The deer are going to be culled by expert sharpshooters, meaning they will die with minimal pain. Should we fail to control their population, not only will the ecosystem suffer more than it already has, but the deer will die slowly from starvation.
Contraceptive vaccines are impractical for a number of reasons. They're expensive, especially when we have this many deer to deal with, they can't be administered indiscriminately through bait, and their employment would involve actually capturing all of the deer. And we have a lot of deer.
Baiting wouldn't work because it would harm other species within the Crum: raccoons, foxes, opossums, etc, and of course we couldn't guarantee that every, or even most, of the deer would ingest the bait.
Specific floral species and fencing?
It isn't as if the native species, which are the ones the deer prefer to eat, are concentrated within specific areas of the forest. We can't just find every native plant and fence it in: that would be insane. Even if we did, the deer would ravage whatever is left, deprived of their normal food.

You can't simply value the lives of deer over the lives of every other species in the forest. It is a delicate and interdependent system, too fragile to be subjected to the whims of human emotion.

In a situation where deer do not need to be culled, it is generally because they are being preyed upon. Death by a pack of wolves is far more unpleasant than death by bullet. Deer fill an ecological niche that involves them being killed and eaten by something. That's how nature works.

And: It's state law that all animals hunted/culled be processed for human consumption. If they're culled, they have to be donated to food programs.

And no complaints about diseases in deer. They're more nutrient dense, automatically free range, and harbor fewer health problems than grain-fed factory-farmed cattle.

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Sharpshooting is a lot less clean than it sounds. Nearly every source of information that I've found agrees that the quality and effectiveness of sharpshoot "harvests" can vary widely depending on the contractor that is hired. And don't be so sure that the hunter who comes to campus will be an "expert," either - Schlisser has suggested to the College that it save money by training its own sharpshooter and then paying this inexperienced individual lower wages. For an example of a deer cull gone bad, just take a look at what recently happened in nearby Fairmount Park.

But sure, if everything were to go according to plan, then the greatest suffering would come not from the does who were killed by a bullet to the brain, but from the equal number of fawns who were left behind.

I do have to correct a few of the statements you've made about immunocontraceptive vaccines, however. A single dose of the most promising drug, GonaCon, has a cost in the range of $2-10, while the death of a single deer by professional sharpshooter has a cost in the range of $100-350. True, with labor factored in, these numbers become a lot closer, but expense just isn't a strong argument.

You're also mistaken on the point of capturing the deer. If Swarthmore were to employ GonaCon on a "rigidly controlled" experimental basis, then it would indeed be required to tag each deer before injecting it with the vaccine. However, tagging does not have to mean capture. The Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP) vaccine, which has been in use since the late 1980s, is often administered by special marker darts. Fired from a distance, these can simultaneously inject the drug and mark each deer with a bright-colored dye. The entire process is fast, painless and safe.

Personally, I think it would be a great idea for Swarthmore to get involved in research like this, and I know that U. Penn. has carried out studies on deer contraception. But, that being said, I never made this suggestion in my article. GonaCon is on a track to become commercially available within a year, and once it reaches that point, there will be no more need for tagging.

Wasting disease and lead poisoning are legitimate concerns, but no, I won't complain, because this point really isn't even relevant. Donating the meat that's safe to eat is a nice thing to do, but it doesn't justify the sharpshoot any more than becoming cannibals would justify the war in Iraq. And there's nothing sentimental about that.

It's true that we can't fence in every native species, but, once again, I never proposed that the College undertake to do so. The primary concern is that the deer are eating too many saplings, and that the forest will therefore stop being able to replenish itself. Over time, this may result in effective gaps in the forest, which in turn contribute to fragmentation. To preserve the integrity of the Crum Woods, exclosures can be strategically placed in the areas that are at the greatest risk of wearing thin. Fences could also be used to preserve particular instances of species present in relatively small numbers; these islands would spread and rejoin as soon as the deer count had dropped sufficiently.

Because the fact is that choosing non-lethal methods will not mean failing to control the deer population. It won't mean letting the deer ravage the forest, which is still in a relatively healthy condition. Immunocontraceptives have been proven to work, and it is our moral obligation to try employing them in the Crum Woods before we resort to killing. Should these non-lethal means fail, it's not as though we'd be gambling the biodiversity the forest. The Crum Woods Stewardship Committee has arranged to monitor the success of any plan that they implement, and if anything goes wrong, they'll be the first to know, and they will respond accordingly.

— Ethan Bogdan | Registered, Swarthmore

Oh please, deer are pests and the sheer abundance of them in this area is dangerous especially for the amount of traffic on the roads. I often see them early in the morning either in the road (i.e. wandering down Yale) or in people's yards. Ever hit a a deer, Ethan? It's one of the scariest things ever and apart from damaging one's vehicle itself, the driver can also be seriously injured. The less deer around here, the better.

Perhaps Sharples should put venison chili on the menu . . .

— Deer Hater | Unregistered, Swarthmore

"Donating the meat that's safe to eat is a nice thing to do, but it doesn't justify the sharpshoot any more than becoming cannibals would justify the war in Iraq."

A modern Jonathan Swift (but much less funny and satirical, but something tells me you weren't even trying to be, despite the hilarious context of shooting deer). I'd really like to see you justify this statement.

— Dr House | Registered, Swarthmore

Someone has seen the movie Bambi too many times. Too many deer are a threat to the ecosystem and dangerous to drivers on the roads surrounding the Crum. Kudos to the college for responsibly managing the situation before it's a problem.

