Control Animal Populations example essay topic

Hunting 2 Hunting for the Truth " Run Bambi! Run!' Those three words have echoed inside children's minds for generations. Many wept at the cruelty with which the hunters needlessly slaughtered young Bambi's mother and many more vowed never to kill a living animal. Walt Disney was a master at evoking anti-hunting feelings. He portrayed the animals in his movies and cartoons as gentle, innocent creatures, which caused no trouble and asked for no trouble.

However, were his animals really innocent? Are animals, in general, really innocent and are hunters all the cruel, heartless murderers that so many make them out to be? The answer to all of those questions is an emphatic no. Animals, specifically white-tailed deer, are harmful to the environment, to themselves, and to humans.

They destroy the environment, give each other diseases, and injure, sometimes killing, people in car accidents. It is for this reason that the hunting of animals must be recognized as the only viable way to control increasing animal populations and avoid the negative effects of over-population. Animals can totally an ecosystem by becoming so large in number that they destroy all the vegetation of the area. When a population becomes so large that an ecosystem can no longer support them, diseases and mass starvation come upon the population.

This forces some of the population to seek another suitable habitat. This is when it becomes dangerous to people. An animal crossing a highway can cause a motorist to swerve off the road to his or Hunting 3 her death, or a hungry animal searching for food may work up enough courage to attack an unaware hiker or camper. This is why hunting is essential for controlling animal populations.

It is a safe, humane way to regulate populations and keep them at a level that an ecosystem can support. Many may argue that alternatives, such as sterilization of the animals or transporting them to other areas, are better than hunting. However, these control techniques are very expensive and not always successful. It is not necessary for one to agree with hunting, but only necessary for them to see that it is the only way to inexpensively and successfully control animal populations. The recent proliferation of white-tailed deer coupled with their ability to exist in close proximity to humans has created new challenges, opportunities, and problems for deer managers (Roseberry, 1991). Left to itself, an animal population will multiply exponentially; meaning that if there were two deer one year, there would be four the next and sixteen the year after that.

In just a few years, an animal population can reach an unhealthy level for the environment. Perhaps one of the best examples is the damage done to the arctic tundra by the exploding populations of light geese. These birds, total somewhere between three and five million, have caused almost irreversible damage to the arctic tundra. This is far more geese than the fragile arctic tundra with its short growing season can support (Tollefson, 1999). Light geese feed by pulling up and eating the roots of plants, a natural practice known as 'grubbing. ' At healthy population levels, grubbing Hunting 4 actually helps stimulate plant growth in salt marshes.

But competition for food has pushed geese to over-graze these areas, denuding large swaths of vital summer plant growth. Scientists believe that this habitat degradation, which takes years to recover in the short arctic growing season and which, in many areas, may be permanent, has contributed to declining populations of more than 30 other migratory bird species that share the breeding grounds (Tollefson, 1999, p. 3). This leads to another problem of overpopulation; more animals mean an increased need for food. Animals are ruthless to the environment when they are hungry. They will strip an environment right down to the bare earth if that is what it takes for them to obtain food. Sometimes an animal's environment takes it into contact with a farmer's fields.

Deer damage reports received by Ohio Extension Specialist from orchardist's, Christmas tree growers and nurserymen have... increased greatly (Scott, 1984). Scott also asserts 'these crops represent over $180 million annual industry in Ohio, with the apple industry alone worth over $60 million' (p. 6). Estimates for losses from deer damage at $2,223 per grower for apples, $1,227 per operator for white pine and $1,107 per grower for shade trees (Kreindler 1988). This may leave the farmer with a whole lot invested in the field, but almost nothing to show for it.

However, the damage is not just attributed to nutrition. Antler rubbing damage of over $30,000 in one Ohio nursery was found (Scott 1984). This is a prime example of why it is Hunting 5 absolutely necessary for hunting. Hunting could prevent such over-population, and consequently, such destruction of farmland. However innocent animals such as deer seem to be, the fact remains that they can and do destroy livelihoods. In fact, Harder came to the conclusion that 'most overpopulation problems can be solved through liberalized regulations and increased hunting pressure' and 'most [conservation] officers, [wildlife] biologists and [county agriculture extension] agents found farmers used sport hunting as their primary control method...

' (Kreindler, 1988, p. 14). Farmers recognize that hunting is the only sure way to keep deer populations low, and consequently, ensure their financial well being. In addition to causing damage, the exponential growth of animals also leads to mass starvation and disease among the animals. When an environment is stripped of all its resources, those animals living in the environment are faced with a lack of nourishment. They are forced to subsist on tree bark or dead grass, things that hold little or no nutrition. They become weak and susceptible to diseases and parasites.

'In some instances mortality may occur on a large scale' (Smith, 1988). One example is of the deadly parasite Fusobacterium necrophorus. 'By comparison with man, animals live in close contact with soil and with their own feces' (Smith 1988). It is through the animal's feces that is spread. The parasite enters the body from the feces through a lesion on the body. Necrobacillosis can affect almost any part of the body, but the three sites in which it occurs most commonly are the mouth, liver Hunting 6 and foot (Smith 1988).

