When I read the opinions of those voicing opposition to the Holmdel deer hunt, I come away with the feeling that they just don’t see the big picture.
Yes, of course we have altered our natural landscape drastically and destroyed large amounts of wildlife habitat. Yet, at the same time, we have created specific conditions in which the deer thrive. Deer are referred to as an edge species: they prefer patches of woods in which they can hide adjacent to open areas good for feeding. That is exactly the kind of landscape we have created in abundance. The deer population is too large because the landscape has been altered in a way that benefits them.
The people against the bow hunt act as though it is easy to kill a deer in this manner, that the deer are defenseless against the hunter. I beg to differ. With the deer’s keen senses and agility, it takes real patience to sit out in the winter cold, remaining quiet enough to be undetected and skilled enough to aim and shoot properly before the animal darts away. I commend all hunters for doing a service to our community. They do their part in controlling the deer population and provide themselves (and others who are less fortunate, through the food bank system) with a source of meat that is truly local and has the lowest carbon footprint possible.
Laurie Perla’s quote, “We’re in the 21st century … We don’t need to kill an animal with a bow and arrow. It’s ludicrous,” saddens me (Letter to the editor, Independent, Jan. 21). It demonstrates how we as a people have become considerably disconnected from the natural world around us. So much so, that people find the self-sufficient act of hunting deplorable, yet buying meat in cellophane wrappers, from animals that are raised on a distant industrial farm and sent to slaughter with no chance of survival, preferable.
We exterminated all the large predators that once kept the deer herd in balance. With the coyote scare of a couple of years ago, we are all too familiar with the dangers that can exist with the presence of other large predators. I am not suggesting any type of reintroduction, but the fact remains, like it or not, that we are the only remaining large predator in our community of living things.
The deer population is out of control, or balance, for a better term. We all know deer eat plants and when there are too many deer, the plant community suffers greatly. Forests are dying. To the untrained eye, a woodland may seem perfectly fine — it’s green, right? But closer inspection often reveals the absence of tree seedlings, a popular source of food for deer. Those trees that make it to sapling size are often destroyed by the deer’s need to rub their antlers each fall. In many areas, the next generation of trees to take the place of those we enjoy now are simply not there.
Of course the deer do not limit themselves to wild plant food, either. Farmers and gardeners alike find their hard work decimated by the deer population. Gardening isn’t just a nicety, it is a real way for people to improve their immediate surroundings, come closer to nature, and, again, enjoy the self-sufficient act of producing your own food. Growing our own food or buying from the local farmer is a great way to lower our carbon footprint. Fencing was suggested for the plant grower, but deer fencing is eight-feet tall and expensive to install. I know I don’t have the funds to enclose my property with a deer fence.
With a controlled deer population, plant diversitywould increase in both horticultural and wild areas. A more diverse plant community means a better source of food and habitat for a slew of birds and beneficial insects. Let us not ignore the other living creatures we share our land with, even those without big, brown eyes.
The anti-hunting proponents suggest birth control as an alternative to hunting.
On paper that sounds great, but where in New Jersey has it really been effective? The NJDEP website lists four different studies looking at chemical population control since 1997. Data is still being collected in a Princeton study, but the other three were either abandoned due to logistical difficulties or recorded 32 percent of treated females giving birth. I hope an effective birth control protocol can be developed. Areas where the human population is too dense for a safe hunt need these types of measures. Ms. Perla cites a cost of $2-$10 per animal for birth control. Why would we pay this? The fees collected from hunting licenses fund the management of wildlife areas and wildlife, including nongame.
So animals that really need our help in remaining a present member of our living community get help from hunting fees. In addition, enforcement of environmental law, research and educational programs run by the DEP are funded this way. It just doesn’t make sense to do away with these well-needed funds and at the same time increase our costs.
I commend the Holmdel town council for their decision to do something to control the deer population
Kate Lepis
Lincroft