— M | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I'd like to encourage everyone to look at the Crum Woods Stewardship Committee's website: http://www.swarthmore.edu/x16863.xml. A lot people, including professors and other students, have put a lot of time into choosing the best, most ethical path.

The forest may not be in the state that this contractor typically encounters, but it is in serious peril. Most of the herbaceous plants are foreign invasives, and over much of the Crum few non-mature trees have survived. Ethan, your activism is laudable, but your focus on saving deer is misguided.

— Myles Louis Dakan | Registered, Swarthmore

I disagree with the argument that we should be protesting chicken and cows being eaten at Sharples if we support rethink deer culling. I would support people eating less meat in general, but the deer cull issue doesn't need to be about pitting vegetarians against nonvegetarians. It's a question of respecting and cherishing life. I think we should seriously explore and reconsider different ways of protecting Crum Woods before killing its deer and leaving many of their young unprotected.

— Veg also | Unregistered, Swarthmore

"I do have to correct a few of the statements you've made about immunocontraceptive vaccines, however. A single dose of the most promising drug, GonaCon, has a cost in the range of $2-10, while the death of a single deer by professional sharpshooter has a cost in the range of $100-350. True, with labor factored in, these numbers become a lot closer, but expense just isn't a strong argument."

Why even make a point if you're going to then admit that what you just said was intellectually dishonest? A single bullet is a lot less than $2-$10, you know, if we just cut out all the other factors in the price to make our figures look better. Say something worthwhile or don't talk.

Also, to whomever edited this for publication on The Gazette, what's with the gratuitous use of hyperlinks? The author actually linked what, 4 articles? And you make it look like this had as many references as a thesis. Clean those up.

— Swattie Expat | Registered, Swarthmore

Carolyn--How do you know that contraceptives would not provide enough population control?
Swattie Expat--How is what Ethan said "intellectually dishonest"? Maybe a bit sloppily stated, but not intellectually dishonest. All his statement says is that cost of contraceptives vs. sharpshooting is an invalid argument against using contraceptive methods to control the deer propulation.
It disturbs me that no one seems to care that deer have flourished in the Crum because it is one of the few remaining healthy forested spaces in this area: our species has destroyed the rest. Instead of being humane and sympathetic and accepting that WE created this problem, we look at the deer as nuisances who are destroying our lovely woods by their own will or something and thus need to be killed.
And to reiterate what a few others have said: it's just silly to suggest that people interested in animal welfare should be allocating all their energy and time to protesting meat consumption in Sharples. I am constantly suggesting that Sharples include more vegan options and telling friends about the benefits of a vegan lifestyle, but that doesn't mean I can't speak up against the deer cull, too. Convincing people to create less of a demand for meat in Sharples requires convincing them that they need to change the mindset and lifestyle they were brought up with. This is a difficult task and it takes time and careful planning. The deer cull is an entirely different situation and requires the immediate action of protesters to convince authorities to forgo sharpshooting and choose a more humane option. This makes a strong statement to our school's surrounding area as well as other schools who may have similar animal overpopulation problems on their property. Neither issue should be ignored. Would you tell activists fighting, say, racism that they should dedicate all their time to one Swarthmore-specific situation and ignore all other situations?

— L | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

You can't argue an issue of ecological sustainability based upon your own moral problems with eating meat.

And, speaking as a pretentious asshole but also as someone who spent the entirety of last summer studying the impact of deer browsing on the Crum Woods, they are not just eating sugar maple saplings. The saplings they were eating are almost gone now. They are eating everything else. We have no understory, no shrub layer, and a monocultural herb layer consisting of invasives that, thanks to the deer clearing out the native species, were able to monopolize.

Speciesism is a load of crap. If I'm bigoted against deer, you're bigoted against plants. You're an anti-archaeplastidist! Or maybe a metazoan supremacist.

Also: you've described deer as sentient. Defend that statement.

I happen to like venison chili, by the way.

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Yeah, Carolyn!

Anyway, adding on to that, humans generally try to distance themselves from the natural world as much as possible. This is a place where we can fill an ecological niche that needs to be filled, and thus help save a dying ecosystem. In this part of the state, forest fragments are basically all we have left, and areas like the Crum, though they may be small, are important if we want to have any forests at all.

Nature isn't nice, it isn't built upon human moral constructions, and it isn't going to be saved by playing strictly in terms of what we find to be moral.

Incidentally, fawns are not born in the dead of winter, when the cull occurs.

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

"The fact remains that sharpshooting is unnecessary, unwarranted, and unscrupulous, and I do not see how an institution as forward-thinking and upstanding as the Swarthmore College I thought I knew could endorse it."

Really Ethan? Did you read the report? The college had very good reasons for making the decision they did. It is very uncertain whether contraception would even work in an environment like the Crum, and even if it did, it would almost certainly be much more expensive. You try to throw a smokesceen up and act like the two options of cull and contraception are basically equivalent in terms of cost and effectiveness, but they just aren't.

I am a vegetarian and a believer in the moral importance of animal welfare. But I am a realist, and understand that human welfare and animal welfare need to be balanced. Are there more humane ways to deal with the deer than a cull? Yes, but that doesn't mean there is any moral obligation to use them, there is only a moral obligation to consider the deers' welfare in the decision. In this case, it is pretty obvious that the heavy costs of implementing contraception as opposed to a cull are not outweighed by the very slight (and questionable) benefits the plan would provide for the deer. Simply put, it is not worth it for the college to devote tons of resources to save a few deer from being shot and a few fawns from being orphaned. If you truly are not an absolutist, you need to start speaking in this language of cost-benefit, and stop implying that the deers' welfare is of infinite value.

