ducing Deer Populations For Healthy Forests And People
June 2, 2008
I’ve talked some about his subject from a couple different perspectives. In Pennsylvania, the state is in the middle of a major deer population reduction in order to regrow the forests. According to reports from studies and officials, there are areas where too many deer have destroyed the natural under story of the forest allowing for growth of invasive plant species.
In Connecticut, some areas are battling Lyme disease brought on by too many deer that carry the tick that causes the disease. In both these cases, the solution seems to be to reduce the deer population in order to accomplish one or both, of two tasks.
Dr. Emile DeVito, a conservation ecologist and Manager of Science and Stewardship for the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, has an article in the New York Times about similar forest destruction problems in New York and New Jersey by deer. He offers solutions to the problem, one of which being a drastic reduction of the deer population and utilizing the efforts of hunters.
DeVito says that there are too many deer to count and nothing left of plants to survey, so any money to study and count would be a waste. He calls for population numbers to be dropped to around 5 deer per square mile, claiming this number is necessary in order to allow for the forests to regenerate.
These are very low numbers when you begin presenting them to deer biologists, depending on region and carrying capacities, and you’re sure to get some heated responses from deer hunters, as we have witnessed in Pennsylvania.
Last week I wrote an article about how it appeared that Pennsylvania was tearing down its deer herd in order to build it back up again. In that article, I asked the following question.
I don’t have all the details obviously but if the 10-year effort was to reduce the deer population to 15 per square mile, a number that many wildlife biologists would consider reasonable, in order to regrow the forest and sustain a healthier deer population, why are they looking to rebuild it?
Reader Willard responded to my question about why the state would first advocate for knocking deer population numbers down to around 15 per square mile, only to bump them back up to 20 per square mile once the forests have regenerated.
…..he means that once the habitat has recovered from the severe over browsing that it should then be capable of supporting a larger number of deer than 15 per square mile.
According to DeVito’s article, it sounds as though reader Willard is exactly right.
All nonprofit environmental groups, government agencies, sportsman clubs, farmers, professional foresters and community groups need to work together to reduce the regional deer population to a biodiversity-based carrying capacity, which must initially be significantly lower than 10 deer per square mile, but could be boosted to about 20 per square mile when the forest is once again filled with tree seedlings and saplings, a dense shrub layer, and a forest floor carpeted with wildflowers!
This sounds as though it could be a great opportunity for hunters and hunting clubs, to work more closely with farmers, landowners, community and state governments to provide more hunting opportunities now and into the future to help restore damaged forests and to help stop the spread of diseases such as Lyme.
But here’s the million dollar question. Mr. DeVito advocates for the use of hunting in places where feasible to achieve the reduction of the deer population. Being that he is a member of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, which basically buys up land to preserve and limits it to mostly hiking and bird watching, would the NJCF advocate for the use of hunting on their “preserves” when certain game species become too abundant?
Tom Remington