Let coyotes, not hunters, control Valley Forge deer, animal-rights advocates say

On October 19, 2010, Chris w wrote:

Coyote although preditors prefer smaller game over deer and would be woefully inadequate to control the deer population and detrimental to the local pet populations. That’s why animal rights activists should not be trying to do wilodlife management they don’t have a clue.

On October 19, 2010, Jack H wrote:

Anybody who deals with wildlife (especially deer) know that coyotes are an ineffective predator. They may kill fawns or sick and injured deer but they can’t take down adult and healthy deer.

On October 20, 2010, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:

If they “may kill fawns or sick and injured deer” then they are effective enough. Recall that the deer population in the Park peaked at about 1400 in 2003, according to an environmental impact study, and has decreased since then. The standard for a balanced biocommunity is not reflected by the carnage that can be inflicted in short order by a team of sharpshooters on a contract with the USDA.

On October 20, 2010, Dave Reimann wrote:

Friends of animals is a complete joke! Since when are animals treated as humans??? Without hunting of these animals they will overpopulate and die of unnatural causes….like starvation! This will lead to disease of other animals as well as people from the decaying bodies! Why not feed a small army of people with the seasonal hunting laws that are in place for a reason?!

Idiots!

On October 20, 2010, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:

Dave: There is no hunting in Valley Forge National Historical Park. It is entirely sensible to have that policy maintained.

On October 20, 2010, David Forjan wrote:

To Chris w.,

No one should try to do “wildlife management” except the wildlife themselves. No human is capable of comprehending all the intricacies of nature. That’s the point of stopping the Park incompetents from this slaughter.

Coyotes can and will kill and eat young deer as individuals, and a pack can and will bring down an adult deer. Speak only of what you know.

To Jack H.,

You also should only speak of what you know. I live with the deer and coyotes in the middle of 272 forever wild acres. I see what the coyotes can do. They are a VERY effective predator. From where do you get your opinion?

Read my note to Chris w. to understand how they hunt and survive. And, more importantly, when they see a human, they run like the dickens. They know to avoid us.

To Dave Reimann,

First, would you yourself rather have the opportunity to feed yourself, and MAYBE die of starvation? And, by the way, starvation IS a natural cause of death in the real world. And decaying bodies will not hurt anyone. I’ve come upon them dozens of times in my walks around my 272 acres, and I’m still alive and kicking, without illness. Where do you get your information on such things?

And as far as how to treat animals goes, remember that lesson we learned as kids, and promptly forgot as adults, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

One more thought: you should really consider how we humans treat everyone, not just animals. We humans treat other humans appallingly. So does that mean that we should treat every single being that way? Please think on this.

And to all of you, please remember this. The animal you should really fear, the animal that causes you the most pain, the most injury, the most illness, the most grief, by far, every day, is the human animal. The political animals, the corporate executive animals, the Wall Street animals, the taxing animals, the car-driving animals, the management animals, the polluting animals, the drug-peddling animals, the physical and sexual abusing animals. Point your finger at them. They are the greatest danger to your health and safety and security, by far.

Thanks for listening. David Forjan

On October 21, 2010, Matthew McLaughlin wrote:

Thanks Dave for your wonderful comments on the coyotes! Your experience with these animals is a testament to the fact that they do not pose a threat to us.

On October 21, 2010, Shanna wrote:

Are there any more protest planned? I would like to be involved. When is this supposed to begin and is there anything that the courts can do to stop it?

On October 21, 2010, Curt wrote:

Dave,
You do realize that humans introducing coyotes into this area are humans indirectly trying to manage the deer population. You say no human can comprehend the intricacies of nature, why would you think that your solution is better than the proposed faster acting more effective solution? I agree with you that coyotes are a very effective predator and that they can take down a full grown deer but a concern for quite a few people is the fact that they are also a very effective predator for dogs, cats, chickens and whatever else looks tasty to them at the time. I also live on some land that has both coyotes and deer, and I have had a dog lose a fight with a coyote, right on the edge of my yard.

You were 100% right when you said that coyotes know to avoid humans the issue becomes when the coyotes become the overpopulated species because of the abundant food and area in the park for them. Then we are going to have to take action to control the coyote population, and they do not have an effective predator.

Another issue with doing this is that the deer population is already out of control and needs to immediately be taken down. Coyotes would not control this population fast or effectively as hunting them would. Like lee said there is no hunting season in Valley Forge which is what led to the out of control deer population.

That being said, I am a hunter so I am biased just like you are. I find that hunting is by far the best way for me to connect to nature; I might get 1 or 2 deer a year and I spend hundreds of hours in the woods every fall. I have such a strong respect for deer and nature I love watching them learning everything I can about. It’s almost an obsession of mine. Contrary to anti-hunter’s belief it is not all about killing things I guess I should tell you to speak only of what you know.

Just thought I’d put my 2 cents in

On October 21, 2010, sterlingak wrote:

Predation is good to a point. Likewise sometimes a lack of or minimal predation is good when the prey stocks are low. Overpopulation by any species is detrimental to themselves and other species in that environment.

I’m a predator. I compete with other predators.

Why am I not as good as a coyote (wolf, cougar).?

How are unreasoned random acts of nature somehow (always in anti-hunting views), superior to science-based planned wildlife management acts?

On October 21, 2010, David Forjan wrote:

Dear Curt,

Thanks for that 2 cents. You are obviously a thoughtful person. I like that.

I won’t belabor any one point. We can’t expect to make our world free of danger, from any human or any animal. Danger is everywhere.

I myself had my two canine kids living here on this land for 11 years of their lives. I was always aware of the danger of coyote to them. On Long Island, my sister-in-law’s biggest fear for her pets is the insecticides/pesticides neighbors put on their lawns (only 50 feet away).

My point is we cannot purify life of danger. Especially when the biggest dangers come from human endeavors.

I’m not saying put coyotes in the park. I would say, though, that the state of PA allows too many coyotes to be killed wantonly (and they and the wolves were here first, before us, I might add). And monitor our pets safety for all reasons.

My canine kids learned, by me teaching them, the words “coyote” and “careful”, and me drumming those words into their minds, to avoid the danger of coyotes. My girl dog actually survived one coyotes attempt to ambush her in the thickets. Because I taught her thats’ where to be “careful of coyote”. I was so proud of her. If we’d lived down by the road, I’d have had to teach them about all the human oriented dangers. And there are lots of those. There’s danger everywhere. Every day.

My actual recommendation is this. Let the animals be. Too many deer being a pain in the butt to you, are a beauty and treasure to someone else. The deer population will take care of itself. If they eat too much, fewer will survive. If there’s a hard winter, fewer will survive. While we’re driving, we need to be attentive, for others’ dogs and children, and then it takes no extra effort to spot that deer.

I must admit you are somewhat dichotomous. You speak so thrilled about nature, and yet you can refer to killing beautiful animals as they need to “immediately be taken down”. Sorry, but that’s a disturbing way to refer to such a brutal, senseless, violent act, on an innocent beautiful creature. I also wonder how you come to the conclusion that this deer population needs any action at all, let alone immediately. Please remember, deer cannot destroy a forest. They can only affect what grows and what doesn’t grow. They don’t eat every kind of plant and tree.

One more point. You say “it is not all about killing things”. Then put in your 2 cents with respect to a solution that does not require such a senseless, immediate killing.

I appreciate your time responding, regardless of our positions. We only come to understanding through dialogue. And any correct solution requires that understanding. I can tell I would enjoy talking with you more. Feel free to call me anytime, 607-427-9131. We at least have in common that we enjoy the forest.

Regards, David Forjan

On October 22, 2010, Meredith wrote:

David Forjan,

Let me begin with Curt’s 2 cents were refreshing. You, Mr. Forjan seem to to prefer rhetoric and reminding us of the brutality of the cruel world, but let’s get back to the animals…

Clearly, you enjoy the outdoors and your land. I greatly appreciate that. But, if you and your brethren choose do nothing about the massive infestation of deer, there will be none of that for future generations to enjoy as you do! A deer herd can be reduced and in a matter of a few years will regenerate. The damage they do the forest, takes decades.

I have to say the sharpshooter method is quick and painless. Although it may be natural to be disemboweled by a pack of wild canids, I’d rather never know what hit me.

You seem to be far better equipped than the rest of the human population to deal with the deer. You seem to be implying that the victims of deer vehicle collisions are at fault. Do you know how many people die in DVC’s each year? The numbers tend to be staggering. I hate to think those people caused their own death by not being as aware as you (and I would apparently hate to drive behind you!). And Cesar Milan has nothing on you and your canine companions. Why, it seems you have an “Einstein” from Watchers in the living, breathing flesh!

