ohyeah! North Harford H.S
10/29/2008
10:30:00 AM
The subject of deer overpopulation in the United
States, east coast states in particular,
affects all different groups of people, and we want
everyone to understand how the
situation impacts farmers. It is important to
understand our position on this topic because
whether people realize it or not, farms are
extremely important for all people. We are
responsible for growing foods like corn, wheat,
beans, and numerous other crops. Also, we
raise animals used for meat and dairy, such as cows,
pigs, chicken, sheep, goats, and more.
On top of that, we produce hay for those animals and
take care of America’s farm land.
As farmers, we are affected to an extreme extent
by deer overpopulation. As a result of
growing deer population, wild food for deer is
decreasing rapidly. Consequently, the
hungry deer search for any available food, and
that’s where we come in. The animals come
into our fields and eat the crops, trampling and
destroying crops as they do it. This is
extremely detrimental to our farm productivity. We
have thought of some solutions that
we think would be appropriate for reducing the
number of deer and thus solving our
problem. First, if every farmer received money to
fence their entire property with electric
and barbed wire, the number of deer able to enter
to property would be minimal. Next,
we think that the rules to determine whether an
animal is allowed to be hunted on our
property should be loosened up, because we should be
able to hunt any animal hat we feel
is a threat to our farm. Finally, farmers should be
given money to hire professional
hunters to come on the land three times per year.
If these ideas were implemented,
farmers would have much less of an invasive deer
issue which would allow us to have more
success in our farming. Although these solutions
would cost some money, it would in the
end be made back by the amount of crops saved and
money made from them.
Ask a Thoughtful Question or Respond
Thoughtful
Questions
From:
Baby Treehuggers - forester - HHS
Ask
10/30/2008
11:01:00 AM
I agree that farmers are important to the United
States in producing our crops.I
would like to suggest that you should try a food
plot.It would allow deer to eat it
instead of your crops. Deer are important like
you farmers are.
Response
ohyeah! - farmer - NHHS
11/5/2008
12:29:00 PM
We really like the idea of having a food plot.
That way, the deer will not be
bothering the farmers as much. As for the idea
to get an invisible fence
because our idea is too expensive, we know that
this fence will cost way too
much, so barbed wire and electirc fence would be
better. We can make the
fences tall enough that it is very hard for the
deer to get over them.
From:
Farmers of WV! - farmer - HHS
Ask
10/31/2008
12:50:00 PM
We, the farmers of West Virginia, feel that
your solutions are not completely
realistic. We believe that hiring hunters could
have a positive effect on the
overpopulation of deer, yet this idea seems
costly, especially with the plan of hiring
them three times per year. Your thought on
installing barbed wire and electrical
fences will not work; deer know how to jump! How
would you ensure the efficiency
of these fences? Most farmers already have
fences, some being the type you
suggested, though deer still enter there
crops. We recommend a fencing system
specifically created for excluding deer from an
area. They are Benner's Invisible
Fences. These are taller than other normal
fences and made of a particular
material that seems to extend infinitely in the
deer's eyes. Thus the deer don't
attempt to jump over the seemingly endless
fence.
From:
The Truffula Farmers & Barbaloot Hunters -
farmer -
Statement
11/13/2008
7:17:00 AM
*This
is in response to Farmers of WV! - farmer - HHS
While I understand
your concern for the deer I would like to point
out the fact that an electric fence
merely
poses a warning to the deer and at most stuns;
it does not kill. This is true
too of the barbed wire; it will only make slight
cuts that pose as a stimulus (of a
small amount of pain) which the deer respond to
by not trying to jump the fence.
This happens to be one of the most humane ideas
as many others include killing deer
either through hunting or introduction of
predators; neither of which are inhumane
as they control the population, prevent
starvation, and provide food for families or
animals. I'd also like to ask about your idea of
"invisible fences". Is this equivalent to
the idea of the Invisible fences
for dogs? If so I'd like to ask how you wish to
accomplish putting electric collars (which shock
by the way) on all deer and how you
expect to pay for it?
From:
Farmers of WV! - farmer - HHS
Statement
11/7/2008
1:30:00 PM
We are trying to work on the deer population in
a humane way. You suggest barbed
wire and electrical fences, however we suggested
the "invisible" fences. Have fun
cleaning up all the deer remains on your land!
Response of
Farmers of WV! - farmer - HHS
to the
The Truffula Farmers & Barbaloot Hunters
11/19/2008
3:38:00 PM
First and foremost we, the farmers of WV,
would like to point out that
the Benner's Invisible fence we recommended is
not "equivalent to invisible
fences for dogs." So thank you for the smart
comment of the shock collars.
