Audubon on Whitetails

[mike rossi]

This article was published in 2005 by the Audubon Society; however it is not outdated. 

 

 

http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0507.html

 

Edited May 12, 2015 by mike rossi

[mike rossi]

Not sure what happened to my poll, oh well.... 

[Doc]

What an interesting article. Thanks for the link. It may not be a viewpoint that is very popular here, but it is always interesting to get other viewpoints. It gives you something to think about. I think as habitat continues to fill in and mature, this argument will take on more and more credibility. But, we are likely talking many, many decades before conditions advance to the point where there is any serious public appreciation for all of this.

[Buckstopshere]

I remember back in 2005 (when the article was written,) two years after Antler Restrictions were made mandatory in Pa. for historical context. Many of us, if not completely sold on the idea, thought mandatory AR's were worth a shot. Alt seemed to know what he was talking about (I attended one of his presentations and have his vhs video.) And the article is right, in that context that Alt "could sell ice to eskimos." But now, with the collapse of the Pa. deer herd 15 years later (from over 500,000 deer harvested in 2002 in Pa. to barely 300,000 last season, none of us saw that coming. But now, the cat is out of the bag. AR's are an elaborate deer reduction campaign by business (timber-farming) interests, supported by environmental hyperbole like the above article.

And one other thing concerning the Ivory billed woodpecker reference (used as an example for expanding nature center funding in the article.) The species is listed as critically endangered and possibly extinct by the International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The American Birding Association (ABA) lists the ivory-billed woodpecker as a Class 6 species, a category the ABA defines as "definitely or probably extinct."

Edited May 13, 2015 by Buckstopshere

[Curmudgeon]

Thanks Mike. The need to keep deer numbers in check helps generate support for hunting by non-hunters - whether these people are concerned with birds or their shrubbery.

 

 

[dbHunterNY]

a deer eats between 1 - 1.5 ton of forage each year.  most of a deer's diet is browse, not corn or your food plot.  no consider many will get all bent in my area if they haven't seen at least 10 deer while in a morning or afternoon, and some expect even more.  we'll assume maybe 2 are bucks if your lucky and so just to keep the herd stable and not growing you should shoot 2 of those deer that are doe at a minimum (25%).  now say you feel there should be more and the population isn't out of control too much yet so none of those deer or there offspring die.  a couple years down the road you'd have additional forage consumption that shouldn't have been happening.  now make a conservative educated assumption half - third of fawns are bucks that eat will eventually eat more, half adult doe are having one fawn, and other half having twins.  now you've got easily 14.5-15 ton of additional forage, per year, being consumed in your area near your little hunting heaven.  that's double what the it should be, in just a couple years of being safe and "looking out for the deer".  let's now put that 30 TON of forage into perspective....
 

- 180 square bales from a farmer's nearby alfalfa field (3 ton)

- 228,000 morel mushrooms (1 ton)

- 1.25 billion black locust seeds (2 ton)

- 24,000 apples from your tree in your back yard and woods (and maybe a nearby orchard) (2 ton)

- 3,000,000 oak acorns (10 ton)

- 4,800 quarts of blackberries (2 ton)

- 19.5 million kernels of corn (5 ton)

...ok I quit.... add another 5 ton of leafy green browse around your stand if it's there and we'll call the yearly feast complete. lol 

 

it adds up fast and it takes much longer to grow back habitat then it does to grow back the deer herd.  I don't think deer are a plague but I do think we ARE a part of the ecosystem and should do our part.  besides mother nature is much more cruel compared to a bullet or broadhead.

Edited May 13, 2015 by dbHunterNY

[dbHunterNY]

Thanks Mike. The need to keep deer numbers in check helps generate support for hunting by non-hunters - whether these people are concerned with birds or their shrubbery.

