Killing more deer is not the answer - Deer Hunting Forums

Go Back   Deer Hunting Forums > General Forums > The Lodge
The Lodge Meet other hunters and share hunting stories, tips, and tricks.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-07-2008, 08:40 PM
DNR_guy DNR_guy is offline
Scrub Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2
Default Killing more deer is not the answer

I've been reading this site for many months now and thought I would contribute an article I just read on preventing lime disease through deer hunting. It's an opinion piece I found at newstimes.com that I don't really agree with. I'll let you read it and tell me what you think.

Letter: Killing more deer is not the answer


Article Last Updated: 03/31/2008 06:15:32 AM EDT

The Connecticut legislature will soon be voting on HB 5852 (An Act Concerning the Control of Lyme Disease). It would greatly expand deer hunting, under the guise of preventing Lyme disease.
Advocates for killing deer to "eradicate" Lyme disease are using outdated information. A simplistic deer-mouse-Lyme disease computer model from the early 1990s has been repudiated by several peer-reviewed researchers. They now recognize that the Lyme disease vector is extremely complex with many variables.
The Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies has found that fragmentation of the forest by land development reduces vertebrate biodiversity. As a result, risk of human exposure to Lyme disease infected ticks is increased.
Climate change has amplified the incidence of vector-borne diseases, including Lyme disease. The World Health Organization found that climate change since the mid-1970s has significantly impacted human health throughout the planet. Lyme disease was first diagnosed in Connecticut during that time period.
Entomologists from Cornell's Long Island Horticulture Research and Extension Center concluded that reducing deer on islands does not eliminate ticks. Studies on Shelter Island, where hunting has gone on for years, have shown no reduction of Lyme disease. In fact, Lyme incidence in Suffolk County has almost doubled between 2003 and 2005. DEP and Department of Health 2006 data show there is no relationship between deer numbers and Lyme disease rates.

Fairfield County: deer density of 29.4 per square mile; Lyme disease incidence rate is 40 cases per 100,000 population.
Windham County: deer density of 28.7 per square mile; Lyme disease incidence rate is 135 cases per 100,000 population.
Contrary to the assertions of deer-killing proponents, more deer equaling more Lyme disease is false.
Tell your state representatives that HB 5852 should reflect real scientific methods for combating Lyme disease, and not expanded hunting.
Lynn M. Gorfinkle REDDING

I think it would certainly help along with over population, deer/car accidents, etc. This debate reminds me of the baiting deer controversy, in relation to trying to stop disease. What do ya'll think about this opinion piece?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 04-07-2008, 09:37 PM
Turtle Turtle is offline
B&C 120 Class
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 389
Default

I agree the disease is more frequent in mice, squirrels and small game than deer and you can't wipe them all out. It's transmitted mainly by the black legged tick that's what needs to be controlled. If the deer have lime disease you can't get it from eating them and they can only pass it along at birth no other way to pass it on except ticks.


Go to here and perhaps you'll see my point

DVBID: Transmission | CDC Lyme Disease

If there is over population then that's a different matter but increased deer hunting based solely on the control of lyme disease is ridiculous IMO.

Last edited by Turtle; 04-08-2008 at 05:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 04-08-2008, 07:08 AM
BruceBruce1959's Avatar
BruceBruce1959 BruceBruce1959 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 5,414
Default

Looks like the Connecticut DNR is using Lyme disease as a Scare tactic to try and convince the majority that killing off more Deer is the solution to reducing Lyme disease cases.
There's probably a concern with Deer over-populating an area and sometimes those so-called experts will try to use scare Tactics in the media as a smoke screen, while they gather enough votes to enact whatever it is they're trying to impose. (In this case it looks like they're trying to increase the Deer kill)
My guess is they tried to reduce the herd at some point and didnt get enough support from the hunting community so now they're going to try and get votes from people who wouldn't usually vote on such issues. It's sad but in most cases the scare tactic usually works for the experts but only because the non-hunting voters are usually Ill informed and dont understand the real situation...
__________________
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.
-Benjamin Franklin