You believe that coyotes are completely harmless. I’m sure the families of Kelly Keen and Taylor Mitchell would argue that fact. You will say fatalities are rare, and you’ll be right. But habituated predators are nothing to ignore, and at the rate our wilderness is declining, it’s only going downhill from here.

I have to ask, do you have any formal education in the wildlife field? Someone (educated, respected, and experienced for your information) in MY field once said “I would rather walk into a grizzly den unarmed than try to sell deer management to the public in Pennsylvania”, and I am quite sure people like you are the reason. Yes, coyotes and black bears both kill fawns, and adult deer if the conditions are right.

That being said, the small amount of natural predation happening will not solve the deer problem. Even if we had an established cougar or wolf population, the deer herds need to be reduced.

I’m terribly sorry if Bambi scarred you as a child and you are still walking around in wide-eyed innocence. No matter how you slice it, deer management is a necessary evil.

On October 22, 2010, David Forjan wrote:

Dear Meredith,

You raise some good questions. First I’ll answer your question about my experience. I have 11 years and 10,000 miles of field work. On these same 272 acres of land in rural upstate NY. I live in the middle of it, 3/4 mile into the forest. A forest with deer, coyotes, bears (momma, her daughter and that daughters’s 4 cubs), raccoon, possum, red fox, bobcats, feral cats, 3 species of woodpeckers, red-tailed hawks, eagles, harrier hawks, grouse, turkeys, turkey vultures and on and on.

For the 10 years of my canine kids’ active lives, we walked at least 3 miles a day. Add it up. 10,000 miles we walked on this same 272 acres. And if you want to learn about nature, follow a canine’s nose. And that’s what I did. Heck, Thoreau himself only spent 3 months at a time at Walden Pond, for not too many years at all. Show me someone else who’s spent 11 years and walked 10,000 miles, LIVING in nature.

Secondly, you speak of “massive infestation”. You talk about my rhetoric. What is the problem in your life of this? Are you saying you are incapable of avoiding a deer? In my county, in my 11 years here, I have never, not once, heard or read of anyone dying from hitting a deer. And I see at least one deer a day dead on the road. Ain’t nobody died here from driving into a deer, in my 11 years living here, 11 years worth of dead deer on the road. If the deer could talk, they’d call this one the other way. So what exactly is this problem you TRY to imply, with your own rhetoric of “massive infestation”. Please read on, you might very well learn something about yourself.

You ask why am I better equipped to deal with deer better than you. I’ll answer that one directly. Because I care about life, all life. Not just human life. All life. And so I learn to deal with every animal, human or otherwise, and accept and tolerate and care and consider and observe and like and even love and coexist and I’m a much better person for it. I was gonna say this later but I’ll say this now. I am not like you. I will never be like you. No matter what. I don’t assume the role of God. I am not judge and jury and executioner. I will never, never, never, decide that others should die, so that I may live with a little more convenience.

And about that vague comment about Cesar Milan, I don’t know what to make of that. But at least understand that my canine kids were my only kids. And so I treated them as though they were just kids, stuck in a toddler mentality, with endless mobility. I taught them at least 200 words or phrases. And they learned them all. They could understand at least 3 thoughts at one time. Like me telling them, “I have to go to work, I’ll be back in a little while, you guard the house.” They knew what all that meant, no matter what you or anyone else may think. A testament to animals’ intelligence.

I never said that coyotes are “completely harmless”. I never said that. Don’t ever again quote me wrong.

And Bambi didn’t scare me. She thrilled me. I adored her beauty. And you have no right, you yourself do not have the right, to deny anyone else of that, with your mean thoughts of animal slaughter.

Now that I’ve addressed your points, I’d like to make one last point, my thought, about your note.

You frighten me. Me, who lives with the pack of coyotes and vultures and bobcats and 400 pound black bears. BECAUSE you act and talk like you are a God…

How in the hell can humans become so calloused, so mean, so violent, so insensitive, so selfish, that you can say, “deer management is a necessary evil.” But now that I reread that statement of yours, I understand. You are OK with evil.

I told Curt he could call me. I do not extend that offer to you.

Sincerely, David Forjan

On October 23, 2010, Meredith wrote:

Mr. Forjan,

I apologize if I offended you. You certainly have offended me. But I’d like to clear a few things up.