If you finished reading our response then you
would have known the answer
to your invisible fence question, so we will
repeat it for you: "We recommend
a fencing system specifically created for
excluding deer from an area. They
are BENNER'S INVISIBLE FENCES. These are taller
than normal fences
and made of a particular material that seems to
extend infinitely in the
DEER'S EYES. Thus the deer don't attempt to jump
over the seemingly
endless fence." We just want to remind you
that we are not being rude
we are simply trying to defend our suggestion
and find a solution for the
deer problem. Thank you. Here is the
link for further research:
http://www.bennersgardens.com/
From:
TIG - The Insurance Group - Insurance Company -
MVGS
Ask
11/13/2008
9:08:00 AM
We believe that hiring professional hunters is
not cost effective. Money would be
wasted here, because hunters would pay you to
hunt on your land. This would make
more sense, because it would raise money for
farmers, decrease the deer
population, and leave more money for other
options.
From:
Buck Masters - hunter - BGHS
Statement
11/17/2008
8:00:00 AM
i understand where you are coming from, and i
think your solution would be helpful.
From:
Deer Assassins - hunter - BGHS
Ask
11/17/2008
8:07:00 AM
How will it effect the other groups of people
other than the farmers?
From:
Girl With Big Guns - hunter - BGHS
Statement
11/17/2008
8:16:00 AM
A food plot does sound like an effective way to
prevent more deer from eating your
crops. The fencing idea you suggested doesn\rquote
t seem feasible because deer
do know how to jump and even if taller fences
were built it would do more harm than
good. If you live in an agricultural community
most farms are almost back to back
and if all farmers put up these fences you\rquote
re not leaving any room for deer
to roam besides highways and neighboring yards.
From:
Deer Assassins - hunter - BGHS
Statement
11/21/2008
8:01:00 AM
I dont understand the fence part and how it
would keep the deerout the deer can
jump the fence.
|
just the good ol
farmers Hampshire H.S.
10/29/2008
11:06:00 AM
We think that the deer should be limited in the
society.The overpopulation of deer in West
Virginia is causing negative effects on the
vegetation and also on tree regeneration.The
population has exceeded its ecological carrying
capacity as stated by William Gratton an
agronomist at West Virginia University.It costs
about 35 million dollars anually a year for
the deer damage done to the forests and crops.Not
only do we not use expensive crops
anymore but some farmers have quit farming all
together because of this problem.The
deer are overpopulating the land which is forcing
them to find food elsewhere besides the
forest because there is nothing left.We no longer
use the high quality crops because the
deer eat them so we use the lesser valued ones.Deer
eat about 5-7 pounds of plants and
fruit a day.This puts farmers in a critical
situation because we are short on crops and it
costs us for not having what is owed.Farming was
once a way of life here in West Virginia
but now we can't farm because the deer eat all of
our crops.The deer need to be
maintained not in a way of killing but maybe just
moved somewhere else.Something needs to
be done about this problem.We believe that farmers
should be allowed to shoot deer all
year around but only when it involves their crop or
livestock.
Ask a Thoughtful Question or Respond
Thoughtful
Questions
From:
ohyeah! - farmer - NHHS
Ask
11/5/2008
12:25:00 PM
"The deer need to be maintained not in a way of
killing but maybe just moved
somewhere else. Something needs to be done
about this problem. We believe that
farmers should be allowed to shoot deer all year
around but only when it involves
their crop or livestock." You are saying two totally
opposite things. Although we
don't believe in killing animals inhumanely, simply
moving the deer to a new place will
do nothing for the overpopulation issue. Besides,
you didn't provide any idea for how
to move the deer to a new place, if that was your
idea. You have a lot of good
information to back up your opinions, but you don't
have a good solution to the
problem.
From:
Unknown
Statement
11/5/2008
12:30:00 PM
I agree with this. Maryland actually has a policy
allowing what you suggested.
From:
Deer Assassins - hunter - BGHS
Ask
11/17/2008
7:59:00 AM
Isn't there a way to keep the animals out of those
high quality crops?
From:
Buck Masters - hunter - BGHS
Statement
11/17/2008
8:05:00 AM
maybe farmers could put up fences to help keep the
deer off of the farms and
maybe put out left over food or a food plot for the
deer to graze off of.
From:
Deer Assassins - hunter - BGHS
Ask
11/17/2008
8:14:00 AM
Do you have any idea how to move the deer to another
area?
