Ms. Simon submitted a Letter to the Editor to the PG which appears in today's newspaper. Shooting deer won't solve the problem
January 23, 2015 12:00 AM
Although an archery deer kill was called off recently, Mt. Lebanon’s decision to pursue other lethal options is a big mistake. Simply put, killing deer won’t resolve Mt. Lebanon’s deer issues, but it will waste taxpayer dollars and result in an endless cycle of killing.
As long as the community maintains dozens of floral islands that entice deer onto the streets and as long as residents don’t utilize preventative gardening strategies, the problems will continue. Killed deer will be soon replaced by those wandering in from the surrounding deer-rich habitat.
Deer confound efforts to control their numbers in other ways. Where they’re hunted, deer numbers bounce back. When deer have better nutrition, they breed at a younger age and have higher fawn survival. The net result is a population surge after any hunting decline.
And, as science shows us, killing some deer won’t reduce human risk of Lyme disease — there are too many hosts that the tick will take advantage of. Nor is it assured that deer-car collisions will lessen once some deer are removed.
The deer-killing methods to be used are understandably controversial: Bow-hunting incurs a high crippling rate, and it’s hard to fire a metal bolt into the brain of a struggling deer with enough precision to ensure a humane death.
The Humane Society of the United States urges the Mt. Lebanon community to show true leadership and invest in an innovative, effective, humane and long-term solution. That is, one that utilizes deer-resistant gardening strategies, state-of-the-art fertility control options and successful collision reduction strategies already in operation elsewhere.
Laura Simon
Wildlife ecologist
The Humane Society of the United States
Washington, D.C.
How in the world can local elected and appointed officials, who have no professional backgrounds or credentials in this matter, totally disregard opinions like those of Ms. Simon's ?
ReplyDeleteAre you out of your mind Elaine, a freelance musician knows way more about deer than any wildlife ecologist.
ReplyDeleteSay we sterilize the deer at $1,000 per doe. In aggregate, we have fewer Lebo born deer. Got it.
ReplyDeleteBut according to Simon's logic, wouldn't deer "wandering in from surrounding deer-rich habitat" just take their place resulting in the same number of deer?
But what do I know? She's the expert.
Whoah, what is this "science" Laura speaks of? This is Mt Lebanon! We make speculations after ignoring the facts here, bud! Then we demonize anyone who dares to question us.
ReplyDelete12:55, sterilization won't be effective either. The Game Commission states on their website that you would need to sterilize at a minimum 75% of the does for sterilization to be effective. At $1000 per doe and a $68,000 budget, the 75% minimum would not even come close. The other challenge is darting of the deer to tranquilize them. Because the deer don't go down immediately, they run all over the place which means they need to be tracked until they fall down. Can you imagine a person performing a sterilization procedure on a deer in your front yard?
ReplyDeleteNick M.
It.'s just not that simple 12:55.
ReplyDeleteHere's some good info on whitetail deer.
http://www.suwanneeriverranch.com/WTinfo.htm
Nick M., my argument was that sterilization wouldn't be effective by Simon's own reasoning.
ReplyDelete2:12, what is not so simple? No idea how that webpage relates to my comment.
Archers, sharpshooters, sterization, trapping all will be unsuccessful UNLESS you plan to decimate the whole PA deer population.
ReplyDeleteEarlier in the 20th century deer were almost completely wiped out in Pennsylvania due to commercial hunting for meat.
Unless we're prepared for large scale hunts in a wide area of W PA we'll still have deer in Lebo.
12:55 PM
ReplyDeleteThe unique and effective way that deer population reduction works with sterilization or contraception is that the sterilized or contracepted deer don't reproduce (no more fawns), but maintain their existing home range (place holders), which prevents new deer from adjacent communities or habitat from migrating in to replace them. The second phase, is that these existing deer families are reduced by mortality by around 10 to 20% a year.
In addition, deer sterilization and/or contraception is SAFE and HUMANE, and poses no risks to Mt. Lebanon families, children, and pets, from the irresponsible use of lethal weapons in our densely populated community, and maintains the reputation and character of Mt. Lebanon by not implementing an inhumane slaughter - animal cruelty.
However, Laura Simon's more important message is that, "As long as the community maintains dozens of floral islands that entice deer onto the streets and as long as residents don’t utilize preventative gardening strategies, the problems will continue."
The main problem is the smorgasbord of irresistible flowers and plants that residents grow in their yards, and that Mt. Lebanon plants in its 30+ flower islands throughout the community. It's this abundant food resource that is the major attractant causing deer to cross the roads (car-deer collisions) to come into Mt. Lebanon to browse (eating flower complaints).
Unless and until Mt. Lebanon plants deer resistant flowers and plants in its 30+ flower islands, and reaches out to its residents and asks for their help; hold deer proofing seminars, and show the residents how they can have beautiful gardens and landscapes by planting deer resistant plants and flowers, and using repellents and other effective deterrents, the deer "problem" will continue in Mt. Lebanon. This is the core problem, and if the core problem continues to be ignored and isn't addressed, then nothing that Mt. Lebanon does will resolve the deer-human conflicts.
Nick M., 2:11 PM
ReplyDeleteDeer fertility control works and is effective.