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 04-08-2008, 08:20 AM
muleskinner muleskinner is offline
B&C 100 Class
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 138
Thumbs up

Good reply Bruce; that is exactly what I was thinking while reading the article.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 04-08-2008, 09:38 AM
Buckshot's Avatar
Buckshot Buckshot is offline
B&C 160 Class
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 1,219
Default

There is not a whole lot of difference between a density of 29.4 and 28.7, which seem to be good densities to me. I wonder what the target density is, 25? Is that going to make that much difference?

I understand the desire to control lyme but to base you herd management plan on a disease I think is questionable. I wonder who is pushing this legislation. I doubt if it is the DNR and is probably some well intentioned but misguided legislator. Which is the problem when hunting and fishing are regulated by the state legislature.

I like our set up in Tennessee where the agency only answers to the commission which is separate from state government. All the decisions are made by the biologist without the politics.

Last edited by Buckshot; 04-08-2008 at 01:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 04-08-2008, 09:57 AM
jay.robinson15 jay.robinson15 is offline
Scrub Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 27
Default

I like that set up too. I think I might want to move to Tennessee. It sounds more logical.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 04-08-2008, 12:19 PM
DNR_guy DNR_guy is offline
Scrub Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2
Default

I guess i don't know all the details, but it could be they ae just attacking the lyme disease problem from all angles, and killing more deer just happens to be one of the angles. I would think/hope they aren't ignorant enough to believe that this will completely eradicate the problem.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 04-08-2008, 03:51 PM
Turtle Turtle is offline
B&C 120 Class
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 389
Default

Although adult ticks often feed on deer, these animals do not become infected. Deer are nevertheless important in transporting ticks and maintaining tick populations.

This was the part that got me, last few lines of ticks life cycle. Deer are simply carriers ,but very little of the public come in contact with deer. Seems to me more concern should be paid to rodents, squirrels and family pets that will bring the disease closer to and into the home.

Really don't see how hunting more deer would help at all. A hunter can't tell if their carriers or not. Say you have 100,000 deer in your area and 1/3 were infected. In harvesting more in all likelihood only 1/3 of the deer harvested will be infected. Say you take out 90% of the herd, now you only have 10,000 and 1/3 of the herd is still infected. Have you really gained anything?
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 04-10-2008, 05:32 AM
Turtle Turtle is offline
B&C 120 Class
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 389
Default

Went to Conn. site and was reading article under lyme disease. Apparently they too say deer don't become infected but as major host of the tick provide life to it. They have studies that say by reducing deer , they used an electric fence in study, you can reduce tick population by around 80 %. So by managing the herd they could greatly reduce the tick population.

DNR, do you know if they actually want to increase limits or are they trying to hunt in areas that hunting hasn't been allowed? Expanded hunting as stated in your original article could mean either without knowing what the Bill actually seeks.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 04-10-2008, 12:59 PM
joel the signman's Avatar
joel the signman joel the signman is offline
B&C 180 Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 3,608
Default

since i live nearby to conn i wrote to the dnr over there bout deer hunting STILL waiting for a reply
__________________
Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me some venison.
Genesis 27:3 "The thinking deer hunter should mature through three phases during his hunting life. First phase, "I need to kill a deer." Second phase, I want to harvest a nice deer. And last phase, we must manage this resource so our children and their children can experience the grand tradition of good deer hunting." - Jim Slinsky
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Top Posters
Hunting Man7674
buckfever5650
BruceBruce19595414
timberghost3912
joel the signman3608
tator3175
gfdeputy22828
delbert1507
Buckshot1219
hunt NH1203
Photos
Saranac Football 2008
Redskin150
Saranac Football 2008
Team DHC Articles


    All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:43 AM.



    LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8