The Answer to Suburban Deer

Fairfax County, Va., recently began working with two organized bowhunting groups to manage a far too-high population of deer in a couple of the county’s parks.

The move is a representative example of what happens in many states when suburban whitetail populations exceed their carrying capacity.

What happens is that people lose touch with reality.

In some cases, like Friends of Animals President Priscilla Feral, maybe they had already lost touch.  Commenting on Fairfax County’s cooperation with bowhunters, Feral said, “Bowhunting is a repulsive, violent assault on animals who should be left alone. A deeper question is whether we should be in control of the deer population at all.”

Kimberly Sisco, a board member with a local Wildlife Rescue League, told the Fairfax Times, “The fact is, once the arrow leaves the bow, there is no way to predict what will happen next. The bottom line is that there is no safe place for bowhunting in a suburban area.”

Since neither of these people mentioned anything resembling a fact, let’s look at some.

A healthy deer density in Fairfax County is considered to be about 20-30 deer per square mile.  That can vary, of course, depending on site-specific conditions. In Colvin Run Stream Valley, site of one of the county’s managed bowhunts, there are 60-100 deer per square mile. A place called Riverbend Park has 213 deer per square mile, and Bull Run Regional Park has 419 deer per square mile. The figures are from the 2009 Annual Report on the Environment, Fairfax, County, VA, which also stated: “It is apparent that Fairfax County has a serious overabundance of deer.”

Deer compete for food and space. When an overabundance of deer intensifies that competition, deer eat up everything in sight, causing ecological damage to forests and eventually facing malnutrition, disease and/or starvation. And if even one deer gets a disease it can spread much faster in areas of high deer density.

Moreover, an overabundance of deer can increase the potential for Lyme disease and result in massive loss of residential shrubbery and vegetable gardens. Finally, the number of deer-automobile collisions inevitably rises. Fairfax County alone averages between 4,000 and 5,000 such collisions a year. About 150 people a year die from such accidents nationwide, and repair costs average $3,050.   

So, in answer to Feral’s question—to put it mildly—yes, we do need to be in control of the deer population. The fact that she fails or refuses to see this proves what a “friend of animals” she and her group really are.

As for the inevitable safety issues raised over suburban hunts, Fairfax is again a good example. Eric Huppert is president of Suburban Whitetail Management of Northern Virginia, (SWMNV) the group handling the hunt at Colvin Run. (Belvoir Bow Hunters is conducting the other county hunt, at Laurel Run.)  

“We’ve worked with Fairfax County since1998, and no one has ever shot anything other than a deer,” Huppert said.

SWMNV hunters fully recognize that hunting in Fairfax County parkland is not like hunting in a national forest, and there are a number of rules they follow to ensure safety. Anyone who wants to join the club must prove completion of the International Bowhunting Education Course, and pass a marksmanship test where you shoot broadheads at a six-inch circle from 20 and 30 yards.  All hunters use tree stands placed at least 15 feet high; there is no ground hunting. And no shots are to be taken beyond 20 yards. Not only does the range restriction help ensure safety, it shows some sensitivity to the neighbors, too. “We don’t want to have to trail a deer through the community,” Huppert said.  SWMNV hunters use compound bows and crossbows only. They also carry one million dollars of insurance, which is required by Fairfax County.

None of the people who oppose Fairfax County’s hunts has cited even one actual accident or incident of property damage caused by a bowhunter.

Huppert and his group also go above and beyond in trying to be good citizens. While hunter harassment is not as common as it used to be, thanks to laws NRA helped pass, SWMNV hunters have had to deal with it. One hunter had his tires slashed. Another was surprised to hear a resident setting off firecrackers to scare away deer. And there has been verbal abuse, too.

“We don’t even engage these people,” Huppert said. The tire slashing was reported to police, and the verbal abuse is not allowed to escalate into anything dramatic.

The bowhunting groups work for free, actually generating revenue for the state through the license fees they pay. The “sharpshooters” that local governments sometimes bring in to cope with too many deer are usually paid.