From:
Girl With Big Guns - hunter - BGHS
Ask
11/17/2008
8:28:00 AM
even as a hunter I don't feel that anyone should be
able to hunt all year long
or just shoot whatever animals come on their
property. In the spring does would be
killed in that case and fawns would be at risk of
death. I suggest having a food plot
away from valued crops to lure deer away from them.
But in honesty, what would a
farmer do with all that meat?
|
Farmers of WV!
Hampshire H.S.
10/29/2008
1:17:00 PM
We, the farmers of West Virginia are highly
effected by the deer population in our area.
These deer are not only a nuisance but a serious
threat to our profession and surroundings.
We do not favor what has been done to our hard
work. They damage our crops and spread
disease to our livestock. We have suffered severe
financial loses due to these herbivores.
When will the madness end? Everyday each mature
deer eat 5-7 lbs. of fruit and plants.
Sadly, our crops are a main source of the food they
eat. Our orchards, corn fields,
pumpkin patches, grape vines, etc. are all
devastated by these animals.Deer also carry ticks.
As they come near our livestock the ticks transfer
and spread diseases. Many of us are
forced to leave our profession in farming or change
to growing completely different crops.
Us farmers have collaborated on this issue and
have decided on a solution. We believe
that certain populations of deer should be
sterilized. The method of doing so would be
simple. Medication could be mixed within deer feed
that is set out for the deer to consume.
This would prevent overpopulation of the species
and save the farmers's livelyhood.
Ask a Thoughtful Question or Respond
Thoughtful
Questions
From:
The Blue Elites - hunter - HHS
Statement
10/30/2008
12:26:00 PM
You guys made a lot-o-sense to mes. I think ytu
made a good point. keep up tge
goook works/
From:
ohyeah! - farmer - NHHS
Ask
11/5/2008
12:32:00 PM
It is a good idea to sterilize deer because it
is a very humane way of cutting down
population, however if you put out food with
sterilizing medication in it, other animals
will also eat the food and become sterilized,
therefore damaging other animals'
populations.
Response
Farmers of WV! - farmer - HHS
11/7/2008
1:37:00 PM
Thank you for your input. We do realize the
hazard of other animals eating
the sterilized food. Maybe we could inject some
type of sterilization into the
deer instead of feeding it to them. We, the
farmers of West Virginia, believe
that together we can fix this problem.
From:
Wile E. Coyote - forest - NHHS
Ask
11/7/2008
11:06:00 AM
We understand the point you are trying to get
across but we have some questions.
First- How would you regulate the distribution
of the medication, and control the
amount of deer that are sterilized.Second- Where
in the world will you get the
funding for this project (the medication) Third-
Wow would you insure that other
animals would not consume this medication as
well.
Response
Farmers of WV! - farmer - HHS
11/19/2008
4:28:00 PM
We, the farmers of West Virginia, are responding
to your questions under
our POV.(Farmers of WV! - HHS) You asked us how
we would regulate the
distribution of the medication and control the
amount of deer that are
sterilized. We could mark the deer temporarily
with tags during the process
of sterilization. Your second question was,
"Where in the world would you get
the funding for this project(the medication)"
Well, there is plenty of money
flowing in from hunting licenses and seasonal
profits...and we could always
have a bake sale or ask China(just kidding-a
little joke to lighten the mood).
As for your third question, you asked how we
would insure that other animals
would not consume the medication. We answered
that in the small response
directly above your question. We realized the
hazard of other animals eating
the sterilized food, so we suggested an
alternative of injecting the
sterilization.
From:
Wile E. Coyote - forest - NHHS
Ask
11/7/2008
11:13:00 AM
Even if you were to successfully sterilize the
deer, what is to stop them from
continuing to eat your crops and spread ticks to
your animals? hmmmm? and it would
take a whole new generation for this to even
have to slightest impact, so will you still
have your farms in the next generation? will
you manage to survive the current deer
problem?
From:
Frantic Farmers - farmer - PHS
Statement
11/12/2008
8:12:00 AM
If you mix medicine in the feed to sterilize the
deer, then you are potentially
exposing your breeding livestock to becoming
sterile, if they get into the tainted
feed.
Response
Farmers of WV! - farmer - HHS
11/19/2008
4:45:00 PM
We are responding to the question you asked
about our POV(Farmers of
WV!-HHS). We do not plan on mixing the
sterilization with OUR livestocks'
feed. We realized that other animals could have
easily consumed the "tainted
feed" we did respond saying that we could
inject the medication.