You should have no reason to fear me. I find that laughable. I do not speak or act like I am a God. I speak and act as a scientist. I base my opinions in science. Research tells me there are too many deer (an infestation, a plague), there are not enough natural, large predators to cull them (in a method you are at peace with), thousands upon thousands of people are killed or injured each year in vehicle collisions with deer, they are carriers of disease, and that they are destroying our forests. Deer have actually eaten rare plants into near oblivion. Since you so love, respect, and appreciate the fauna, I would assume (and perhaps incorrectly) that you would feel the same of the flora.

“And, more importantly, when they see a human, they run like the dickens. They know to avoid us.” This would be the statement you made that I based my opinion on your attitude on coyotes. That statement, to me, shows a blase attitude towards the coyotes. As I stated in my previous comment, there are times this does not happen. Habituation is a huge concern of mine. You are very fortunate to live on WILD acreage. But in nearby cities I get reports of a bear in a restaurant dumpster, with no fear of a busboy bringing out a bag of garbage. Coyotes snatching pets from within feet of their owners. THAT scares ME. It is an omen of things yet to come.

I am curious what breeds of dogs you own? Forgive me for finding it hard to believe that your dogs are superiorly intelligent. I have worked with many intelligent dogs, but perhaps their instinct for certain things was stronger than their understanding of complex phrases.

Perhaps before you judge me so harshly, you would like to know a thing or two about me. I understand that you live on pristine acreage, and walk your dogs there. You were quick to judge me as an evil person, and to quote you “Show me someone else who’s spent 11 years and walked 10,000 miles, LIVING in nature.”, well, you’re talking to someone who has. I too live on a beautiful, rural sprawl of gorgeous acreage, and I have fur-kids I enjoy time with in our forest. It has been that way for 27 years, and I hope (though I can’t say what will become of my land when I die) that it stays wooded and beautiful. I am trying hard to teach my human daughter to appreciate nature as much as I do. You wouldn’t have guessed that on your quick judgement of me, would you?

I sit at night and listen to the coyotes. It is one of the most beautiful things I hear, music. I adore that I have them here, as well as the deer, bear (2 adults and 2 cubs this year), bobcats, fox (we had a den right off the yard, I have amazing photos of the “petits” as I called them), etc. I once hit a bobcat with my car, and I didn’t get out and jump for joy. It broke my heart. I stopped, in the middle of a 4 lane highway to see if the poor beast had hope to survive. What hurt me the most that night is why a bobcat (or any animal for that matter) is forced by human development to cross a 4 lane highway. This was in a city about 45 minutes north of my land, which encroaches beautiful forested land that is eaten into by apartment complexes and sub-divisions every day. So, YOU have no right to call me a cruel, God-like person because I believe in reducing deer numbers.

I am a biologist. I believe in conservation. But I also believe in wildlife management. To avoid further upsetting you, I will directly quote you “No one should try to do “wildlife management” except the wildlife themselves. No human is capable of comprehending all the intricacies of nature”. Sadly, the world we live in today, humans have done so much damage that only we can fix it. Wilderness is a myth and it is our fault. No, I can study and do field research, and spend days upon days in the lab, and I admit that I will never know ALL of the true intricacies of nature. And believe me I WANT TO. But what I know are the cold, hard facts and numbers on the deer. The scientific data. And that is where I feel your opinion is starry eyed innocence, and you find mine evil.

But then, wherever there is innocence, evil is sure to follow…

On October 23, 2010, David Forjan wrote:

Meredith,

I’ll keep this short, ‘cause it’s late.

I do not believe, and I will never believe, that one can love nature and animals, and also recommend slaughtering hundreds of deer, because we think we’re so smart, so important.

But if I ever do come to feel that way, I’ll shoot myself, only.

david
p.s. It’s quite disturbing that you think “evil is sure to follow”. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

On October 23, 2010, Meredith wrote:

David,

You are clearly not a man of science, and so we will simply have to agree to disagree. We are both going to believe what we believe, and nothing will change that. Several causes I fight for could use your passion and endurance, such as abolishing canned hunting, putting an end to senseless deforestation, or banning “exotic pet” ownership. I hope that you fight for everything the way you are fighting for the deer, whether I agree with where you stand or not.

I wish you peace, and hope that your land remains pristine and free.

Meredith

On October 23, 2010, sterlingak wrote:

So tell me, David. Do you kill off those nasty little buggers causing an infection in a cut in yourself or one of your faux-kids? Do you sterilize your dishes? Treat your “kids” for worms?Pull weeds in your garden? Slap mosquitos? Deny the black flies food by wearing head-nets? Of course you do.

