ANIMAL FORUM

>> >Bullshit. Maybe I can go up there one evening and take some pics and
>> >show you that were not talking about one or two deer here and there.
>> >Were talking serious herds. Did you see in the article that urban and
>> >suburban deer reproduce at 40% a year? That means the fucking population
>> >almost doubles every two years.
>>
>> Now why do you think all of a sudden deer populations should double
>> every two years and never has in the past? I dont suppose you would
>> admit its the shooting? do you know anything about wildlife dynamics?
>
>Do you? Killing animals does not lead to overpopulation. It reduces their
>numbers. Always. You can get overpopulation -anyway- if you arent killing
>enough, but simply shooting will not do it. Else the planet would be covered
>by deer, since theyve been hunted for a long time- nearly to extinction at
>one point.

>> >> Immunocontraception will control most deer problems in five years,
>> >
>> >We dont have five years IN THE FUCKING CITY. Forty-percent compounded
>> >over five years gives us over 437% return on our deer.
>>
>> Thats a nonsense figure, deer have been around for donkeys years
>> without such ridiculous problems, stop shooting them and the numbers
>> will stabilize within a given range, manage them properly and the
>> numbers will then reduce, there is no quick fix, shoot them all
>> tomorrow and youll have double back in no time as can quite clearly
>> be seen.
>
>See above. The numbers arent going to magically stabilze on their own. The
>population will grow, outstrip its food supply, and crash.

>> >> there are many other non lethal alternatives.
>> >
>> >Weve tried relocation. As the article points out, Texas already has an
>> >overabundance of deer. So we tried relocating to Mexico. We tried
>> >relocating to other states with less healthy herds of white-tails. The
>> >problem remains: we have deer compounding at 40% a year.
>>
>> Completely pointless relocating without proper management.
>>
>> >> The best thing that can
>> >> be done is to get rid of the crooks in CONservation and ensure proper
>> >> people are brought in to manage wildlife properly.
>> >
>> >You mean hunters. Thats what were gonna have to do.
>>
>> No, thats what has always been done, thats the very reason you have
>> the problem.
>>
>> >>>The only way to alleviate the stress
>> >>>in the ecosystem is to remove some of the ruminants.
>> >>
>> >> Control the birth rate and the range.
>> >
>> >We have deer roaming near downtown. In fact, you can get on the new
>> >extension of the Town Lake trail that runs out to east Austin. Ive run
>> >and biked out that way. I saw a herd of about six deer. I spooked a lot
>> >more than that. Thats about 2.5-3 miles from the high-rises downtown.
>> >In a metropolitan area of over one-million people.
>>
>> Control the birth rate and the range.
>>
>> >>>At least our
>> >>>inmates will have healthy meat for a change.
>> >>
>> >> Thats strange, most people claim one of the reasons for culling is
>> >> because the deer become so unhealthy, yet another myth?
>> >
>> >They do when they run out of food. Of course a city slicker like you
>> >wouldnt know the difference.
>>
>> Wrong again, food is a major reason why wildlife only breeds to within
>> a sustainable range aside from the odd hiccup or plague. If a range
>> can only sustain a 1000 deer, give or take, a 1000 deer is what will
>> be there, keep shooting them and the numbers will rebound and rebound
>> and before long youll have many thousands as can clearly be seen.
>>
>
>It might except for a little problem. They have NO predators. There is
>nothing to keep their numbers in check.

> And this belief that theyll manage
>their own numbers if quite silly. If they would, why would you have to shoot
>them with drugs, hmm?

> Heres a hint: if a range can sustain 1000 deer, it
>will have that many..in the long term. In the short term, without predators
>they will grow out of control.

>
> BAC wrote in message
> news:G6n4b.1$Sb4.816@news.dircon.co.uk...
> >
> > Jon Inge Bragstad

>
>>
>
>Actually, I was having this discussion about harvest/culling rates with Jon
>Inge and Malcolm Kane, I think. Neither of whom are remotely AR, IMO.
>
>Contraceptive methods may well have a place, IMO, if safe, practicable and
>cost effective to use, and especially if the target species is unsuitable
>for harvesting and/or where culling would generate considerable political
>opposition (e.g. seals in some parts of the world).
>
>
>
>

