as I explained to her what they had tried.

Most comical to us, was the fact that they were trying SO HARD to use non-lethal means. Yet, the golf course that abuts the University property brings in archery hunters every year for culling.

Same deer, idiots! Same deer!

[Slamfire]

Females always in the mood, plenty of sex and no child support payments. Sounds like buck heaven!

And then the bow hunters had to go and ruin it.....

[Grizz12]

and these friggin idiots are being paid to teach the kids, no wonder our Country is SO screwed up!!!

[buck460XVR]

If you follow the link included in the first story, you find that in this 5 year study, hunting was included with the sterilization process. Hunting was implemented in the peripheral areas in attempt to keep new animals from entering the study area. Apparently it was the hunters that failed and not the sterilization process.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/...lation-control

[Kreyzhorse]

I am amazed that any one would think that spending $1200 per deer is a good solution to contain the deer herd. Added bonus that it didn't work.

Like it or not, hunting is the only way to maintain a healthy population.

[JD0x0]

I am amazed that any one would think that spending $1200 per deer is a good solution to contain the deer herd. Added bonus that it didn't work.

Pretty much my thoughts.

[Vt.birdhunter]

Perpetual rut...abnormal amounts of mature bucks....where exactly have they been experimenting???

[Bella]

I have come up with a solution, actually my solution will solve two, maybe three problems.

Apparently there is a deer overpopulation problem in some areas of the east coast. The San Francisco Bay area has an overpopulation of mountain lions. They need to live-capture a bunch of the big cats. Then they transport them to the east coast and release them into the deer areas.

Two problems solved: the cougars cull the deer and the bay area has fewer predators to worry about. Now this will solve a third problem. Eventually the lions will run out of deer and begin to look for other tasty creatures to eat. You fly in the "chicken lady" from San Francisco. She then can lecture the lions into becoming vegans.

See, three problems solved.

[doofus47]

I don't know about white tail ratios (maybe it was in the story and I missed it), but for elk it's like 1 bull to 4 cows.
Wouldn't it be easier to chase bucks?

The law of unintended consequences is a hard one to break.

[JD0x0]

PETA seems to think hunters should stop killing deer and that this will work 100% to control the population.

...I'm not so confident that their plan will be successful. In fact, I think their plan is dumb, and I am completely for the humane treatment of all animals.

[FrankenMauser]

If you follow the link included in the first story, you find that in this 5 year study, hunting was included with the sterilization process. Hunting was implemented in the peripheral areas in attempt to keep new animals from entering the study area. Apparently it was the hunters that failed and not the sterilization process.

No... not really.

Did you read the entire article and the study?
If you had, you would understand that Cornell dramatically limited hunter access, and didn't allow any 'peripheral' hunting in most years.
In the years that (limited) hunting was allowed, the hunters were forbidden from taking any deer involved in a study (radio-collared, ear-tagged, or dyed rumps). Those study deer made up the majority of the population. So, it's amazing that in the cited year (2008), the hunters were able to take as many animals as they did - 69.

[cptjack]

didn't work on long island

[Bella]

How about releasing a bunch of those harmless canines in areas with deer problems? A pack of wolves should be able to control the deer population and the PETA folks can see just see how warm and fuzzy wild wolves actually are.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

Bella... genius!!! While you're on the east coast, let's be sure to drop some wolves and cougars off at the white house - just in case there are any nuisance deer running around. I'd even be in favor of releasing a kodiak grizz in the Oval Office.

[Bella]

Mr. Dremel, your White House idea is also pretty smart. Cougars, wolves and bears might stop fence jumpers from reaching the President's residence. They couldn't do worse than the Secret Service.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

Oh, right, right.... I was thinking to SAVE the president ...of course. Only agency more incompetent that the Secret Service is the CDC - 6.6 Billion with a B, per year to "control" disease, yet they don't even have a plan in place to control ebola, let alone a good plan. They have plenty of plans to call gun ownership a "disease", however.

[buck460XVR]

Originally posted by FrankenMauser:

Did you read the entire article and the study?

Yes I did....both the original story and the link within it. The only deer not permitted to be shot were 39 does that were sterilized. The story tells that it was the amount of mature bucks that increased significantly. They were not protected and were not originally in the study area. This means they made it past the hunters in the peripheral areas. Fail. Same with any new does entering the are or any new fawns born there. Don't get me wrong, I am not supporting the failed experiment, but I realize it failed on more than one front. Not only with the sterilization of the animals but the hunting to keep new animals out of the study area. I also realize that hunting is not feasible in all areas.....not just for safety, but for PR and social concerns. Thus sometimes alternatives to hunting are preferable, altho maybe not as effective. One has to realize that this study was conducted on private property and paid for by the landowner. As with any other landowner, they have a right to do what they want, within the limits of the law, to control animal populations. Not only was the experiment done to control deer numbers, there also was some scientific information being formed and collected. Doubt if this was the first or last experiment conducted on animal population control to fail.

[FrankenMauser]

The story tells that it was the amount of mature bucks that increased significantly. They were not protected and were not originally in the study area. This means they made it past the hunters in the peripheral areas. Fail.

You do understand that hunting season doesn't last all year, and that by "hunters" they don't mean autonomous drone guns, right?........

[mquail]

Sounds to me like the place turned into the whitetail's equivalent of the Mustang Ranch