New York declares war on Deer -bout time

Deer populations get out of hand quickly. Alabama has a whitetail population of around 1.5 million head. Wildlife biologists say roughly 500,000 need to be culled annually to maintain a healthy, stable herd.

The difference is, with the extra taxes and fees that hunters pay, Alabama makes money off the population control. The same with most other states.

$3k a head for birth control?? LMAO!

New York State has an estimated population of 7 million deer. Cities like NYC shun hunting, hunters and their paraphernalia. According to the new SNAP law Cuomo is also imposing draconian laws for possession of firearms throughout the state along with the non-availability of ammunition.
 
Sorry to burst all of you all's ideas of deer population control, but...

Hunting actually spurs the growth of the herds. By removing competition for food sources Mother Nature concludes there is ample food for increased numbers and she sends the message to all the would-be deer parents that the green light is lit to GO forth and re-populate.

Therefore, hunting increases deer numbers.

The best way to reduce the herd is to let Mother Nature do it.

It might take a season or two for their numbers to diminish naturally, but that's the only sure way to do it.

And the funny thing is that the game wardens and those folks understand this dynamic.

Maybe they are trying to just get hunting introduced in that county. It is a great thing for those hunters living in and around that area. They won't have to drive as far to get some meat and their hunting groove on.

Here, I found this to substantiate my, admittedly, counter-intuitive claim.

A text titled "Wildlife Ecology and Management" by William Robinson states quite clearly:

"The general theory of harvesting animals is based on the premise that when animals are not harvested at all, growth and recruitment are balanced by natural mortality and that the average growth rate of a population at its carrying capacity is zero. Harvesting reduces the population size, but the reduction results in an increase in the growth rate of the population. This increase in growth rate is brought about because of higher birth rates and lower death rates resulting from decreased competition for resources. This increased growth rate provides a surplus of individuals above the number required to replace the population, and this surplus can be harvested."​

Hunting only lowers deer numbers on a temporary basis. A study by Richter & Labisky, "Reproductive Dynamics and Disjunct White-tailed Deer Herds in Florida," in The Journal of Wildlife Management, determined that the "incidence of twinning was 38% on hunted herds and 14% on nonhunted sites."

Hunting serves no purpose other than to provide hunters with game, the DEP with funding, and residents with a feeling that "something" is being done about deer numbers, while ensuring that those numbers will replenish by the next hunting season, ad infinitum.

That's why, according to the FCMDMA, even after a concerted effort of killing deer for so many years, populations have not decreased. Their solution would be to hire sharpshooters who are more efficient than recreational hunters, erroneously citing Harvard's Andrew Spielman as supporting a 10-12 deer population per square mile, claiming that Lyme disease would be eliminated.

Hunting has increased deer population, not reduced it - GreenwichTime
 
Last edited:
Sorry to burst all of you all's ideas of deer population control, but...

Hunting actually spurs the growth of the herds. By removing competition for food sources Mother Nature concludes there is ample food for increased numbers and she sends the message to all the would-be deer parents that the green light is lit to GO forth and re-populate.

Therefore, hunting increases deer numbers.

The best way to reduce the herd is to let Mother Nature do it.

It might take a season or two for their numbers to diminish naturally, but that's the only sure way to do it.

And the funny thing is that the game wardens and those folks understand this dynamic.

Maybe they are trying to just get hunting introduced in that county. It is a great thing for those hunters living in and around that area. They won't have to drive as far to get some meat and their hunting groove on.

Here, I found this to substantiate my, admittedly, counter-intuitive claim.

A text titled "Wildlife Ecology and Management" by William Robinson states quite clearly:

"The general theory of harvesting animals is based on the premise that when animals are not harvested at all, growth and recruitment are balanced by natural mortality and that the average growth rate of a population at its carrying capacity is zero. Harvesting reduces the population size, but the reduction results in an increase in the growth rate of the population. This increase in growth rate is brought about because of higher birth rates and lower death rates resulting from decreased competition for resources. This increased growth rate provides a surplus of individuals above the number required to replace the population, and this surplus can be harvested."​

Hunting only lowers deer numbers on a temporary basis. A study by Richter & Labisky, "Reproductive Dynamics and Disjunct White-tailed Deer Herds in Florida," in The Journal of Wildlife Management, determined that the "incidence of twinning was 38% on hunted herds and 14% on nonhunted sites."

