Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Despite the resounding success of other states' deer management programs, there was fierce opposi-
tion to any antlerless deer hunting from sportsmen and dedicated deer watchers, who could drive around
on a summer evening and count a hundred or more deer grazing in fields.
The legislature, over strong protests, finally allowed the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department to
hold a few sporadic and severely limited antlerless deer seasons, but these were too little and too late.
At an estimated 250,000— nearly twice what the land could sustain on a permanent basis—the state's
deer herd was a disaster in the making, and supporters of the status quo were living in a fool's paradise.
The crash, which wildlife biologists had predicted for a number of years, finally arrived in spectacu-
lar fashion. During the severe winters of 1969 and 1970, an estimated 100,000 deer died, most of them
slowly and painfully from the effects of malnutrition. No matter—the crash was blamed on the limited
antlerless deer seasons which had been held, and the legislature hastily returned the state to bucks-only
seasons.
This was precisely the wrong approach, and after nearly another decade, the deer population actually
declined still further. Finally, in response to harsh criticism, legislators tumbled over one another in
their eagerness to toss this political hot potato to the Fish and Wildlife Department.
What followed was a bitter pill, but one that had to be swallowed. The department initiated a series
of seasons designed to cut the deer population well
below
the normal carrying capacity of the winter
range and hold it there, thus allowing winter food supplies to regenerate.
Predictably, this policy created a great deal of anger and criticism, but the department held firm.
Then, once winter food supplies were again in good shape, the deer herd was allowed to increase slowly
until it was at or near what the winter range could sustain. Now, as in other states, scientific deer man-
agement—including antlerless deer hunting—enjoys widespread support in Vermont.
Wolves and cougars were originally the predators that kept deer numbers in balance with their hab-
itat. When those two predators were for all practical purposes eliminated, humans became the only re-
maining significant control over whitetail numbers. As already indicated, modern wildlife managers,
by the use of controlled antlerless deer seasons, have largely been able to keep deer numbers at or just
below the carrying capacity of their habitat.
There are a few exceptions, though. The major ones are suburbs, the fringes and less densely settled
parts of urban areas, and places that are isolated either physically or by some special category of own-
ership. These latter include such things as islands and special reserves of one sort or another.
At this point the “Bambi Syndrome,” dreaded by biologists and anyone else who believes in wildlife
management based on science rather than emotion, comes into play. A brief digression is warranted to
explain this phenomenon. The original
Bambi
was a topic written in German by Felix Salten. Although
anthropomorphic, it is a rather dark, philosophical allegory that in many ways accurately portrays the
many hazards facing European roe deer in the wild.
