Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Now comes the piece of deer biology that has been both blessing and curse: the highly polygamous
nature of whitetail bucks. Once a buck has established dominance in his territory, he proceeds to breed
as many does as possible. Aware of this fact, wildlife professionals utilized it when they began to rein-
state hunting seasons for rebounding deer populations. By limiting the seasons only to antlered bucks,
they left the population's doe segment untouched. Since one buck can breed many does, this allowed
deer numbers to continue their climb unchecked. For many years, this was the blessing. Then came the
curse.
“Buck only” seasons became the rule in most of the major deer hunting states. They worked ex-
tremely well—far
too
well in the long run. With wolves and cougars—the traditional major predators
of whitetails—eliminated, humans exercised the only effective control over deer numbers. Deer popu-
lations climbed and climbed for decades. For a while, regenerating habitat kept up with this increase,
but finally overpopulation began to overwhelm their food supply.
The answer, to wildlife biologists, was obvious: begin hunting female deer in order to limit the popu-
lation. So one state after another began to extend hunting to deer without antlers—popularly called “doe
seasons.” Thus were born what have been called “the deer wars,” bitter battles between deer hunters
and wildlife biologists.
Several generations of deer hunters, as well as nonhunters who simply enjoyed seeing deer every-
where, had watched deer numbers soar under buck-only seasons, and it had become a deep-seated art-
icle of faith that killing female deer would destroy a deer population. Now they were being told that this
belief was wrong, that deer couldn't be allowed to increase forever, and that for the good of the habitat
and the future of the deer, the population increase had to be halted.
The majority of them didn't buy it. In state after state, the debate became extraordinarily rancorous.
Wildlife biologists were derided as “college boys who don't know anything that didn't come out of a
textbook”—and were often called a great deal worse. There were angry mass meetings that had many
of the trappings of a lynch-mob mentality, and indeed, at least one prominent deer biologist was hanged
in effigy!
Nonetheless, by fits and starts, one state after another initiated antlerless deer seasons to keep deer
in balance with their habitat. Despite the predictions of disaster from opponents, this system of man-
agement soon proved itself. Deer were larger and healthier, while deer populations remained at a relat-
ively high, yet stable, level. In time, the screaming opposition to deer management first died to a dull
roar, then to an undercurrent of muttering, and finally changed to support by all but a diehard cadre of
hunters and deer watchers.
At the risk of seeming chauvinistic, I'd again like to cite Vermont as something of a microcosm of the
deer wars. Progress came late to Vermont, and it was the very last state to adopt regular antlerless deer
seasons. By the 1960s, the critical winter food supply was terribly overbrowsed. According to every
measure of deer health—weight, antler development, and reproductive rate— Vermont's deer were in
abysmal and steadily deteriorating physical condition.