Hunting serves no purpose other than to provide hunters with game, the DEP with funding, and residents with a feeling that "something" is being done about deer numbers, while ensuring that those numbers will replenish by the next hunting season, ad infinitum.

That's why, according to the FCMDMA, even after a concerted effort of killing deer for so many years, populations have not decreased. Their solution would be to hire sharpshooters who are more efficient than recreational hunters, erroneously citing Harvard's Andrew Spielman as supporting a 10-12 deer population per square mile, claiming that Lyme disease would be eliminated.

Hunting has increased deer population, not reduced it - GreenwichTime

hunting probably

this is eradicating the deer

during this season

one can shoot up to 30 deer

looks like they plan to cut some numbers
 
Sorry to burst all of you all's ideas of deer population control, but...

Hunting actually spurs the growth of the herds. By removing competition for food sources Mother Nature concludes there is ample food for increased numbers and she sends the message to all the would-be deer parents that the green light is lit to GO forth and re-populate.

Therefore, hunting increases deer numbers.

The best way to reduce the herd is to let Mother Nature do it.

It might take a season or two for their numbers to diminish naturally, but that's the only sure way to do it.

And the funny thing is that the game wardens and those folks understand this dynamic.

Maybe they are trying to just get hunting introduced in that county. It is a great thing for those hunters living in and around that area. They won't have to drive as far to get some meat and their hunting groove on.

Here, I found this to substantiate my, admittedly, counter-intuitive claim.

A text titled "Wildlife Ecology and Management" by William Robinson states quite clearly:

"The general theory of harvesting animals is based on the premise that when animals are not harvested at all, growth and recruitment are balanced by natural mortality and that the average growth rate of a population at its carrying capacity is zero. Harvesting reduces the population size, but the reduction results in an increase in the growth rate of the population. This increase in growth rate is brought about because of higher birth rates and lower death rates resulting from decreased competition for resources. This increased growth rate provides a surplus of individuals above the number required to replace the population, and this surplus can be harvested."​

Hunting only lowers deer numbers on a temporary basis. A study by Richter & Labisky, "Reproductive Dynamics and Disjunct White-tailed Deer Herds in Florida," in The Journal of Wildlife Management, determined that the "incidence of twinning was 38% on hunted herds and 14% on nonhunted sites."

Hunting serves no purpose other than to provide hunters with game, the DEP with funding, and residents with a feeling that "something" is being done about deer numbers, while ensuring that those numbers will replenish by the next hunting season, ad infinitum.

That's why, according to the FCMDMA, even after a concerted effort of killing deer for so many years, populations have not decreased. Their solution would be to hire sharpshooters who are more efficient than recreational hunters, erroneously citing Harvard's Andrew Spielman as supporting a 10-12 deer population per square mile, claiming that Lyme disease would be eliminated.

Hunting has increased deer population, not reduced it - GreenwichTime

If, and that's a big 'IF', the referenced research is true, there would still be serious destruction to the ecosystem when one herbivore no longer had any predation. Yes, the population would only expand so far. But the limiting factor would be starvation. Before they starve they would destroy a huge portion of wilderness.

Oh, and even if (still a big 'IF') the above referenced research is valid, hunters do, in fact, provide. In NY the provide something like $35million in extra fees and taxes. Most of that goes into conservation coffers.
 
If you're not gonna eat it you shouldn't shoot it.

That is a good rule, with the exception of those who shoot coyote. I'm not eating a coyote. But they do need to be kept in check.

Otherwise, they keep leaving their big wooden ACME boxes lying all over the place.