“We don’t charge. We never will,” Huppert said. The group also routinely donates between 60 and 70 percent of the deer they shoot to Hunters for the Hungry programs.

Mild winters, high reproduction rates, a lack of predators, local laws against discharging a firearm and anti-hunting sentiment all contribute to the suburban deer problem in Fairfax and many other cities and towns throughout the country.  And whether it’s bows or firearms where legal, a controlled, regulated hunting season continues to be the single most effective answer to it.  Even beyond what’s happening in Fairfax County, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries instituted an urban archery season in 2002. Made available to every incorporated city and town in the state, and to Fairfax and York counties, the generous split season ran from Sept. 5 to Oct. 2, 2009, and will go from Jan. 4 to March 27, 2010.  

While that’s a lot of days to hunt, we are facing a lot of opposition to hunting. Every time an issue like this makes the papers—and this one has made the Washington Post, the Fairfax Times and the Reston Connection that I know of—hunters should be burying editors with letters and online comments filled with facts that support suburban hunting.

Fairfax held a couple of public meetings to address the hunts, and some of the animal rights’ advocates who showed up don’t even reside in the state, according to Huppert. Misguided as these people are, they are passionate.

It would be a mistake to let them be more passionate, or more active, than we are.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note: SWMNV has 90-100 members but, “We are always looking for action-oriented people,” said President Eric Huppert. “While everyone wants to hunt, people willing to work the phones, pitch in with the administrative work, etc. are needed, too.”  Visit http://www.deerdamage.org for information on joining.