— AD | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Argos, moral principles should be the driving force behind any practical consideration; the two are not mutually exclusive. By choosing non-lethal methods, we are both valuing the interests of the deer and preserving the health of the Crum Woods.

I don't need to defend the sentience of deer, because Peter Singer, a renowned philosopher and professor of bioethics, has already done an admirable job of it (http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm). In summary, sentience does not depend on intelligence or the ability to speak, but on the ability to suffer. Deer have interests, humans have interests, and we can both feel the pain of having those interests denied to us. Speciesism is about giving preferential consideration to the interests of some species over the interests of others.

I appreciate your personal account of the state of the Crum Woods, and I assure you that I look forward to seeing the ecosystem recover just as much as anyone else. Contraception will do the job, but we may need to be more active stewards of the land in the meantime.

— Ethan Bogdan | Registered, Swarthmore

Carolyn, there is nothing fundamental about your assertion that "nature should be allowed to run its course." People live longer, healthier, and happier lives now thanks to scientific advancements that defy the course of nature. In the Crum Woods, nature can no longer do its job, so humans must indeed step in. But, where nature could only provide predators who managed populations by eating them, we now have a choice between using brute force (hunting) and using science (immunocontraceptive vaccines). Either one can produce the desired effect, and I see no reason why some misguided emulation of the forces of nature should supersede true moral consideration.

There can be no possible basis for your fear that GonaCon will be a repeat of DDT. The drug has undergone years of testing under both the FDA and the EPA, and there have been shown to be no adverse side-effects or secondary hazards associated with its use. Moreover, as "with other vaccines, such as those used with livestock, both [GonaCon] and the antibodies produced [in response to it] are proteins. Once ingested, they are broken down by stomach acids and enzymes" (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/wildlife_damage/content/printable_version/faq_gonacon_bc_deer_08.pdf). DDT, on the other hand, was an organochlorine insecticide; it was designed to kill upon ingestion.

— Ethan Bogdan | Registered, Swarthmore

Ethan,

I support your initiative! Way to stand up to the cynics of Swarthmore.

— Swattie '11 | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Peter Singer is a philosopher. Philosophers are not required to actually know anything of value or have ideas that are grounded in reality.

I want proof of their being self-aware, and I want that proof to be expressed in neurological terms.

Peter Singer seems, from everything I've read by him and from the short amount of time I got to speak with him, a bit of a basket case. At any rate, he's a utilitarian, which is like combining the irrealism of a moral philosopher with the ruthlessness of a computer. Frightening.

Give me Schopenhauer's school of ethics any day.

Now, the way you've defined sentience. Sentience refers to one being consciously aware of having a self. Suffering could simply be defined as an ability to respond to pain stimuli. Do deer respond to stimuli? Yes, as does everything with a nervous system. Does that make them self-aware? No.

So, what do you think about healthier forests? Would you like to have predators sequestered, fed upon animals that have died naturally, and then administer birth control to the primary consumers? Otherwise, animals preyed upon will suffer far more than if they were shot.

You can't possibly minimize a wild animal's suffering. Nature is really mean to animals. Everything has to die eventually, and death is usually unpleasant. This is something you're going to have to learn to accept.

And read that Crum Woods report. It provides a very good reason as to why culling is the best choice for our situation.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with giving preference to the interests of humans over the interests of other species. Or, there is no way not to. You're vegan. You put your personal interests above an entire kingdom of species. Do you live in a house? That's land that could have gone to numerous other animals, and if we're talking utilitarianism and being non-speciesist, you've committed quite a transgression by having a house. The 'interests' of an animal involve eating lots of other organisms while not getting eaten oneself. There you go. Depriving other organisms of food while claiming others as food. Speciesism? No. Survival.

Put down the moral philosophy and pick up an evolutionary ecology text.

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

AD, the report issued by Natural Resource Consultants supports the notion that contraception could be effective in suburban communities. The estimated dispersal rate of female deer in the Crum Woods region is in the range of 1-20%. This means that there is a reasonably small chance of fertile does migrating into the Crum Woods from adjoining forests and confounding efforts to lower the birth rate. Your skepticism thus seems to be unfounded, and a lack of complete certainty that GonaCon will be sufficient to manage the deer population should not prevent us from trying it before barging ahead with a sharpshoot.

Upon what evidence is it "pretty obvious" to you that the costs of contraception so far exceed those of sharpshooting? How do you imagine that I have tried "to throw a smokescreen up?" The primary expense of employing immunocontraceptive vaccines has been that of trapping the deer, but I have already noted that this will not be necessary once GonaCon becomes commercially available. While I don't have an exact price comparison for you, I do know that both sharpshooting and administering immunocontraceptives can cost several hundred dollars per deer.

But, for the sake of a conservative cost-benefit analysis, let's take an extreme: how about sharpshooting costs $150 per deer and contraception costs $700. Now let's consider the relative number of applications of each of these methods. Either way, the number of deer targeted in the initial year should be approximately the same, but the difference is that the immunocontraceptive vaccines won't need to be applied again for another five years, while subsequent sharpshoots will be necessary on an annual basis.