With your self-proclaimed reverence for all life, and proposal of letting “nature” handle all things, don’t you find this a bit hypocritical? Or is it just warm furry things? Is it OK to kill in defense of self, others, the habitat, comfort, growing food, etc? - why or why not, in your view? If it is not, then your only ethical course of action is to check yourself out. Or is this just for some level of metal convenience or a delusional POV?

I consider myself a participant in nature, as obviously does Meridith, not just an armchair observer. I kill things and if reasonably possible, I eat them. I do not kill things thoughtlessly or carelessly (well except for biting bugs and bacteria, maybe), although I may do so for convenience (mice in the house, food in the bush- yes, I COULD fly it in at many X the cost, but then that’s consuming hydro-carbons… OH, what a delima !) There are not many tofu farms in the Arctic.

The mere act of killing does not make one evil, cruel, or “mean”. The idea of humans killing something as being “mean”, “evil” “cruel” is an act of asinine judgement imposed only on ourselves, and not the wild ones- tho too many people DO erroneously extend it to wolves and coyotes (The only good XXXX is a dead XXXX.)

Someday a wolf or bear, an only-wounded moose or an accident may kill me, and if found by a carnivorous critter, perhaps snacked on. I’m OK with that. Better them than a bunch of invisible “bugs”, but that’s OK, too. Either is better than being shot full of embalming fluid and put so deep underground in an impervious coffin that I may never get back in the real world.

Aldo Leopold in Sand County Almanac said “A deer lives in fear of the wolf. A mountain lives in fear of it’s deer”.

It follows then if you keep the mountain as a whole happy, the deer population is happy. If the deer population is happy, then the coyote/wolf population can be happy also. None of the above have the means to effectively control themselves except by severe swings of the pendulum at times. Surely moderating those severe swings among ALL parties as only man has the ability to do is a worthwhile endeavor? Which isn’t to say we always get it just right…

Oh, I forgot. A.L. was the “father” of those evil wildlife managers. Silly me.

On October 24, 2010, David Forjan wrote:

Sterlingak, I thought I made myself clear. My comments are specific to slaughtering these 2000 deer over 4 years. You follow?

Your post is really about this: Where do we draw the line? Yes I do swat mosquitoes, gnats, flies. When they bite me. But no, I won’t spray chemicals to kill them pre-emptively. Many birds, especially that lovely Phoebe, rely on them insects. And the birds are quite entertaining, to me anyway.

Here’s my line in the sand. We humans are not judge, not jury and not executioner of animals, for the sake of perceived convenience, or because they eat flowers, or because they may be in the road. Or because today’s scientist thinks NOW we have it all figured out. I really thought Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” would have humbled scientists to realize we ain’t that smart at all.

I always like talking about Aldo Leopold. But you refer to the young Aldo Leopold. He wrote “Game Management” in 1933. Before he saw that “green fire in the eyes dying out” of the wolf he shot and watched die and regretted killing. When he referred to himself as, “young and full of trigger-itch.” The episode that changed him forever. After which, he grew up. And became THE Aldo Leopold. And saw the value of the wolf. And saw the necessary balance of nature. And advocated for wilderness, even co-founding The Wilderness Society. So no, THE Aldo Leopold was not about game management. That was the young Aldo Leopold. Then he grew up.

Why do you, and others, fixate on “control” of nature. Advocate killing 2000 deer in the name of it? Why can’t you just let them be? And let Mr. Leopold’s “Thinking like a Mountain” come about. Life cannot be perfect, right now, every day, every year. It is not our place to decide for all other species, like God.

Let me close with this. We humans have for centuries, acted like we know what’s best for nature. And nature is worse off than ever. So no, we ain’t too smart. With hundreds of years of a track record to prove it. And now, suddenly?, after hundreds of years of humans that went before us, and thought they were so smart, all of a sudden?, our generation, has become so ultimately smart, in one generation, that NOW we know how to “fix” nature? Just let them deer be.

And think on this. I am continually stunned when people are vehement, vehement about killing. I can understand being vehement about alot of things. But being vehement about killing, that’s scary.

And dear Meredith, I will never be a man of science. Science is the pretense of being so smart. I’m a Bohemian. For truth, beauty, freedom and love. Thanks for the nice wishes for this land.

On October 24, 2010, Ginger wrote:

Drama and rhetoric however sincere is not going to solve this issue. We have gone, unfortunately, too far to let nature correct the problems made by humans. Considered, careful culling as the park suggests is the only solution. I am not happy that it is, but I think it is.

