Hunters vs. animal-rights types - again...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Preacherman

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Messages
13,306
Location
Louisiana, USA
From the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0106/p02s02-ussc.html?usaNav):

January 06, 2004 edition

Of deer and men: how a hunt has riled a suburb

Hunters and animal-rights activists argue over when a refuge is sacrosanct.

By Alexandra Marks

Along the quiet, leafy trails of the Greenwich Audubon sanctuary - 285 acres nestled in one of Connecticut's most exclusive suburbs - a fierce battle is brewing about nature, and how best to maintain its balance.

The struggle has pit conservationists against animal rights activists and exposed the challenge of how to help nature thrive in cities and suburbs.

At the center of the dispute are white-tailed deer - emblems of American wildlife and prolific, hungry critters who can gnaw through oak saplings and wildflowers at alarming rates. The Audubon sanctuary, located near two highways and dozens of elegant white clapboard mansions, has one of the highest concentrations of the deer in Connecticut.

That has led to significant degradation of wildlife on the property. Gone completely are the oaks and hickory trees. It's impossible now to find the delicate lady-slipper and trillium. Finding their habitats chewed up, a number of bird species have also flown away, including the ruffed grouse, the ovenbird, the towhee, and the black and white warbler.

So for the first time in its history, and after two years of studying alternatives, Greenwich Audubon sanctioned a deer hunt on its property for members of the Greenwich Sportsmen & Landowners Association.

No guns are allowed - only bows and arrows. And the resulting venison is being donated to the local food bank, with 500 pounds so far going to help feed the hungry.

"The bottom line is that this sanctuary is being degraded as a result of an overpopulation of deer," says Tom Baptist, the executive director of Audubon Connecticut.

"Humans have eradicated the predators and predatory pressures which once kept deep populations in check," he says. "This is simply an effort to restore the balance so the full range of plants and animals can prosper here."

But animal rights activists, like Priscilla Feral, the president of Friends of Animals in nearby Darien, don't buy that argument. To them, the hunt is not only a cruel sport, but, they argue, adds to nature's imbalance by leaving a larger proportion of does, who then reproduce at a more rapid rate, undermining the overall goal.

"We're talking about a sanctuary that was created with membership donations," she says. "It's supposed to be a refuge. You don't start shooting deer and call it a sanctuary."

At first, Friends of Animals urged Audubon to cancel the hunt, and they offered to give food banks vegan meals if they'd reject the venison. Audubon refused, and the offer didn't float very well at the food banks, either, which are eager for any kind of help.

So now, they've turned to urging people to withdraw their support for Audubon.

"The Audubon Society is a very wealthy so-called nature group that has become a hunt club," she says. "It's certainly in our interest to tell people that send checks to charities not to support them, unless they're hunting proponents."

For sportsmen, like bowhunter M. Robert Delaney of the Greenwich Sportsmen & Landowners Association, the controversy is frustrating at best. As a conservationist, he believes the animal-rights activists have lost their sense of balance in ideology, and he believes they have very little understanding of nature and its demands.

"They talk loud, but they don't do anything," he says. "If you look at ... where they spend their money, they don't make any contributions to any animals or habitats. They use it to get a lot of media attention."

Ms. Feral calls that nonsense. And she disputes the studies that conclude that managing deer populations has helped natural areas to rebound. "This is just an excuse by hunters to say they're doing some kind of civic duty, when what it really is recreation."

Audubon's Tom Baptist, who's been walking the trails at the Greenwich Audubon Sanctuary since he was an 11- year-old, trusts the studies that have been done, and is confident the hunt will help the habitat. He's hoping that the controversy dissipates, and that lady-slippers will bloom again, some day soon, near the sanctuary's leafy trails.
 
Same sort of deal as at Lakeway (near Austin), Texas or at the Austin suburb of Rollingwood. Some folks love to feed Bambi in order to see the "beautiful creatures"; others regard them as rats with hooves which destroy flower beds at their houses.

It's a shame these animal rightists have no understanding of ecology...

Art
 
At first, Friends of Animals urged Audubon to cancel the hunt, and they offered to give food banks vegan meals
I'm sure that would fly about as well as the "muffin tops" episode of Seinfeld.
 
You don't start shooting deer and call it a sanctuary.
and you don't call it a sanctuary, if the dominate fauna has turned it into a wasteland
but, they argue, adds to nature's imbalance by leaving a larger proportion of does,
ummm, this isn't a buck hunt, its a population cull

My local "animal firsters"
want to deposit hormone tainted corn to make the deer sterile

Gee, who is gonna tell the red squirrels or the other mammals not to eat the free food?
When the dominate bucks & does claim the pile, their superior genes will be pulled from the pool.
With 7 years of inferior deer reproduction, i would bet we will have a Silent Spring.
And what if the hormones get into the water supply?
Or the Chesapeake?
Yep, its "better" to poison the ecosystem, then allow barbaric hunting.

Funny how the food bank doesn't want vegan "meals"
Maybe we could arrange a wolf release.
:evil:
 
I live in Alabama and we had a similar situation in a state park in Birmingham.
Most of the people understood the problem of overpopluation of deer and the destruction to the park it was causing. BUT, again the animal rights folks raised a fuss. The alterantive they were proposing were too costly or didn't solve the problem (two were proposed: sterilization - too costly, would the activist mind footing the bill - they said no. relocation - state park reps asked where to relocate the deer - concluded that relocation was not pratical, too costly, and would just cause a problem somewhere else).
The state park reps came up with a great solution. A 2 day bow only hunt with 60 hunters. Hunters registered for a draw (5.00 registration fee) and 60 were chosen. The total number of hunters in the draw was over 400. The 60 that were chosen had to pass a archery test to prove profieceny and paid a 60.00 fee. All of the money either went to the state park or the state game & fish dept.
Haven't heard a peep out of the activist because most of the people in B'ham understood the purpose of the hunt. Amazing that common sense won out this time!
 
Yeah but I promise you if this sanctuary was in Africa and we were talking about lions and elephants half the members on this board would be on Fund for Animals side.

Amazing how things change when A LITTLE knowledge is involved!!!!!!!:banghead:
 
Madison is a town in N. Alabama that is a classic mix of the old "redneck" south and the new modern surburbanites, $200,000 plus homes next to trailer parks, suburbs next to old farms, ect. A while back a herd of goats got loose form an old farm, there were about twenty five or so. The surburbanites said "So cute. So rustic. So nostalgic. A charming touch to the community" Then they moved onto the flowers and shrubs of the high dollar neighborhoods. Now they were destructive pests that had to be caught and removed. Couldn't catch them. Ever try to trap a goat? They are not stupid. Suggestion was made to kill them. Shoot 'em with shotguns. Hell No! Same mess as listed above. They finally paid big bucks for the city to get tranquilizer guns and armed the police dept, that worked for a while but the goats got smart and wouldn't let anyone near them. The surburanites finally relented, shotguns did the trick. I've also read that out west the quickest way to get a liberal to buy a gun is to have armadillos make burrows in their yard.

rk
 
Mid-late eighties, when Madison was just starting to really build up. It was hilarious. (I live at Union Hill, hunt at Union Grove regularly)

rk
 
Parches Cove or Greenbriar Cove? And if you hunt Green Briar Cove, do you belong to the hunt club there?

I moved to Union Grove in the mid 90's. That explains why I'd not heard of it.
 
the economies of hunt/trap/dart per animal are spelled out well on the whitebufflao website:
http://www.whitebuffaloinc.org/techniques.htm

Trap and Relocate
This approach requires trapping, netting and/or remote chemical immobilization by experienced personnel. Costs can range from $400 to $2,931. Suitable release sites are necessary, but can be difficult to find. Relocating deer can result in stress-related death, or disease transmission (i.e., Lyme Disease, tuberculosis). If selected, then personnel experienced in handling procedures should be used to minimize stress and post-release death.

Fertility Control
Perceived to be the ideal solution, fertility control agents are currently not available for managing overabundant deer populations. All field studies are strictly regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and further research is required to assess the feasibility and practicality of using contraceptives. Fertility control agents exist that can prevent reproduction in individual deer. However, the need for repeated administration and limited delivery technologies significantly restrict the population size that can be experimentally manipulated. Data collected to date (cost of manpower and materials (~$1,000/per doe treated), adequate number of does accessed) suggests that use of contraceptives will belimited to small insular herds.

Sharpshooting
Approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) as a humane form of euthansia, sharpshooting requires trained personnel to use a variety of techniques to maximize safety, discretion and efficiency. This method is often implemented in suburban and urban settings with access to both public and private lands. Costs range from $91 to $300 per deer. Typically all meat harvested is donated to area food shelters for distribution.

Controlled Hunting
An expansion of legal regulated hunting methods, controlled hunts can be successful. Using hunters to manage overabundant deer populations may require the need for state agency and law enforcement involvement as there is the potential for animal welfare groups intervention. Costs range from $162 to $622 per deer harvested depending on the manpower required. Archery is a discreet removal technique, however, lower success rates because of limited shooting ranges may require a longer time frame of operation. Firearms, when feasible, can be used to maximize the efficiency (number of deer harvested, length of program).

Trap and Euthanasia
This technique can be used in areas where there is a concern about or law prohibiting the discharge of firearms. Physical restraint, using box traps, clover traps, drop nets or rocket nets, is followed by euthanasia using a gun shot or captive bolt to the head. As mentioned above, deer are subjected to great amounts of stress during the restraint component. Minimum cost is $400 per deer.
 
ojibweindian, neither. Private property adjacent to both areas. Long time friends. Got two deer this season, if I could get off work today I'd go again but it sure is cold out there. Most likely will wait till this weekend. Got some great places to shoot though. Contact me at [email protected] and we'll get together. I've been hunting coyotes for years around there. Ever hear of Pea ridge? It's Barnard property.

rk
 
Town of Amherst, near where I reside, has a similar problem. 200K+ homes, predominantly white collar, liberal to the nines. No hunting, or even discharge of firearms, for that matter. They allowed bowhunting on a limited basis for a short while, but now the deer are really out of control. Road kill numbers are outrageous. The treehugging solution is a ten foot high fence. The theory is when a buck jumps the fence, he will be castrated. Swear on my mother this is the best idea they could muster instead of limited hunting. They proposed the contraception thing, but hardcore liberal "naturalists" shot it down. I've seen deer jump fences lots, and never seen one castrate himself.
:banghead:
 
The treehugging solution is a ten foot high fence. The theory is when a buck jumps the fence, he will be castrated.

If that wasn't so sad it would be funny. Can you imagine if it did work? A bloody fence lined with deer "parts".
 
I've seen deer jump fences lots, and never seen one castrate himself

I've seen one castrated buck but we could never figure out if it was due to a fence or a snake.
 
I've seen one castrated buck but we could never figure out if it was due to a fence or a snake
Nature does occasionally produce "natural" steers. You, know, born without the... um... baggage. I hear they are the best eating venison out there.

Hey RCL, in Orchard Park the state released some grey wolves because the coyotes weren't getting the job done. How 'bout that? How long before a wolf grabs a toddler? Of course they didn't tell anyone, and only fessed up to it after a buddy of mine kept pestering.
 
Smokemaker, word from out west is that some of these wolves may be ready for a taste of "sheeple".


http://www.natureswolves.com/index.html

With the size of some of the coyotes I've seen around here, I can't see why the state would think we would need wolves, but then it's a waste of time trying to fugure out the DEC.


:banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top