This 5:1 ratio already puts the long-term cost of sharpshooting above that of contraception, but the difference could be even greater depending on the effects of reproductive rebound. This phenomenon "is a well documented population dynamic... Deer conceive multiple embryos but the number of fawns actually born is determined by a number of complex factors including nutrition and herd density. With competition for food reduced by a sudden drop in herd numbers, younger fawns will breed and females will give birth to twins and triplets instead of single fawns... [A 1990 report issued by New Jersey Fish and Game] shows that even during hunting seasons in which killing female deer was the objective (antlerless seasons), the remaining females had increased birthrates that not only replaced the ones killed, but increased the overall size of the herd" (http://www.pzpinfo.org/pzp_faqs.html).

By this logic, even conservative estimates leave little doubt that contraception is financially justifiable, even if you assign no value whatsoever to the length and the quality of the lives of the Crum Woods deer.

— Ethan Bogdan | Registered, Swarthmore

"Although immunocontraception vaccines offer promise for wildlife management, no fertility control agents have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition to the regulatory hurdles, contraception is experimental in nature and has not been shown to be an effective management tool for free-ranging deer populations such as those inhabiting the Crum Woods. To date, no field studies document that this method could reduce deer to the densities required to meet the management goals of the Crum Woods. Finally, in order to be effective, the deer would need to have limited scale of movement and maintain low dispersal rates. The available published literature does not support the conclusion that this approach would be an effective deer management technique in the Crum Woods."

http://www.swarthmore.edu/x17382.xml

Full pdf report is also available, though it is tediously long.

Now, we have a conservative estimate of 29 deer/squ mile, which is, according to that same report, between 40-60% of the actual number. In order to restore the woods to the point where they can regenerate, we need to eliminate a very large percentage of the deer: around 85% of the total population.

I don't have access to whatever research this report mentioned, and I'd like to find the relevant journal articles so I can argue this more competently, but assuming that birth control has not been proven to be an effective method in forest fragments with free ranging deer populations, and given that we are aiming for a radical reduction in population in as little time as possible, outright killing of the deer seems far more sensible from an ecological standpoint. Killing is immediate: you shoot the deer, they die, population is reduced. It does require subsequent cullings, but that really is to be expected in any aspect of forest management. If the Crum is to be restored, we need to take serious, ongoing action on several fronts. This is hardly a situation in which we should fool around with methods that may not only be ineffective but which could have potential environmental impacts.

www-mirror.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/faq_wsgonacondeer.pdf -

The GonaCon FAQ states that their vaccine alone is not enough to reduce deer populations to a healthy level. It would have to be used in conjunction with another, probably lethal, method. If this vaccine was found to be effective, I'd be for trying it out on the deer that remained after the cull.

Question: I've gotten the impression that this vaccine works by taking a protein found in sex hormones, linking it to a foreign protein that will elicit an immune response, and then...is that it? Immune system, in acting against this foreign agent, produces antibodies against proteins found in sex hormones, hormones are destroyed, individual is rendered infertile.
Is there no vector? Just a gob of protein? I couldn't gather.

Anyway, this vaccine has to be injected into muscle tissue. You aren't going to accomplish that with darts, so the deer will have to be trapped.

In one summer of 6/hrs daily in the Crum, I saw two does. Evidently our deer are nocturnal. Capturing and trapping ~20 does/squ mile at night would be immensely impractical, and the administered treatment would be of questionable effectiveness.

Birth control alone is not a reasonable solution.

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

You really think that you figured it out? That the report got it wrong, and you have just discovered how financially inefficient deer culling is?

All your googled links and hypotheticals show is that contraception is theoretically possible, and that in some cases, deer culling might have to be done more than once. I am sure that the Stewardship Committee knows these two quite-obvious facts, and I am further sure that they know a whole lot more too about the costs of the two methods. So what's my evidence? It's that the Stewardship Committee knows more than you do, and they have no reason to lie about the fact that contraception is not financially viable.

— AD | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Argos, I have done extensive research on the issue of deer management in the Crum Woods, and reading the NRC report was my first step. I won't list all the other reports I've read, but please don't just assume that I don't know the facts.

I agree that "putting down the moral philosophy" would be a good idea at this point, as your comments have only pushed us farther from the matter at hand. I would point out the circular nature of defining suffering as an ability to respond to pain stimuli, I would take your bait regarding utilitarianism, and I would reply to Carolyn's case for naturalism, but to do so would not contribute to any substantive, productive arguments either in favor of or in opposition to the deer cull.

This isn't a hypothetical situation, it isn't about the larger impact of humans on the planet, and it certainly isn't about searching out every possible way in which humans might justifiably favor their own interests over those of animals. This deer situation is real and already upon us, and we can't just bring large predators back into the Crum Woods, even if some of us might want to. We as humans need to find some way to manage the deer population ourselves, and the most ethical, long-term solution is to use immunocontraceptive vaccines. That's the bottom line.

GonaCon won't throw off the balance of nature, because it is safe and there are no predators who eat the deer anyway. There is no convincing argument along financial lines, either. Even the case for biodiversity can only go so far. Of course we want to restore the Crum Woods, and we want to make sure this happens before the deer have caused permanent, irreversible damage. But, once again, there is very good reason to believe that contraception can meet this goal. And if the Crum Woods Stewardship Committee determines, after implementing non-lethal methods and observing their results, that a different course of action is necessary, then, and only then, should we even consider killing the deer.

— Ethan Bogdan | Registered, Swarthmore

You've provided no evidence that contraception works except for telling us that it works. Even the developers of this lauded vaccine have stated that it needs to be implemented along with other methods.