And as an aside, if you want your land to stay open and undeveloped, enroll it with a land conservancy/land trust organization. This way it is treated as you wish beyond your lifetime, as it is a legal agreement that runs with the land and not the owner.

On October 24, 2010, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:

We must be the most dramatic of species, Ginger. We are just one species, and it looks like we are the most ecologically damaging one at that, yet somehow we miss ourselves in most of the rhetoric. We never want to look in the mirror. Imagine how this would look to most readers’ eyes:

“Drama and rhetoric, however sincere, is not going to solve this issue. We have gone, unfortunately, too far to let nature correct the problems made by humans. Considered, careful culling of our 6.8 billion is the only solution. I am not happy that it is, but I think it is.”

Offensive, Ginger? Why or why not?

On October 24, 2010, David Forjan wrote:

Dear Ginger,
My 272 acres is protected, as forever wild, with the North Branch Land Trust, of PA.

A good thought, that one of yours. Keep passing that one on.
David Forjan.

On October 24, 2010, Ginger wrote:

You made me smile, David. My 150 acres is also protected forever, just as it is, by easements held by the NBLT. I don’t live on that land, no one does and no one ever has as far as I know and likely no one ever will.

Lee, I look in the mirror, I see things I don’t like but fewer of them than there used to be and I am always trying to improve.

On October 24, 2010, David Forjan wrote:

Ginger,
Bless your heart.

David

On October 25, 2010, Curt wrote:

David,
I was actually thinking about this conversation when I was sitting in my treestand this weekend and I started to wonder when people became so disconnected with nature that we are no longer a part of the food chain. Now I came on this point when I misread your “brutal, senseless, violent act, on an innocent beautiful creature” quote to be talking about what I did all weekend, but rereading it I was wrong. When however did people quit being a part of the food chain, when you hunt an animal, kill it and eat it? How is that so much different from a coyote? I am not saying that I know that this is or that it is your opinion on hunting in general aside from the culling of the heard at valley forge but there are people, especially in organizations like the one you are representing, that believe that taking what we are going to use out of the wild and enjoying it on the dinner table is such a terrible thing it brings tears to their eyes.

I don’t have much more to say about this topic, from what I have read everyone has pretty much beat both sides to death (the extremes of both sides at that). I was just wondering how you would feel about an organized hunt as an alternative of bringing sharp shooters in? Not only would it reduce the deer population like myself and others believe needs to be done, it would get people out into nature, it would also bring more of a respect for nature than the removing a large number at once. This solution may not be swift enough to accomplish what it needs to according to the article, deer are smart and good at not getting into trouble, I was humbled this weekend, and the sharpshooters would definitely be more effective in lowering the population. I don’t know the science but that’s what I got for the solution you asked for,
the reason I said that deer numbers had to be “taken down” in my last post was because without the natural predators that these deer had in the past, their numbers have exploded to a number that is damaging to the deer herd and the forest around it. My opinion is that the herd should be taken to a lower level to keep it in balance with the rest of the wildlife around the area. I am from Michigan where we have always had a hunting season as long as I can remember and it along with being part of our heritage helps to control like someone mentioned car accidents caused by deer, crop damage (which is not an issue in this case but it is very important where I come from) and the TB problem that we are dealing with up north.

Curt

On October 25, 2010, David Forjan wrote:

Curt,

I’ll gladly respond. But since I don’t have much time tonight, I’ll address one of your questions, the matter at hand. The killing of 2000 deer, over 4 years, at the Valley Forge National Park.

I have not heard one valid argument as to why this population of deer is a “problem”. First, deer will not destroy a forest. They don’t eat every kind of plant or tree. Many plants and trees will still grow just fine. Second, we all should drive attentively. So that we don’t hit others’ dogs, others’ cats, others’ children, walkers or bicyclists and on and on. It then takes no extra effort to spot a deer in the road, use our brakes, and avoid it. Third. This is the most self-centered of all. Because they eat our flowers. I’ll wager a year’s pay that most of those flowers are invasive, non-native, plants. Shoot 2000 deer because they eat some begonias? And, many of these plant owners may very well enjoy seeing those deer in their yard. I do. Fourth, crop damage. I live next to a dairy farming family. And I know they work very hard. But each of their 5 children had their own 4-wheeler, from when they were SIX years old, continuing to this day. They all drive newer vehicles. New homes. So where’s this supposed great impact on their revenue from all our deer eating their corn?