From:
DeerHunters R Us - hunter – PHS
Ask
11/12/2008
8:21:00 AM
Thats all good, but what medicine do you know of
that would sterelize the animal,
and how much would it all cost? If the medicine
is in the food plots it would also
sterelize every other species that eats on the
food plot, or you could just do it the
old fashion way catch them, hold them down, and
cut off their reproductive organs
From:
Deer Assassins - hunter - BGHS
Ask
11/17/2008
8:02:00 AM
What type of medicine do you suggest?
Response
Farmers of WV! - farmer - HHS
11/19/2008
4:53:00 PM
We, the farmers of WV, would like to answer the
questions you posted under
our POV (Farmers of WV!-hhs). The medication we
suggest to sterilize is
none other than (drum roll please)..... BIRTH
CONTROL!!! This birth control
could be speicifically designed as injections
for the deer (to eliminate the
possibility of other animals consuming the
sterilizing feed). Thank You for
the questions!
From:
Buck Masters - hunter - BGHS
Ask
11/17/2008
8:09:00 AM
how can you blame the deer for giving the ticks
to your livestock? eventually the
ticks will crawl and fed on livestock.
From:
Deer Assassins - hunter - BGHS
Statement
11/17/2008
8:10:00 AM
Ya'll made some good points but a lot of animals
other than deer carry ticks too.
|
west
virginia walnut apple farmers Hampshire H.S.
10/30/2008
9:19:00 AM
We are the West Virginia walnut apple farmers, and
we are important becuase we all live
either on a farm or orchard. We have came up with an
idea that we should allow crop
damage permits to be given to any one that has a
small graden out or even a small orchard.
We belive that allowing more permits to be given out
will result in a decrease in the deer
population resulting in less damage to farms, and
damage to orchards.
Ask a Thoughtful Question or Respond
Thoughtful
Questions
From:
ohyeah! - farmer - NHHS
Statement
11/5/2008
12:38:00 PM
You did not explain nearly enough as to why it is
important that people are concerned
with your issues.
From:
ohyeah! - farmer - NHHS
Ask
11/7/2008
11:10:00 AM
This is extremely unclear. You need to give more
detail on what a damage permit is
and how you would determine who to give permits to.
How will you convince people
that you are important and that this is an important
issue? You just need to go more
in depth.
From:
Frantic Farmers - farmer - PHS
Statement
11/12/2008
8:09:00 AM
A small garden or orchard doesn't provide profit,
therefore they are not classified
as farmers. Example: Small Gardener: "Well
Margaret, Im gonna plant me a bean
patch. Then, Im a gonna get me some of them crop
damage permits so that we can
shoot all the deer we want." Moral of Story:
Don't give permits to everyone, it
defeats the purpose.
From:
Deer Assassins - hunter - BGHS
Ask
11/17/2008
8:12:00 AM
How much are the permits going to cost? Ya'll need
to give some more information.
From:
Buck Masters - hunter - BGHS
Ask
11/17/2008
8:13:00 AM
why did you explain what your talking about in a
more broad statement?
From:
Girl With Big Guns - hunter \endash BGHS
Statement
11/17/2008
8:51:00 AM
Giving out permits will only decrease the amount of
license revenues going towards
the economy. If permits are handed out people will
be more inclined to get those
then buying a license. That will be a lot of money
lost.
|
Farmers of
Mt. Vista Mountain Vista Governors School
11/3/2008
2:22:00 PM
While in the past the
deer population has been close to the endangered
species list, things have changed and now they
threaten the livelihoods of hard working American
farmers. The sudden growth in population of the
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
has made it harder for farmers to deal with them. It
is estimated that deer damage costs agricultural
producers nationwide at least $100 million annually.
Many solutions have been proposed and implemented to
keep the hunger and destructive deer at bay. Above
all the economic impact of the deer has been felt by
farmers in the community. Varying solutions to
reduce the impact of deer on these farmers include
fencing, deer farming, and the reintroduction of
predators.
