# New way to eliminate hunting found!



## ELKARCHER (Apr 21, 2003)

New option for limiting deer population found
BY KENNETH L R. PATCHEN 
STAFF WRITER 

Findings from taxpayer funded study, which started in 2001, are preliminary. 

A four-year, $369,000 study funded by Highland Park taxpayers to control the deer population appears to offer wildlife management professionals a new option for areas that do not allow hunting. 

Excessive deer populations can be controlled by a program to trap, neuter and release female deer, the study maintains. This is a no-kill control option suitable for high-density suburban communities. 

Scientific findings from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and wildlife professionals from the University of Wisconsin in Madison and the Milwaukee County Zoo were reported to Highland Park City Council members Monday night. 

The findings will be reported to the public during the Nov. 14 city council meeting, also available on Channel 10. 

"This is truly ground-breaking research in the wildlife management community," said Nancy E. Mathews of the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies of the University of Wisconsin in Madison. "This is a very high-profile project." 

The findings are considered preliminary in the scientific community, Mathews said. 

In 2001, the City Council hired a research team to explore ways to control an overpopulation of deer in the city without having to kill them. The desire resulted in this state-sanctioned research study to determine if neutering female deer would reduce the number of deer over time. This final report summarizes four years of research that involved trapping 180 deer (101 female; 79 male) and sterilizing 67 does (not all does captured were sterilized). Bucks are not sterilized since they do not remain in Highland Park. 

Council members voiced optimism about the project's value to the city but urged caution until its findings can properly be presented to the public. 

Study-related conclusions include: 

* Sterilizing female deer, as a tentative conclusion based on the small sample size, seems to have little effect on their behavior although neutered deer seem to move around more than do fertile deer. 

* Sterilizing deer under field conditions can be done. This involves capturing, chemically immobilizing the doe, and performing surgery. 

* The cost to sterilize a deer is about $750, after start-up costs. The cost includes about $150 worth of drugs per deer as well as a month's worth of veterinarian time. 

Not every deer participating in the study survived. Deaths related to capture were six percent (11 deer). Only one death was attributable to surgery. In the four years of the study, more neutered deer died than did those not neutered, although many deaths were caused by collisions with vehicles. Other causes of death were: collisions with trains, predation, poaching, and killing by neighboring communities. Surgery did not affect fawns developing in does at the time of sterilization. 

To maintain the success of the program, researchers estimate about six deer a year must be sterilized. The ultimate outcome of a control program is that the deer population stabilizes in about 9 1/2 years. 

The deer populations on the west and east side of Route 41 do not mix. Only five deer, sometime during the study, crossed Route 41, and only two moved their home range from one side of Rt. 41 to the other. 

The initial cost of the project is high because of the research approach, radio-tracking costs, and the analysis. The average cost per deer was about $1,000 with scientific and police department personnel time included. However, the direct cost per deer was estimated at $750. 

About a dozen Highland Park police officers were involved with field operations, especially Sgt. George Pfutzenreuter. 

"We could not have done (this study) without the support of the ambulance and the police staff," said Mathews. 

Funding was supported by the City of Highland Park, the research institutions, Sir Finance Corporation, the Metroparks Deer Preservation Council of Milford, Mich., and nine Highland Park residents: R.D. Misch, Martha MacLeod, Albert MacLeod, Virginia Knox Collins, Bruce J. Johnson, Dr. Joel A. Kaplan, Anne Flanigan Bassi, Victor M. Bassi and Donald R. Dann. 

Contact Kenneth L R. Patchen at [email protected]


----------



## ELKARCHER (Apr 21, 2003)

*Another viewpoint:*

Science fails in attempt to reduce deer


At last, science has come up with a way to manage nuisance suburban deer.

Researchers in Highland Park, Ill., believe they're on their way to stabilizing that town's excess population of white-tailed deer.

Over four years, they've spent $369,000 to sterilize 67 does. They figure if they continue to sterilize another half-dozen a year for the next nine years, the number of deer inside city limits will begin to fall.

Really, that's the good news.

They're not the first to test the idea of controlling deer numbers be preventing them from reproducing. They're just the first to claim success.

Success?

Here's the arithmetic: That works out to about $5,500 per sterilized deer. The researchers admit the initial costs seem high, but said they expected to reduce the cost to nearly $750 a deer when they get good at it.

What they've been doing, by the way, is trapping the animals and performing surgery on them in the field as well as providing follow-up veterinary care.

I understand Highland Park is a wealthy community. They won't stay that way if they keep spending $5,500 each to spay deer.

One interesting result of the follow-up attention was researchers found does that had been neutered tended to move around more than did fertile deer. In fact, some of those deer wandered right out of town after their very expensive surgeries.

Some towns trying to deal with out-of-control deer numbers are experimenting with fences to keep deer from suburban landscaping as well as urban highways. Faced with its sterilization costs, Highland Park may have to resort to fences to keep its customized deer at home.

