“Here's an interesting and ironic story about a deer habitat enhancement program in Michigan's Upper Peninsula involving grants (tax dollars) to, among other things, help the "rehabilitation of historic wildlife openings" so that whitetails up there can better survive "difficult winters." In other words, they are cutting down trees, like they did between 1972 and 1987, to create holes in forests for critters that, historically, lived in mixed deciduous forest in the southern third of the state.
As I wrote in Nature Wars, the great northern conifer forests were no place for white-tailed deer. Long winters, deep snow and little food made for marginal deer country. Better to be a moose, elk, wolf or bear. I have since learned that the early animals that thrived in the northern conifer forests and thinned them out, creating edges and habitat for other critters, were mastodons.
After the pines were cut (to in part build Chicago and Detroit), the sandy soil gradually grew deer browse which resulted in an explosion of whitetails up north. Now, the economics of the region depend on deer hunting. Meanwhile, the deer population has exploded in the lower third of the state, where 80% of the people live, and where fights over what to do, or not to do, are all over the place. See Ann Arbor. But Michigan deer hunters want to go north (where casinos and strip clubs attract) instead of hunting deer in the Detroit suburbs, where they are overabundant.
So it goes. Anyway, here's the link: http://bit.ly/1SHtDD0”
If you have not read Nature Wars, I would suggest you do. It talks about a lot of what I am talking about here and Connecticut plays a prominent role in the book. http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Wars-Incredible- Comebacks-Battlegrounds/dp/0307341976
Elk (as we know them now) were originally a plains species, as evidenced by their markings, herding behavior, and vocalizations, which carry well in open spaces but poorly in dense cover. That's why Reds "roar", but Wapiti bugle....
It would be a lot easier to achieve sustainability by allowing the landscape to revert (as much as possible) to what it was pre-settlement - at least where there are large tracts of unbroken public land to work with. Thickly settled areas will never be compatible with Moose & bear no matter what we do, so it's not as if we're going to lose all of the deer-hunting opportunities, anyway.
"But Michigan deer hunters want to go north... instead of hunting deer in the Detroit suburbs, where they are overabundant."
Of COURSE they do - that's where they can get permission to HUNT! Between those who are ambivalent about hunting and those who are actively opposed, if we haven't yet realized that most private landowners will not permit access for hunting until carrying capacity has been grossly exceeded, I'm not sure what it'll take to get everybody clued in on that fact.
Down here in the SW corner, a realtor I know was telling me about deer gnawing on the cedar shingles that her clients had used as siding on their houses. That was almost 20 years ago now, and things have gotten a bit better, thanks to the leadership at places like the Audubon center, which helped a lot of Nons and even a few Antis come to grips with the reality of the situation. I don't see anywhere NEAR the numbers of deer around Greenwich anymore.... though 2 days after the snow, I couldn't believe how many tracks I saw around N Stamford....
Dr. Williams's Link
