|
Yes, we killed off the wolf. It was a lost (In Pennsylvania the wolf was killed off by Rabies not hunting, but hunting was serious factor in the demise of the wolf even in Pennsylvania). The problem is that if any state brought back the wolf and the wolf killed any animal of value (i.e. any cow, sheep, dog owned by a farmer or anyone else) than the state MUST pay for the damage done by the introduced wolf (which is what the Feds are doing to the farmers and ranchers around Yellowstone and what Minnesota does when its wolves kill a farm animal).
Thus to say this was caused by the killing off of the wolf is one way to avoid addressing HOW to solve the problem. Increase Hunting is just part of any real solution (Both by licensed hunters AND professional hunters). Please note in Pennsylvania if you live on a farm of more than 50 acres AND it is your primary source of income and you see a deer eat your crop you can shoot that deer (Not any deer the deer you saw eat your crop). Now this was to address concerns of farmers NOT suburban home owners like you. There are also some very old Common Pleas Court cases saying such a restriction is against the state constitution and thus anyone can shot any deer they see destroying their property. Given that most of these cases are from pre-WWII days I would hesitate to rely on them, but they exists and the PA Game Commission knows of them (and avoids addressing them in their regulations). The commission seems to adopt a policy of non-enforcement in such cases to avoid any constitutional arguments. Remember the cases all reflect someone shooting a deer they saw eating their property BUT the shooter was NOT a farmer, or his farm was less than 50 acres OR it was NOT his main source of Income. The part of the statute limiting the shooting to the deer that actual did the damage was upheld in ALL of those cases. Thus there are ways to control the deer population PROVIDING you can show harm.
Another things that have to be addressed is if we re-introduced the wolf HOW do we pay for damages caused by the wolf? With Wolf a protected species will it naturally expand into your area (such nature expansion would relieve the state of the cost of re-introducing the wolf for the state is only liable for its actions NOT the natural movement of the wolves). Would the decrease in damage done by deer offset the increase in damages caused by wolves? AND WHO WILL PAY FOR THE DAMAGES. Deer expanded into suburbia naturally thus the state is NOT liable for Deer damage, but wolves would have to be introduced and if introduced the state would be liable for any and all damages. Thus the state may prefer YOU to assume the lost even if the damages done by wolves would be less (The state does not have to pay for deer damage, but would have to pay for Wolves damages. Thus it would be cheaper for the state just to leave the deer eat your property).
A third method of control is zoning laws that force people to have their homes more like mature forests (Which deer hate) than second growth forests (Which are what most yards imitate and deer just love). Thus one way to reduce deer numbers is to require NOTHING but tall trees (oaks, maples, cherry etc) and NOT bushes etc. Remember this has to be the WHOLE area not just one yard at a time. Deer love to hide in deep woods but prefer to eat in second growth forests (This is why there is more deer in the US today than in 1607. We cut down the mature forests of the 1600s and replaced them with suburban homes which resemble second growth forests with their low laying bushes, quick growing (but short) trees etc. This is ideal deer habitat. This is made worse by the fact we cut down most of the eastern forest just prior to 1900. At that time erosion was found to be an after effect of the clear cutting. To address this lost of soil, increased flooding do to the lack of trees, and lost of animal habitat, most Eastern States adopted policies buying up the than clean-cut wastelands and introduced decent forest management. Given that management the forests have tended to age since 1900 so that since about 1970 the forests are becoming "Mature" instead of "Second Growth". What this means is that deer have less to eat in the rural areas. Deer are NOT mature forest animals (turkeys are and have flourished the last 30 years do to the maturing of the forests of the East). The Deer have to go somewhere else where there is food. Some thing that resembles a second growth forest. The closest thing is modern suburbia and the deer are thriving in suburbia.
Do not worry hunters have also objected to the change in the forest. Pheasant (very popular in the early 1900 till about 1960s), bobwhites and other birds fell in numbers starting about 1950. The clean cuts of 1900 had matured to second growth. Clean cut land favored Pheasants and Bobwhites, second growth favored Deer, and mature forests favor Turkeys and Ruffled Grouse. Thus 30 years ago hunters where complaining of disappearance of Bobwhites and Pheasants, today they are complaining of the disappearance of Deer in rural America. This all drives from the maturing of the forest. Deer in Suburbia is increasing for suburbia is ideal Deer habitat. Thus one of the way to reduce Deer in Suburbia is to reduce Suburbia resemblance to Second Growth Forests.
Between the re-introduction of Wolves, increase hunting in suburbia AND a change in Suburbia from duplicating Second Growth forest to mature forests, you will see a reduction in damages done by Deer. You need to do all three, yet all three are opposed by most people in Suburbia. Thus you will have to learn to live with Deer, for no one wants to do what is needed to address the problem of suburban Deer.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
