Tag: Deer

Market hunting does not exactly have a great reputation. Although today deer are extremely plentiful, by the late 19th century market hunting had driven deer populations to extremely low levels, estimated anywhere from 300,000 to 500,000 animals in the continental United States. The Lacy Act of 1900 effectively ended market hunting and in the 20th century deer populations exploded. In a recent article for Reason magazine, Ronald Bailey argues that it is time to return to a form of market hunting to rein in deer populations.

As Bailey notes, the overwhelming number of deer in the United States cause significant damage. Somewhere between 100-200 people are killed every year in accidents involving deer, and total collisions between deer and vehicles is estimated at as many as 1.5 million. Deer carry the ticks that cause Lyme disease, they damage agriculture, etc.

Bailey runs through a number of possible solutions to reduce the estimated population of 27 million deer. Many animal rights activists favor using methods that inject contraceptives in deer. That may work well in some areas, especially on urban lands, but will never be a viable solution for controlling deer population in wild areas.

Bailey also cites an interesting program in Wisconsin where a hunter must kill two does before they can shoot a buck. This has the effect of both reducing the number of fertile females, while also causing testosterone levels to rise in bucks (who are now competing for fewer females), which makes them better trophy animals. Bailey reports there are preliminary results indicating this does in fact lower the deer population.

But Bailey seems most fond of a proposal by Donald Leal at the Political Economy Research Center to reintroduce market hunting. Currently it is illegal in the United States for a hunter to sell venison, which Bailey notes leads to the absurdity that all venison served in U.S. restaurants comes from places like New Zealand. Leal would have state game commissions explicitly set maximum herd sizes. Then a system of individual tradable quotas would be used, much like those used in some areas to manage fisheries, would be sold to hunters, and others.

Animal rights activist would oppose this, for obvious reasons, but as Bailey notes so would many hunters and game commissioners who have interests in maximizing the size of the deer population.

Source:

North America’s Most Dangerous Mammal by Ronald Bailey, November 21, 2001.

Last year the National Trust in
the United Kingdom prohibited Hunting on its land after a study by Patrick
Bateson, a professor of animal behavior, claimed hunting subjected Deer
to incredible level of stress and, therefore, was cruel. In mid-September
Bateson was forced to revise his views to conclude that hunting is not
necessarily cruel.

Bateson, for example, originally
reported that deer subjected to a hunt suffered extensive muscle damage
caused by severe stress. A study by Roger Harris of the Royal Veterinary
College disputed this claim along with a claim Bateson made that stress
from hunting caused red blood cells in the deer to break down.

Perhaps Bateson’s most stunning
claim was that the stress deer experienced from predation by human beings
was unlike any sort of stress deer would experience in a natural environment.
Harris’ study, however, found no evidence of this and concluded that the
stress deer experience during a hunt is not fundamentally different from
other forms of stress.

As a result of Harris’ study, Bateson
and other researchers signed a 9-point statement issuing specific modifications
of the findings of their original research, although Bateson said he still
feels hunting is “knowingly cruel.”

Source:

“Professor revises view on deer hunt cruelty,” Charles Clover, The
Daily Telegraph, September 15, 1998.