PZP Deer Contraception - "Suburban deer populations have been stabilized and reduced over time by 35-50%. The most dramatic reduction so far has occurred where use of one-treatment PZP vaccines has been associated with a population reduction of 44% in five years." Dr. Allen Rutberg, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy
These contraception studies are published in peer reviewed scientific journals. So there is no question that it works.
Deer sterilization is a fairly new population reduction method, but the results should be similar to the contraception studies.
The sterilization is only done on the doe, and so that would be half of the deer population. The sterilization program doesn't have to be totally implemented in the first year, but can be phased in through a multi-year program.
Deer typically don't run far after being darted, and if done in the park and in agreeable residents back yards, there shouldn't be any problems. The dart is only a pinch and briefly startles the deer, and so they don't take off in a panicked long distance run for their lives like when shot by an arrow. Drop nets are also sometimes used to hand inject tranquilizer to multiple deer at a time.
Hi 3:32, the PZP vaccines are effective, you are correct, but the method that was planned for Mt. Lebanon was to dart them with a tranquilizer, slice them open, cut out what needed to be cut out, stitch them back up and let them go on their merry way. This method is much less effective than the PZP vaccines. When I did read about the PZP vaccines I asked Kelly which method was going to be used and she said what I mentioned above. I would think too the PZP vaccines would be the way to go. Assuming you are reading the same document I am, even with the PZP vaccine, the following applies to achieve that 44% effective rate that you quoted:
ReplyDeleteDisadvantages:
a) Fertility control agents are classified as “restricted use pesticides”
b) Federal and state permits are required
c) All treated animals must be marked
d) Expensive ($500 - $1,300 per deer)
e) Large proportion of females (>75%) must be treated to stop or reduce population growth
f) May have health, behavior, and genetic impact on deer population
g) Does not address existing population problems and may take a decade or more to have an impact on deer abundance
Nick M.
Nick M. 8:33 PM
ReplyDeleteI think you might be reading documents (maybe Wildlife Specialists LLC, or the Pa Game Commission) which are totally inaccurate and biased against fertility options.
Responses to disadvantages:
a) Pesticide classification: This is just a stupid classification. They aren't pesticides, and cause no harm if an animal contracepted is eaten by a predator, scavenger, or human. My guess is that the EPA didn't know how or where to categorize wildlife contraception, and so it ended up in this ridiculous category. They weren't classified as "pesticides" when under the FDA authority.
b) Permits required: Yes, everything requires a permit.
c) All treated animals must be marked: This isn't necessarily true. There are two types of deer contraception products GonaCon and PZP, and they are implemented differently. GonaCon requires sedation and hand injection. PZP can just be darted, but typically deer are initially sedated and tagged, and then all follow-up booster shots are by dart gun. However, my preference in the "Saturation Method", where there is no sedation; i.e. you just dart all the deer with marking darts. It's faster, easier, and cheaper.
Again there are no health concerns. "One fertility-control vaccine, porcine zona pellucida (PZP) — which can be administered by shooting the animal with a dart — is safe for deer and for predators, scavengers and any humans who happen to consume venison from a treated deer; it is a natural protein that degrades in the deer’s body after injection, and if eaten, it is destroyed in digestion..."
d) Cost: expensive ($500 - $1,300). That's quite a range. Again, misinformation.
PZP - "Cost of capture and initial treatment of deer has averaged approximately $261/deer, with subsequent remote delivery of booster vaccines costing approximately $88 per deer. Use of the one-shot treatments will increase the cost per vaccination, but reduce total labor costs by reducing the frequency with which deer have to be treated." Dr. Allen Rutberg, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy.
e) The more females you contracept the more stabilization and reduction will occur. Again, this can be a multi-phase, multi-year program.
f) PZP is totally save for deer, wild horses, and other wildlife. There is absolutely no genetic impact, i.e. contraception can be reversed. They actually found that the deer and horses are actually much healthier, because they are not delivering babies every year, which takes a major health toll on a doe. Hunting actually has the most damaging impact on the gene pool, i.e. the strongest and healthiest bucks are shot for trophy removing the best genes from the gene pool. In nature the weakest die or are killed by predators. There are studies showing how hunting has seriously damaged a number of species.
g) As noted earlier in peer reviewed scientific surveys. "Suburban deer populations have been stabilized and reduced over time by 35-50%. The most dramatic reduction so far has occurred where use of one-treatment PZP vaccines has been associated with a population reduction of 44% in five years." Dr. Allen Rutberg, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy
The existing deer "problem" is not a population problem, but are specific deer-human conflicts. Neither killing, contracepting, or sterilizing deer will resolve these deer-human conflicts. That's the main point of HSUS' wildlife biologists repeated advice to the Commission, i.e. "As long as the community maintains dozens of floral islands that entice deer onto the streets and as long as residents don’t utilize preventative gardening strategies, the problems will continue." Until Mt. Lebanon understands and addresses this core problem the deer "problems" will continue. If you kill half of the deer in Mt. Lebanon, the other half will still eat all the tulips.
Shooting the deer is not the problem. It's much larger! When bullies with money and power make decisions to take over a community to only serve a few people's needs, it ceases to be a democracy! The bullies have no shame or ethics. The people who are beaten down, need to come together as a group, intelligently plan, and give appropriate boundaries, notify appropropriate officials, and keep talking about the corruption going on in this community!
ReplyDelete