'Necrobacillosis in free-living deer and antelope produces heavy losses in parts of north America, Asia, and Africa' (Smith 1988, p. 159) With an over-abundance of animals in an area, feces will build up and support the infection of animals with this deadly disease. There are parasites like or other tiny microorganisms, which would thrive in populations where the animal's immune systems are too weak to function properly. They would invade the host animals and use every resource that that animal has. What little nourishment that goes into the animal is taken by the microorganism. In the end the animal is left to die a horrible death. Too weak to fight death any longer, it may die a slow, agonizing death of starvation and malnutrition.

If the animal is lucky, it may be dragged down by a predator and torn to shreds, too weak to even scream for its own life. '... Although deer may be immunized successfully against several infectious diseases... inoculation of each individual in the wild... is not feasible' (Davidson, 1981, p. 426). This illustrates the great need for hunting. Without it, disease would run rampant through animal populations, destroying individuals and ecosystems maybe to the point of irreversibility. Davidson agrees, saying, 'population control, preferably by legal harvests, will not entirely eliminate any infectious disease but should reduce losses substantially' (Davidson, 1981, p. 427).

Although no disease can be eradicated, hunting can control the spread of disease by allowing fewer hosts for the disease to infect and prevent such problems as overpopulation. Hunting is not the means to an end, Hunting 7 yet it is to only viable way to control populations. Over-population causes yet more problems, but this time the danger is for humans. When overpopulation has wrought disease and mass starvation upon a population, animals of that population are forced to seek other areas of habitat or sources of sustenance. This is when the animals become a very real threat to humans. They begin to cross roads with little regard to the oncoming traffic or the danger to which they put themselves.

Since 1965 the deer population in Ohio has increased at an accelerated rate (Walro, 1976). Since that time, an increase in frequency of deer-vehicle accidents has paralleled increased deer density and expanded highway systems (Walro, 1976). 'A total of 2,758 highway kills were reported in. three study counties... ' (Walro, 1976, p. 5). As staggering as that number is, it is even more astonishing that it was only for three counties.

Imagine the total for the entire state of Ohio. Something must be done. Conventional methods such as posting deer crossing signs have failed to yield any significant result, so that leaves hunting as the only alternative. Actually, Walro even says, 'the gun season in Ohio extending through the first week of December seems insufficient in length to permit removal of a large number of road-killed bucks' (Walro, 1976, p. 5). He actually advocates extending the gun season in Ohio. While that may be going a little over-board, the fact still remains that hunting is absolutely vital to the control of animal populations and the safety of the driving public.

Hunting 8 Recently, the topic of alternatives to hunting has been brought to national attention by numerous anti-hunting groups. One of these 'alternatives' which they propose is the use of antifertility drugs on animals. They argue that antifertility drugs would significantly reduce animal populations while, at the same time, provide a safe alternative to killing the animals. This delusional fantasy of theirs could not be farther from the truth. The truth is that antifertility drugs cannot effectively and safely control animal populations. In addition, they also require a considerable amount of time and money to sterilize the animals.

Case in point, John Harder conducted a study in which he tested an oral and an intramuscular antifertility drug called DES. In regards to the oral method, he found that 'the oral method can potentially reach a large number of deer but not without considerable expenditure of time and money' (Walro, 1976, p. 129). He concluded that the oral application of DES 'would probably be inadequate in controlling population growth' (Harder, 1971, p. 114). In his study of the effectiveness of the intramuscular DES drug, he found that it did reduce populations, but did so at the expense of the safety of the animals. In order to inject the animal with the DES, a Cap Chur gun was needed to fire a tranquilizer at the animal to put the animal down so the DES could be injected manually.

In Harder's results, 'The Cap Chur gun was fired 100 times, resulting in 40 nonfatal immobilization's or 2.5 shots per successful immobilization' (Harder, 1971, p. 146). To put it simply, 60 out of 100 animals died from the tranquilizer dart. In Hunting 9 another study by Ronald Bell, 'the Cap Chur gun was fired 185 times resulting in 55 nonfatal immobilization's' (Harder, 1971, p. 103). One hundred and ninety animals died as a result of the tranquilizer dart. This is hardly a statistic that favors antifertility drugs. From both of these studies it is obvious that intramuscular antifertility drugs are not safe for animals.

In retrospect, they are more harmful than beneficial to the animals. From these studies it is plain to see that the use of antifertility drugs such as DES are neither effective at controlling animal populations nor ensuring the safety of the animals. Harder, himself, claims that ' [antifertility drugs] are to be used only where conventional methods would be ineffective or impractical' (Harder, 1971, p. 127). Unfortunately for the anti-hunters, they must now face the realization that hunting is the only suitable way to control animal populations and ensure the well being of the population. Until the time comes when hunting is neither effective nor practical, it must be used to curb the rapidly increasing animal populations. The truth can be a hard thing to shoulder and for anti-hunters it is even harder.

However, they must swallow their pride and concede that it is absolutely necessary for hunting to take place in order to suppress a rapidly growing animal population. These animals are destroying their habitat, themselves, and the humans that they live in association with. Antifertility drugs have proven ineffective in the fight against overpopulation, leaving no alternative except hunting. The time has come to put aside all preconceived notions about hunters and admit that, whatever their motives may be, they are benefiting both humans Hunting 10 and animals alike. No one is asking them to endorse hunting, just to realize that it is the only practical way to control the ever-increasing animal populations.