 

here around Albany it's "save the deer!" and then they hit one with their Mercedes or BMW and it turns into "kill them all!"  When hunting Pine Bush Preserve I've been surprised at the acceptance of hunters.  I've passed and greeted hikers on the way out or in and they're surprised to see me but I can hear them start going over reasons i probably should be there, after they've passed by.  also I've had individuals pull up in the parking lot, initially thinking "oh boy here we go", and then to my surprise they tell me where they've seen the most tracks crossing hiking trails and wish me luck.  some understand and others don't but reasons that go beyond are needs as hunters always help.

[mike rossi]

I think the author was artful and tricky the way he justified (tolerance) of deer hunting while layering it with negative innuendo about hunters, the political influence of deer hunters, and negativity about other forms of hunting.... (Including, but not limited to, the comment about "a baited mourning dove shoot" - which FYI is prohibited by both federal and state law)... Some call that political correctness considering his readership, but if you explained things that way to your children or to  students it is called something else... Whether that tone reflected his personal viewpoint or not, he should have been more professional in getting his message across. 

 

Speaking of professional, his information was good enough, but he was not entirely accurate. Also, although "story telling" is considered a communication skill, I think he took the story telling a little too far as well, including his comments about Alt... 

 

 

[Curmudgeon]

There is a reason Williams column was called "Incite". Sometimes he seems to be just trying to provoke but he often hits the target dead on. Check this stuff out.

 

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/the-conservationist/sportsmen-and-environmentalists-together-politically-an-unstoppable

 

http://10000birds.com/why-did-the-national-audubon-society-end-their-contract-with-ted-williams.htm

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/business/media/ted-williams-audubon-columnist-is-reinstated.html?_r=0

 

http://troutunderground.com/tag/ted-williams/

 

http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite1011.html

[mike rossi]

There is a reason Williams column was called "Incite". Sometimes he seems to be just trying to provoke but he often hits the target dead on. Check this stuff out.

 

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/the-conservationist/sportsmen-and-environmentalists-together-politically-an-unstoppable

 

http://10000birds.com/why-did-the-national-audubon-society-end-their-contract-with-ted-williams.htm

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/business/media/ted-williams-audubon-columnist-is-reinstated.html?_r=0

 

http://troutunderground.com/tag/ted-williams/

 

http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite1011.html

 

I don't think he is the only journalist whose column can be titled "INCITE."  He really did a bang up job on this one though. 

[wildcat junkie]

And the article is right, in that context that Alt "could sell ice to eskimos." But now, with the collapse of the Pa. deer herd 15 years later (from over 500,000 deer harvested in 2002 in Pa. to barely 300,000 last season, none of us saw that coming.

Barely 300,000? You got to be kidding me. Illinois had a total harvest of just under 145,000 last year.

[mike rossi]

There is a reason Williams column was called "Incite". Sometimes he seems to be just trying to provoke but he often hits the target dead on. Check this stuff out.

 

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/the-conservationist/sportsmen-and-environmentalists-together-politically-an-unstoppable

 

http://10000birds.com/why-did-the-national-audubon-society-end-their-contract-with-ted-williams.htm

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/business/media/ted-williams-audubon-columnist-is-reinstated.html?_r=0

 

http://troutunderground.com/tag/ted-williams/

 

http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite1011.html

 

And, I did read the above links. I find it interesting that Audubon fired him (or stopped buying his free lance writing) because of the house cat piece, but was fine and continues to be fine, with implied negativity about not only hunting, but hunters themselves.

 

Another thing that is interesting, is that Audubon has indeed made statements favoring the control of feral and/or free ranging cats. I agree, however, Williams went overboard, recommending a euthanasia cocktail of Tylenol, which was not only unnecessary to get the message across, but out of his area of expertise. I probably agree with Audubon that he has been over the top, I dont understand however, why did their editor allow such to be published. Seems they rely on comment from their readership to be the editor after the fact. That might be indicative of the Audubon Societies MO to be politically correct. If you please the majority of the people, you are not being scientific, fact of life. Leave the people pleasing to the politicians, just the facts please....  I wonder how Williams did as information officer for Massachusetts DNR (DEC)....