Political/ Social Issues of Wildlife Conservation

Wildflowers or Wildlife: the State Environmental Review Process

2012-01-23T10:12:00.000-08:00

Nine year old Caleb Burlingame wrote to his local newspaper objecting to the deer killing program proposed for the nature preserve in his neighborhood. He suggested the deer go to a special deer zoo rather than be shot by sharpshooters as planned by the upstate New York college which owns the preserve. A retired professor living on the perimeter of the nature preserve was so outraged by the killing plan that he brought a lawsuit to stop it. And he won. The legal grounds justifying putting the deer kill program on hold was the need for the college to first comply with New York State's environmental review process.

Wildflowers or wildlife is in part, what the review process will demand that the college consider. In a somewhat unusual yet dead-on decision, a judge in New York State's Supreme Court concluded that the deer killing program, or "deer cull" as they are so commonly called, falls squarely within the definition of a "significant environmental event" and therefore, the requirements of the review process must be met by the college. An environmental review is a good first step but may not be enough to adequately address all the issues raised by deer killing programs.

Most states have environmental review laws. The New York State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR), is a body of law passed by the state legislature in 1975 with the "intention that all agencies conduct their affairs with an awareness that they are stewards of the air, water, land, and living resources, and that they have an obligation to protect the environment for the use and enjoyment of this and all future generations." (6 NYCRR 617.1) It goes on to say that in decision making "human and community resources should be given appropriate weight with social and economic considerations...[and] a suitable balance of social, economic and environmental factors" should be made. (6 NYCRR 617.1) This is the backdrop to the environmental analysis of whether a deer killing program is appropriate in any given situation.

The college claimed 90% of the deer in its nature preserve had to be killed because, the college asserted, the deer were eating the wildflowers and shrubs and having a devastating effect on forest regeneration.

This statement raises a number of threshold questions including, how does the college know how many deer are in the preserve? How does one "count" free-roaming animals with home ranges that exceed the borders of the preserve? (The preserve is not an enclosed area.) Won't more deer simply wander into the preserve after the killing program ends? And how will the male/female sex ratios and age distribution of the deer be protected during the shooting and what are the consequences to the herd taken as a whole, if they aren't? Finally, as an over arching consideration, under what circumstances is wildlife sacrificed for plant life and how is such a determination made?

Similar to the college nature preserve controversy, a lawsuit was brought last year by residents of an upstate community opposed to a neighborhood deer killing program proposed by their town trustees. Damage to plant life was one of the main justifications given for the cull (although concerns about deer/car accidents was raised and a specious argument about Lyme disease was asserted (see prior blog post "Lyme Disease: Ticks Without Deer" 1/20/11)).

In that case, the lower court ruled in favor of allowing the community deer kill program to proceed and the residents who were opposed to it, appealed. The town trustees had already conducted an environmental review in that situation but the accuracy and suitability of the study was being challenged. Expert opinions were introduced by residents opposed to the cull on a number of issues. On the issue of plant damage, a researcher from the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies stated that "lowering deer densities will not by itself lessen deer impact on habitat and vegetation...[and] the assertion that a deer population size reduction will lessen impacts on ecosystems (habitat and vegetation)...is...insufficient." In addition, just as the environmental review process allows, numerous residents of the community submitted statements outlining their concerns regarding potential adverse emotional and psychological effects of a killing program in their neighborhood as well as safety risks. The case is still on appeal.

Whether these issues can be adequately addressed solely within the environmental review process is questionable because SEQR suffers from the potential for bias and self-interest. The way the process works is to make it incumbent upon the party proposing a project (called the "lead agency") to conduct an environmental study. Yet it is also the responsibility of that same lead agency to make the ultimate determination regarding the environmental impact of their project. An outside agency does not pass on the accuracy or suitability of the environmental study or the worthiness of the proposed project. The law simply says that in order to proceed, the party proposing the action must conduct a study and conclude that "[their] action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable..." (6 NYCRR 617.11). The potential for a non-objective final determination becomes obvious in this scenario because it's hard to imagine a lead agency that has already proposed a project and conducted an environmental review, not then being hell bent on finding that the project passes environmental muster.

The recourse for citizens who do not believe a project has been properly analyzed is to go to court and request judicial review. However, courts typically only "judge the judgment" so to speak from a procedural perspective. Courts shy away from drawing independent conclusions as to the merits of proposed programs believing doing otherwise would be a breach of the separation between the judicial and legislative functions of government. The court will limit its inquiry to whether the lead agency has taken what is called a "hard look" at the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The judiciary will not substitute its judgment for that of the lead agency as to the merits of the project so long as it appears the agency has conducted an adequate environmental analysis.

Under these circumstances, are the interests and rights of citizens adequately addressed by the environmental review process alone? It is not at all clear that they are. A larger issue can be raised under these circumstances questioning the relationship between government action, reasonableness and the interests of citizens. (The upstate college is a state school and therefore considered a governmental agency and local governing boards are of course governmental agencies. )

Since deer are in essence a public asset belonging to all of us, a broader examination of the issue is warranted. The deer are not "owned" by the college or by any of the communities proposing to kill them. Wildlife is a natural resource belonging to the public and held and managed by the government in trust for our benefit and mutual enjoyment (see prior blog post "Who Does Wildlife Belong To? (The Public Trust Doctrine)" 11/22/10). In the words of the Supreme Court "...the fundamental principles upon which the common property in [wildlife] rests have undergone no change...the power or control lodged in the State, resulting from this common ownership, is to be exercised...as a trust for the benefit of the people, and not as a prerogative for the advantage of the government...or for the benefit of private individuals as distinguished from the public good." (Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896); later modified on the issue of interstate commerce in Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979)).

Under this common law theory, there exists something not unlike a "negative use restriction" implicit in all wildlife, including deer, that prohibits its killing except under circumstances deemed necessary for the health and well being of citizens. (Although recreational hunting has traditionally been accepted, by some, as a proper "use or enjoyment" of wildlife.)

But where is the forum to examine the issue of whether the underlying reason given for a deer cull is valid, given the outcry of so many who are opposed? The judiciary is in fact the ideal party to examine these competing interests, evaluate the expert testimony and make a final determination.

An analysis beyond the confines of the state environmental review process is required in deer killing cases. Maybe herein lies the next wave of lawsuits on the topic. A topic which for so many upon first blush appears to be about animal cruelty and community infighting, but may in fact raise some deeper and wider issues involving personal rights.

Prior Blog Posts:

The Structure of our State Wildlife Agency System
9/25/09

Teaching Children to Kill
10/02/09

The Supreme Court and the Culpability of a Child
11/18/09

The Federal Gun Tax
12/09/09

Lead Ammunition
1/14/10

Connecting the Dots of Violence
2/01/10

Man as "Super-Predator"
3/17/10

U.S. v Stevens: What interests are being protected?
4/27/10

Predation Control: to what end?
9/14/10

The Paradox of Killing Wildlife as Population Control
10/24/10

Who Does Wildlife Belong to? (The Public Trust Doctrine)
11/22/10

Lyme Disease: Ticks Without Deer
1/20/11

Taxpayers Footing the Bill to Kill Wildlife
2/15/11

Wildlife Contraception and the Ongoing Population Control Objective
3/31/11

Violence and the Well-being of Children
7/21/11

Violence and the Well-being of Children

2011-07-21T09:32:00.000-07:00

How paternalistic is the government when it comes to the health and safety of children? Well, it depends on the specific issue being considered because inconsistencies abound. Unfortunately, exposure to violence is an area where children are increasingly unprotected. Through actions taken by state legislatures with regard to youth hunting and recently by the Supreme Court with regard to violent videos, the trend is toward the political interests and biases of adults and away from the well-being of children.

The politically motivated push to allow young children to hunt continues to spread. Since first writing on the topic in late 2009 (see "Teaching Children to Kill" 10/2/09 and "The Supreme Court and the Culpability of a Child" 11/18/09), four more states have passed legislation reducing or completely eliminating minimum age requirements for hunting. Michigan and New York are the latest states to jump on the bandwagon.

New York for example is in the process of amending state law to allow 12 year old kids the right to kill "big game" such as bears with extremely sharp and powerful bows and arrows. Picture it. According to the American Bear Association a male bear weighs an average of about 250 pounds and a female about 150 pounds; an average 12 year old child weighs about 90 pounds. I'm not sure they should have anything to do with each other.

The mental, physical and emotional appropriateness of encouraging children to take lethal weapons into the woods and kill animals for "sport" and pleasure continues to be troubling.

There are numerous examples of seriously dangerous consequences to allowing children to hunt. About eight months ago a seven year old Virginia boy was accidentally killed by his 10 year old brother while hunting. A few months later, an eight year old in the second grade in Colorado accidentally killed himself when his hunting rifle went off in his hands. Then a nine year old girl was killed in May by her 11 year old friend while they were rabbit hunting together in Alaska; followed a few weeks later by a nine year old girl in Texas who was accidentally killed by her grandfather during a family hunting trip. In April of this year a five year old child in Wisconsin was accidentally shot (but not killed), by her father while turkey hunting and a month later, a 10 year old Virginia boy was shot by his uncle while hunting. And these are just a sampling of the tragic incidents easily found on the internet concerning children hunting.

In addition to these accidental shootings, there was a 10 year old boy from Ohio who, earlier this year, took his hunting rifle and intentionally killed his mother. A similar incident occurred two years ago in Pennsylvania where another 10 year old boy took his child sized hunting rifle and used it to kill his father’s pregnant girlfriend. About three months prior to that incident, an eight year old Arizona boy took the rifle he used to shoot prairie dogs and killed his father and his father's co-worker. The physical and emotional safety of children hunting is questionable at best.

The state has an interest in protecting our youth. This paternalistic approach is evidenced in many current laws and is so strong in certain circumstances, it can trump parental control. Presumably this state interest in the well being of youth is why there are child labor laws, for instance. Even if a family wanted its children to work 10 hours a day, seven days a week because they desperately needed the money, the state has determined it would be illegal to do so because of the harm it would cause the child. In addition, even though it might be convenient for you to have your 14 year old drive your 10 year old to school, or run down to the store and pick up a bottle of wine for dinner, the law prohibits it thus protecting the safety of the child and others in society.

Governor Cuomo signed the New York bill that will allow 12 year old children hunt bears. What adolescent developmental change has he become aware of that would convince him the hunting age should be reduced? In researching the background to this bill, nothing regarding the health, safety or well being of New York youth was discussed. What was discussed however was the decline in hunter numbers and the concomitant fear that the "sport" is losing participants.

The politics behind this issue is obvious. Increasing youth hunting was started with a program initiative by the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the National Wild Turkey Federation. This “Families Afield” program (as it is called), is supported by the National Rifle Association and a group in Congress called the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation. Unfortunately, opposition to youth hunting falls into a black hole somewhere between the gun control lobby and the animal welfare groups. There is no organized effort fighting the might of hunters and the NRA on this topic.

The Families Afield website makes it clear that encouraging children to hunt is to bolster the popularity of the sport and ensure its continued viability and economic benefit. The website states in an incredulous tone that “ In some states, laws actually prohibit parents from introducing their young sons and daughters to big-game hunting. Youths may be restricted until age 10 or 12 or even later, and subjected to stringent coursework requirements, before they can legally join an adult mentor for a hunt. These barriers cause many youths to lose interest in hunting and they too often settle for other activities like video games or ORGANIZED SPORTS. Eventually... hunting itself ... could be compromised”. (Emphasis added).

The Supreme Court was recently asked to consider the effect of violent material on children. A case was brought challenging a California law prohibiting the sale and rental of violent video games to minors (Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association et al (bench opinion 6/27/11)). The law was struck down by a majority of the Court concluding it was a breach of freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The opinions of the justices (five in the majority, two concurring on different grounds and two dissenting), contain much discussion and dissent about violence, children and the role of government.

The majority starts off its opinion by discussing a prior case, U.S. v. Stevens (see blog post "U.S. v. Stevens: What interests are being protected?" 4/27/10). Referring to the Stevens case, the Court says "...[t]hat holding controls this case." This is a curious jumping off point for the Court because the Stevens case has nothing to do with children. It is a case involving a law that prohibited the sale of "crush" videos which are videos of scantily clad women who maim and kill animals for the sexual titillation of viewers. The Stevens Court held prohibiting these videos was a breach of freedom of speech and the law was struck down.

