View Single Post
Old 07-31-2016, 12:59 PM   #6
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 379
Originally Posted by samsbud View Post
Classic example; Martha's Vineyard refused to allow hunters to cull the deer herd, so disease and overcrowding could be controlled, for decades.
All of a sudden some 1%er's children get Lyme disease and a few BMW's get into collisions with deer, along with them munching on their expensive landscaping, and presto chango, hunting season starts with unlimited permits to kill as many deer as possible.
What the habitat can support plays a back seat to what society will support and the few powerful rich individuals that basically control the playing field.
You might find examples of that sort of thing happening in localized areas...though I am interested in hearing if there was more to that story (I doubt the deer are being totally hunted out of that area).

On a state or even federal level though, when wildlife agencies make decisions to protect, manage, de-list certain species, they are doing so based on target #'s they have set for those species, which in large part are determined by the amount of available habitat that can support said species.

I've no doubt that lobbyist groups have some measure of influence over government wildlife agencies (both animal rights groups and hunting groups). But most, if not all, of these agencies have resident biologists with boots-on-the-ground experience; their recommendations are based largely on what the habitat can support. Having too many of a certain species can be just as detrimental to the environment (as you pointed out with your deer example) as is having too few or none at all.
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote