User:Jmm00007/White-tailed deer

Population and controls[edit]
The white-tailed deer population in North America has declined by several million since 2000, but as of 2017 is considered healthy and is approximately equal to the historical pre-colonization white-tailed population on the continent. The species has rebounded considerably after being overhunted nearly to extinction in the late 1800s and very early 1900s. By contrast, the species' closest cousins (blacktail deer and mule deer) have seen their populations cut by more than half in North America after peaking in 1960 and have never regained their pre-colonization numbers. In the 21st century, the loss of natural predators has been more than offset by the ongoing loss of natural habitat to human development, and changes to logging operations.

Several methods have been developed to curb the population of white-tailed deer in suburban areas where they are perceived as overabundant, and these can be separated into lethal and nonlethal strategies. Most common in the U.S is the use of extended hunting as population control, as well as a way to provide meat for humans. "Hunting has historically proven to be an integral part of wildlife population control, both by reducing numbers to meet population objectives as well as funding for conservation of wildlife and their habitats." In Maryland and many other states, a state agency sets regulations on bag limits and hunting in the area depending on the deer population levels assessed. Hunting seasons may fluctuate in duration, or restrictions may be set to affect how many deer or what type of deer can be hunted in certain regions. For the 2015–2016 white-tailed deer-hunting season, some areas allowed only the hunting of antlerless white-tailed deer. These included young bucks and females, encouraging the culling of does which would otherwise contribute to increasing populations via offspring production.

A more targeted yet more expensive removal strategy than public hunting is a method referred to as sharpshooting. Sharpshooting can be an option when the area inhabited by the deer is unfit for public hunting. This strategy may work in areas close to human populations, since it is done by professional marksmen, and requires a submitted plan of action to the city with details of the time and location of the action, as well as number of deer to be culled. Another controversial method involves trapping the deer in a net or other trap, and then administering a chemical euthanizing agent or extermination by firearm. A main issue in questioning the humaneness of this method is the stress that the deer endure while trapped and awaiting extermination.

Nonlethal methods include contraceptive injections, sterilization, and translocation of deer. While lethal methods have municipal support as being the most effective in the short term, some opponents of this view suggest that extermination has no significant impact on deer populations. Opponents of contraceptive methods point out that fertility control cannot provide meat and proves ineffective over time as populations in open-field systems move about. Concerns are voiced that the contraceptives have not been adequately researched for the effect they could have on humans. Fertility control also does nothing to affect the current population and the effects their grazing may be having on the forest plant make-up.

Translocation has been considered overly costly for the little benefit it provides. Deer experience high stress and are at high risk of dying in the process, putting into question its humaneness. Another concern regarding translocation is the possible spreading of chronic wasting disease to unaffected deer populations and concerns about exposure to human populations.

In addition to the danger of deer-vehicle collisions the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported that the estimated loss in field crops, nuts, fruits, and vegetables in 2001 was near $765 million.