Eventually the Court in the violent video case turned to the issue of children and discussed an important precedent, Ginsberg v. New York. In the Ginsberg case the Supreme Court upheld a law prohibiting the sale of sexual material to minors. The New York statute in Ginsberg and other similar statutes throughout the country have been upheld even in the face of First Amendment challenges. To explain this, the Court in the violent video case drew a distinction between sexual material and violent material by saying that since "obscenity" was already an established exception to the First Amendment, prohibiting children from viewing sexual material was merely an extension of this prohibition and therefore legal. Since violence is not an established exception to the First Amendment, the Court concluded violent videos could not be kept from adults or from children. (Although it is worth noting that our movie rating system already prohibits children from viewing violent movies with an NC-17 rating. According to the Motion Picture Association of America, a movie earns an NC-17 rating based on violence, sex or any other element considered too strong for viewing by children. The Court did not discuss movie ratings.)

The Court's First Amendment analysis appears rational on its face however, the reasoning enunciated by the Ginsberg court applies equally-if not more so- to the issue of shielding children from violence. The basic reasoning of the Ginsburg case is that the state has an interest in protecting the well being of its youth. The Supreme Court says in Ginsburg “…we have recognized that even where there is an invasion of protected freedoms ‘the power of the state to control the conduct of children reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults’…[t]he well-being of ... children is of course a subject within the State’s constitutional power to regulate, and in our view,…[t]he State also has an independent interest in the well-being of its youth.”

But the bottom line is the current Supreme Court says sexy stuff can be kept away from children while the violent shouldn't be held back. This distinction has some historical roots but appears to be based mainly on "strict constructionist" dogma because there is little basis in reason or common sense for prohibiting the sexual material but allowing the violent. (It is interesting to note that the sexual material in the Ginsberg case involved nudity and was not actually considered "obscene" for adults but was accepted as obscene for children.)

Similar to child labor law considerations, focus on these issues should be centered on the well being of the child. The Court in the violent video case spent some time grappling with this concept and did note “[t]he Supreme Court has recognized that ‘there is a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors.’" The Court however had difficulty with the issue of "proof" between a child's exposure to violence and psychological harm.

The psychological harm caused by violent video games or by sexual material is indeed hard to prove. And so is the psychological harm that can be done to a young child who is encouraged to find pleasure and satisfaction in purposely killing an animal. In fact, one of the reasons the violent video law was struck down by the Court was this failure of proof. Apparently the studies presented by the State showing the harmful psychological effects to children of violent video games were perceived as flawed and the Court rejected them. The Court conceded that while a correlation between aggression and violent video game playing can be shown, causation cannot. The Court said "[t]he State's evidence is not compelling...[t]hey do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively..." (However, Justice Breyer in his dissent compiled a list of approximately 115 peer-reviewed articles showing the psychological harm resulting from playing violent video games and he contrasted this with a list of only about 34 articles which refuted the thesis).

It’s hard to imagine that the studies in the Ginsberg nudity case were much better. In fact, the Supreme Court noted in Ginsberg that “…the growing consensus of commentators is that ‘while these studies all agree that a causal link has not been demonstrated [between sexual material and harm to children], they are equally agreed that a causal link has not been disproved either.’ We do not demand of legislatures scientifically certain criteria of legislation.”

There are numerous studies that show childhood animal cruelty can lead to adult violence. Courts might find these studies persuasive or flawed. As evidenced by the Supreme Court in Ginsberg, at some point we admit as a society that certain behaviors fall outside the purview of what the average person considers acceptable, healthy behavior-hard and fast science or not. There are approximately 19.4 million people in New York State, 4.5% are hunters; would the average New York resident for example, find it a positive experience for a 12 year old child to take a lethal weapon and kill a two hundred pound bear for "sport"? No one eats bear last time I checked; it is simply killing for pleasure. Seems like a form of violence to me-perhaps even a step ahead of the pretend world of violent videos. Justice Breyer in his dissent to the violent video case points out that the studies he reviewed "...say that the closer a child's behavior comes, not to watching, but to acting out horrific violence, the greater the potential psychological harm."

Of course the true interests of the child, in the end, are not of primary concern in these matters; it is the interests of the adult. In Pennsylvania for example, they are trying so hard to recruit new hunters that a bill was introduced to allow hunting on Sundays. Motivation for the bill couldn't be more clear from it's preamble which reads in part "... Pennsylvania has experienced consistent declines in hunting participation ...over the past several decades...youth participation is vital to maintaining the long-standing tradition of hunting in Pennsylvania, we can effectively double the number of hunting days for youths during the school year by offering Sunday hunting...". I wonder what Sunday school teachers and religious observers will think about this one.

Post script: The New York Times reported that the mass killer Anders Behring Breivik of Norway listed on his Facebook page that some of his favorite activities include hunting and playing the video games World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2.

Wildlife Contraception and the Ongoing Population Control Objective

2011-03-31T18:26:00.000-07:00

When I first learned that serious scientific research has been conducted for decades on wildlife fertility control, I questioned the underlying premise. To an extent, I still do. The need for wildlife contraception stems from the belief that many species are overabundant, and without human intervention in the form of population control, the animals will wreak havoc on plant life, other species, on our limited natural resources and on the ecosystems the animals live within. With 40 years of lethal animal population control, it appears that certain wild animals are continuously thought of as too numerous.

The early contraception studies of the 1960's focused on birds with the goal of finding a chemical to inhibit egg hatching. Interestingly, one of the bird species these early studies tried to control was the red-winged blackbird; the same species the USDA Wildlife Service still targets today as overabundant with just under a million killed by the USDA in 2009 (see prior blog post "Taxpayers Footing the Bill to Kill Wildlife" 2/15/11). Avian contraception was soon joined by mammal research emphasizing population control for deer, horses, dogs, coyotes, elephants and bears. But much of the research today is devoted to finding fertility control specifically for deer and wild horses. (Wildlife Fertility Control Technical Review 02-2, The Wildlife Society, 2002). Deer are a focus due to the widespread interest in suburban deer culls and wild horses are a focus due to their population numbers in the western United States.

The goal of current contraception research is perfection of an immunocontraceptive vaccine. The vaccine most widely used is the porcine zona pellucida (PZP) vaccine. The PZP vaccine is derived from proteins naturally occurring in pig ovaries although research to find a synthetic substitute is ongoing. The PZP vaccine works by causing the animal to produce antibodies that prevents the egg from being fertilized by sperm thus blocking pregnancy and reproduction. The vaccine has been thoroughly tested and is available for use however; some practical and regulatory considerations remain (Science and Conservation Center website, www.zoomontana.org/science-and-conservation-center/).

While proven successful in zoos and game parks in South Africa, delivery of the vaccine to free roaming animals such as deer and wild horses can be problematic. The vaccine must be injected into the animals muscle tissue at its rump or hip area to be effective. This requires personnel to be relatively close to the animal for accuracy. As an alternative, the animal can be captured and restrained however, since the animal's natural fight or flight response could be triggered, tranquilizing would also be needed.

Since remote darting is the preferred delivery method, focus has been on perfecting a dart gun that properly delivers the vaccine to the animal from a reasonable distance without causing injury. In addition, the environmental issue of spent darts was a concern but studies have shown the darts are easy to see when left on the forest floor and are typically retrieved. Delivering contraception orally through the use of food plots has been rejected due to the high risk of consumption by non-target animals ("Wildlife Contraception" by Douglas Fox, Conservation Magazine, Oct/Dec 2007).

Another practical consideration involving delivery of the vaccine is the need for multiple injections. Currently, the PZP vaccine requires two shots (and perhaps, subsequent boosters). This raises the issue of identifying the animal that was originally inoculated and finding it at the appropriate time to properly deliver the subsequent shots. Methods have been developed that permit a harmless identifying color spot to be created on the animal at the vaccination site. A time release pellet would be helpful and is being researched. The current cost of a dose of PZP is minimal however labor costs, for the reasons outlined above, can be meaningful ("Immunocontraceptive Reproductive Control Using Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP) in Federal Wild Horse Populations" (Third Edition), by Jay Kirkpatrick, 2010).

Because PZP is primarily protein it is not in the flesh, the saliva or the feces of an animal and does not contaminate the meat of the animal. If the animal is subsequently consumed by humans, other animal predators or scavengers, it will not cause illness.

The complete sterilization of an animal by surgically removing its ovaries has also been widely researched. Again, the resources needed to capture, tranquilize, operate and release free roaming wild animals probably makes this option of less practical use.

The regulatory framework for wildlife contraception is somewhat complex. Overall authority currently rests with the EPA under the curious category of "pesticide" (authority was previously held by the FDA but transferred recently to the EPA). PZP has been officially registered with the EPA however; other governmental agencies must also approve usage of the drug including state wildlife agencies regarding deer and the Bureau of Land Management for wild horses. And this is where much of the politics begins.

The push to bring wildlife contraception products to market has been fueled by a number of interests, many of which have roots in hunting. Recognizing that public acceptance of lethal animal control may be waning, and not wanting to miss the bandwagon on continuing their control of wildlife, state wildlife agencies, the USDA Wildlife Services, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and the natural resource departments of various public universities, have all funded research and conducted studies on wildlife fertility control.

The Humane Society of the United States has spearheaded multiple fertility studies seeking nonlethal means to control both deer and wild horse populations. HSUS conducted a well known and successful deer study on Fire Island, New York in partnership with the National Park Service (www.nps.gov/fiis/naturescience/deer.htm) and continues to be actively involved in the push for nonlethal control of wild horses.

But the literature on the development of wildlife contraception acknowledges the various conflicts of interest that have stymied bringing product to market. "Wildlife agencies and biologists have been reluctant to acknowledge the potential applicability of fertility control for managing wildlife populations, in part because the techniques available have been publicized as a replacement for sport hunting....[however,] agencies recognize that people representing a variety of views are legitimate stakeholders in management, and the public is demanding to have their concerns addressed-one of which is that managers seek nonlethal means for the management of wildlife" (Wildlife Fertility Control, Technical Review 02-2, The Wildlife Society, 2002).

With so many agendas, it is not surprising that the road to market for wildlife contraception has been a long one. But there may be other considerations as well. While current research has concluded wildlife contraception does not negatively affect the health of the animal, what impact does it have on their social order? How is the social hierarchy impacted when females in a herd reach an age where they would otherwise naturally mate and reproduce but are not? In addition, what species specific traits are being interfered with by tampering with the natural selection process? These are difficult questions to answer and perhaps should be more seriously considered when evaluating how necessary it is to contracept our wildlife.

Taking a quick look at the complicated situation regarding wild horses in the western states, one can see the quandary of management. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for managing certain public lands and for managing the wild horses that live there. According to BLM's website, there are approximately 38,000 wild horses and burros on these lands. This, according to BLM, is about 12,000 too many animals for the health of the land therefore, annual removals are necessary (sometimes via helicopter round ups). Before there was a strong public outcry against it, the horses were killed. Now the animals are kept in holding stalls for sale and/or adoption. BLM reports that holding costs for these animals amounts to a little over half their annual $64 million horse and burro budget (a budget suggested to reach $75 million for 2011)(www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html).

The BLM (an agency within the Department of the Interior) and USDA Wildlife Services (an agency within the Department of Agriculture), have similarities. The agencies kill or remove wild animals in the name of ecosystem health (while BLM is asking for $75 million this year, USDA spends about $121 million). BLM says "[w]ild horses and burros have virtually no natural predators and their herd size can double about every four years. As a result, the agency must remove thousands of animals from the range each year to control herd sizes." (Interestingly, almost the same claim is made by state wildlife agencies explaining why deer culls are necessary). It is notable that the herd size has remained relatively constant for the last 14 years. According to the BLM website, there were approximately 42,000 wild horses and burros in 1996 (the earliest date available on their website) and there are approximately 38,000 today.

The thought of letting nature take its course appears ignorant and abhorrent to wildlife agencies. BLM makes the somewhat odd assertion on its website that "[t]here is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the idea that wild horses will automatically limit their own population...if left unchecked, Mother Nature would regulate the wild horse and burro population through the classic boom-and-bust cycle, where the population increases dramatically, food becomes scarce, and the population crashes through starvation."

If nature has a built in population cycle, why would decades of killing, capturing and now possibly contracepting wildlife, necessarily be better? It is unclear whether our governmental agencies will ever implement large scale wildlife fertility programs or in fact, whether they should. Perhaps if it comes to a point where they can no longer shoot or capture the animals, they may turn to contraception...then they can at least ensure their line item in the national budget.