Another recent birth-control experiment has failed.

Canadian drug-maker ImmunoVaccine Technologies is giving up on SpayVac.

SpayVac was supposed to effectively sterilize does with a single dose, which could be administered via injection or orally. Initially, ImmunoVaccine Technologies suggested the biggest challenge in using the SpayVac vaccine would be administering it to enough animals - 80% or more of does would have to get the drug before the population would begin to fall.

After field tests in Ohio and New Jersey, the company found a different challenge: Many does that had received the drug kept producing fawns.

Apparently, what had worked so well in a university laboratory didn't work so well with real deer.

Worse for ImmunoVaccine stockholders, SpayVac appears to wear off. It had been touted as superior to other drugs that had been tried in the past because it was supposed to be permanent. Instead, it stops being effective in most does in three years or less - which means most suburban deer would outlast it and become fertile again.

Did I mention it costs $110 a dose? Cheaper than surgery, but way too expensive if it doesn't work.

So nothing has changed.

The best, permanent, quickest, most cost-efficient deer birth-control system wears hunter orange


----------



## Engelsmung (Jan 12, 2005)

not to mention that the guy in orange is usually willing to pay you to hunt the deer. What a no brainer.


----------



## Jim G (Apr 8, 2003)

*Mind Boggling!!*

There are only two ways to reduce the population in an area:

1) Move the deer
2) Death

I don't care if it's natural, or useful death (hunting) the deer have to die in order for the population to decrease. THE DEER WILL DIE! Why not let people who want the deer make use of them? Why do we have to let them die of old age? car accidents..whatever.

Nobody is saving the deer's life by spaying. They are delaying (possibly) the inevitable.

SHEESH I hate it when they use the words "saved a deer's life"

Jim G,


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Jim G said:


> There are only two ways to reduce the population in an area:
> 
> 1) Move the deer
> 2) Death
> ...


This is oh, so true, and again underscores and puts in BOLD FACE the absolute arrogance and idiocy of those conducting these kinds of frivolous activities.

For starters, the meatheads first completely discount the FACT that Nature is supreme, not MAN. For recent examples of this supremacy, see the Asian Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, Ophelia, Wilma, etc. How about volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Mount St. Helen's. Blizzard of '77, flooding in Massachusetts, and, above all else, the impending threat of the Asian Bird Flu. Nature is supreme, and we seem to not understand that we (man) gets in serious troubles by ignoring this fact and trying to impose our absolute moronic will against Nature. 

Second, understanding that Nature is supreme, we can then realize that life on Earth is maintained through balance, which is achieved through the predator/ prey relationship. 2 Billion years worth of success is never wrong.

Why on earth would these morons believe that subjecting wildlife to surgery is kind-hearted? That is a practice of man, and should be left to man. It is cruel and unusual to impose these warped standards on a wild population. ABsolute arrogance and irresponsibility.

Man is an Apex predator. We have been since we came out the trees. We must realize this is the relationship that is most successful, and fulfill our role and responsibility as such. No other alternatives exist. It is that simple.

For those animal rights folks and these arrogant naturalists who would think otherwise, I would recommend they go back to 6th Grade Science class, and learn about the balance of nature all over again.


----------



## Tim4Trout (Jul 10, 2003)

Regardless of cost, immunocontraception as it is often called can only serve to prevent a population of deer from increasing. With the exception that a sterilized deer will eventually die by some means, It can not reliably reduce a population that is already excessive and causing problems. 

The reduction of deer numbers through relocation both places the animals under great stress and often acomplishes little beyond moving a problem from one location to another.

While those residing in a "wealthy" community with money to spare may be able, and choose, to incur the excessive expense of attempting to deal with deer numbers through these so called "non lethal" methods, the general public should have the option of not being limited to such methods.

The objective of animal rights factions is in no way connected with managing wildlife in a feasable and socially economic fashion. Their agenda is based solely upon seeing that hunting is not a part of any plan for the management of wildlife. Regardless of expense or foolhardiness, they will continue to push for the use of so called non lethal immunocontraceptive measures, often citing them as alternatives to hunting but in reality pushing such measures as a replacement to hunting to accomplish their agenda of seeing that an animal's life is not ended with a hunter's arrow or bullet.


----------



## SilentElk (Oct 6, 2004)

$750 a deer is crazy! Once again, non hunting methods for population limits is unpractical.


----------



## CharlesH71 (Feb 12, 2005)

This doesn't serve to strengthen the breed since it prevents the strong from passing on their genes. At best it stagnates the gene pool. At worst, the weak pass on their genes and the breed declines.

It's simply amazing to see what kind of waste our tax dollars go to. Will they do the same to control other animal populations next? Just imagine how expensive it will be to dope up a bear or elk for sterilization surgery. That's the only 'logical' choice given some areas will not allow bear hunting...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

They should force these anti hunting whackos to put condoms on the bucks or insert IUD's into the Does


----------