No one here suggested returning predators to the ecosystem. That is obviously not a viable solution, though I might advocate using predator control to keep the number of students at Swat at an acceptable level. Our examples involving predators were designed to make sure that you understand that nature and 'Bambi' are not one and the same, and that the reason we need to kill the deer is that we have destroyed the original forests and extirpated predators from this part of the continent. The forest is too small to support wolves, but the niche once filled by them remains empty. Therefore we should fill it ourselves, and try actually working with the ecosystem for once.

You are currently up against the Stewardship Committee, the scientists who came up with this vaccine, and Swarthmore's Biology department. You are choosing to argue on the basis of statements that are not supported with reasonably decisive, experimental evidence.

What is the "very good reason" to believe that contraception will work? And why is biodiversity not a substantial enough argument for the implementation of immediate and effective population control? The decline in biodiversity is essentially why we need to reduce the deer population. We're facing localized extinctions of sugar maples along with several other native trees, coupled with the establishment of a herb layer consisting of garlic mustard, a couple invasive lianas, and not much else.

By the way, you cited the problems with Fairmount Park's deer culling. That is not carried out by professional sharpshooters, but by recreational bow-hunters. As in those deer are just being shot at with arrows. Bullets will be far more effective.

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I'd knock down the "happier" statement straight off. Modern society is miserable, and the longer you get to live, the more likely you are to develop weird-ass diseases and become immensely sick of life.

We're healthier in some ways, though by battling senescence we have to deal with a lot of deteriorating bodies. Ugh.

However, I don't fully understand what you're saying. The natural world has certainly changed in its function, and with our advent began to function for the worse, but if one defines natural processes as processes natural to the known world, scientific advances just take the basic principals by which the world functions and manipulates them for various ends. Some of those ends suck, and are accomplished by questionable means, but not all drugs are bad. Anyway, medicine often steps in where nature fails. Pancreas ceases to function, take insulin. Etc.

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

To clarify what the report says about FDA approval, and to cite the USDA's cost estimates for GonaCon:

We are not legally able to use contraceptives with our deer because the deer that pass through the Crum are legally edible, and GonaCon has not met FDA approval. That is, if we load up the meat with (even a probably benign) antibody, we make the deer less suitable for human consumption.

The USDA estimates $500-$1000 to trap or dart a deer.
www-mirror.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/faq_wsgonacondeer.pdf

— Michael Roswell '11 | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Michael, GonaCon is currently under the oversight of the EPA, not the FDA. It has, in fact, already been proven that meat from deer injected with this drug is safe for human consumption, and official registration and approval of GonaCon is expected to come very soon. The expense estimate you have quoted is outdated. Try this link: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/wildlife_damage/content/printable_version/faq_gonacon_bc_deer_08.pdf It states that the cost can be up to several hundred dollars per deer. This is not so far from the expected cost per kill by a professional sharpshooter, and, if you look at my napkin calculations above, you'll see that costs still work out in favor of contraception in the long run.

— Ethan Bogdan | Registered, Swarthmore

Carolyn - Agreed.

Ethan - GonaCon is under the oversight of both the EPA and the FDA.

So they cost a few hundred bucks per deer. If one is more than the other, it's probably by a small margin. I'd say financial arguments are out. Keep it strictly ecological is my plan.

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Carolyn, if you look back to comment #14, you'll see I've already expressed my stance on deer-vehicle collisions. There are proven ways to keep deer out of the road without killing them.

I didn't reply to your earlier question because it seemed a little off-topic. I fully agree with you that mankind, has a whole, may well be making this planet a worse place. However, I still believe that science has significantly improved our quality of life, and I do not object to the application of science to the natural world in an effort to compensate for the destruction that we are wreaking upon it.

— Ethan Bogdan | Registered, Swarthmore

I have a couple of questions about this discussion:

1. Ethan's argument is largely based on the fact that the Crum Woods are not in any immediate danger, so it would not be terribly detrimental to the lasting health and biodiversity of the woods if immunosterilization were to not be effective, and culling the deer then had to be implemented in a few years. Argos' argument is largely based on the grounds that, from field observation and study, it is clear that the Crum Woods ecosystem is in grave danger of losing further biodiversity, so we can't wait for the population to decrease gradually, which would be the case IF the drug worked under these conditions. These two conclusions make it seem impossible that they are using the same data. Where are different folks getting their information from, and can they link to it?

2. Ethan, how does post #29 affects your idea of what to do?

On another note, Ethan, what I see to be a larger problem is the issue of what circumstances GonaCon works under. The CNR article that you cite in your piece makes the point that, given the lay of the land, should we sterilize the necessary amount of deer, others would come in, and the necessary effect would not be produced. This point is reinforced by a piece of information given in the 2003 Cons. & Stewardship Plan that you cite, which says, "Contraception, although very expensive and labor-intensive, has proven effective in arresting population growth under the right circumstances... . Appropriate situations, however, are limited to small, contained populations such as on islands or in fenced parks and zoos."

P.S. Thank you for raising this issue. It's one that I was unaware of. I do not know that I agree with your plan of action, but it has nevertheless made me question the topic more.

— Lang Haynes | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Lang, thank you for your respectful observations. I believe that I address the latter half of your message in the long response that I'm about to post. As for your first question, this does seem to be a point of confusion. My conclusion is based partly on the fact that the Stewardship Committee has waited over five years before taking any action and partly on comments made by NRC's Bryon Schlisser. As you probably read in my editorial, at the 2007 community meeting, he stated, "I think you'll find recovery here may be very quick... within a few years... most people wait [longer before they start taking actions to manage]..." I also know that the NLT report listed deer management as only the fifth most urgent concern facing the Crum Woods, (or alternately the seventh, if funding was short). As far as I can tell, Argos' conclusion is based on personal observations made during summer research. Honestly, I'm not sure which of us has a more accurate assessment of the state of the forest, but I believe that my arguments still stand. If the Committee sees the forest getting to the point where it absolutely needs immediate attention, if it feels the forest is on the edge of threshold beyond which there is no return, then it will act accordingly. Right now, its options are still open.