Prior Blog Posts:

The Structure of our State Wildlife Agency System
9/25/09

Teaching Children to Kill
10/02/09

The Supreme Court and the Culpability of a Child
11/18/09

The Federal Gun Tax
12/09/09

Lead Ammunition
1/14/10

Connecting the Dots of Violence
2/01/10

Man as "Super-Predator"
3/17/10

U.S. v Stevens: What interests are being protected?
4/27/10

Predation Control: to what end?
9/14/10

The Paradox of Killing Wildlife as Population Control
10/24/10

Who Does Wildlife Belong to? (The Public Trust Doctrine)
11/22/10

Lyme Disease: Ticks Without Deer
1/20/11

Taxpayers Footing the Bill to Kill Wildlife
2/15/11

Taxpayers Footing the Bill to Kill Wildlife

2011-02-15T08:26:00.000-08:00

The federal government kills wildlife all the time and we’re paying for it. The program is called Wildlife Damage Management and its run by the unlikely Department of Agriculture (the USDA). Through the USDA agency, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), a division called Wildlife Service has the mission to:

“… provide Federal leadership in managing problems caused by wildlife… an important public resource greatly valued by the American people… [W]ildlife is a highly dynamic and mobile resource that can damage agricultural and industrial resources, pose risks to human health and safety, and affect other natural resources. The Wildlife Service program… [helps] solve problems that occur when human activity and wildlife are in conflict …” (United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service website, last modified August 24, 2010).

In carrying out its mission, Wildlife Service says one of its goals is to provide high quality wildlife damage management services and protect agriculture, wildlife and other natural resources using methods that are biologically, environmentally, and socially sound. Let’s see how they’re doing.

In 2009 (the most recent year information is available), Wildlife Service killed a total of 4,120,295 animals. The majority of the animals killed were birds but included in this total were approximately 82,000 coyotes, 34,000 feral pigs, 28,000 beavers, 13,000 prairie dogs, 1,775 bobcats, 443 bears and 342 cougars, to name just a few of the species targeted. That’s a lot of damage control.

The operation has an annual budget of about $121 million which is a combination of federal appropriations and payments from customers. Primary among Wildlife Service’s customers are farmers and ranchers (which helps explain why it is part of the Department of Agriculture instead of an agency of the Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service).

The general public was given a window into the work of Wildlife Service last month when thousands of birds were reported to have mysteriously died in South Dakota. Upon investigation it was admitted by the USDA that poison bait had been set out for the birds after a local farmer complained that the birds were defecating in his animal feed. Dead birds were also reported “falling from the sky” in Arkansas and Louisiana into residential areas and parks. As to whether this was an unusual occurrence, a USDA biologist said the agency does not typically poison animals, but they felt it made sense in this case and that lethal means are always a last resort. The biologist continued by saying this was a situation where it was what they had to do. (“USDA Acknowledges Poisoning Birds in South Dakota” by Hugh Collins, AOLNews, 1/21/11).

But Wildlife Service’s record does not support the claim that lethal means are an infrequent or unusual occurrence. The birds in question were starlings and red winged blackbirds. In 2009 1.3 million starlings and 966,000 red winged blackbirds were killed by Wildlife Service using a combination of lethal means, mainly shooting and poisoning. And the year before that, a total of about 2.5 million starlings and blackbirds were killed. Apparently these birds have been targets of Wildlife Service for awhile; one of their fact sheets says “[b]lackbirds and starlings damage grain crops and eat livestock feed, causing significant economic losses to agricultural producers.”

Wildlife Service claims its programs strive to develop and use wildlife damage management strategies that are biologically sound, environmentally safe, and socially acceptable. However, this may be nice talk wrapped around the disturbing truth that poison seems to be one of the management strategies of choice.

The poison used to kill the blackbirds and starlings that fell from the sky is Compound DRC-1339. DRC-1339 is a slow acting toxicant that causes renal damage and death by uremic poisoning. It is fed to birds through bait plots of rice treated with the poison. Wildlife Service states the poison has a high specificity for birds and presents minimal hazard to non targeted animals. The poison is also used on pigeons, gulls, magpies and ravens in addition to blackbirds and starlings. Millions of birds are killed annually by Wildlife Service, the majority by Compound DRC-1339.

Another poison used by Wildlife Service is M-44 Cyanide which contains the deadly ingredient sodium cyanide. This poison is mainly used to kill coyotes, foxes, and feral dogs that could prey on livestock. M–44 works by ejecting a sodium cyanide capsule of powder into the mouth of an animal when the animal pulls on a baited unit. The sodium cyanide powder reacts with the moisture in the animal’s mouth, releasing hydrogen cyanide gas. Death is supposed to occur from 10 seconds to 2 minutes after the device is triggered. (“The M-44 Cyanide Ejector Mechanism,” September 2002, aphis.usda.gov).

Wildlife Service claims the M–44 is safe to use and poses an insignificant risk to the environment. Their website says that if, for some reason, the contents of the capsule spill onto the soil, the active ingredient dissipate into gas rapidly due to soil moisture; and if there is no moisture, the sodium cyanide filters through the soil, where it is readily degraded by micro-organisms or other mechanisms.

The folks at Wildlife Service also claim the risk of unintentionally killing non targeted animals is very small since field personnel use their expertise in animal behavior patterns when placing the M-44 units. Wildlife Service may claim this to be the case, but in fact, according to their own website, 12,000 coyotes, 242 raccoons, 206 fox, 48 opossum, 32 dogs, 31 skunk, 3 bobcats and 1 black bear were unintentionally killed due to M-44 poisoning in 2009.

Sodium cyanide is a Category One toxicant indicating the greatest degree of acute toxicity. Many environmental groups and wildlife advocates are working to ban this lethal poison as both extremely dangerous and inhumane. A bill has been introduced in Congress (H.R. 5643) seeking to prohibit the use of sodium cyanide in predator control programs. In the meantime, Wildlife Service continues to use it.

Wildlife Service also carries out nonlethal wildlife management through the use of such tools as motion activated sound and light alarm systems, livestock protection dogs and non-toxic repellents. Millions of animals are dispersed annually using nonlethal methods. One wonders why this isn’t adequate.

What is really the point of killing all these animals year after year? (4.1 million in 2009; 5.0 million in 2008; 2.4 million in 2007; and 1.6 million in 2006). When you look at the numbers the program starts to look more like an annual public works project offering steady employment and job security rather than a necessary and defensible federal expenditure. How is success defined and measured? Maybe we should consider just paying the farmers and ranchers directly for their losses instead of killing millions of animals. And to what extent is the public responsible anyway for paying for such losses? (Really, instead of poisoning the birds defecating in the farmers feed lot, how about building a cover?) Wildlife Service serves some valuable functions like testing animals for disease; maybe that should be the focus of their work.

There is something futile about the entire killing operation. As discussed in my 10/24/10 blog post, “The Paradox of Killing Wildlife as Population Control” nature has a way of compensating for human manipulation of animal populations. Such is the issue currently being played out around geese.

Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that 1,676 geese were killed over the summer by federal officials in the name of air safety. Wildlife Service rounded up geese in the New York City area and parts of Nassau County and gassed them claiming it was necessary to ensure air safety. But Wildlife Service has been killing geese for years and yet air collisions can still occur. The year before the U.S. Airways flight landed in the Hudson River after colliding with geese, Wildlife Service had killed over 14,000 geese.

The Times article ends by saying “[t]he geese’s numbers rebounded quickly after the round-ups…so the Agriculture Department is gearing up for another round of goose removals this year…focusing on more sites and extending the hunt…” ("1,676 Geese Were Killed Last Summer for Air Safety" by Alice Speri, New York Times, 2/9/11).

What a business. First Wildlife Service is called in as the expert to assess the problem, and then its hired to fix it. Not a bad gig if you can get it.

Prior Blog Posts:

The Structure of our State Wildlife Agency System
9/25/09

Teaching Children to Kill
10/02/09

The Supreme Court and the Culpability of a Child
11/18/09

The Federal Gun Tax
12/09/09

Lead Ammunition
1/14/10

Connecting the Dots of Violence
2/01/10

Man as "Super-Predator"
3/17/10

U.S. v Stevens: What interests are being protected?
4/27/10

Predation Control: to what end?
9/14/10

The Paradox of Killing Wildlife as Population Control
10/24/10

Who Does Wildlife Belong to? (The Public Trust Doctrine)
11/22/10

Lyme Disease: Ticks Without Deer
1/20/11

Lyme Disease: Ticks Without Deer

2011-01-20T07:49:00.000-08:00

Although the term "deer tick" is often used, in actuality there is no such thing. The tick that carries Lyme disease feeds on approximately 50 species of mammals and about 70 species of birds. It is the blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis) that causes Lyme disease when the tick is infected with the bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi.

When an infected tick attachs itself to an animal to feed (including a human), it can pass Lyme disease to the host. Deer however, do not become infected with Lyme disease even when infected ticks feed on them, nor do deer pass the disease onto other animals. What deer can do is provide the tick with a blood meal typically during the tick's last stage of life (the adult stage) before the tick drops off and lays eggs for the next generation. The misnomer "deer tick" came into use because early studies of Lyme disease did not adequately understand its complex ecology and incorrectly associated the blacklegged tick primarily with deer. Studies have since shown there is a myriad of other animals that provide blood meals for the blacklegged tick and an abundance of deer does not correlate to a high incidence of Lyme disease ("Lyme Disease: the ecology of a complex system" by Richard S. Ostfeld, Ph.D., Oxford University Press, 2011).

The disease was originally named after the town Lyme, Connecticut where a resident suffered from the illness possibly as early as the 1950's. Early on Lyme disease was confused with other illnesses sharing common symptoms like juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Research on Lyme disease began in earnest in the 1970's focusing on the Connecticut area however it was researchers on Long Island not Connecticut who identified the Lyme disease bacteria while conducting research on another tick borne disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever. But it remained unclear at the time whether the specific species of tick that spread Lyme disease was the same or different than the ticks that spread other tick borne illnesses.

The basic life cycle of ticks was and is well understood. First is the larvae stage followed by the nymph stage and finally the adult stage (Lyme disease is usually transmitted during the nymph stage). In early studies on Nantucket in 1976 and 1977, all three stages of tick life were found on deer so the tick was given the name Ixodes dammini or "deer tick". Deer were thought to be the keystone host for the Lyme disease tick and from that point on deer reduction became the focus of much research.

But a comprehensive study published in 1993 clarified this issue and established that there was a lack of evidence for a DNA differentiation between the blacklegged tick and the supposed "deer tick". It was discovered that the Lyme disease carrying tick was in fact the blacklegged tick and it lived successfully on as many as 125 vertebrates such as squirrel, fox, voles, opossum, raccoon, skunk, mice and other rodents. The fact that all three stages of tick life were found on deer in Nantucket in the early studies was later attributed to a dearth of alternative hosts on the island at the time (Ostfeld, 2011). The theory that deer were the keystone hosts for Lyme disease ticks was rejected and the notion of a "deer tick" was scientifically invalidated, although use of the term persists today.

More recent studies have found that deer reduction often results in tick populations either remaining the same or sometimes increasing. Furthermore it has been found that after deer reduction, there is often no corresponding decrease in Lyme disease (Ostfeld, 2011); ("Effects of Reduced Deer Density on the Abundance of Ixodes scapularis and Lyme Disease Incidence in a Northern New Jersey Endemic Area" by Robert A. Jordon et al., Journal of Medical Entomology, 2007).

Researchers have been exploring the implications of the existence of multiple tick host animals besides deer. An interesting study found the elimination of deer actually caused tick "hot spots" or high concentrations of ticks on small areas of land (much the size of residential properties). This was because deer served as "dilution hosts" carrying ticks away from the smaller area and dispersing them. Once deer were eliminated, other wildlife such as rodents brought infected ticks into the area resulting in tick concentrations. ("Localized Deer Absence Leads to Tick Amplification" by Sarah E. Perkins et. al., Ecology, 2006). In Richard Ostfeld's recent and exhaustive book on the ecology of Lyme disease (see book reference above), study after study is cited showing that deer reduction has not led to Lyme disease elimination. The theory that ticks will simply shift to other hosts in the absence of deer is becoming well established.

In many parts of the eastern and central United States there are abundant tick populations but relatively few cases of Lyme disease. An interesting nuance in the Lyme disease transmission chain is the fact that not all hosts become infected with Lyme disease even though an infected tick feeds on it (humans and mice do become infected for example but deer and gray squirrels do not). The reason for this is still unclear but it has led scientists to focus research on not only how to control total tick population size but more importantly, how to contain the spread of the Lyme disease bacteria with or without regard to total tick numbers.