Comments

Regarding resident vs. non-resident, anti-hunting advocacy: Miss (Mrs.?) Rhoads’ statement is purposely misleading...typical clap-trap of the liberal-minded bent of these anti-hunting folks. She states that “none who appeared at the board meetings were out-of-state.” Well, the article does not submit they were. It correctly identifies them as not being connected to the local community/neighborhood at the center of this debate. Thus, they have no direct stake in the issue, regardless their personal, emotional involvement. At least one (maybe more) anti-bowhunters at the meeting, when asked, admitted to NOT being a resident. This is a well known and often used tactic of the anti-hunting community that helps create an illusion of greater "local support against hunting.” Fortunately, fore warned is fore armed, and these people with no direct link to the Colvin Mill Run location were shut down in their tracks. Chalk one up for the intelligent side. Regarding speeding as often causing deer/vehicle collisions: This is only partially true. If deer would slow down and look both ways, it might cut down on the number of collisions, but probably not. You see, deer do not understand vehicles for the danger they pose...regardless of their speed. Thus, I have watched deer step directly into the path of a slow moving vehicle, and watched in horror as the deer simply folded underneath and was crushed to death. The vehicle was travelling no more than 20mph (which begs another question regarding the driver, but let’s not digress). And your arbitrary statement regarding speeding is ridiculous. According to you, of the thousands of deer hit on our highways and byways each year, a good number of them are caused by evil speeders? Puh-lease! Talk about grasping for straws... So, what would you have us do, Miss Rhoads, stop travelling in vehicles? Walk to D.C. from Northern Va. every morning? Post road guards at deer crossings, perhaps? “You neglect to point out how many are caused by deer management itself, when deer run into the street in a panic.” Oh, boy...talk about emotionally grasping for straws. Please, do tell, where did you come up with this gem? Show me one – just one! – proven link between a deer/vehicle accident and deer management/hunting. Just one!....{{I hear crickets}} He failed to mention it because his article was based on fact; it wasn’t meant for the guffaw factor. Nevertheless, you’re filling in nicely. “...vehicle repair cost is based on national averages, this is misleading and irrelevant to Fairfax. The Fairfax County Police Department quotes an average of $2,300.” No, actually, it’s neither misleading nor irrelevant. Your contention, however, is. But thank you for the specifics. The local average you provided is part of the national average. Why is it lower? Perhaps our speed limits (where most deer/vehicle accidents occur) are lower (vs. parts of Montana, where the speed limit goes as high as 75mph), thus lowering the amount of damage incurred upon impact. Perhaps, but who really cares? Damage is damage, and death is death. You’re arguing semantics over a serious issue...shame on you. Regarding your disjointed logic on Lyme disease and deer: Well, it’s been covered and I find your arguments drifting from reality, but I ask you, if a mouse and a deer are both carrying and depositing ticks over their areas of travel, which spreads these ticks farther, faster? I would submit the deer – it’s range of travel far exceeds that of the mouse. And although deer do not actually contract the disease (you did get something correct), ask me if I care. Jane is a carrier of disease-X, but never actually contracts the disease herself. Your logic would have me intimacy with Jane. Thanks, but no thanks. You’re free to have at it, but I choose to keep Jane at arm’s length. And once you contract it, you too. Hyperbole aside, no one wants what the deer are “offering.” Bowhunt rodents? Already there – some folks bowhunt squirrels. Down in Florida, they bowhunt escaped Capabarry. As far as local mice are concerned, I’d advocate using mousetraps; they’re much easier to deal with and take less personal time to utilize. “How safe is this action when only six paper signs announcing 'deer management' were duct-taped haphazardly among Colvin Run's 38 acres?” The answer will shock you. First, I don’t believe the advocates of this endeavor – residents living around the park, the county Board of Supervisors, or the county biologist – are nearly as stupid as you would have us believe. For that matter, I don’t think other people who utilize this park (pro or con to this management thrust) are stupid either. They read the papers, they hear the news reports, and they tend to talk amongst themselves. In a nutshell, you might consider them...”informed.” Seems to me, the only one who has “missed the boat” here is you. And it appears you missed it long before this local issue popped up. I haven’t seen the signs you mention, but would hazard a guess that they are, in fact, strategically placed where anyone walking a path could not fail to see them. I trust their judgment over your emotion-driven exaggerations. Yes, you and the “Friends of Animals” are in a league all your own. I cannot – and will not – submit that there is no place in our society for dreamers of your ilk, anymore than I would reject flowers as beautiful. But really, Miss Rhoads, you folks should try a little harder to obtain a more realistic understanding of the world’s realities passing under your hypnotized noses. You stain your better efforts with this sort of nonsense. From Bogenschutze on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:07 AM Interesting exchange between two out of the five major interest groups concerned about deer hunting. The remaining groups are environmentalists, property owners, and public decision makers. I'd like to weigh in representing environmentalists and property owners. I live about 2 miles from the park mentioned in the above article. The landscape is nearly fully developed in 1 to 5 acre lots with a great stream valley park in the midst. Nowhere in this landscape do we have healthy forests, even though the land is covered with trees. Deer, at densities more than an order of magnitude greater than eastern hardwood forest ecosystems can withstand, have eliminated the understory vegetation required for habitat and food by a host of animals other than deer. What about the rights of animals whose food supplies and shelter have