Cornell University’s Expensive “Birth Control for Deer” Program Proves Effectiveness of Hunting in Wildlife Management
The failure of Cornell University’s “birth control for deer” experiment is an example of how traditional hunting practices are more sound than ideologically driven wildlife management decisions.
In 2009 the university’s main campus in Ithaca, New York, was practically overrun with white-tailed deer. While traditional deer management plans would include culling the herd through hunting, the university decided on a different approach. According to the Washington Post, the university bowed to anti-hunting sensibilities and decided to combine cost-effective hunting practices for off-campus deer with expensive surgeries for on-campus deer. A total of 77 does were captured and sterilized by tubal ligation at a cost of about $1,200 per deer.
While tubal ligation is an effective birth control method for humans or captive animals, it doesn’t work so well on wild animals. Why? Because they move.
In fact, the sterilization had an unintended consequence: Because the does could not get pregnant, they entered heat month after month, and this brought more bucks onto the campus.
After all the time and energy spent on the program, the number of deer slightly increased. Finally, in 2014, a program to remove “nuisance deer” was instituted that combined trapping with hunting by volunteer archers. At last count this far cheaper program was a success, with the deer population dropping from around 100 to about 58.
This should serve as an example of the role of hunting in wildlife management. It’s effective, it’s cheaper, and it manages the population without causing unexpected problems. Now can someone please explain that to the anti-hunting activists?
Thanks for the article. But this study has been conducted and failed miserably many times by many different universities and wildlife management offices over the past 40 or more years. My guess is your tax dollars were used for this experiment and the cost was much, much higher than $100,000, probably closer to $500K. The feds pay for the majority of these university experiments. It's called federal grants and every university applies for them every year. All the university grants added together are probably closer to a billion tax dollars each year.
I also have a problem with calling these ridiculous studies as ideological. That word gives the liberals an air of legitimacy like they are doing something for a higher moral reason. They should be called follies or a waste of tax dollars or some other better descriptive term for these ridiculous liberal beliefs like gun control, etc. We keep calling them ideological beliefs which gives them too much credit.
Before one of my federal construction projects could begin we had to pay a biologist to help decide what to do about a tree that needed to be removed but had an endangered Indiana bat in it. 3 months and $70,000 later......
they decided to wait till the bat flew away and then cut the tree down :huh:
All content of this site is copyright 2003 - 2017 AR-10(T)™, AR-10™, are trademarks of ArmaLite, Inc.® AR10T.com is NOT endorsed or affiliated with ArmaLite, Inc.®
About AR10T.com
AR-10(T) is a community focused on rifles, optics, scopes, gear, accessories, and components used by the professional operator and skilled marksman. Enthusiasts, shooters, and gunsmiths alike contribute to our gallery, articles, and reviews Thank you for visiting!