The most current solution
to the deer problem is the fencing off of farmlands
by farmers. On average the most effective deer fence
is 8 feet. Some farmers prefer higher fences and in
West Virginia the state Division of Natural
Resources is trying to make it a law for all deer
fences to be 10 feet tall. The trouble with this law
is that deer fencing is extremely costly to the
average farmer. For 85ft of 6 foot high deer fencing
it costs about $30. The average estimated
installation cost for self-installed fences was $446
per acre, compared to $2,400 per acre for fences
installed by a fence contractor. Fencing is a huge
financial burden to small farms and is often
ineffective when installed by the farmer. In
Maryland alone 92% of farmers suffered deer related
crop damage and the total damage was estimated to be
around 34 million. Fencing keeps the deer out but at
a huge cost the farmers since a deer’s diet includes
more than 650 different types of food and their
favorite crops include corn, soybeans, fruits and
alfalfa. The one crop deer don’t like is tobacco.
Fencing
diverts the deer but the idea of farming the deer
takes the nuisance and turns it into a money maker.
Already in New Zealand there are deer being held in
captivity that are being sold like cattle for their
meat. This outlook has already proven to work there
and create a profitable business for those who run
it. Sadly in West Virginia, where there are already
deer farms, the state Division of Natural Resources
is trying to discourage their business ventures.
There is a law that is being put into place saying
that the fences must be at least 10 feet tall to
contain the deer. This makes it difficult for
current businesses to keep up because it is even
more of a financial burden to them. The opposing
argument states that deer have been found in the
area with Chronic Wasting Disease, but none of those
deer were captive deer. Captive deer are always
tagged so that if they were to escape they could be
found and identified. The government is so worried
about keeping the captive deer in that they are
crushing these thriving small businesses with
unreasonable standards for fencing, nearly ruining a
positive alternative to the deer problem. Farming
will not completely solve the deer problem, but will
provide a secondary way of dealing with the problem.
Capturing the deer originally can be done by
building the fence around an area with a high
density of deer. Then, by planting crops or plants
that attract deer, they can be lured into the space
through a single point of entry. That will
significantly lower the population in the wild so
that it will be at safe levels. The deer within the
farm will then be renewable through reproduction and
then again through luring more wild deer in. The
reason that this would need to be the support of
another solution is because even after the
population has been brought down originally they
deer in the wild will be able to grown their numbers
again.
Another
choice to help farmers limit the impact on their
crops is for all natural predators to be
reintroduced into the effected areas. This is
favored because it is natural and doesn’t require
the elongating of hunting season or drugs. The
elongating of hunting season pleases hunters, but
for farmers it does nothing except make them want to
stay out of the woods. The drugs used to sterilize
deer take many dosages to continue to work.
Introducing predators like wolves and mountain lions
is a natural way to regain the balance in the
nature. By having these big predators out in the
wild the deer population will gradually decrease to
a stable level without having had to invest large
sums of money on the issue. Farmers would only feel
the benefits because they would be saving their
crops and allowing the regain of balance in the
natural food cycle. The common person seems to have
an inherit fear of predators big enough to take down
a deer. To date there has only been one human death
attributed to coyotes. That compared to the enormous
number of deaths cause by car crashes that are deer
related. As well, examining the number of deaths
caused by hunting accidents is much higher.
Introducing the sturdy coyote would be idea. There
are already urban coyotes in Oregon, the people have
grown to accept it as a part of life and in turn the
deer problem is nowhere near as significant as in
Virginia. The encroachment upon the predator’s
natural hunting land by humans as well as the lack
of understanding for the animals was the reason for
their original extinction in the area wilderness. By
releasing the large predators there will be a
balance regained in the current ecosystems and
another limiting factor on the number of deer. Due
to the current over abundance of deer the predators
will have no reason to seek out other forms of food.
Farmers
suffer the most with the deer problem financially.
The best solution is the one that costs the least
and still is effective. The current solution of
fencing is effective but costly, and then in turn
the farmer only gains those crops for the year. The
farming of deer would provide a continual income
that would be worth spending the money for the
fence. By domesticating deer and creating deer farms
the deer are becoming a source of income instead of
a pest. Also, the release of predators back onto the
wild costs less and would be beneficial to the
ecosystem. Changing hunting regulations would only
work for a time and then they would have to be
changed again once the population was reduced. That
would not be able to happen fast enough and the deer
population will once again be threatened because
their numbers will be too low. Deer farming, paired
with releasing predators such as coyotes into the
wild would be the most effective and profitable way
to take care of the deer problem. Even without
having to go through the bureaucracy that surrounds
the hunting regulations the old regulations would
help to control the deer population. Deer farming is
a long term solution, as is the releasing of
predators.