Researchers are trying to determine which hosts are better "reservoirs" for the bacteria, in other words which animals easily contract and pass on the Lyme disease bacteria. And the white footed mouse appears to be at the top of the list. Mice are consistently shown to be very efficient reservoirs for Lyme disease because 75% to 95% of the ticks that feed on mice become infected with the Lyme disease bacteria and then the ticks in turn, infect other animals (Ostfeld, 2011). This is why it probably makes more sense to encourage people to clean up leaf litter and dry out basements, rather than shoot deer if they want to try to keep Lyme disease at bay. (A researcher at Harvard agrees, "...hunting deer won't effectively combat Lyme disease because ticks also depend on another key host animal: white-footed mice." Tamara Awerbuch, Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health).

It isn't entirely clear why the dogma blaming deer for the spread of Lyme disease continues today. The disease can be confusing which creates fear and contributes to the perpetuation of misinformation. Unlike most other infectious diseases, Lyme disease can be difficult to diagnose because it shares common and general symptoms that can be mistaken for other sickness. Compounding this is a high rate of both false positives and false negatives from the diagnostic blood test. And since a vaccine to prevent the disease is not available, and since the body cannot naturally fight the disease without the help of antibiotics, people panic at the mere thought of potential exposure.

Public fear has a way of taking on a life of its own and persistent falsehoods can endure even in the face of contradictory truths. This may be the case with Lyme disease much the same way the fear of autism led many to turn away from childhood vaccines. Just as the early studies linking autism to childhood vaccines have recently been unequivocally renounced and discredited, the hope is that deer will stop being vilified for crimes they aren't committing. But I have my doubts...my neighbor just told me she isn't vaccinating her new baby-she is worried about the vaccine's connection to autism.

Prior Blog Posts:

The Structure of our State Wildlife Agency System
9/25/09
Teaching Children to Kill
10/02/09
The Supreme Court and the Culpability of a Child
11/18/09
The Federal Gun Tax
12/09/09
Lead Ammunition
1/14/10
Connecting the Dots of Violence
2/01/10
Man as "Super-Predator"
3/17/10
U.S. v Stevens: What interests are being protected?
4/27/10
Predation Control: to what end?
9/14/10
The Paradox of Killing Wildlife as Population Control
10/24/10
Who Does Wildlife Belong to? (The Public Trust Doctrine)
11/22/10

Who Does Wildlife Belong to? (The Public Trust Doctrine)

2010-11-22T09:24:00.000-08:00

Well, to the extent that a living being can "belong" to anyone, the answer is...you. Actually, you and me. Wildlife is held in trust by the state for the benefit of the public. This concept is called "The Public Trust Doctrine" and it applies to wildlife law in very much the same way it is commonly understood. Assets (wildlife), are held by an entity (governmental agency, often the state), for the benefit of a third party (the public).

Historically in Europe, wild animals were believed to be owned by the king for the use and enjoyment of the aristocracy. But during colonial times, Americans rebelled against this class-based theory and instead adopted the concept that wildlife is for the benefit of all people. American wildlife law has developed around this notion that wildlife is a public resource, much the same as any other natural resource and should be managed for the common good.

However, early in American history with virtually unrestricted access to "game" (i.e. hunted wildlife, typically deer and fowl), animals were killed for sport or profit on a year round basis presenting the potential for total annihilation. Fearing the supply of animals would eventually disappear, a movement began in the late 19th century to develop conservation laws to protect animals from over hunting.

Battles ensued between those who wanted unrestricted use and enjoyment of wild animals and those who wanted limits placed on these activities. The court cases from this era made it clear that a fundamental principle is that wild animals are the common property of the people and reasonable restrictions and limitations can be placed on their destruction. In 1896 the Supreme Court stated that "...the fundamental principles upon which the common property in game rests have undergone no change...the power or control lodged in the State, resulting from this common ownership, is to be exercised...as a trust for the benefit of the people, and not as a prerogative for the advantage of the government...or for the benefit of private individuals as distinguished from the public good." (Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896)).

After these initial court cases, a series of conservation laws were enacted leading to today's current set of laws. State legislatures created state wildlife agencies and gave them responsibility for overseeing and enforcing wildlife laws. These wildlife agencies are typically divisions within larger state environmental protection or natural resource agencies and are responsible for, among other things, the days hunting seasons open and close, what types of weapons can be used, and the number of animals which may be killed.

But herein lies the rub: in order to insure a reliable funding source, the framers of the state wildlife agency system provided for permanent funding from hunting license fees and revenue generated from gun and ammunition sales (see prior blog posts: "The Structure of our State Wildlife Agency System" 9/25/09 and "The Federal Gun Tax" 12/09/09). Since conservation laws were developed at a time when preventing uncontrolled hunting was the objective, this financial arrangement made sense. Conservation laws were developed to protect the supply of game animals for hunting. Little attention was given to the notion that animals have intrinsic worth, are essential to bio-diversity or that game and non-game animals alike are needed for a balanced ecosystem. Yet there is no other state agency empowered to protect wildlife. "Conservation" is a misnomer in today's wildlife agency system. The mandate to safeguard our wildlife for the public at large is a virtual impossibility when a majority of funding for this purpose is derived from hunting licenses and gun sales.

A rash of state constitutional amendments have recently passed seeking to protect the right to hunt as a constitutional entitlement. These NRA backed amendments currently exist in 13 states and appear to be in response to a perceived threat which may have its roots in The Public Trust Doctrine. As the doctrine becomes better known and understood, the fear may be that emphasis will turn toward the protection of wildlife for the benefit of the environment and the public as a whole, and away from its use by the 4% of the population who hunt.

Interestingly, the leading organization of wildlife professionals, The Wildlife Society, has recently confirmed that The Public Trust Doctrine forms the basis of our wildlife law. In one of its recent publications, they say "The Public Trust Doctrine...is an essential element of North American wildlife law. The Doctrine establishes a trustee relationship of government to hold and manage wildlife...for the benefit of the resources and the public." (The Public Trust Doctrine, Implications for Wildlife Management and Conservation in the United States and Canada, Technical Review 10-01, Sept. 2010). However, the Society goes on to express concern about potential threats to the strength of the doctrine by saying "The underpinnings of the [doctrine]and [it's] future relevance and successful application...may be at risk due to recent changes in society, government policies, and case law." The threats to The Public Trust Doctrine the Society lists however, sound a lot like perceived threats to the future of hunting; the threats they point to are "...inappropriately claiming ownership of wildlife as private property; unregulated commercial sale of live wildlife; prohibitions on access to and use of wildlife; personal liability issues; and a value system oriented toward animal rights.." (emphasis added). I don't know, but the last time I looked, people supportive of animal rights were considered part of our society.

Prior Blog Posts:

The Structure of our State Wildlife Agency System
9/25/09
Teaching Children to Kill
10/02/09
The Supreme Court and the Culpability of a Child
11/18/09
The Federal Gun Tax
12/09/09
Lead Ammunition
1/14/10
Connecting the Dots of Violence
2/01/10
Man as "Super-Predator"
3/17/10
U.S. v Stevens: What interests are being protected?
4/27/10
Predation Control: to what end?
9/14/10
The Paradox of Killing Wildlife as Population Control
10/24/10

The Paradox of Killing Wildlife to Control Populations

2010-10-24T17:23:00.000-07:00

Although counterintuitive, the truth is hunting isn't much of a population control tool. There are a number of reasons why this is the case, the most significant being the fact that once a portion of a wildlife herd is removed, the remaining animals have more food to eat. This rather straightforward reality has some subtle implications.

Hunting simply decreases the competition for food among the animals that survive a hunt. As the potential for malnutrition is reduced, the incidence of death and disease is reduced. The animals left behind will be better fed, become stronger and their potential for reproduction will increase. As quite clearly stated in the college textbook "Wildlife Ecology and Management" (Fifth Edition, Pearson Education, Inc. 2003), "[h]unting mortality is frequently compensatory because it usually increases the life expectancy of individuals surviving the hunt, promotes higher reproductive rates, or does both."

The amount an animal is nourished directly corresponds to its ability to reproduce. Taking white-tailed deer as an example (the most hunted yet possibly also the most overpopulated species in the United States), studies have shown that the more well nourished the doe (female deer), the more likely she is to reproduce. The well fed doe may also reproduce at a younger age (and thus produce more fawns during her lifetime), and the incidence of birthing twins or triplets increases.

The reproductive benefits to white-tailed deer of greater nutrition have been well documented. In an early study, half the yearlings (young deer) studied were deprived of an adequate food supply while the other half was well fed. The poorly fed yearlings did not breed at all "undoubtedly, because inadequate nutrition prevented their sexual maturity". (Think: lack of menstruation in anorexic girls). However all the well fed yearlings bred. The study found that the well fed yearlings were "over 2.5 times as productive as poorly fed yearlings." In addition, the 25 prime-age, well fed does studied produced 45 fawns while the 22 prime-age under fed does, produced only 30 fawns making the well fed does about 32% more productive than the under nourished ones. ("Reproductive Patterns of White-tailed Deer Related to Nutritional Plane" by Louis Verme, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Journal of Wildlife Management (1969)).

The increased likelihood of multiple births after a hunt has also been confirmed. A study conducted by the Department of Wildlife and Range Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation at the University of Florida sampled deer from five separate sites: three hunted and two nonhunted. The study found that the incidence of twins being born to a pregnant doe was higher on hunted land than on nonhunted land. The study found "[m]ean number of fetuses per pregnant doe was greater on hunted...than on nonhunted sites...Incidence of twinning was 38% on hunted sites and 14% on nonhunted sites. No twinning was observed among pregnant fawns or yearlings from nonhunted areas, whereas...18% of the pregnant yearlings and...33% of the pregnant fawns from hunted areas carried twins." ("Reproductive Dynamics Among Disjunct White-tailed Deer Herds in Florida" Journal of Wildlife Management (1985)).

All of this helps explain why, even after decades of hunting, deer numbers remain high in much of the country. In fact, the basis for hunting regulations such as hunting seasons and bag limits (how many deer a hunter is permitted to kill), are premised on this compensatory theory. The goal is to allow the sport of killing to take place while at the same time, conserve enough deer for hunters to enjoy the following season. But how many deer exactly should each state allow to be killed and still have enough for next year? In other words, what is the "maximum sustained yield"? This is one of the persistently difficult and challenging questions facing state wildlife managers; and since these managers are compelled to satisfy their hunting constituency, the more deer in the field the better. If there aren't enough deer, the wildlife managers may end up without jobs (see prior blog post 9/25/09 "The Structure of our State Wildlife Agency System").

Hundreds of communities across the country are grappling with issues related to deer populations. After 10 years of culling, Princeton, New Jersey has recently decided to take a break. However new culling programs are being proposed almost daily. Controversial culls have been introduced throughout Westchester county and parts of upstate New York, as well as many towns in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. Residents are told, often by representatives of their state wildlife agency (clad in official uniforms), that killing is necessary because deer are very adaptable and their numbers can increase out of control. But given the number of species struggling today under the stress of environmental conditions such as global warming, under what biological theory could deer be overpopulating themselves? Being highly adaptable seems a bit unscientific and perhaps not the full explanation.

Basic biology dictates that animal populations, including deer, do not just grow exponentially out of control. Going back to the underpinnings of population ecology and Darwinian theory, there exists the concept that nature provides animals with more offspring than will naturally survive. (The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, Chapter 3: Struggle for Existence (1859)). This "surplus" is provided because limiting factors such as the availability of food, cover and space will impact survivability as will the existence of disease and predators. Exponential growth of a wildlife population is virtually impossible because an unlimited supply of food and the complete absence of biological enemies occurs very rarely in nature. According to the Wildlife Ecology textbook "[a]lmost any population may approach an unrestricted rate of growth if reduced to a low level, but obviously no population can increase exponentially for very long. The supply of food...space or cover...may be limiting" as well as the existence of predators and disease. Birth rates may eventually decline or death rates may increase, or both, and the population will stop growing. This is called a zero growth rate and often happens when a herd has reached its "carrying capacity".