So just exactly what is this problem with the deer I keep hearing about? NO ONE PRESENTS A VALID, THOUGHTFUL, FACT-BASED, CONVINCING ANALYSIS THAT THESE DEER ARE A REAL PROBLEM. Let alone take into account the many people who like them deer.

And you ask, what about hunters hunting them? A real hunter, a real ADULT, would not, and should not, find satisfaction in shooting an animal that will graze right next to you, that trusts you. These deer grew up around people. I saw one, 10 feet from the road, grazing, with people walking by, running by, bicycling by. Complete trust of humans. So, your argument would suggest that a real hunter adult, would be fulfilled, if you put a deer in a cage, and said now you can hunt. This one in the cage.

Your give an “opinion” about the deer being taken to a lower level to keep in balance with the rest of the wildlife around the area. Where’s the analysis that supports this? Have you counted the rest of the wildlife there? What’s a proper balance? Are there alot of rabbits? What real problem do they cause? You also show here, that we humans’ think we know it all, or jump to conclusions. Give me an opinion, with the appropriate facts and analysis and reasoning, that holds water. Until then, don’t advocate killing 2000 beautiful, trusting, innocent deer. Especially when many people, WHO GO TO THE PARK, like them there.

David Forjan
BTW, what happened to your first version of this post, that had your email address?

On October 25, 2010, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:

Someone on the web team must have been concerned about spam and taken off Curt’s address, David. I can send it to you, as Curt wanted you to have it. I’ll do this now.

On October 25, 2010, Curt wrote:

Dave
At this point the reason that the deer herd is being culled has already been figured out by biologists and people that do this kind of thing for a living. The forest has not had new growth since 1995, the deer are not going to take down the trees that are there, but these biologists seen to think that the deer herd is going to do damage. I mean, what do they know, they’re just biologists.

Either way, this article is not about why the deer population should be reduced, that has already been established. What we are talking about now is HOW it’s going to happen. Friends of Animals thinks that people should let the coyotes “serve as a natural form of animal control” and in theory it would work. However, to decrease the number of coyotes trapped in the state of PA for the sake of this 5.3 acres I believe does not make sense to me. Again this is one thing you and I are never going to agree on. The fact of the matter is that people would rather have the herd culled fast and cleanly as possible, that does mean that deer are going to get shot, I know that you are against that but it may be the simplest solution for this problem, whether or not it is a problem is a whole different argument that I am sure that the Friends of Animals has been having much longer than I have been following this story.

I mean no disrespect, and I know I am not going to change your mind, and the odds are pretty good that you aren’t going to change mine. This is just interesting for me because of my very different opinions.
Sincerely

Curt

On October 26, 2010, David Forjan wrote:

Curt,

Aren’t you uncomfortable recommending/defending slaughtering all those deer without knowing any details about the Park’s statement that the “forest has not had new growth.” No new growth of anything? At all? No new red maple seedlings? And no new sugar maple seedlings? And no new silver maple seedlings? And no new oak seedlings? And no new beech seedlings? And no new white pine seedlings? And no new spruce seedlings? And no new hemlock seedlings? And no new azalea seedlings? And no new crabapple seedlings? And no new hawthorn seedlings? And no new hickory seedlings? And no new witchhazel seedlings? Or honeysuckle or grape or ash or apple or lilac or black cherry or sweet cherry or pin cherry or sumac or dogwood or aspen or nannyberry or birch? What about plants? No goldenrod? No daisies? No heal-all? No asters? No pennyroyal? No seedum? Or pokeweed or horsenettle or jewelweed or trillium or wood lily or bergamot or mint or wild basil or butterfly weed or mayflower or black-eyed susan or deptford pink or hog peanut or yarrow or partridgeberry or rose or queen anne’s lace or star flower or st. johnswort or skunk cabbage or on and on? No new ones of any of these? And these are only the ones I know by name. Multiple this list by 10, at least, for the ones I don’t know. None of these? Heck, why am I asking you? You don’t know.

And that’s my point. You don’t know. You’re just taking a statement and passing it along. Worse than that, you’re making a recommendation to kill, based on something you don’t know or understand or investigate. And you’re comfortable with this. So if someone told you to buy a Yugo, you’d just say “how much”? Because the salesman does it for a living?

You’re happy with thinking “they do this kind of thing for a living”. So you believe all politicians, and all doctors, and all tax assessors, and all lawyers, and all executives, and salesmen? Without asking questions? And in the face of a life or death decision?