> In message , BAC
> writes
> >
> >>
> >
> >Actually, I was having this discussion about harvest/culling rates with
Jon
> >Inge and Malcolm Kane, I think. Neither of whom are remotely AR, IMO.
> >
> >Contraceptive methods may well have a place, IMO, if safe, practicable
and
> >cost effective to use, and especially if the target species is unsuitable
> >for harvesting and/or where culling would generate considerable political
> >opposition (e.g. seals in some parts of the world).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Contraceptive methods *MAY* well have a place. However IMO there is
> much that the ARs do not take into account. Firstly they talk about
> contraception as if it was already a viable alternative. I have yet to
> see evidence that it can be cost effectively administered to a wild
> population.
>
> Personally I have my doubts about administering it sufficiently
> accurately to lower the population as much as is required and no more.
> The contraceptive may result in wide population swings by artificially
> reducing the population too far then withdrawn there is a population
> explosion.
>
> One day perhaps the problems will be ironed out but it is IMO far from
> certain and a long way off.

>
>Malcolm Kane wrote in message
>news:8dwo1FB+hnU$EwzY@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk...
>> In message , BAC
>> writes
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >Actually, I was having this discussion about harvest/culling rates with
>Jon
>> >Inge and Malcolm Kane, I think. Neither of whom are remotely AR, IMO.
>> >
>> >Contraceptive methods may well have a place, IMO, if safe, practicable
>and
>> >cost effective to use, and especially if the target species is unsuitable
>> >for harvesting and/or where culling would generate considerable political
>> >opposition (e.g. seals in some parts of the world).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Contraceptive methods *MAY* well have a place. However IMO there is
>> much that the ARs do not take into account. Firstly they talk about
>> contraception as if it was already a viable alternative. I have yet to
>> see evidence that it can be cost effectively administered to a wild
>> population.
>>
>> Personally I have my doubts about administering it sufficiently
>> accurately to lower the population as much as is required and no more.
>> The contraceptive may result in wide population swings by artificially
>> reducing the population too far then withdrawn there is a population
>> explosion.
>>
>> One day perhaps the problems will be ironed out but it is IMO far from
>> certain and a long way off.
>
>Obviously, I cant argue with that, since it is by and large what I said in
>my first sentence. However, conservation and animal management are long term
>projects, which have to operate within the sensibilities of various
>indigenous human populations, so the more tools which are available, the
>better, IMO. So, in spite of the doubts, I think it is a good thing for
>alternative methods to be researched and developed.
>
>

> In message , BAC
> writes
> >
> >Malcolm Kane wrote in message
> >news:8dwo1FB+hnU$EwzY@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk...
> >> In message , BAC
> >> writes
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Actually, I was having this discussion about harvest/culling rates
with
> >Jon
> >> >Inge and Malcolm Kane, I think. Neither of whom are remotely AR, IMO.
> >> >
> >> >Contraceptive methods may well have a place, IMO, if safe, practicable
> >and
> >> >cost effective to use, and especially if the target species is
unsuitable
> >> >for harvesting and/or where culling would generate considerable
political
> >> >opposition (e.g. seals in some parts of the world).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Contraceptive methods *MAY* well have a place. However IMO there is
> >> much that the ARs do not take into account. Firstly they talk about
> >> contraception as if it was already a viable alternative. I have yet to
> >> see evidence that it can be cost effectively administered to a wild
> >> population.
> >>
> >> Personally I have my doubts about administering it sufficiently
> >> accurately to lower the population as much as is required and no more.
> >> The contraceptive may result in wide population swings by artificially
> >> reducing the population too far then withdrawn there is a population
> >> explosion.
> >>
> >> One day perhaps the problems will be ironed out but it is IMO far from
> >> certain and a long way off.
> >
> >Obviously, I cant argue with that, since it is by and large what I said
in
> >my first sentence. However, conservation and animal management are long
term
> >projects, which have to operate within the sensibilities of various
> >indigenous human populations, so the more tools which are available,
the
> >better, IMO. So, in spite of the doubts, I think it is a good thing for
> >alternative methods to be researched and developed.
> >
> >
> Personally I doubt that anyone would question that. What is to be
> avoided at all costs is presenting ideas which still need huge amounts
> of research and do not guarantee a solution even then, as if they
> already exist.

>
> I do not suggest that you would do this but you will have seen posts
> which try to pretend that organisations are deliberately not using a
> proven solution which is, as you know far from the case.

>>
>> I do not suggest that you would do this but you will have seen posts
>> which try to pretend that organisations are deliberately not using a
>> proven solution which is, as you know far from the case.
>
>If the proven solution is contraception, I dont believe it has been
>proven in UK or UK equivalent wild population situations. Perhaps you meant
>deer fences?
>
>