— Ethan Bogdan | Registered, Swarthmore

Answer (to question in comment #26): There is also an adjuvant with the product name "AdjuVac." There's a technical discussion of GonaCon at the following link, but that's pretty much the extent of my knowledge: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/research/reproductive_control/gnrh.shtml

Question for you: What makes you so sure that darts can't inject the vaccine into muscle tissue? The majority of my research has shown that both PZP and GonaCon can be administered remotely via darts. When these projectiles hit their targets, brief explosive charges are fired that deliver the vaccines as deeply into the flesh as they need to penetrate.
___

Argos, it is true that contraception has not yet been proven to reduce wild deer populations to the carrying capacity of the Crum Woods. There hasn't been enough interest in ecology to conduct a study like that; most communities just care about reducing deer-human conflicts. So is there a degree of uncertainty involved in this discussion? Of course. But the absence of such data does not belie the positive implications of the studies that have already been conducted.

From tests on deer populations in Maryland, New Jersey, and New York, we know that the drug works: a single dose renders 80% of female deer infertile for up to 5 years, a second dose 100% for life. Over the course of 6 years, one population was reduced by over 50%, while another was reduced by 40% in 5 years. And from information that Bryon Schlisser himself provided on April 25, 2007 in Science Center 101, we know that wild deer, especially in suburban settings, live in small, fixed home ranges and have a relatively low dispersal rate (1-20%). In fact, deer may even starve to death before moving beyond the bounds of their home ranges. Schlisser repeatedly made the point that "there is no vacuum effect," meaning that lowering deer numbers in one area won't just result in an influx of deer from another. Thus "free-ranging" deer populations in areas like the Crum Woods can be expected to respond to contraception not unlike populations on islands or the populations that were the subjects of these studies.

Your personal skepticism should not stop Swarthmore, an institution with a conscience, from putting two and two together, seeing the great potential of this new technology, a technology that is already being used on free-ranging animals at the University of California-Davis, and making an honest effort to uphold its founding principles. Beyond the inherent moral loss of the lives of the does who would be killed in the initial shoot, there is the survivor's tale of the fawns. They certainly aren't born in the winter, but by the time the winter comes around fawns are still living with their mothers and, if given the chance, they would spend at least another six months with them, after which point doe and fawn might still regroup come the following fall.

If you find it sentimental, childish, or naïve to take the interests of non-human animals into consideration, then you have drawn something of an axiomatic line between us. I harbor no illusions about man's monopoly on sentience, and I firmly believe that it would be selfish of Swarthmore to proceed with a cull that disproportionately favors its own, human interests.

If your sole concern is for the plants, then I won't keep debating you. From a purely ecological, (and, in my view, untenable), standpoint, it may be marginally safer to kill the excess deer in one fell swoop and just be done with the whole thing. But, rather than culling and then giving contraceptives to the deer who remain, (which would likely result in overcompensation), I see no reason not to administer contraceptives first, and then cull if and only if the contraceptives prove insufficient. Even if we resign ourselves to the necessity of sharpshooting at some point in the future, by using GonaCon first and assessing its efficacy, we'll be able to minimize the number of deer that we need to kill. This isn't fooling around: it's ethical stewardship, and responsible monitoring will ensure that the future of the Crum Woods is never genuinely endangered.

Acting in time is important, but acting "as quickly as possible" was never part of the plan, especially if it meant discarding values that were of more profound importance. Besides, the Stewardship Committee has already dragged its feet for over eight years; are we to believe that it's suddenly in a rush?

I'm not planning on starting any gang fights, (and I do wonder whether you can speak for the entire biology department anyway), but you should know that I am not just a lone voice. Throughout this process, I have been in communication with activists across the nation, some of whom have given their lives to combating hunting and lethal deer management. The volunteers on the Stewardship Committee are presumably responsible individuals invested in preserving the Crum Woods for academic and recreational purposes, but their authority is not absolute, and their decisions are not infallible.

Evidently, there is no, single, decisive way to view deer management. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any discussion on this issue, and the Stewardship Committee might have taken action over five years ago, in accordance with the findings of the original Natural Lands Trust report.

But, of all the options we have before us, I am convinced that the solution I have proposed yields the greatest expected returns for all species involved. The Stewardship Committee has been blinded by the wisdom of tradition and biased by the prejudice of speciesism, and it's time that they reconsider their decision.

— Ethan Bogdan | Registered, Swarthmore

Mr. Ethan Bogdan,

That was the most convoluted, ostensibly fact-filled, non-violent diss of a person I have read in a long time. You managed to call Argos a rogue biologist without a conscience, declare everyone involved in the decision about sharpshooting an ignorant twit inferior to your own majesty, and basically take a piss on any view of the world that doesn't exactly match your own. I almost have a lot of respect for you. Unfortunately, your opinions and philosophy are those of a nutjob.