But as hunters continue to reduce populations, making more food and cover available to the surviving animals, and as hunters systematically eliminate natural predators (see prior blog posts 9/14/10 "Predation Control: to what end?" and 3/17/10 "Man as 'Super-Predator'"), then nature cannot run its course and the potential for overpopulation arises. In a recent study, "Harvesting Can Increase Severity of Wildlife Disease Epidemics", the authors use mathematical population modeling to show that hunting causes increases not only in disease prevalence but also in total host population size due in part to increased birth rates. They conclude that "...the demographic plasticity of [certain] animal populations confers them with a remarkable capacity to recover from control, and such a response to culling can actually increase the supply of susceptibles to ...disease." (Marc Choisy and Pejman Rohani, Institute of Ecology, and Center for Tropical and Emerging Global Disease, University of Georgia, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society, (2006)).

Unfortunately, as people begin to experience an overabundance of deer in their neighborhoods they frequently turn to hunting as the solution...which puts us right back where we started...see top of page.

Prior Blog Posts:

The Structure of our State Wildlife Agency System
9/25/09
Teaching Children to Kill
10/02/09
The Supreme Court and the Culpability of a Child
11/18/09
The Federal Gun Tax
12/09/09
Lead Ammunition
1/14/10
Connecting the Dots of Violence
2/01/10
Man as "Super-Predator"
3/17/10
U.S. v Stevens: What interests are being protected?
4/27/10
Predation Control: to what end?
9/14/10

Predation Control: to what end?

2010-09-14T19:10:00.000-07:00

Lack of predators is one of the reasons frequently given to explain the overabundance of deer in our suburban neighborhoods. This phenomenon is often stated as fact and accepted as a natural and expected result of modern development and expansion. After all, it would be absurd to have wolves in our backyards taking down 200 pound deer. However, natural deer predation often occurs at the fawn level, sometimes as early as the first week of life. The predator of choice is typically a coyote about as big as a medium sized dog and weighing approximately 30 pounds. But human intervention is interrupting and disabling this natural population control mechanism. Once again, the interests of the hunting community are not served by the existence of coyotes since they have the potential for keeping deer numbers low. Therefore time, money and other resources are being spent on predation control programs.

Hunters with the aid and support of state wildlife agencies and certain public universities have been studying the impact predators have on deer populations and how to reduce the number of deer killed. The purpose is to keep deer populations high so there are sufficient targets for hunters' enjoyment and pleasure and also, sufficient monies to keep the respective supporting institutions afloat (see my September 25, 2009 post "The Structure of our State Wildlife Agency System" for a description of the financial ties between the hunting community and our state wildlife agencies).

It was reported for example, that in 2007 researchers at the University of Georgia conducted a study to show "the effects of intensive predator removal on white-tailed deer." The researchers removed coyotes from a study site in Alabama in February 2007 through July of that year during the peak of fawning season. Not surprisingly, the study found that after the intense predator control program, the fawn survival rate was four times greater than before the program.

In another project the impact of coyotes on fawn survival was studied by a wildlife biologist and his colleagues from the USDA Forest Service together with employees from the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources on a tract of land operated by the U.S. Department of Energy. During 2006 to 2008 the researchers studied the impact of coyotes by monitoring the survival and causes of mortality of radio-collared fawns. Their findings were that 64-84% of all fawn mortality was due to coyote predation (the remaining presumably due to illness or other types of predation), and 66% of the deaths occurred within the first three weeks of a fawn's life.

Hunting magazines such as Quality Whitetails run articles educating the hunting community about predator elimination. The June 2009 issue ran a series of articles promoting the elimination of predators and titled one article, "Calling & Decoying Coyotes-hunting coyotes just before fawns arrive can be an effective addition to a predator-management program."

The top-down value of predators to ecosystems has become gospel among environmentalists and those interested in the future health of the planet. This belief unfortunately has not always been universally held. As Dr. J. Christopher Haney, Chief Scientist and Vice President of Conservation Science and Economics at Defenders of Wildlife wrote "[w]hen I was studying...in university more than 20 years ago, one of my professors said that predators, while 'fascinating creatures,' are mere 'parasites on the ecosystem host'...Clearly [my professor] hadn't quite embraced the now well-accepted [thesis]...which holds that predators help keep herbivores in check and thereby save us all from ecological ruin."

Communities across the country are grappling with issues related to deer population. Hundreds of communities each year fight over whether a "culling" (i.e. killing) program should take place in their neighborhood to reduce the number of deer. Yet natural predators such as coyotes are being eliminated to serve the interests of hunters and other special interest groups.

Farmers and cattle ranchers also focus narrowly on issues of self-interest and ignore the lessons of biodiversity and scientific reality. As discussed in my March 17, 2010 post "Man as 'Super-Predator'" these constituencies want predators ameliorated because predators target sheep, goats and calves and therefore impact their livelihood. The use of toxic poisons in predator control programs persists today due to pressure from the livestock and agricultural industries. Even though they were banned in 1972 due to their extremely lethal toxicity, substances such as sodium cyanide, strychnine and compound 1080 are again available. Compound 1080 is a colorless salt that is so toxic a teaspoon could kill approximately 50 people. It is also especially toxic to unintended recipients such as dogs and cats. As discussed in the article "Control of Coyote Predation on Livestock-Progress in Research and Development" by Michael Fall of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (published by the University of Nebraska), much work and attention has been given to the use of these poisons in predator control programs. Unbeknownst to a majority of the general public, some of these toxins are being used again today in such programs.

The need to kill wildlife and ignore the natural balance of our ecosystem goes beyond just predator control programs. In states such as Oregon, Indiana, Arizona and Pennsylvania for example, there are coyote killing derbies where teams of people pay an entry fee to kill as many coyotes as possible for prizes such as rifles and binoculars.

Even though the value of coyotes can be documented, some people might shudder with fear at the thought of one anywhere near their backyard. However, according to the N.Y. State Department of Environmental Conservation website, nationwide "only a handful of coyote attacks occur yearly" while approximately 650 people are hospitalized each year from dog attacks in New York State alone.

And lest we let a potential money-making opportunity go untapped, predation control companies have emerged. One such company, The Predator Control Group, Inc. advertises with a picture of about 25 dead coyotes and a macho tag line saying "Failure is not an option, we are professional trappers and we get professional results-Control Your Predators."

And who I wonder, can we get to control them?

Prior Blog Posts:
The Structure of our State Wildlife Agency System
9/25/09
Teaching Children to Kill
10/02/09
The Supreme Court and the Culpability of a Child
11/18/09
The Federal Gun Tax
12/09/09
Lead Ammunition
1/14/10
Connecting the Dots of Violence
2/01/10
Man as "Super-Predator"
3/17/10
U.S. v Stevens: What interests are being protected?
4/27/10

U.S. v Stevens: What interests are being protected?

2010-04-27T10:44:00.000-07:00

The recent Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Stevens, found an animal cruelty law invalid under the First Amendment. The law was aimed at animal cruelty however, the court relied heavily on the activity of hunting (which was not part of the law), in explaining why the statute must be invalidated. The court’s reasoning is largely based on hypothetical concerns and presents a somewhat skewed view of factual information heavily laden with value judgments.

The statute in question criminalized the visual or auditory depiction of the intentional maiming, mutilating, torturing, wounding or killing of an animal. While the defendant in the case was being prosecuted for dog fighting videos, the court explained that the legislative history of the law indicates that it was aimed at what are called “crush videos”. Crush videos are made to appeal to people with certain sexual fetishes who delight in watching animals tortured and killed often by scantily clad women wearing stiletto heels. Once the law was passed the market for crush videos virtually disappeared.

Traditional hunting did not come under the law (even though the law included the intentional killing of an animal); because the statute required that the underlying activity being portrayed must also be illegal for the visual or auditory depiction of the activity to be illegal. Hunting is legal in all 50 states therefore depictions such as hunting videos or magazines would not fall within the reach of the law. The underlying animal cruelty being portrayed in crush videos however is illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia so crush videos became illegal with passage of the law.

The main problem for the court was Washington D.C. where hunting is in fact, illegal (presumably because of its urban landscape). Since hunting is illegal in that jurisdiction, the court said the animal cruelty statute could be misused to criminalize the sale of otherwise legal hunting magazines and videos in the D.C. area. Technically this is correct however; the analysis doesn’t stop there. The court used the legal doctrine of “overbreadth” to reach its conclusion that the statute should be invalidated, but the facts the court relies on are not compelling in light of the balancing test required by this legal doctrine.

The legal doctrine of overbreadth means the court may invalidate a law when it is written too broadly and “‘a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.’" In striking a balance between competing social interests consideration is given to "a statute’s application to real world conduct, not fanciful hypotheticals” (quoting the dissent). Therefore, a balancing test is used whereby the value of the statute is weighed against the potential for its misapplication.

The court never questioned the legitimate intent of the statute as clearly reflecting the broad consensus of society against animal cruelty. The court concluded this is evidenced by the fact animal cruelty is illegal in every state and territory in the country and the animal cruelty statute at issue was passed by an overwhelming majority of Congress. But the court was troubled by the potential misuse of the statute as it applied to hunting magazines and videos bought and sold in Washington D.C. Why this sliver of potential misapplication (of which no actual prosecutions were noted), became such a focal point for the court is not entirely clear, nevertheless it was central to the invalidation decision.

In reasoning this point out, the court cited the amicus brief submitted by the NRA (organizations often submit “friends of the court” briefs in cases where they are not a direct party but their interests are directly affected). The court reasoned that since the “demand for hunting depictions exceeds the estimated demand for crush videos … by several orders of magnitude” and “there is an enormous national market for hunting-related depictions in which a living animal is intentionally killed” then, in essence, this market should not be jeopardized.

The court goes on to point out that the market for hunting magazines is about $135 million per year while crush videos only pull down about $1 million. How does a comparison of these sales numbers inform the court about the relative value of these activities? One activity is legal while the other is illegal (actually it’s good to hear that our society is on track at least to the extent that illegal activity is dwarfed by legal). It can just as easily be argued that since the hunting magazine business is so robust, the negative impact of the statute on hunting would be negligible in comparison to the impact on the market for crush videos which could be eliminated.

If the overbreadth analysis requires the finding of a “substantial number of unconstitutional applications” as compared to a statute’s legitimate use, perhaps it would have been relevant to know the hunting magazine and video business of Washington D.C. since this appears to be the only place where the illegality could occur. This information is not part of the opinion. (It is not entirely clear whether the court was saying that since the activity would be illegal in D.C. then all hunting magazines and videos in interstate commerce would be tainted or whether it would be limited to the D.C. market; I am presuming the latter since that is the clearest reading of the court’s language).

The other hunting example that the court expresses concern over is the possibility that videos and magazines showing legal hunting in one state would be criminalized in another because that particular form of hunting is not legal in that jurisdiction. These circumstances mainly involve the weapon used or the animal killed. Some states allow hunting using a crossbow for example, while others do not. Some states allow certain types of animals to be hunted while other states do not. The court says the hunting video and magazine industry could thus face a “bewildering maze of regulations from at least 56 separate jurisdictions.” Again, this hypothetical difficulty with the statute is offered up as reason to invalidate it with no discussion about the remoteness of the possibility and no examples of it ever happening.

The next scenario the court points to is almost comical. Under the potentially over broad statute the court notes that “the humane slaughter of a stolen cow” would also be criminalized. Again, what is the value being protected here? If the cow is already stolen there is criminality; are we to be concerned that an otherwise innocent person might then humanely kill this cow, have the act videotaped and sold, and thus become an unwitting criminal?

The court moves onto the issue of slaughtering animals for food saying there could be instances where the slaughter of an animal using a particular method is legal in one state but not in another causing a video depicting the slaughter to be criminal. However, it’s hard to imagine any video of animal slaughter not fitting into one of the exceptions to the statute. The statute has specific exceptions and does not apply to depictions with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.” The court doesn’t offer examples of a video that wouldn’t fit into one of these exceptions.

The court also rejected the analogy to child pornography. It is well established law that child pornography is not protected speech and is thus outside the protection of the First Amendment. As noted in the dissent, “the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes.” But the majority rejects the analogy to child pornography saying animal cruelty is not protected speech. The dissent disagrees but says “…preventing the abuse of children is certainly much more important than preventing the torture of animals…[and] protecting children is unquestionably more important than protecting animals, [but] the Government also has a compelling interest in preventing the torture depicted in crush videos.”