More information:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13975169
http://www.ci.sherwood.or.us/temp_news/living_with_urban_coyotes.pdf
http://www.nighthawkpublications.com/journal/457/journal_5.htm
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20081023-SPORTS-810230378
http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2002/01/012102t_deer.jhtml
http://robertkouriksgardenroots.blogspot.com/2008/03/deer-versus-predators.html
Ask a Thoughtful Question or Respond
Thoughtful
Questions
From:
KILLEMALL - homeowner - HHS
Statement
11/5/2008
12:36:00 PM
We agree with controlling the deer population, we
also understand they are pests
and it seems reasonabkle to just shoot them if they
enter your property but keep in
mind they are just animals and they are not aware of
their surroundings. They do not
know if they are in the forrest or in someones
yard.
Response
Farmers of Mt. Vista - farmer - MVGS
11/12/2008
7:32:00 AM
Animals Are aware of their surroundings. They go
where the food is because
they, like all animals, wish to survive. As humans
we have taken over their
natural habitat. By reintroducing natural predators
into the area we are
helping to regain a balance of sorts. We need
to protect our crops
because we have to make a living. With out that we
have nothing.
From:
Frantic Farmers - farmer - PHS
Statement
11/12/2008
8:15:00 AM
very well done.
From:
Moderator 11/12/08.
I agree
that deer farming would provide a source of income
for farmers. But how would it reduce the size
of the wild deer herd. which is the source of the
problem? I agree that introducing large
predators is one solution,
but I would ask that you support the following
statement: "Due to the current over abundance of
deer the predators will have no reason to seek out
other forms of food." Is that actually true?
And, even if it is, would it continue to be true
after the size of the deer herd was reduced?
Response
Farmers of Mt. Vista - farmer - MVGS
11/13/2008
9:09:00 AM
There are many factors that may turn citizens
against the idea of using
natural predators, such as coyotes, as a method to
restore the natural deer
population. Many people may worry about coyotes
attacking them, their
children, or their pets. Farmers may fear their
livestock or crops getting
destroyed by these predators. In reality, however,
releasing these predators
into the wild is a good idea. These predators are
mostly afraid of people,
and they tend to stay as far away from people as
possible. The statistics of
an attack by these predators are slim compared to
the statistics of a car
accident incorporating a deer, or a hunting
accident. If this fact does not
wane the fear of the human population, strong fences
will keep these
predators out. In response to the fear of letting
small children and animals
outside, parents and pet owners should probably be
keeping an eye on their
children/pets anyway. Instead of letting pets out
all night, wait until the
morning and do not let them wander off. In
response to the question
about the coyotes destroying the crops or attacking
the livestock of
farmers, we, as farmers, believe that once the deer
population is brought
down, as will the population of the predators. This
will prevent the coyotes
or other predators from eating the farmers' crops
and livestock. Deer is a
limiting factor of these predators, and by inserting
these predators into the
wild, it will restore the natural balance of the
food chain. For further
information about coyotes living in the same areas
as humans and stopping
the over population of deer, please see this site:
http://www.ci.sherwood.or.us/temp_news/living_with_urban_coyotes.pdf
|
Frantic Farmers
Petersburg H.S
11/5/2008
8:09:00 AM
There is an over
abundance of deer in our region. Deer are
responsible for killing trees and wrecking havoc on
the agricultural industry in West Virginia. The
deer eat the newly planted trees, which kills them
and does not allow them to reach a mature age.
Therefore, in a few decades our oxygen supply will
be drastically decreased.
Agronomist William Grafton (1), from West
Virginia University, stated in surveys conducted in
the 1980s, that deer damage cost West Virginia's
agricultural industry about $35 million annually. No
recent surveys have been written to refute these
figures. Deer are destroying large quantities of
high-value agricultural crops such as corn and
alfalfa. These new plants are damaged and do not
succeed in reaching a mature age, where they can be
sold for income. If the deer population continues as
is, the effects will be devastating not only to our
environment but humans as well.
The reintroduction of wolves has been proposed
as a possible solution to the overpopulation of
deer. Wolves have been reintroduced into
Yellowstone National Park as a means to control the
elk and deer populations (2). As for our region,
this would not be a superior solution. We, as
farmers, believe that if wolves would be
reintroduced they would only spread diseases and
would cause substantial money loss, due to their
killing of potentially profitable livestock.
In order to try and fix this problem farmers
are allowed to obtain “wildlife damage” permits that
allow them to reduce the sizes of herds. These
permits are available from the DNR to, again, remove
deer that cause damage. Specific information is
available from local DNR conservation officers (3).