As to the humane aspect, I can scarcely think of a better way to die than a bullet in the brain. It's totally painless (or at a minimum very, very painless considering the time to die is probably going to be measured in milliseconds) and is sudden, requiring no psychological pain such as fear of death or capture. Argos rightfully pointed out that your utilitarian viewpoint is simply frightening if you start considering animals on par with humans (and this is a statement coming from a ruthless asshole that thinks most humans are entirely worthless). Your "greatest expected returns" result is based entirely on this philosophical view that nobody in their right mind should hold. Also, did you factor the people that would get to eat the deer into your analysis of aggregated utility? Deer jerky is one of the most delicious foods known to man. Seriously, the utility function for (Jerky, Other stuff) must be U(Jerky, Other stuff) = Jerky^12 + Other stuff. Go tag along with SHIP sometime and explain to their people that they could have had delicious jerky if you didn't think deer were worth more than they were.

And now for some nitpicking of your phrasing!

"Throughout this process, I have been in communication with activists across the nation, some of whom have given their lives to combating hunting and lethal deer management."

What, did they jump in front of the rifle and take a bullet for a deer? It's usually a bad idea to take advice from insane people.

"Your personal skepticism should not stop Swarthmore, an institution with a conscience, from putting two and two together, seeing the great potential of this new technology, a technology that is already being used on free-ranging animals at the University of California-Davis, and making an honest effort to uphold its founding principles."

I'm usually a big fan of hyperbole, but I don't think Swarthmore was founded on the idea of not shooting deer. Then again, maybe you know more about Quaker ideology than I do.

In closing, you seem to be a deer-hugging (but strangely not tree-hugging?), idealistic, vocally opinionated fellow that is fairly intelligent but applies his mind to worthless pursuits involving cushy progressive/ultra-left ideals when you could be solving real problems in the world while you take a year between high school and college because you're a sheltered coward that can't stand to be away from Mommy.

Welcome to Swarthmore, you'll fit right in.

— Swattie Expat | Registered, Swarthmore

I live in NE Ohio, and am part of an organized group that seeks nn-lethan, humane solutions to problems with deer overpopulation, as well as conflicts created by habitat overlap. I used to believe that killing deer in large numbers was a necessary evil; I didn't like it, bu I didn't argue with it, in principle. What I have learned since then, is that many states' Divisions of Wildlife, such as Ohio's (one of the worst), engage in the deliberate perpetuation of this overpopulation. They do it by issuing hunting permits, not only on private land, but to very, very large parks, such as Cleveland Metroparks (Emerald Necklace). Why is this unethical? Because it's money-making machine operating on the fact that killing large numbers of deer creates the rebound effect, whereby the cervine population gives birth to twins and triplets in order to counter the losses. This is a fact. If you don't like dealing in facts, but choose to live in deliberate denial, then don't bother reading the rest of this, or wasting anyone's time with your factless arguments. The facts are this: deliberately perpetuated overpopulation of deer benefits no one but the greedy and bloodthirsty. The reason we have deer overpopulation is human-induced elimination of natural predators, mainly wolves in our area. (BTW, Sarah Palin had wolves shot from helicopters in Alaska. She's a complete idiot. Talk about hypocrisy; that is NOT pro-life!) Anyway, once I realized that the overpopulation of deer was a result of our behavior over time -- via the elimination of natural predator(s) -- but that organizations such as the Ohio Div. of Wildlife deliberately perpetuate this in order to make money. Here is just one result: Cleveland Metroparks was given permission to hire an expert sharpshooter to come and train park rangers to shoot and kill deer. Video footage shows them doing such a lousy job, they had to finish off the deer by suffocating them with plastic bags while the deer thrashed about. Another nearby community is allowed to use the captive bolt method; if you have to ask, look it up. Bow hunting is no better, with at least a 55% error rate. Recently, in a community near where I live, a woman illegally hunting on too small of acreage hit a doe with an arrow and it stumbed down a few backyards to a neighbor's home, where he witnessed the woman savagely finish off the deer -- ON HIS PROPERTY! She was not following hunting rules, but the city refused to even talk to the man that called to complain. If none of this gets through to you, then think about this: there is now overwhelming evidence, studies, etc. that the vast majority of our population does not like hunting, and does not want it to continue. Your days are numbered, and we most certainly will see the end of deer hunting on private property in smaller communities, as well as these egregiously hypocritical and extremely species-centric park systems. It will come to an end soon. And you will only have Jerry Springer-type TV shows as an outlet for your bloodthirst. Deer, like all other living creatures, have a right to exist for their own sake.

— Lucy McKernan | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

@ the idiot who said to introduce predators to the Crum for a "fair" solution:

OK, so lets play a game. In this game, we have two doors, and you get to pick a door, and behind each door is a way you die:

Door A contains an expert sharpshooter who will shoot you. There is a high probability he will put a bullet straight into your brain, killing you instantly and painlessly, and a slightly smaller chance his bullet will not instantly kill you and you will suffer for a short amount of time as he takes aim for another shot to finish you off, however you will be in such shock that you will probably not suffer too badly before he can make his second, final shot.

Door B contains a wolf. This wolf has been locked behind this door for some time and is rather hungry, and as soon as you open the door you will find your jugular in its jaws and your death will likely be long and excruciating as you suffocate to death from a combination of lack of air flow into your lungs and choking to death on your own blood. The few minutes it will take you to die will seem like an eternity. Also, while this wolf is clamping down on your throat, his friends will come out and start eating you alive, so you'll get to watch your guts spill out as they tear open your abdomen right before passing out.

I'd like to hear your rationalization as to the difference between a human relocating a wolf to a forest where it kills a deer (and thus the human indirectly kills the deer) and a human directly killing a deer with a rifle, and why one is any more fair than the other. Either way, the deer's death is caused by human manipulation, one is just more humane than the other.