How about the people involved in crush videos? Isn’t this statute equally, if not more so, about the depraved and emotionally sick people who participate in the videos and those who witness and record the acts, to say nothing of the consumers who buy these horrific segments? A description of one of the videos included in the court’s opinion discusses tying down kittens and gauging out their eyes. It’s hard to imagine this activity not ranking of equal depravity with what would be considered the most violently heinous of acts, including child pornography. The people involved in the crush video business concern me just as much as anyone involved in child pornography. It’s not about the value one places on animals; it’s about the violent and depraved human participants.

Interestingly, the majority cites the amicus brief of the NRA while the dissent cites the amicus brief of the Humane Society to support their respective positions. If the court is at all attempting to reflect the values of our society, it is worth noting that according to each organizations website the NRA has 4 million members while the Humane Society has 11 million.

Even though this statute was not directed at hunting, the issue of hunting and the role it plays in our society became central to the case. Even the dissent, while reaching the right conclusion, used some questionable reasoning focused on hunting. Justice Alito explained that he would dismiss all the hunting concerns expressed by the majority because hunting falls into one of the exceptions to the statute. He went on to say that hunting is scientific, historical and educational and “[w]hile there are certainly those who find hunting objectionable, the predominant view in this country has long been that hunting serves many important values...” As support for this sentiment the Justice cites the regular proclamations of Presidents “extolling the values served by hunting” such as providing healthy recreation, cultivating an appreciation and respect for nature, and providing peaceful solitude and closeness to nature.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, 4% of the population in this country hunts; I wonder how Justice Alito was able to nail the opinions of the other 96%.

Prior posts:
"Man as Super-Predator" March 2010
"Connecting the Dots of Violence" Feb 2010
"Lead Ammunition" Jan 2010
"The Federal Gun Tax" Dec 2009
"The Supreme Court and the Culpability of a Child" Nov 2009
"Teaching Children to Kill" Oct 2009
"The Structure of Our State Wildlife Agency System" Sept 2009

Man as "Super-Predator"

2010-03-17T10:47:00.000-07:00

The intense controversy over whether the gray wolf should remain on the Endangered Species list is about not only the fate of this top predator but also, how much weight scientific and environmental considerations will be given in decisions affecting immediate stakeholders as well as the general public.

The wolf controversy is a prime example of the complexities at play among hunters, environmentalists, local politicians and the interests of the general public. The hunters want the excitement and thrill of a wolf hunt, the environmentalists want to see their restoration efforts of this nearly extinct animal protected, local politicians want revenue and the general population wants (or will want, if they become adequately aware of the issue), balanced ecosystems.

The reintroduction of the gray wolf to the Northern Rocky Mountains is considered one of the great success stories of wildlife restoration. After being relentlessly shot, trapped and poisoned to near extinction in the 1930’s, the wolf was put on the Endangered Species List. Once listed, the wolf was protected from any further killing. A reintroduction program began in 1995 to increase the wolf population to a level that would be self-sustaining. Wolves were captured in Canada and let loose in Yellowstone National Park to breed. This reintroduction program was so successful that about 1650 wolves now live in the park and in the wilderness of the surrounding states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.

But protection of these wolves became threatened when former President Bush just before leaving office, suspended the federal endangered species listing. The action was to be reassessed by the Obama administration before formal adoption. The new administration subsequently affirmed the federal delisting and therefore, continued management of the wolves was turned over to the states. Idaho and Montana started managing the wolves in 2009 while the wolves of Wyoming remain listed and under federal protection due to flaws in that state’s management plan

Once management was passed from the federal government to the state wildlife agencies, hunting became the focus. The reason for this is the subject of my September 2009 blog post which explains that the lion’s share of funding for state wildlife agencies comes from hunting license fees and a tax on guns. It is for this reason that state wildlife agencies are beholden to their local hunting community. In fact, upon hearing that his state was soon to be in control of the wolves, Governor Otter of Idaho was quoted as saying he would be one of the first to purchase a wolf hunting license.

The value and importance of conserving endangered species and ensuring biodiversity is an accepted axiom of the 21st century. From scientific journals to biology textbooks it has been written about time and again. The importance of a keystone predator such as the gray wolf to a balanced ecosystem is undeniable.

It has been asserted that one of the prime benefits of having wolves in Yellowstone National Park is to control the wolf’s natural prey populations of elk and deer. Without this top predator, the elk population had increased dramatically in the park causing damage to vegetation which in turn had a cascading effect on the health of the ecosystem as a whole. The elk grazed so heavily that seedlings and shoots of aspen, willow and other trees were prevented from growing. With fewer trees, especially along streams, fewer dams were built by beavers causing an increase in run-off and erosion. Fewer trees also meant fewer nesting birds. Entire food webs were breaking down affecting fish and amphibians. Once wolves were reintroduced to the park, banks and streams were once again intact and stream-side vegetation reappeared. And as is often the case with predators, additional food was also provided for small animals from carcasses left by wolves. In short, organisms from every trophic level were positively affected by the wolves. Environmentalists have concluded that a healthy ecosystem is near impossible without a thriving wolf population.

That our policies would and should be motivated by these basic scientific principles seems evident however, not surprisingly, politics has reared its ugly head and muddied the waters. Even though last year, on the 160th anniversary of the founding of the Department of the Interior, President Obama said “…I’ve signed a memorandum that will help restore the scientific process to its rightful place at the heart of the Endangered Species Act…”, science appears to be losing ground to local politics and creating what has been dubbed “the wolf wars”.

With a current total population of about 1650 wolves, the first hunting season in history just ended. In it, 300 wolves were legally permitted to be killed. The reason for this limit is to ensure the wolf population remains sustainable. Wildlife biologists (who don’t work for state wildlife agencies) say these total population numbers are too low and not based on sound scientific evidence. This issue, among others, is currently being litigated in federal court. The biologists assert that the entire wolf population was delisted prematurely and the target number should be closer to 2000-3000 wolves in total with no allowances for hunting. (Also being litigated is the issue of whether it was valid to delist the wolves in two states while leaving them listed in a third when, it is argued, the wolves comprise a single population that naturally moves across state borders.)

Interestingly, it is reported that approximately 14,000 wolf hunting permits were sold during the first wolf hunt season. This is a puzzling number in light of the fact that only 300 wolves could be legally taken. From the state’s perspective the revenue from the sale of the license is gain whether a wolf is killed or not. But it’s interesting that hunters would find these odds appealing. But maybe they have learned something from their experience. About six months ago, in the midst of the hunting season, a New York Times article “Wolves Aren’t Making it Easy for Idaho Hunters” quoted the wildlife manager for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game as saying it was clear that wolf hunting wasn’t going to be easy. When the final kill numbers came in, of the 300 wolves permitted to be taken, it was reported that 222 were killed.

How these scant numbers can be twisted by some to serve their self-interest, is truly amazing. Hunters, ranchers and state wildlife agents continue to insist there is a current overpopulation of wolves and more hunting is “needed”. Hunters claim they need higher limits and thus more targets and a longer season. This serves their personal interests in two ways: first, it expands the opportunity for recreational hunts and second, it further reduces the overall wolf population in the hopes of leaving a greater number of elk and deer for the hunter to also hunt. As one hunter so clearly stated on his blog “… [With] the wolf…there won’t be surplus game, especially big game, to need additional management by hunters.” For many, this naturally occurring balance of nature would be considered ideal.

Perhaps the most wolf intolerant group however, is the rancher. Any number of wolves is too many for most ranchers because wolves have the potential to prey on their livestock. This is one of the main reasons the wolf was originally eradicated from the west.

A number of responses have been developed to address the rancher’s livestock depredation problem. This month’s issue of National Geographic reports in an article entitled “Wolf Wars” that approximately 569 cattle and sheep were killed by wolves in 2008; a loss number we should be able to manage and contain. One response to the rancher’s dilemma has been a patrol program. Patrols made on motorcycle, car and foot are conducted to keep an eye out for evidence of wolves. Ranchers are notified to keep cattle herds moving and to avoid certain areas. There is also a financial compensation program run by the Defenders of Wildlife, a private not-for-profit group to help ranchers with their losses. New tactics are also being tried such as collecting carcasses from cattle that died due to birthing problems and accidents, and planting these bone piles in remote areas attracting wolves away from cattle grazing territory. And lastly and perhaps most importantly, is the need to keep prey populations intact. Here in opposition to the needs of recreational hunters, it is important to keep healthy populations of deer and elk for wolves to prey on. If enough food is available in the wild, the wolf is less likely to venture into human inhabited ranch land looking for dinner.

And lest we fear the west will be overrun with wolves, evidence shows wolves may naturally self regulate their numbers. While there is no predator above the wolf, nature has a way of regulating its own. Wolf populations will regulate themselves in nature through the availability of food, harshness of weather, disease, and wolf on wolf killings.

One of the most important elements is food supply. Historically there has been an overabundance of elk and deer in the Northern Rockies and the wolves have been feasting mightily. However this trend is starting to wane and recent reports show either no wolf population increase over the last few years or a slight decrease. Predator and prey populations are balancing.

Other important stabilizing factors in the wolf population are disease and wolf on wolf mortality. A pack of wolves that has been closely studied is the Druid pack. At its peak, the pack numbered 37 members, but as of late the pack appears to have died off or dispersed almost completely. Apparently the alpha female in the pack was killed by a wolf from another pack and the remaining alpha male and 6 other wolves contracted a skin disease called mange that severely weakened them leading to death. With no more leaders, it is thought that the remaining few members of the Druid pack will wander on their own, unlikely to make it through the winter.

The situation with the gray wolf is a sorry example of rational, scientifically based evidence mingling with self-interested stakeholders. The fact that recreational hunting opportunities are even considered at this point is deeply disturbing. Hunting doesn’t mimic natural predation but in fact, has some far reaching negative consequences for the health of our environment. An interesting study published last year by the National Academy of Sciences entitled “Human predators outpace other agents of trait change in the wild” found that humans, as “super-predators” often aim to take out the biggest and healthiest, or “trophy” animals, in a herd thus damaging the overall health of a species. By removing these fine specimens from the animal’s gene pool we are in essence, weakening the species and leaving the less desirable animals to procreate. The study found that this human interference with the dynamics of natural selection leads to decreased body size over time and compromised reproductive health.

One of the benchmarks used by biologists to measure the continued viability of wolves is the number of breeding pairs. It is doubtful hunters have any idea whether they are killing a male or a female when they hunt and thus, are causing an imbalance in the male/female ratio of the packs. Hunting not only brings down the absolute number of wolves but also negatively impacts the gene pool of this once endangered species.

The wildlife in this country is owned by its citizens. This legal concept means we all share equal, undivided interests in our wild animals. The government holds wildlife in trust for our benefit and is empowered to manage it for the public good. The hunter dominated state agencies represent only about 4% of the general population. Policies should be developed based on sound science and carried out in a democratic manner responsive to the majority, not a vocal minority. Perhaps this is an opportunity for the “just say no” policy. Since the American people have spent tens of millions of dollars and thousands of man hours to re-balance the ecosystem in the Northern Rockies, how about just saying “no, you cannot play here, please take your guns and leave.”

Prior blog posts:
February 2010 "Connecting the Dots of Violence"
January 2010 "Lead Ammunition"
December 2009 "The Federal Gun Tax"
November 2009 "The Supreme Court and the Culpability of a Child"
October 2009 "Teaching Children to Kill"
September 2009 "The Structure of our State Wildlife Agency System"

Connecting the Dots of Violence

2010-02-01T08:44:00.000-08:00

There are certain gun related tragedies that often elicit little more than a despairing sigh from the general public. After such events, comments always include that it's simply the result of another gun nut-as if we should accept this as part of living in society. But in examining the details of a recent shooting spree in Virginia, it becomes evident that this doesn't have to be the case. As with other similar incidents, early signs of violence can be detected in the recent rampage. Unfortunately, the signs typically aren't labeled as such by those involved or by the media.

I have found that mainstream media, particularly The New York Times, repeatedly avoids negatively reporting on the issue of hunting and excessive gun use. By doing so, the public is prevented from having the opportunity to reflect on the possible connection between the two and to question violence in this context. We are impeded in considering to what extent this type of violence should be tolerated or how it can be reduced. If the Times, as one of our leading liberal newspapers, won't join forces with the public and go head to head on all forms of gun violence, then the issue will continue to be controlled by the extreme right with its insistence on an unfettered right to the use and exploitation of guns.

