Hey, there! Log in / Register
Pro-animal groups fight state plan for deer kill in Blue Hills Reservation
By adamg on Mon, 10/26/2015 - 6:39am
The MSPCA and the Animal Rescue League say they will speak for the deer facing death in the hills south of Boston, at a State House rally that starts at noon on Thursday.
The groups, along with the Humane Society of the US, object to a state plan to let hunters roam parts of the Blue Hills Reservation on four weekends to cull the reservation's deer herds.
State officials say a rapidly expanding deer population is trampling and eating vegetation, reducing the habitat for other creatures and serving as a potential reservoir for Lyme Disease.
The MSPCA argues the last winter may have killed off some deer, the state never looked at alternatives to hunting - such as deer contraception - and that hunting deer won't reduce the population of the ticks that spread Lyme to people.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Testimony against the deer cull | 281.55 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
What could possibly go wrong?
Shooting guns in an urban forest, used by many people daily for hiking, walking, sight seeing, nature appreciating, and pleasure seeking, located next to a major highway and several major arteries. I am sure nothing could possibly go wrong.
Bad idea
This is very ill-planned and ill-advised. It's not even clear a hunt is necessary here, considering the main issue is Lyme Disease which will not be significantly halted by killing deer. Jokes about "deer contraception" aside, there are other ways to limit the population that are not unreasonable and mentioned on the links. And the way this will be done is nuts - to have a hunt going on at the Blue Hills while people are hiking right next door on a different section? Crazy.
The hunt is only happening
The hunt is only happening for four days 11/30-12/1 and 12/7-12/8. Each of the two-day hunting sessions is happening on a Monday and Tuesday. Park usage would be relatively low anyway, and the fact that there is going to be hunting going on is going to be well-posted (and easy to hear). I suspect that access will be restricted to hunters on those days.
Way off...
You clearly didnt read the plan from DCR. Here is the link and educate yourself instead of making ignorant and baseless comments...
"Roadway Restrictions: On those days in which hunting is taking place in the Reservation, DCR will institute a closure of Chickatawbut Road (from Route 28/Randolph Avenue to Route 37) similar to the closure that is implemented on Sundays. In addition, DCR will also close Wompatuck Road (from Chickatawbut Road to Route 37) to regular vehicular traffic. Road closures will be in effect each day of the controlled hunt until 5:oo PM. After checking in, permitted hunters will be allowed access onto Chickatawbut Road and Wompatuck Road
and will be allowed to park along these roads while hunting. DCR will work with other state and local agencies to announce (via the web, press/media, social media, etc.) the road closure in advance and to provide information regarding detours. In addition, DCR will post variable message boards at appropriate locations in advance of the hunt to announce road closures.
Public Information, Outreach, & Signage: In advance of the controlled hunt, DCR will work with other state and local agencies and the Friends of the Blue Hills to ensure the public and neighbors are informed of when and where the hunt will take place. This includes issuing press releases, posting information on websites and via social media outlets, placement of variable message boards at key park entrances and intersections, delivering informational flyers/notices to neighbors, and hosting a public information session in advance of the
hunt. DCR will also post appropriate signage at trailheads and on all bulletin boards and informational kiosks (before and during the hunt) to inform the public of the hunt. Informational flyers and notices and any postings on websites or social media will also include contact information for the public to report any concerns or ask questions while the hunt is taking place."
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dcr/news/public-meetings/materials/parkland...
You clearly didnt read the
Those roads will be closed but the area will not be off limits to hikers, nor will the adjacent areas and trails. I did read it, thanks.
Pathetic.
It's more humane for the deer to starve to death because there are too many? In addition to deer contraception, they should probably start a deer reproductive counseling service, so the deer understand that it's in their best interest to limit the number of fawns they have.
What's pathetic
Is your inability to read the mspca statement which pretty clearly explains why this isn't a real solution to what actually may not really even be a problem.
How else do you get rid of them?
They have no natural predator... Will they MSPCA and Humane Society take them in as pets? What is their solution for dealing with the deer? In addition to the issues mentioned above, there is always the concern of them running into roads and highways causing potentially fatal accidents. Lock and load!
Read the attachment to the article for several possible answers
to your question.
A Better Plan
Import wolves.
But not cane toads.
What's the Vatican say
About deer birth control?
Firmly Opposed!
They say between bites of venison.
Deer and Lyme disease
The relationship between deer populations and the prevalence of Lyme disease is complicated and not completely understood. Yes, deer ticks are what transmit Lyme disease but they only feed on deer in the last stage of their life cycle and they do not acquire Lyme disease from the deer. They pick up the Lyme disease pathogens earlier in their life cycle when they feed on smaller animals, like mice. When there are more deer there may be more ticks but fewer of them are infectious because high deer populations browse low vegetation that supports the populations of the mice from which the ticks get Lyme disease. If you completely eliminate the deer then Lyme disease is eradicated but that's not possible to maintain because deer will quickly repopulate from other areas and just reducing the deer population may make things worse - fewer ticks but a higher percentage carrying disease.
using...
