Shooting Deer (or not)

This was the view from one of my bedroom windows this afternoon. Shortly before I snapped this picture, mom and her fawn were napping. One or two other deer rested in the shade nearby. I love living where wild deer freely roam. I volunteer with Wildlife Fawn Rescue and I donate money to 11 animal welfare groups, 12 if you count the Sierra Club. I care deeply about animals.

So how should I react to a proposal to shoot deer in Point Reyes National Seashore?

The deer in question are two non-native species that were introduced by a rancher 60 years ago for hunting purposes. This "sport" became illegal at some point, but non-native deer were "culled" by hired hunters until 1994. Once Man's guns exited the picture, these non-native deer expanded their population to an extent that has threatened the existence of the native animals. One of the "exotics", the white or fallow deer, has doubled its population to about 900 animals in the past 4 years. Added to about 250 Asian axis deer, another exotic group, these animals are straining the resources of the park. The native black-tailed deer and tule elk compete for the same food against a rapidly increasing number of the (apparently more prolific) exotics. Additionally, the large number of the non-native species is damaging the meadows and waterways on which all the species depend. Everyone involved seems to recognize this as a problem. The controversy arises with the solution. A panel of experts studying the problem for four years recommended a plan combining sharpshooting and contraception. Some neighbors of the park along with animal rights advocates are strongly protesting the sharpshooting part of the plan. In Defense of Animals, a group to which I financially contribute, is one such advocacy group. The Marin Humane Society is another. I contribute to the Humane Society of Sonoma County.

So how should I react to a proposal to shoot the deer?

One of my first reactions was to wonder what Marjorie Davis thinks about this. She is the founder and director of Wildlife Fawn Rescue and a woman whom I greatly admire. I plan to ask her about this. I wanted to explore my own thoughts, though. One of the first that came to mind was that this planned killing of the non-native deer could be seen as a form of animal ethnic cleansing. The idea repelled me as I thought of human parallels. Yet I found that I was not comfortable with a hands off approach to the problem. After all, it was humans that brought these animals to the ecosystem that they are now destroying. It's 60 years too late to expect nature alone to resolve the problem. On the other hand, the ancestors of these "exotics" have made their home on this land for many many many generations. Perhaps Man should let the future unfold as it will, Man being one of many causes in the evolution of the process.

Ultimately, at least so far, I find myself coming down on the other side. I want the native species to thrive. I personally dislike even the idea of hunting, but I accept the idea of people eating meat. In fact, I'm currently an omnivore. I think a lot about the process which bring meat to me. I'm greatly disturbed about the cruelty of the slaughterhouse and of the factory farms. I think that hunting animals as food is probably more humane. So it makes sense to me for sharpshooters to kill the non-native deer as l0ng as the bodies of these animals are used as food.

The experts say that using contraception alone will not solve the problem of the non-native deer. I'm inclined to go along with them. Contraception might be the "nicer" approach, the one that humans would find easiest to handle. (I don't know how the deer themselves would be effected by having their reproductive ability taken away from them.) Contraception might also be a luxury in the increasingly difficult situation of a deer population that doubles every four years.

Of course what I'm writing about is NIMBY (not in my back yard) - nor anywhere around my house. Leave my Bambi(s) alone!!!