For example, less than two weeks ago, Christopher Speight went on a shooting spree in and around his home in a small town in Virginia, killing 8 people including 3 teenagers and a 4 year old child. From reading various local news and Associated Press reports, the following information can be culled about Mr. Speight: he collected guns and military equipment and owned a large number of weapons including assault rifles and pistols; he had a multitude of explosive devices in his home; he participated in NRA shooting classes using high powered rifles; he had a license to carry a concealed weapon that had been renewed several times; he was an avid deer and rabbit hunter often hunting on his property; and he had built a shooting range in his backyard where he engaged in target practice during both day and night.

In the various media reports about the killings, the question of motive was naturally posed. In fact, the Times which ran two large articles with pictures on the incident, titled the second article “Shooting Suspect Was on Edge, Co-Workers Say” raising expectations that background information and the issue of motive would be central to coverage. But the reporting failed to truly look at the facts about Mr. Speight which point to the issue of his violence. Of the background information I listed above, The New York Times reported only that Mr. Speight “often liked to engage in target practice at night.” Either the Times had inadequate reporting, which is highly doubtful, or it purposely left out the other information which, when taken together, creates a profile of a man with an interest in violence.

Herein lies the problem-the media appears unwilling to connect gun ownership, gun usage and hunting as possible indicators of violent tendencies. Why this is so, is unclear. Connections between violence, gun ownership and hunting cannot be generalized; however, it is valid and important to note these connections when they present themselves.

Neighbors interviewed about Mr. Speight acknowledged he was an avid hunter and gun “enthusiast” collecting both high powered and military style weapons. It was also acknowledged that he was known to shoot animals on his property and engage in target practice during both day and night. One neighbor commented that the sound of gun shots from Mr. Speight's property was continuous and in fact annoying, but since Mr. Speight was within his legal rights, the neighbor felt he couldn't complain. It was said that overall, Mr. Speight's behavior wouldn’t necessarily cause a person in Virginia to bat an eyelash.

This attitude needs to change. When neighbors and the media tolerate, condone or ignore behavior instead of highlight, question and ultimately shame it, it will continue unabated. I recently mentioned some of the dangers and abuses that can occur in our hunting culture to a New York Times editor, who responded by saying the whole topic is really handled in the Sports section of the paper.

As a society we need to look at our citizenry and draw lines around what we find morally acceptable behavior and what we don’t. There is the exercise of one’s Second Amendment rights, and there is the abuse of those rights.

Thomas Friedman recently wrote a column about the heroic act of the father of the would-be Christmas Day bomber who alerted authorities as to the aberrant behavior of his son. He wrote that finding people with courage to confront what needs to be stopped matters most today in the battle against terrorism. Mr. Friedman pointed out that what becomes legitimate or illegitimate in a society must come from within, from a set of shared values. The center must moderate the extreme and point out behavior that is beneath responsible human behavior. So must be the case with our internal fight against gun violence and abuse.

If a citizen feels the need to have a gun for self protection, presumably a handgun would be adequate, not a semi-automatic rifle. Gun collecting is one thing-stockpiling is another. Target practice should take place at a shooting range, not in one’s backyard. And I can’t begin to understand how shooting at night could ever be acceptable.

To illustrate the last point, just last week an 8 year old Pennsylvania boy was accidentally shot and killed while raccoon hunting with his family at 10 pm at night. Raccoons apparently are most active at night so that is when raccoon hunting takes place. The adults who took that child into the woods at night should, at a minimum, be charged with recklessly endangering the welfare of a minor and perhaps, negligent homicide. But I suspect there will be no charges; it will simply be considered a hunting accident.

Part of the problem in reporting on events such as Mr. Speight’s shooting spree, can be confusion between cause and catalyst. The Times offered a possible cause saying that Mr. Speight had been distant since his mother died of cancer in 2006 and “he was increasingly angry with family members who he believed were trying to steal the farmhouse that his mother had bequeathed to him.” These are catalysts not causes. A catalyst is something that acts on an already existing set of circumstances resulting in a reaction. A cause is the underlying matter.

One doesn’t need to be a psychologist to know that the cause of Mr. Speight’s killing spree is a complex set of emotional and mental issues. Overlaid onto these issues however, is evidence of a preoccupation with violence. In a context such as this, with excessive and continuous use of guns coupled with the habitual killing of animals, all that remained was a catalyst to lead to the disaster that ensued.

While gun control organizations work diligently for better gun laws, they also tend to miss the boat on issues of violent interests and violent tendencies. While I don’t know this to be the case, I would suspect Mr. Speight was in legal compliance as to his weaponry. It isn’t-and can’t be-just about better gun laws.

Hunting and a preoccupation with guns does not of course, always indicate violence, but it can. Much of the public still buys into the imagery of the hunter as a fearless warrior full of virility, strength and self-sufficiency. And as recently pointed out in a Washington Post editorial, this imagery has served the political right well to bring an aura of strength to their candidates. But maybe it’s time to retire some of this imagery. There can also be an insidious side to hunting that should be part of the public consciousness. The desensitization that can occur from continuously killing animals coupled with a preoccupation with guns and marksmanship, can be a deadly combination. With an estimated 80% of the U.S. population now living in urban areas and only 20% in rural, what used to be considered completely acceptable, simple down home all American sport, may hopefully soon be considered dangerous, irresponsible human behavior.

Lead Ammunition

2010-01-14T04:13:00.000-08:00

Despite its known toxicity, lead is still the primary metal used to manufacture bullets. Although poisonous to both humans and wildlife, lead is the metal of choice because it is cheap, dense and malleable. It has been reported that between 400-600 tons of lead are used per day to produce ammunition and tens of billions of lead bullets are fired each year. Current research and knowledge clearly indicates that lead poses a public health risk and threatens the environment and wildlife, yet its use persists.

In 2009 researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published the results of a study conducted in North Dakota entitled Hunting with lead: Association between blood lead levels and wild game consumption. The study found that people who eat wild game shot by hunters using lead bullets have significantly higher levels of lead circulating in their blood than those who do not. Apparently the CDC results agreed with a handful of other studies that had also found lead from hunter's bullets can leach into the meat of a killed animal, and then into the blood stream of people when the meat is consumed. Elevated lead levels can impair neurological functioning and negatively affect the human nervous, circulatory and reproductive systems. Lead poisoning has been a known concern for so long that it is banned from many products such as paint, gasoline, water pipes and toys, but not bullets.

Poisoning from lead ammunition can also have serious and devastating effects on the environment and wildlife. The California Condor is a critically endangered bird species that is near extinction primarily due to lead poisoning. The condor is the largest flying bird in North America and one of the most endangered birds in the world. This bird of prey feeds on the carcasses of mammals such as elk and deer that have often been killed by hunters using lead bullets. The meat of these dead animals is laced in lead and causes eventual death to the condor. An injured or dead deer with lead bullets in it, left behind by a hunter or "field dressed" (gutted) in the woods, creates a poisonous carcass or gut pile that is consumed by condors and other animals along the food chain. Scientists, condor researchers and the California Department of Fish & Game, have all concurred with the overwhelming evidence indicating the condor species has been nearly eradicated due to lead poisoning. In addition to condors, according to a 2006 study published in Biological Conservation, 49 other species of birds worldwide have also been affected by lead from ammunition. Apparently there is so much lead left on the ground in our country's nearly 8000 recreational shooting ranges, the ranges may need to be categorized hazardous waste sites and require EPA clean-up.

Over the past few years hunting organizations have launched a self-serving public relations campaign posing public health risks while seeking to improve the image of hunting. The program encourages hunters to donate their freshly killed deer to food pantries to help provide meat for the poor. A nationwide organization called "Sportsmen Against Hunger" coordinates the effort but ignores the issue of whether the meat may be tainted with lead. While California passed legislation prohibiting hunting with lead ammunition in condor habitat, no such restriction applies to hunters elsewhere. Hunters are free to use lead ammunition to kill deer, donate the meat to a food pantry, then pat themselves on the back for their "humanitarian efforts." In fact, one of the rationales often offered to residents protesting urban and suburban deer culls, is that since the meat will be donated to food pantries, the cull serves a positive social purpose.

Some states even provide tax deductions to hunters for donated meat. In New York for example, Senator Schumer introduced legislation this past November to allow hunters to take a tax deduction for the cost of processing their game when the final product is donated. Senator Schumer's press release announcing the legislation made no mention of the potential for lead poisoning even though food pantries in North Dakota stopped accepting bullet killed deer last year when the CDC report came out. Apparently a compromise was reached in North Dakota that requires labeling on the venison stating that it can be dangerous to the the health of children and pregnant women and deer shot in the hind quarters or otherwise "shot up" will not be accepted. Senator Schumer neglected to touch on any of these issues, and instead, simply stated that his legislation was a "win-win...[that] will save hunters money and help feed the hungry..."

Foisting potentially tainted meat on the unsuspecting poor is particularly troublesome given that access to medical care is often limited for lower income households. In addition, people living in poor conditions may already have compromised immune systems. Unlike the slaughter and processing of meat sold in grocery stores and served in restaurants which must be USDA approved, food donated to pantries does not require USDA inspection. Since bullets can fragment into hundreds of pieces inside a deer (especially if the bullet hits bone), it is virtually impossible to remove all pieces of lead and its residue. And according to the CDC study "there is no clinical threshold of lead in the human body that is considered safe."

Bullets can be made of plastic or alternative metals such as copper, steel or a composite of tungsten and tin, but the hunting community and gun manufacturers are resisting this change. The reaction of hunters to the lead ammunition debate can be sampled on such websites as Field & Stream where just after the announcement that the North Dakota food pantries would resume accepting bullet shot deer, one person wrote that "Lead has been used to kill animals for as long as there has been firearms. If there was any harm or serious side effects from shooting lead bullets I think it would have surfaced before now." Another person on the website also cheered reversal of the North Dakota food pantry ban by calling the CDC study "pseudo-science crap."
And this is the constituency our political representatives feel compelled to pander to? Need I say more.

The Federal Gun Tax

2009-12-09T13:04:00.000-08:00

There is an interesting yet little known tax on guns in our country that produced about $310 million in revenue nationwide last year, and billions in total since inception. The tax is called the "Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act" and it applies to all firearms manufactured or imported including pistols, revolvers, rifles, ammunition and archery equipment.

The proceeds of the gun tax go directly to the state wildlife conservation agencies of each state. None of the funds are used for such things as victim recovery programs, violence prevention programs or general health or education of citizens; all funds are given to state wildlife agencies and used to implement conservation programs that are primarily hunting related. This somewhat odd connection between gun sales and wildlife lies in the belief that hunting is wildlife conservation and guns are manufactured for this purpose. However, that is not the case. Many guns are purchased for self-defense, law enforcement or gun collections yet all Pittman-Robertson tax revenue is sent to state wildlife agencies.

The tax rate on guns is 10% of the sale price for pistols and revolvers and 11% for all other firearms and ammunition. It is collected annually from the "manufacturer, producer or importer" of the gun and distributed to state wildlife agencies by the Department of the Interior (after keeping some as reimbursement for expenses).There is an exemption for military sales made to the defense department but otherwise the tax is quite sweeping and applies to all guns purchased for a wide variety of reasons.

According to the public filings of Smith & Wesson Corporation, one of the leading firearm manufacturers, our domestic non-military gun market is estimated to be $2.1 billion and growing. This figure includes the production of revolvers, pistols, rifles and shotguns, many of which are not used for sport hunting. In fact, according to the 2004 National Firearms Survey, 40% of the gun market is comprised of handguns (pistols and revolvers), purchased for self protection purposes. Why then do all the gun tax dollars go into state conservation agency coffers? The answer goes back to the concept discussed in my September blog; the state wildlife agency system is the brainchild of the hunting community.

In the late 1930's when the tax was adopted, gun use was primarily related to hunting and the notion was, those who benefit from the tax should be the ones shouldering the burden by paying. This is an admirable concept but the proliferation of guns today makes the original justification obsolete and patently unfair. Today hunters continue to benefit from the Pittman-Robertson tax even though they are not the only ones paying. Assuming the cost of the tax is built into the purchase price of a gun, then the general public is paying much of this tax because many guns are purchased for local law enforcement (out of general tax revenues), for personal collections and for self defense purposes.

The formula for allocating the tax money back to state wildlife agencies also serves to encourage states to seek ways to expand the sport of hunting and increase license sales (resulting in such programs as youth hunting-see my October and November blog posts). Each state is given money based on a ratio which has two components:
1. the size of the state and
2. the number of "paid hunting license holders in the state".
The more hunters the state has, the larger the portion of gun tax revenue the state will get.