been eaten? What about the stability of our forest ecosystems and their long-term sustainability? It is true that people have usurped the landscape for their own purposes without much thought historically about animal rights or ecosystems. We eliminated deer and their natural predators from Virginia before 1900 and we have re-stocked the state with deer in the 20th century. Where neither predators nor hunters have put pressure on the deer population, deer have exploded in numbers and automobiles are the principle control. Could the bunch of trees that have reclaimed our previously agricultural landscape over the last 80 years function as a forest ecosystem? Yes, but a necessary condition is control of deer populations. Non-lethal controls simply will not achieve the order of magnitude reductions in deer numbers that would be needed in areas such as this. Hunting by gun where safe and by archery elsewhere are the only proven methods to achieve control. The safety and humaneness of hunting depends much more on the skill and ethics of the hunter than on the choice of device. Perhaps animal rights advocates should get to know some hunters who take their responsibilities seriously, as Eric and Ralph Huppert clearly do, and figure out together how to ensure that public and private property owners allow only skilled and ethical hunters into their woods. Regarding Lyme disease, deer are not hosts for the organism that causes the disease in people and pets (the organisms actually will not survive in a deer). Rodents are the hosts for the organism. However, deer ticks require a final blood meal before laying eggs and they can get this from people and other mammals in the woods. But deer ticks overwhelmingly depend on deer for this blood meal. So deer sustain the tick population that carries the disease. The more deer, the more ticks, the more Lyme disease. Both deer and rodents need to be controlled to limit Lyme disease. Oh, yeah, the fifth interest group: public decision makers. At some point we must trust our elected representatives to decide and implement the public's interest after weighing the positions advocated by various groups. The State of Virginia and Fairfax County have weighed the arguments of hunters, animal rights advocates, property owners, and environmental scientists about deer hunting. The result is not hunting bans but Urban Archery Seasons, hunting safety courses, and State and County deer management plans that rely on hunters to control the State's deer. Speaking for environmentalists and property owners who care for their sliver of the environment, I applaud. From Jerry Peters, friend of forests on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 4:39 PM Interesting rebuttal, though some of the arguments are shallow in fact and deep in emotion. Your point, Ms. Rhoads, that accidents are caused by deer running into roads away from hunting is totally unsupportable and incorrect. Deer run for cover when they are scared. Most traffic accidents involving deer are related to the rutting/feeding activity, not hunting. I have used firearms and archery equipment to take deer. I have to tell you that a deer's reaction to an arrow is usually just as intense and short as to a bullet. In fact, I have seen deer just continue feeding when struck with an arrow, seconds later falling over. Deer ticks carry Lyme's disease--the more deer you have the more deer ticks with Lyme's disease you will have--and if that isn't obvious to you, look where cases of Lyme's disease are most common and you will see it is where there is an abundance of deer, not rodents. You incorrectly suggest that residents wearing blaze orange proves bowhunting is unsafe. NO, residents wear the blaze orange to make themselves feel safer, no SWMNV member has ever taken a shot at any target that they were not 100% sure of, and at 20 yards it's pretty easy. The state does not require blaze orange for the archery season for good reason, it is safe. I suppose that emotional opinions are going to fly around this issue as long as the hunters who bear the responsibility for the wildlife through licenses and taxes on sporting goods are the only ones that really care about the animals and not a "I love animals so much I am OK if they suffer to keep them from being hunted" emotion. From Ralph 'Deery' Huppert on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:20 PM There are a few points in this article that needs to be addressed. "...animal rights advocates who showed up don't even reside in the state." Friends of Animals has an office both in D.C. and Northern Virginia and none who appeared at the board meetings were out-of-state. Deer-vehicle collisions - these are often caused by speeding. You neglect to point out how many are caused by deer management itself, when deer run into the street in a panic. Also, your vehicle repair cost is based on national averages, this is misleading and irrelevant to Fairfax. The Fairfax County Police Department quotes an average of $2,300. Lyme disease - ticks are attracted to deer and other mammals, such as rodents. Even domesticated in-home animals can carry them. Should we bowhunt rodents too? Having deer present is to our advantage, since the deer deal with the ticks naturally. Deer don't contract Lyme disease, nor do they have a hand in spreading it. By the time a tick has fallen off a deer - it is essentially dying or dead. In your article, there is a claim that this action is safe. If it is so safe, then why have residents resorted to wearing bright orange vests when raking their leaves or shoveling their walkways? How safe is this action when only six paper signs announcing "deer management" were duct-taped haphazardly among Colvin Run's 38 acres? Also, you will be pleased to know that Kimberly Sisco (WRL) is not in the same category as Friends of Animals. In an article dated 21 December 2009 in the Great Falls Connection newspaper, she was quoted as saying that she would prefer "they use sharp shooters to bow hunters. Using snipers is more effective and more humane because deer tend to die quickly from bullet wounds." Friends of Animals believes no method is the best method when it comes to the death of these free-living animals. Anai Rhoads Friends of Animals http://www.friendsofanimals.org From Anai Rhoads on Monday, December 28, 2009 11:28 AM

Name:* Email: Comments:* Enter the above code here: (Code is case insensitive. You can put lower or upper case.) Can't read? Try different words.