URBAN DEER IN NORTH AMERICA I
Urban and Suburban deer management is planned or in progress in countless areas all over North America. Management by non-lethal means is increasing in towns and suburbs in many areas but lethal means are still being used in the vast majority of cases. This is largely because no matter who initiates the management, the final decision on method is usually with those organizations who are given the authority to manage wildlife, ostensibly for the benefit of the general public. These organizations include state wildlife agencies and many Federal Agencies, including the National Park Service. The wildlife managers are biased towards lethal means by training, culture, professional affiliation and, often, economics. They tend to go ahead with lethal controls despite strong opposition from the public for whom they should be acting. They have little or no independent science review.
WILDLIFE MANAGERS NEED SCIENTIFIC OVERSIGHT:
A recent letter from four scientists to Science magazine made the following proposal
“We propose that wildlife managers be held to the same level of scrutiny as research scientists through independent oversight similar to the peer-review process. This would incorporate science into management, ensure that the best available evidence is used in management decisions , and improve accountability to the public for whom wildlife are ostensibly managed”
See full text of letter here
Although these scientists were prompted by a Grizzly Bear hunting issue, their proposal applies to all wildlife managers, including all those responsible for deer herds in North America. At present there seems to be no independent scientific review of wildlife management decisions made by those given authority over wildlife. Generally only in-house scientists or those closely related and compatible to the deciding organization are used. There is no "Science Court" for these decisions and, in the case at least of federal Agencies, the reigning courts have a policy of deferring to the Agency. It is very frustrating to those of us who can see blatant errors, distortions, and plain untruths flouted publicly by these privileged Agencies.
The National Park Service deer management plan for Rock Creek Park Deer is one good example of why oversight is needed, though there are also many others.
A recent letter from four scientists to Science magazine made the following proposal
“We propose that wildlife managers be held to the same level of scrutiny as research scientists through independent oversight similar to the peer-review process. This would incorporate science into management, ensure that the best available evidence is used in management decisions , and improve accountability to the public for whom wildlife are ostensibly managed”
See full text of letter here
Although these scientists were prompted by a Grizzly Bear hunting issue, their proposal applies to all wildlife managers, including all those responsible for deer herds in North America. At present there seems to be no independent scientific review of wildlife management decisions made by those given authority over wildlife. Generally only in-house scientists or those closely related and compatible to the deciding organization are used. There is no "Science Court" for these decisions and, in the case at least of federal Agencies, the reigning courts have a policy of deferring to the Agency. It is very frustrating to those of us who can see blatant errors, distortions, and plain untruths flouted publicly by these privileged Agencies.
The National Park Service deer management plan for Rock Creek Park Deer is one good example of why oversight is needed, though there are also many others.
Bad Science in the NPS management plan for RCP deer
* Recently, an analysis by a leading forest ecologists has shown that the NPS grossly misinterpreted the data they used to justify killing the deer.. Dr. Oswald Schmitz from Yale University performed a detailed analysis of the the pivotal study underlying the NPS claim that deer are a danger to the Park’s plants. The NPS claims that the study shows deer are interfering with forest regeneration. Dr. Schmitz’s analysis makes it quite clear that the study really shows the opposite – although the deer do consume tree seedlings, there is no effect on the amount of cover after a certain height. In effect, the deer remove seedlings that would have to die in any case because there is not room for all the seedlings that sprout to grow into trees. (Very like when a gardener sows seeds and then has to thin them for the health of those remaining.) The study shows no effect of the deer on the mature growth of the plants.
* The NPS analysis of of alternatives is noticeably biased in favor of lethal methods and against contraception. This begins with the strange treatment of contraceptive methods. Instead of being compared with other methods on the dimensions of cost, effectiveness and whatever else is regarded as desirable, they are rejected up front on the basis of certain criteria not applied to any other methods. Then there are the criteria themselves which in some cases appear to be specifically devised to reject a method. For example the criterion of multi-year efficacy is defined as three or more years from a single application, when the most used method is effective for two years. The need for three, rather than two, years is not otherwise explained.
* The NPS analysis makes unsupported and unrealistic assumptions that favor lethal methods such as the very low “20% growth rate” that results in the estimation that the target population can be reached in three years by the bait-and-shoot approach. When challenged by public comments, the NPS does not even attempt to defend this conclusion but admits it is prepared to shoot the deer for the entire 15 year duration of the plan, if needed. Yet the three-year conclusion in the main body of the document is not subjected to caveats, but left to stand as if proven and quoted in news releases. There is also misleading language, as when the early parts of the document leave the impression, on someone not familiar with the EPA or FDA approvals, that most of the contraceptive methods would actually be illegal. Later sections make it clear that legal approvals are readily available, but these sections are so buried in the report that they are likely not to be read by many of the audience.
An independent science review would be likely to catch these errors and probably more.
* Recently, an analysis by a leading forest ecologists has shown that the NPS grossly misinterpreted the data they used to justify killing the deer.. Dr. Oswald Schmitz from Yale University performed a detailed analysis of the the pivotal study underlying the NPS claim that deer are a danger to the Park’s plants. The NPS claims that the study shows deer are interfering with forest regeneration. Dr. Schmitz’s analysis makes it quite clear that the study really shows the opposite – although the deer do consume tree seedlings, there is no effect on the amount of cover after a certain height. In effect, the deer remove seedlings that would have to die in any case because there is not room for all the seedlings that sprout to grow into trees. (Very like when a gardener sows seeds and then has to thin them for the health of those remaining.) The study shows no effect of the deer on the mature growth of the plants.
* The NPS analysis of of alternatives is noticeably biased in favor of lethal methods and against contraception. This begins with the strange treatment of contraceptive methods. Instead of being compared with other methods on the dimensions of cost, effectiveness and whatever else is regarded as desirable, they are rejected up front on the basis of certain criteria not applied to any other methods. Then there are the criteria themselves which in some cases appear to be specifically devised to reject a method. For example the criterion of multi-year efficacy is defined as three or more years from a single application, when the most used method is effective for two years. The need for three, rather than two, years is not otherwise explained.
* The NPS analysis makes unsupported and unrealistic assumptions that favor lethal methods such as the very low “20% growth rate” that results in the estimation that the target population can be reached in three years by the bait-and-shoot approach. When challenged by public comments, the NPS does not even attempt to defend this conclusion but admits it is prepared to shoot the deer for the entire 15 year duration of the plan, if needed. Yet the three-year conclusion in the main body of the document is not subjected to caveats, but left to stand as if proven and quoted in news releases. There is also misleading language, as when the early parts of the document leave the impression, on someone not familiar with the EPA or FDA approvals, that most of the contraceptive methods would actually be illegal. Later sections make it clear that legal approvals are readily available, but these sections are so buried in the report that they are likely not to be read by many of the audience.
An independent science review would be likely to catch these errors and probably more.
Urban Deer
Coming soon
A. NPS management
B. Other
Coming soon
A. NPS management
B. Other