The only problem is these permits hold too many
restrictions and can increase the amount of time
needed to reduce herd sizes significantly. This
method is not always a permanent solution. We
believe that the permits need to have more
leniencies, such as having an equal number of male
and female deer that we are allowed to eradicate;
also with the heavy population of deer, the season
needs to be extended.
Fencing and wire cages/shelters have also been
used to control the damage done by deer. Repellants
are also not a good proposal because they need to be
reapplied every 3 to 4 weeks or after heavy rains.
These are costly measures and many farmers do not
have the time or money to execute this.
Approximately $100 million in damages is done
every year in the United States and according to the
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, the
combined deer season harvest for 2002 is the largest
total deer harvest on record. The 2002 total deer
harvest represents one deer killed for every 57
acres of deer habitat in the state and a 23% harvest
increase from that of 10 years ago. This proves that
the number of deer is greatly increasing.
Farming used to be a way of life for many West
Virginians, due to over population of deer
destroying crops many farmers gave up their farms,
in order to provide for their families. Therefore,
less farming will mean less food. What will we do
if the deer population increases even more? Large
farms and simple gardens would be a trend of the
past.
1.http://www.cacaponinstitute.org/PHSWR%20Chats/Oh%20Deer20Native%20Guides/Na
tive_Guide_Grafton.htm
2.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031029064909.htm
3.http://www.wvdnr.gov/Hunting/IntAppDeerCon.shtm
Ask a Thoughtful Question or Respond
Thoughtful
Questions
From:
Deer Assassins - hunter - BGHS
Statement
11/17/2008
8:17:00 AM
The way you talk about deer, you make them seem
really bad, and they're not.
From:
Buck Masters - hunter - BGHS
Ask
11/17/2008
8:19:00 AM
how do deer kill trees?
From:
Girl With Big Guns - hunter - BGHS
Statement
11/17/2008
8:47:00 AM
definitely agree that something has to be done to
decrease the deer population.
However, giving to much leniency only causes people
to take advantage of the system.
Response
A Farmer's Viewpoint! - farmer - PHS
11/12/2008
8:13:00 AM
Good paper! but ours is better :)
From:
Deer Assassins - hunter - BGHS
Statement
11/21/2008
8:14:00 AM
We should hunt all year round.
|
A Farmer's Viewpoint!
Petersburg H.S
11/5/2008
8:13:00 AM
From taking the viewpoint
of a farmer, we strongly believe that the deer in
this area are overpopulated. We feel this is a
serious issue and needs to be addressed. To help
resolve this problem, we feel that hunting
privileges for deer should be all year long. Hunting
only a few months of the year is not enough to
decrease the deer population to what it should be.
According to R.J. Mere, the normal populations of
deer should number 20 to 25 per square mile. (1) The
overpopulation of deer is obviously an issue.
It is ridiculous that people have accidents almost
twice a year and damage their vehicles. These
accidents can cost from as little as replacing a
headlight or the entire car. The expenses could
result to higher automobile insurance rates. When
you get in a wreck with another car, there’s a
possibility it was the other person’s fault, but
with a deer, you have to pay.
Every year at harvest season, we plant corn to feed
the cattle. Roughly half of our crops are destroyed
from deer consuming it. This not only costs us time,
but money! When deer must rely on available wild
lands for their only food source, a corresponding
drop in deer population should take place. (2) With
this overpopulation of deer, there is no way to
prevent this from happening in upcoming years.
In conclusion we believe if this problem is not
solved, farmers’ profit will continue to decrease.
We also believe the number of casualties in
automobile accidents concerning deer, will boost. If
our solution is not effective, we are open to any
other ideas to solve this very severe issue.
(1)
www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20081023-SPORTS-810230378
(2)
http://www.idausa.org/facts/deercontrol.html
Ask a Thoughtful Question or Respond
Thoughtful
Questions
From:
ohyeah! - farmer - NHHS
Statement
11/7/2008
11:18:00 AM
You have a lot of back up information and your
argument is convincing. The idea of
extending the hunting season for farmers to
year-round is a good idea, but someone
suggested a food plot to us to keep the deer out of
the farmers' land in the first
place. We really feel that that is a good idea. You
presented a great argument!
From:
Girl With Big Guns - hunter – BGHS
Ask
11/19/2008
8:26:00 AM
have you thought about planting a feed plot?
|
The Truffula Farmers & Barbaloot Hunters
Mountain Vista Governors School
11/10/2008
8:09:00 AM
Effects of Deer on Farmers
Deer are detrimental to farms. For example,
ninety-two percent of farmers in Maryland
suffer crop damages because of deer. It is
estimated that in Maryland the damages total
thirty-four million dollars. In order to protect,
the crops from deer, fences would have to
be installed all around the perimeter of the crops.
However, this option is not economical
when there are large quantities of relatively cheap
crops; the installation and the
maintenance of the fences can cost a farmer three
thousand dollars for just one acre of
land. This fencing also is an inconvenience to the
farmers because it makes it hard for the
farmers to get tractors and plows into the fields.
A solution to the
overpopulation of deer is hunting. As humans have
eliminated the
majority of the animals that prey on the deer, the
only significant predator for the deer is
hunters. If there are restrictions on hunting,
then the deer population goes unchecked. A
historical example of hunting helping limit the
population of deer is the Native Americans.
“Indians in the East killed 4.6 million to 6.4
million white-tailed deer every year, the 18,000
Huron Indians in eastern Canada in the 17th century
probably needed 62,000 deer per
year to keep themselves in food and leather.”
During these time periods the deer
population was manageable, as a result of the
hunting that the Native Americans did. It
costs approximately three hundred and sixty dollars
to extract deer from their habitat and
either transport them somewhere else or kill them
humanely. Letting hunters hunt the
deer, eliminates this cost, and also adds to our
national supply of food. The best solution
for controlling the deer population is to use
hunting as a population control technique.
Hunting has not solved the problem so far; due to
the limited number of areas in which to
hunt. During the 2007-2008 deer season, 240,423 deer
were reported killed by hunters in
Virginia. This total included 108,670 antlered
bucks, 22,735 button bucks, and 109,018
does (45.3%). This represents a >7% increase from
the 223,775 deer reported killed last
year. It is also 13% higher than the last 10 year
average of 212,550. The figure (below)
shows a dramatic increase in Virginia deer kill in
the past 60 years. This increase, however,
has not balanced out the deer population; as deer
are still over populated. Should hunters
be allowed to work with farmers to decrease the
population; not only would they have more
room to hunt, but they would be hunting in areas
that the deer are attracted to, due to the
food supply.
|
 |
Virginia
Deer Kill, 1947to 2007
|
Hunters must also consider the deer they are hunting
and targeting. Many hunters target
bucks and try to get the biggest one with the most
points; however this technique is not
altogether effective in the controlling of the deer
population. A male deer will mate with
several partners if the opportunity presents itself.
Thus if we decrease the male population
we really don’t decrease the population, by a large
amount, because there are still the
same number of doe to produce offspring. Hunters
must focus primarily on the older does
in order to decrease the population.
Farmers and hunters must work together in order to
solve the deer population problem. They are
normally separated on the issue and choose only to
concentrate on the effect of the population in
regards to them and no one else. Farmers want the
population to be depleted dramatically, and although
it might seem that hunters want the population to
stay high; they don’t. They don’t want the
population to be too high because the deer become
unhealthy and thin. The best solution is for the
hunters and farmers find a balanced population for
deer and have the hunters help regulate it on
farming land. Farmers must
accept that deer will always have some affect on
their crops, but by allowing hunters to harvest deer
on their plantation, and keeping communication lines
open they can get the best of both worlds.
Ask a Thoughtful Question or Respond
Thoughtful
Questions
Moderator comment.
You say that "If
there are restrictions on hunting, then the deer
population goes unchecked.
A historical example of hunting helping limit the
population of deer is the Native Americans."
I found your statistics on the deer take by native
Americans very interesting, but note that you said
"helped limit." Because, of course, there were
also abundant large predators in those days in
addition to the human pressure. A few
comments/questions. One is that with no
restrictions on hunting, deer were largely
extirpated from the eastern United States by the
turn of the last century. Do you think
that hunters and farmers, working together, can
self-regulate without an outside referee? How
do you respond to the Moderator's Coyote Challenge
on the eForum's home page?
From:
Deer Assassins - hunter - BGHS
Statement
11/17/2008
8:20:00 AM
Although the hunters are only killing big bucks,
they are still killing so it is helping
some.
From:
Girl With Big Guns - hunter – BGHS
Ask
11/19/2008
8:24:00 AM
I definitely agree with you that if we all worked
together we could be more
effective in lowering the deer population? How do
you think we could campaign to
get everyone involved?
Response
The Truffula Farmers & Barbaloot Hunters - farmer -
MVGS
11/20/2008
2:15:00 PM
Campaigning would be best done at local spots that
are common for hunters
to go, such as Gander Mountain or any rifle and bow
shops.
|
|