Warner-Bros.-reveals-the-Looney-Tunes-ACME-warehouse.jpg


I'm in an "animated" mood this morning.
 
you can shoot 30 deer during this special hunt btw

they must have one heck a problem

There is a very large problem,I can't hardly believe all the tree huggers in Ithaca would go for this,guess they are finally tired of fixing their cars and replacing their shrubs
 
Deer populations get out of hand quickly. Alabama has a whitetail population of around 1.5 million head. Wildlife biologists say roughly 500,000 need to be culled annually to maintain a healthy, stable herd.

The difference is, with the extra taxes and fees that hunters pay, Alabama makes money off the population control. The same with most other states.

$3k a head for birth control?? LMAO!

New York State has an estimated population of 7 million deer. Cities like NYC shun hunting, hunters and their paraphernalia. According to the new SNAP law Cuomo is also imposing draconian laws for possession of firearms throughout the state along with the non-availability of ammunition.



Yeah.....I live here and this state is slowly becoming a Jonestown thanks to the idea's of the k00k left. As of yesterday, ordering ammo on the internet is not an option. Brilliant.:lol:
 
Until I was fourteen years old, I ate far more venison than beef. Prepared right, it is not gamey, unless you are stupid enough to shoot a buck in rutting season. There was a special agricultural season in Montana not long ago, seven deer allowed per hunter. One of my cousins and four freinds got 32 deer. Dressed them out, had a truck with a cooler, and took one for each family, the rest went for the families in their churches that were having a rough time of it.

If they are going to have that many allowed per hunter, there should be some rules specifiing that the meat not be wasted, and go to where it is needed. And the deer population can get rapidly out of control. I really don't think bringing in cougers and wolves into areas of fairly high population density is a reasonable solution. And cayotes are not going to take deer except in a starvation winter. Too dangerous for them, they are not large animals at all.

As for sport hunting, never saw the sport of killing an animal with a weapon that can shoot farther than they can identify you. But hunting for meat is quite a differant matter. And, prepared right, I prefer venison above any other meat I have had so far.
 
Deer populations get out of hand quickly. Alabama has a whitetail population of around 1.5 million head. Wildlife biologists say roughly 500,000 need to be culled annually to maintain a healthy, stable herd.

The difference is, with the extra taxes and fees that hunters pay, Alabama makes money off the population control. The same with most other states.

$3k a head for birth control?? LMAO!

New York State has an estimated population of 7 million deer. Cities like NYC shun hunting, hunters and their paraphernalia. According to the new SNAP law Cuomo is also imposing draconian laws for possession of firearms throughout the state along with the non-availability of ammunition.



Yeah.....I live here and this state is slowly becoming a Jonestown thanks to the idea's of the k00k left. As of yesterday, ordering ammo on the internet is not an option. Brilliant.:lol:

That is a good thing.
 
New York State has an estimated population of 7 million deer. Cities like NYC shun hunting, hunters and their paraphernalia. According to the new SNAP law Cuomo is also imposing draconian laws for possession of firearms throughout the state along with the non-availability of ammunition.



Yeah.....I live here and this state is slowly becoming a Jonestown thanks to the idea's of the k00k left. As of yesterday, ordering ammo on the internet is not an option. Brilliant.:lol:

That is a good thing.




Not for me Ray........now I have to go to smaller gun shops and pay more and who knows if the place has what I need? So maybe IM driving all over Long Island here. Places like Dicks and Walmart have crappy selections. Ultimately though, I'll get what I need, which is why this is so stoopid.


I gotta PM you Ray......chat about this venecin. Never had it but now am curious.
 
The problem is that the DEER have invaded the suburbs.

Or more realistically the suburbs have invaded the wilderness.

So you can't really hunt the deer because they're in your backyard.

And wolves wouldn't solve that because wolves are not dumb enough to be around mankind if they can possible avoid it.

The problem isn't too many deer, its too many suburbs.
 
Lemme see if I've got this straight. Lefty clowns have no problem whatsoever killing innocent babies, but when it comes to solving an out-of-control deer population their first thought, rather than killing some deer, was to instead provide birth control to wild animals?

Is that essentially it? If so, beam me up, Scotty!
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top