Using lyme disease as a reason is lame. Lyme disease exists in ticks in the city with the absence of a deer population. The disease-carrying culprits are rodents (mice, rats, squirrels) and birds. Deer are immune to the disease, do not carry the various lyme bacteria straings, so are solely a food source. Culling the population won't eliminate lyme or really mitigate it all that much, as anyone infected outside of forested, rural, or suburban areas can (sadly) attest. Ticks will feed on whatever is available. Reducing the tick population by disrupting their life cycle or else eliminating the bacteria in the animals that actually carry it would be a more logical strategy.
Where's the evidence to
Where's the evidence to support your conjecture that a higher percentage of ticks would carry Lyme disease if mouse populations were much higher(also doubtful)?
Lyme disease isn't the only issue, there's also the fact that many deer will starve, and many people will get in life-threatening automobile accidents due to overpopulation.
Starving deer
I've heard this used as a justification for expanding hunting seasons many times. I've yet to see evidence of starving deer. Is there any?
Never mind Lyme disease. There are a lot of really good reasons not to open a hunting season in a park that's surrounded by residential areas, that's heavily used, and whose users and abutters are not used to dealing with hunting season.
Would you like some conjecture, Tim?
Here's some conjecture:
In the time it took you to type your reply to the previous post someone, someone smarter or at least less lazy than you, could train a monkey, probably also smarter and/or less lazy than you, to go to an Internet Search Engine to find verification for the previous post.
That's conjecture.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can look at an example of what that monkey might have found:
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/are-deer-the-culprit-i...
Perspective
I don't think Mass DCR is exactly trigger happy or being pressured by the powerful Massachusetts hunting lobby to do this.
Deer are over populated, and a hunt can safely help fix this far faster than we can study the situation. Yes, safety is criticaI don't think Mass DCR is exactly trigger happy or being pressured by the powerful Massachusetts hunting lobby to do this.
Deer are over populated, and a hunt can safely help fix this far faster than we can study the situation. Yes, safety is critical, which is probably why its shotgun, not rifle.
After the hunt, we can investigate contraception, too. Try everything!
Geese on the Esplanade should be next. Yechh.
Curious
I've heard the assertion of overpopulation many times. To me that brings up a couple of questions:
1) Can you quantify what you mean by "over populated"?
2) How many deer would you expect to see harvested from this four-day "season" in the Blue Hills?
Let's remember that Massachusetts already has a shotgun season for deer that runs 11/30-12/12 this year -- two full weeks as opposed to four days. So who's going to hunt the Blue Hills? Why would anyone?
Read the report from DCR...
"Based upon the results of this analysis, DFW estimated (conservatively) that there are about 85 deer per square mile of deer habitat in the Blue Hills. It is important to reiterate that this density estimate is believed to be conservative and that the actual deer population density is likely higher.
For additional details regarding the population survey and data analysis, readers are strongly encouraged to review DFW's technical report developed and published by David P. Stainbrook, DFW Deer and Moose Project Leader. Given the results of the population survey and the density estimates produced, it is very clear that deer densities in the Blue Hills are well above DFW's statewide deer management range of 6 to 18 deer per square mile of forest."
Do the math, they need to removed quite a few deer. The permitted hunting area is just under 3,000 acres. Shotgun with slugs only, not bow or rifle hunting. 196 permits licences will be issued. Knowing Massachusetts, I'm sure the game wardens will be out in full force and this will be highly monitored.
FYI
Rifle hunting is not permitted anywhere in the Commonwealth.
Waiting for an answer to my second question.
Too lazy to do the math?
85 deer per sq/mi equals roughly 391 deer in the Blue Hills Reservation area in which hunting is permitted. DRC wants to reduce to number of deer to 6-18 deer per sq/mi or 27-89 total deer. A total of 302 to 362 deer must be "harvested."
Too lazy to read the question?
Here it is again:
"2) How many deer would you expect to see harvested from this four-day "season" in the Blue Hills?"
You answered a different question: how many deer would HAVE to be harvested in order to reach the levels to what the DRC wants. I asked how many you would EXPECT to see harvested. And by the way, "harvested" is the standard term used by Mass Wildlife and other such agencies; in the context you used, there is no reason to put it in quotes.
Application deadline isn't
Application deadline isn't for 2 more days and they already thousands have applied. Hunters live all over the state and The Blue Hills is one of the few large open green spaces left, I don't see why one would think it would not be a desirable location when they are forced to smaller peaces of land? Over populated was quantified by reduced biodiversity of the plant community and by an abundance of documented vehicle/deer collisions in park boundaries. Numerous lyme disease cases have also sprung up in adjacent neighborhoods, however the DCR is NOT using Lyme as a justification, though in my opinion there is an obvious linkage.
Kidding, right?
If you really believe that, you've never been west of I-91, I'm guessing -- or probably west of 495. I just don't see hunters from central or western Mass having any interest in this. I can't imagine who would, except for those who believe (rightly or wrongly) that with the "over populated" deer it'll be like shooting fish in a barrel...IOW, the yahoo element.
Overpopulation? Where are the deer?!
I've run around all over the blue hills this summer, and I've only seen a few deer once.
I've not once seen deer droppings on my travels.
