Latest blog entry from Susie – “Jennifer Lawrence: Kim Davis 'makes me embarrassed to be from Kentucky' … Oh, Jennifer, I know the feeling. And good for you for speaking up! Likewise, I am embarrassed to hail from a state which sanctions the slaughter of deer in 14 state parks during the month of ‘Thanksgiving’ to preserve some flowers. Annually.” Read more: https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/9400733-can-we-all-be-more-like-jennifer-lawrence-and-the-pope-please
Kim Davis and lots of other folks make me sometimes embarrassed to be from Kentucky. On the deer issue though... There are so many deer here (and I assume in Indiana state parks) and so few natural predators that they are a legitimate hazard to driving. If they were not subject to some population control, it is very likely large numbers would starve in winter. Which solution is more kind? And folks seem disinclined to reintroduce predators that would keep the exploding population in check without direct human intervention.
I saw reintroduce the natural predators. We have messed up the ecosystem with our meddling - so what makes us think we know what we are doing with culling? If we hadn't already meddled, we wouldn't feel the need. I also have serious doubts about the line we've been fed from the DNR on this issue. I don't believe they are the problem we've all been led to believe. There are cheap devices we can put on each and every car that scare deer away.
There is a value to that and it does seem to have a positive effect on the environment. Check out wolves and Yellowstone park as a case study. That said, it's also important to note that just like the deer population would need to be kept in check, so would any predator population. States in the midwest (where deer are a problem) are not like Yellowstone in Wyoming. There are many more urban areas and a much denser human population. Public safety is a huge factor and having sensationalist articles about how a pack of wolves have torn up the some familiy's beloved dog will only hurt their image, not help. Well we did meddle. Now deer are a problem. Now we're meddling more to fix it. Hunting helps. Not only does hunting help to control the deer population, but the money raised from hunting also helps to fund conservation. Okay, well, you're probably wrong. Sorry. They arguably don't work. Sorry.I saw reintroduce the natural predators.
If we hadn't already meddled, we wouldn't feel the need.
I don't believe they are the problem we've all been led to believe.
There are cheap devices we can put on each and every car that scare deer away.
Cars aren't the main problem really. An overpopulation of deer puts a strain on the local ecosystem that nature cannot cope with. A given area of vegetation can support a given amount of herbivores, whose population is naturally checked to near the given amount by predators. Since humans 'meddled' by killing of top predators, there are now more deer across most of the U.S. than the vegetation can support. Unchecked, the deer would strip the vegetation, causing long term ecosystem damage. Also, less food means weaker deer, who would be less likely to survive the winter. Due to the 'meddling' humans took the place of the top predator, and should we stop checking the herbivore population, ecosystems would be changed drastically as vegetation and deer populations plummet.
They even strip the bark from young trees here in winter. Lots more coyotes/hybrids here now too despite it being open season on them year round. And while not the primary problem, everyone I know has had collisions with deer here. There are just too many. They dart out of woods right into traffic. On country roads, attentive and slow driving with your hand on the horn can help. But they often cross busy highways with predictable results.
We are having fun killing deer with the culling. If we hadn't already meddled than we wouldn't need to kill the deer. OK? But we did meddle, and we can kill deer now, while keeping the environment pretty decent, why not? And why reintroduce predators that will kill livestock, have the potential to harm humans, to kill pets, and so on, when humans can do the job, and do it without anyone actually paying money to have it done? How about "we can kill deer for fun, and it doesn't hurt the environment, so why not?" I don't think it's the cars that the deer will hurt must if their population grows out of check. Secondly, those devices do not always work.I also have serious doubts about the line we've been fed from the DNR on this issue.
There are cheap devices we can put on each and every car that scare deer away.