You hear some words and make a deadly puppet recommendation for 1000-2000 deer. I believe only one thing you say. I’m not going to change your mind. And I’m not trying to. I’m writing this to you so that whoever reads your post and my post knows that you don’t know what you’re talking about. That your recommendation is not based on any constructive thinking or investigation or understanding on your part. That you don’t delve into any details about what you base a decision on.

You may want to talk about “how” it’s going to happen. But you didn’t take the time to consider “if” it should happen. You’re skipping ahead. Carelessly.

Deer cannot destroy a forest. You just want to pretend they can. What’s your real motivation here? It sure isn’t truth.
David Forjan

On October 26, 2010, curt wrote:

David,
You are still avoiding the fact that IF it does happen, how is using coyotes a better solution than the proposed sharp shooters? You have already said that you do not believe this should happen. This particular article, where I got all of my information about this particular subject, says they need to reduce the deer population. The question now is how. What I want to know is how is Friends of Animals solution of using coyotes better to reduce the deer population than the suggested sharp shooting?

Also, if we do just let this population that apparently at its carrying capacity in this area do not take any action. You are suggesting to let hunger and disease keep the population where it should be as “nature” intended. the problem with that is when these deer evolved, they had more predators in the area than just coyotes. There were wolves, bears, bobcats, mountain lions, that also helped keep the population down. Thanks to humans, most of those are not in PA anymore, so now the deer are going to eat themselves into starvation if the population continues to grow. These animals evolved without humans, humans took ALOT of habitat, now all the deer are forced into a smaller area. How is it natural to let them continue to grow to a much denser population than they were meant to be?

curt

On October 26, 2010, David Forjan wrote:

Curt,

The question at hand is not “how” to kill the deer. You just want it to be that way. In a minute I’ll give my thought as to why you do that.

I’ll say it again, for all to hear. No one has given a valid, thoughtful, fact-based, convincing analysis that these deer are a real problem. I said that 2 posts ago, and you still don’t.

You should study variations in animal populations with regard to the food available. I’ve seen it here on my 272 acres for 11 years. But don’t take my word for it. Read Daniel Quinn’s (for one) explanation, and studies quoted, about how animal populations vary, DUE TO THE FOOD AVAILABLE.

The less food available, the less survive. That even qualifies as “common sense.” And starvation is a natural cause of death. Seen throughout nature, for eons of time. “Survival of the fittest.” You don’t know who’ll survive or not. But YOU want to decide, like God, and rain bullets down on all these innocent, beautiful, trusting animals. And deprive each one of their right to survive on their own. As an aside, what I read, says the population of these deer in question, declined by 28% from 2003 to 2009. And last winter was a brutal winter for them.

And, food availability has more of an affect on animal populations than predators. By far. I’ll give examples whenever you’re open to that one.

Another flawed statement you make is that nature “intends” any one level of population. Nature don’t “intend” anything about populations. Nature is simply the “field of play” where it all plays out. And each and every animal deserves the chance to survive, on their own. Not humans making the decision who lives or dies.

You’re arguments are all flawed. But I can see that don’t matter to you. You still show you don’t know what you’re talking about, except for knowing how to kill. I should thank you for your posts, for highlighting that there’s no real problem with these deer.

Now I’ll address my first paragraph. You just want killing to occur. Adamant about killing, in every post. You obsess about “how” do we kill. I could sum up your posts this way. How do we kill? How do we kill? How do we kill? (And TRY to consider the many people love to see the deer, up close.) I said it before, I’ll say it again. I’m continually stunned by people who are vehement about killing. LIke you. You sure spend alot of your day obsessing about killing. Scary.

To whomever has the final say, please, let the deer be and give the laws of nature and survival a chance to keep working. And avoid this whole disgusting discussion about killing.

David Forjan

On October 26, 2010, curt wrote:

That is the difference between you and I David, I think that the deer herd should be kept at a level where there is not starvation and disease, and I am ok with taking some individual animals out of the herd to keep that level. You think we should just leave all of them alone and let the starvation and disease sort them out. I want herd overall health, you just want all of them to survive, even if overall they are weaker. I wonder where all of those deer watchers and people who enjoy photographing them and what not are going to do when they start starving, something tells me they are not going to be as pretty to look at. Someone should help them

On October 26, 2010, David Forjan wrote:

Curt,

You do not have the right to decide who lives or decide who dies.

Each and every deer there deserves their chance to survive on their own.

David Forjan
“help”?, now a euphemism for killing