These two factors are compared to the total area of all states and to the number of paid hunting license holders in the entire country. So for example, in 2008, large states which are also big hunting states like Alaska and Texas, received between $13-$14 million each, while states like Rhode Island and Delaware received just under $2 million each. New York received $8.6 million last year and all states combined received $309,686,579 in 2008.

It seems reasonable to ask whether a portion of these funds might be better spent benefiting a larger segment of society. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service there are about 12.5 million hunters in the United States-4% of the population. But there are about 60 million gun owners and a few million dollars could be invaluable to a local school district or health care clinic. This year Governor Schwarzenegger attempted to do just that when he proposed redirecting some state wildlife agency funds to other badly needed state services in an attempt to help soften California's economic meltdown. The hunting lobby quickly quashed this proposal claiming the state was jeopardizing its federal funding. The issue the lobbyists were referring to is the requirement in Pittman-Robertson that in order to be eligible to receive gun tax revenues, states must have laws prohibiting the redirection of hunting license fees for purposes other than the administration of the state wildlife agency. But the prohibition against redirecting hunting license fees does not restrict the use of the gun tax money (of which California received $10.4 million in 2008); a point that was never clarified.

Another troubling nuance of the gun tax that turns the general public into unwitting patrons of sport hunting, is the law's requirement that only 75% of any state wildlife project or program be financed by the gun tax. The state must provide the other 25% from general funds or from hunting license fees. In a number of states, hunting license fees are not adequate and general funds are used.

A fund for victims of gun violence should be an obvious part of the gun tax. For crimes committed with handguns and other non hunting weapons, a fund could be established to help the victims and their families. I'm sure the survivors and families of victims of such tragedies as the Virgina Tech and Fort Hood shootings could benefit from some financial support. There's a lot of gun tax money out there-can't we spread the wealth?

The Supreme Court and the Culpability of a Child

2009-11-18T12:26:00.000-08:00

In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that children under 18 years old cannot be subject to the death penalty for their crimes. The court is now hearing two cases asking whether children should be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole (Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida). The cases raise the difficult question of when children have the maturity to be treated as adults. In exploring this question the court is hearing arguments about the capacity of children to accept responsibility for their actions. This issue is central to the question I raised in my October blog post; when are children old enough to access guns and be taught to use them?

As pointed out in a recent New York Times article "How Old is Old Enough?", there are contradictions embedded in how we have answered this question. When looking at the ages that permit drinking, driving, watching R rated movies, working, voting, serving in the military, renting a car, joining a gym etc. there is little consistency. Is the age determined based on the notion of protecting the child or protecting others from that child? Probably a bit of both.

Why then is the age at which a child can access a gun, be taught to use it and in fact use it to kill small animals, not part of these discussions? Apparently hunting exists in its own political and social bubble. It is treated as off limits to those who don't participate in the sport and are not part of the culture. But these youth hunters are part of our society and may one day live next door, go to school or work, serve in the military or become romantically involved with our children. Opposition to hunting often focuses on animal activist sentiment however, this issue is about the human in the equation not the animal. As a member of society I am more concerned with the use and proliferation of guns than I am with the age a child smokes his first cigarette, sees his first sexy movie or gets his first job.

While the purchase of guns is restricted, their use is much less so. More than half the states in our country currently do not have a minimum age for the use of a gun in the context of hunting. Putting aside one's personal beliefs about the sport, the question remains whether a young child has the mental or emotional wherewithal to handle a loaded gun.

From reading the amicus brief submitted by the American Psychological Association in the current Supreme Court cases, it is evident that the research says juveniles do not have fully developed impulse control nor are they fully able to see the consequences of their actions and choose less risky alternatives. Perhaps these factors help explain why the 8 year old Arizona boy and the 11 year old Pennsylvania boy I discuss in my October blog post committed murder with their hunting rifles and how a 10 year old Florida boy accidentally shot and killed his 15 year old brother while duck hunting. Central to the case of the 11 year old Pennsylvania boy who took his youth model hunting rifle and killed his father's pregnant girlfriend, was the question whether the boy should stand trial as an adult.

Recent neuroscience research also shows that adolescent brains are not yet fully developed leaving children more susceptible to external influences. Young people have not formed their personal identities, they typically are under parental control and lack freedom and autonomy. Perhaps then the issue is also whether it is in the child's best interest to be exposed to guns and killing at a young age. Should this decision be solely up to the parents? The parents most probably enjoy the sport of hunting and want to pass it along to their children. Couldn't this goal be accomplished equally well by taking the children along on hunting trips but not arming them? Or maybe at most, only providing young children with blank ammunition. In the case of a youth hunter gone awry, could there be a cause of action against the parents based on the argument that the parents contributed to the delinquency of a minor? Who benefits from training young children to use guns and kill? Most probably not the child.

Teaching Children to Kill

2009-10-02T14:22:00.000-07:00

There is a movement currently sweeping through many states in our country whereby the minimum age to hunt is being reduced or eliminated so that very young children can take loaded guns into the woods and be taught to kill animals. Children are being heavily recruited to hunting in the hopes of making up for lost revenue resulting from a decrease in overall participation in the sport.

Since 2005, 28 states have changed their youth hunting laws to either substantially reduce minimum age requirements or completely eliminate them. 30 states currently do not have any minimum age whatsoever, although often the youngest children need to be accompanied by a licensed hunter. Texas for example, permits children under the age of 9 to hunt accompanied by a licensed hunter who needs to be at least 17 years old. In many states children as young as 5 and 6 can take a gun and start shooting squirrels, rabbits and raccoons. These are not simply opportunities for adults to bring their children along on hunting trips, or teach them to shoot a gun using a bulls eye or clay pigeon. These children are using real guns and learning to kill live animals.

It is unlikely that young children are emotionally or psychologically capable of understanding the irreversibility of death nor mentally equipped to cause it. About a year before the well known Columbine murders, a school shooting in Arkansas was carried out by an 11 year old boy and his 13 year old friend. The boys took their fathers’ hunting rifles and killed 4 classmates and a teacher. It was reported that the 11 year old had been taught to hunt while he was still in diapers and had shot several dogs in preparation for the school shooting. More recently an 11 year old Pennsylvania boy took the hunting rifle his father bought him for Christmas and shot and killed his father’s pregnant girlfriend. Three months earlier an 8 year old child from Arizona took the .22 caliber rifle he used to shoot prairie dogs and shot and killed his father and a co-worker.

How our country arrived at this disturbing place where very young children are taught to use guns to kill, is a case study on the power of a few special interest groups working together while the general public and media appear oblivious. Our youth hunting laws are usually the product of our state wildlife agencies working together with their hunting partners and cooperating gun manufacturers. In response to a growing concern about diminishing hunter participation and worries about their ability to increase participation in the sport, hunting groups have developed programs to recruit women and children.

For example, in 2005 a program called “Families Afield” was launched by a sport hunting coalition with the stated mission of lowering age barriers to youth hunting. Minimum age requirements were overturned so adults could provide children with opportunities to shoot live bait with loaded guns. Gun manufacturers hopped on board by making pink guns for ladies and light weight child size guns for kids. Since our state wildlife conservation system is funded by the hunting community (see my September 2009 blog post), youth hunting is encouraged by the state. Most, and in some cases all, of state wildlife agency budgets are met by hunting license fees (including revenue from these new youth hunting licenses), and from revenue derived from a federal gun tax. (A further incentive for the state to expand their "youth hunters" is that the federal gun tax revenues are apportioned back to the states based in part, on the number of paid license holders in the state-more license holders, more money.) Essentially, our state wildlife system is funded by the hunting community and that is why youth hunting is encouraged by state wildlife conservation agencies.

Youth hunting proponents argue that putting a gun in a child’s hand at a young age and teaching him to use it is no different than putting a tennis racket, golf club or baseball mitt in his hand and teaching him to play tennis, golf or baseball. The obvious difference is the lethal nature of the gun as “sport equipment”. Even with hunter education (which often is not required for young children because they don't yet read well enough to understand the hunter education materials), accidents happen-but of a deadly nature. Such was the case in Virginia this year where an 11 year old boy was killed by his 13 year old friend while returning from coyote hunting, in Florida where a 15 year old boy was killed by his 13 year old brother while duck hunting and in Georgia this month where an 11 year old boy killed himself when his gun accidentally discharged shooting himself in the head.

The gun lobby will push their Second Amendment argument claiming that the right of all citizens to arm themselves covers youth hunting. But tying this right to children would be absurd. The Supreme Court in its recent decision discussing the Second Amendment (Heller vs. U.S.), noted that like most rights, the right to bear arms is "not unlimited." Certainly, a reasonable limit is that young children not be allowed to access dangerous weapons or taught to use them. Youth hunting is not an extension of our Second Amendment right to self-defense, it is the exploitation of children to enhance the adult objective of securing the financial future of sport hunting.

The Arizona murder case illustrates the questionable mental capacity of children to engage in life and death activities. A plea bargain for the 8 year old boy was negotiated due to questions about the requisite mental capacity of a child that age. If the child couldn’t understand the implications of his actions after the gun caused death, what would be the basis for assuming he understood it before? Apparently a judge in Washington, where there is no age limit on hunting, agrees that the capacity of youngsters to fully comprehend the danger of guns is questionable. The judge upheld a mother’s request for a restraining order stopping her ex-husband from allowing their 9 year old son from keeping a shotgun that the father had purchased for him.

As a society we already impose numerous age appropriate limits on behavior we consider the exclusive purview of adults. Our movie rating system doesn't allow children under certain ages to see movies due to violent or sexual content-regardless of parent wishes. This is also the case with the consumption of liquor, the purchase of cigarettes and driving a car. Most states also have child labor laws restricting work considered unsafe or inappropriate for children such as working with knives or painting the exterior of a house. However, when killing is taught under the guise of "sport" it somehow becomes acceptable...or does it? Teaching children to kill should be a concern to us all; these children may end up in the same school or workplace as our children one day.

The Structure of our State Wildlife Agency System

2009-09-25T08:12:00.000-07:00

The state agencies in charge of conserving and protecting our wildlife are funded almost entirely by fees and taxes paid by hunters and gun manufacturers. As would then naturally be the case, at the heart of almost all wildlife conservation policies are the interests of the hunting and gun buying public.

This relationship between wildlife conservation and hunting (perhaps today an oxymoron), made sense when it began over 70 years ago. In the 1930's FDR and a group of fellow hunters became concerned about the effects of unregulated and unchecked hunting. The state wildlife agency system was born and given the power to manage and conserve the wildlife of each state. The original purpose of each state agency was to limit hunting and thus "conserve" wildlife so there would continue to be a plentiful supply of game for hunting well into the future. Funding was put into place from hunter license fees and an excise tax on the sale of guns, ammunition and archery equipment (the "Pittman-Robertson Act"). This funding structure persists today virtually unchanged. Most, and in some cases all, the money used to meet state wildlife conservation agency budgets is from hunting license fees and the federal gun tax.

Some say we may have a system gone awry. Deer for example, the main object of hunter interest, are populating our urban and suburban landscapes in numbers that many find disturbing. According to the book "Restoring America's Wildlife" published by the US Dept of the Interior, beginning with an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 deer at the turn of the century, wildlife managers worked to increase deer numbers by capturing and restocking herds in unpopulated places, planning burns and clear cutting timber to enhance habitat, conducting predation control programs and supplementing food supplies with grasses and clover during critical winter months. By 1987 the deer herd had grown to about 14 million and it is reported that an astounding 30 million deer are estimated to inhabit our forests, roadways and backyards today.

Hunting in and of itself may be contributing to deer overpopulation yet the state agencies advocate "culling" or killing programs in suburban communities to combat the deer population issue. The biological phenomena of compensatory rebound occurs when a portion of a deer herd is suddenly killed. The sudden drop in deer density leaves a greater food supply for the remaining deer who eat well and reproduce mightily thus yielding potentially more deer than initially existed. Deer will produce twins and even triplets more frequently and will give birth at younger ages after a hunt. The available food supply will also cause new deer to migrate to the area.

The state wildlife agencies that sponsored programs to increase the deer population in the first place are the ones entrusted now to decrease it, yet their solution is often more hunting. When communities are grappling with a deer population issue, the state wildlife officials support the hunting option-hands down. I know of no community where that hasn't been the case.

There is a lack of attention on the structure of state wildlife agencies. The fact that they are still in full control of our wildlife conservation programs yet almost entirely funded by the hunting public, has yet to be seriously examined or challenged.