The biggest issue, really the only issue, that I have is that I'm highly skeptical that their is a booming and problematic deer population in the blue hills.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o41MacRxepQ
Ten years ago, when the
Ten years ago, when the numbers would have been much lower, I'd see several every time I hiked around GBH. Around sunset, they come out of the woodwork. Your skepticism is irrelevant to the facts. And yes, you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.
Yes, I am aware I don't make my own facts.
It is just surprising to me that there are really that many deer in there, and based on what I little I've read I heard that the methodology in extrapolating the deer population was generous, and, that the numbers were taken before a particularly brutal winter with a deep snow cover for months.
Snark aside, I'll ask you this, are deer booming all around the commonwealth? Increased human interaction/development/traffic would all seem to conspire to make it harder for deer to flourish as opposed to easier.
Yes, there is a deer boom
I live near the Fells. When we first moved here, no deer. About ten years ago, we started getting a family sleeping in our yard in the winter. Then a couple of years ago, they were everywhere, and I would see them almost daily from spring through fall. It became commonplace to come up the street and have to wait for them to clear the road.
One day, two years ago, my son stepped out the door to head to school and startled a doe. Due to the configuration of our patio, she was pretty much trapped. She reared up and slammed my son with her hooves, pushing him away and leaving serious bruises on his chest and collarbone.
Weirdest school nurse call ever!
He was fine, and very understanding of her panic, but that's how things have changed in the last decade. We have gone from occasional sightings off in the woods to daily sauntering around the area. The deer are now everywhere in my area of the city and even into densely populated neighborhoods far from the woods.
I have noticed a rabbit population explosion in the same time frame - possibly related.
Is there any safe way to hold a deer hunt in the Fells?
There seem to be a few hundred entrances (official and otherwise), plus lots of folks like you who live directly adjacent to it.
They run across 128...
I bet with enough time you could find one in the woods on Google Maps Street View...or as roadkill. I almost hit 2 a few weeks ago that had wandered into the trees in the loop that brings you from 95N to 128W. They were looking to get back across the ramp and into Blue Hills.
They're there
I can believe that there are plenty. "Starving", I have some issues with that assertion; I don't know that anyone has substantiated it. Deer are pretty shy of humans, but they are active at certain times of the day and more so in some places than others -- if you run after sunset, I'd expect you'd see more of them.
They hear you running and
They hear you running and avoid you, JP Runner, as surprising as that might be to you.
I'm just a big dummy,
thanks for enlightening me.
___________________________________________________________
On days where there are tons of people out there, as there were this past Saturday, I'd think more would get "pushed" around by people using the all the trails, but I guess there is ample space for them to avoid us all.
I worked 3 seasons at the
I worked 3 seasons at the blue hills and shoveled at least 5 deer carcasses out of the Houghton's Pond area of the Blue Hills alone. I also saw them frequently both as an employee and many times since as a hiker.
We need a planned parenthood
We need a planned parenthood for deer.
Sometimes you have to trust the experts
The gist of the comments so far:
"I've never seen a deer, therefore there are no dear."
"It seems unsafe to me, so it must be unsafe."
"I don't have Lyme disease, so the deer must not be helping to spread it."
People who study these things have said that it's a problem and have come up with a solution. You may not LIKE the solution (I'm not Joe Hunter), but to question the need to do something because you haven't personally experienced a problem is just silly.
Well, not quite
I haven't seen anyone say any of those, although you could make a case for the second. I have seen some other objections that you seem to have overlooked. Mine is, primarily, that I doubt it's going to result in a significant harvest. Four days, in that location, when deer season is open for two weeks in the rest of the state? I'm just not seeing any reason why hunters would flock to the Blue Hills, and if they don't, how are you solving the problem?
Over 2 thousand have already
Over 2 thousand have already entered the lottery. I routinely see them in the Blue Hills and routinely shoveled their dead bodies out of the street when I worked there from 2009-2011. I don't understand how any meat eater could object to acquiring healthy meat while solving a community health risk?
Small correction
You said you shoveled out five in three years. That doesn't strike me as "routinely". Mind you, I'm not saying there aren't plenty, just that five in three years doesn't strike me as a very large number.
Well, that's all assuming that they would be "acquiring healthy meat" (i.e., they'd know how to process it and would actually do so and not just let it rot), and that a "community health risk" would get solved.
No offense to animal lovers
But if a rebound is a problem, we could just kill every last deer in Blue Hills and it's not like they're going extinct or the ecosystem is suddenly out of balance. They're the pigeons of the forest. There's a billion of them everywhere.
Deer are really destructive
Deer are really destructive when they become overpopulated. They eat young seedling trees to the point that they don't grow anymore, which throws the whole forest out of whack. They affect the entire ecosystem. They are prey animals, and normally there would be predators keeping the population in check -- so without predators, their presence is not organic or "natural" -- it's out of balance. They are in no way endangered, and in fact they cause problems for other animals whose habitat they destroy. I'm a huge animal and nature lover but I don't have a lot of romantic ideas about deer overpopulation. I want to protect the entire forest, not just the deer. If the people running this take proper safety precautions, and the people hunting know how to kill in one or two shots, I am in favor of this.