Also, @ Ethan Bogdan, you still haven't justified this incredibly, insurmountably stupid point to me:

"Donating the meat that's safe to eat is a nice thing to do, but it doesn't justify the sharpshoot any more than becoming cannibals would justify the war in Iraq."

— Dr House | Registered, Swarthmore

Perhaps someone can help me with this, but it seems that Ethan's plan falls victim to "speciesism" no less so than the existing plan. On rights grounds, why should humans have a right to reproduce yet deer do not? On utilitarian grounds, how can we decide which the deer would prefer in the first place, being infertile or dying a quick death? I don't think the argument, "well, /I/ would prefer not to get shot," is applicable; I think it is quite clear that our own preferences are not the same as those of deer.

Even if we try to not be speciesist, there is no clear right or wrong here from the point of view of the deer. And who is to say speciesism is clearly unethical?

I find this column very presumptuous asserting that one course of action is clearly ethical and another is not, and I am afraid Ethan confuses "forward-thinking and upstanding" with "in agreement with his dogma," perhaps a subtle distinction.

— Speciesist | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Ex-pat: Those were possibly the nicest things anyone has said to me all year. Thank you.

Ethan - You've provided me with no experimental evidence but have simply stated that it exists and is very strong. I want journal articles.

So you've gotten your support from people who have dedicated/sacrificed (really?) their lives to stopping hunting. So, your comrades in arms are a group of radical animal rights activists who are so caught up in controlling how other people feed themselves that they are trying to stop one of the most ecologically sound and humane means of procuring meat. Hunting overly abundant wild animals is far more sensible from an animal rights perspective than eating factory farmed animals. Shouldn't they have, you know, flung their arms around the cows before they moved on to deer?

Cannibalism equated with hunting. Deer's life = human's life. Human interests not to be valued over interest of deer. Choose: 2 deer or your child.
Utilitarian's answer: save the deer.

This is why I am doubtful of the sanity of the Australian dude, yourself, and your fellow activists of the utilitarian school of thought.

Where did my data come from? Research done in the Crum last summer. Yes, on the deer project, which we all know is a joke the way its being carried out, but I still gathered a lot of useful information.

No, I don't automatically speak for the bio department, but going by what everyone in the department I have spoken to has said, it looks like they're on the same side as myself.

As for the darts: I'm thinking about when I've been vaccinated in muscle tissue. The doctor pokes about a bit, sticks the needle in, and injects a few mL of fluid. I don't see how a dart can inject much vaccine, or be accurate enough to not hit fat or blood vessels.

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Argos,

Sorry, buddy, I'm a little confused. You didn't think...

"Argos rightfully pointed out that your utilitarian viewpoint is simply frightening if you start considering animals on par with humans (and this is a statement coming from a ruthless asshole that thinks most humans are entirely worthless)."

...was directed at you, did you? My apologies, as the part in parentheses is referring to myself. The "statement" in parentheses was referring to my using the word "rightfully" to describe your expressing your opinion.

— Swattie Expat | Registered, Swarthmore

The posted comments rejecting humane safe alternatives to killing the campus deer as a population control method (including the specious statement that all choices are equally ethical in this matter) are as disturbing for their tone as they are for content. There is a self satisfied close minded smugness about them as if this were a game of trivial pursuits so reminiscent of the same tone once used to dismiss women's and minority group's rights. I remember a different Swarthmore where open-mindedness and compassion stood in the stead of bad humor and trivialization, where new views were welcomed and dialog genuine not just a form of dismissive one-upmanship.

Indeed there are safe effective humane alternatives to killing the campus deer, deer who have essentially lived in a sanctuary park and have done so for decades long before the current student population was in residence. When there are safe humane alternatives it is unconscionable to kill. If the National Park Service is considering the use of immunocontraception at Valley Forge National Park why can't Swarthmore experiment with the same alternative? Of course Swarthmore can afford it.

Underlying the smug self righteousness that seems to permeate so many responses to Ethan Bogdan's plea lies very close to the surface the prejudice that all animals but bipeds are here at our mercy and for our disposal and use, not worthy of respect: "If you can't use it, eat it or kill it what good are they?"

It is exactly that "philosophy" that has lead to the problems that are causing our planet to currently shrug us off. Hunting is nothing more than using live animals for target practice. Why not just use targets that don't feel pain? How is that "sport"? The excuse given justifying this form of target practice is "Let's expunge this deed by self righteously "feeding the Poor", the third world in our country. Are you simply unaware of current findings about the significant potential health hazards associated with consuming venison killed with high velocity ammunition? Just didn't get to that research because it was an inconvenient fact? Officials in North Dakota and a number of other states have warned about eating venison killed with lead ammunition since last spring. North Dakota's health department has ordered food pantries to throw out all donated stores of venison while waiting for research results from a study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prev ention which has been studying potential health risks for people who eat venison killed with high velocity ammunition. The study is in progress. But why wait? How ethical is it for Swarthmore College to feed the poor lead tainted meat? Why not demonstrate the college's unconcern and confidence by serving campus venison in the Swarthmore cafeteria in January?

Bow and arrows are an alternative choice but killing by this method is a cruel and painful way to die. Finally if unmoved by compassion, liability should be a significant college concern. The college has a huge trust fund. Challenges if harm is done could result in fewer scholarships and bad publicity. Wouldn't it be a good idea to at least experiment with a safe alternative?

Stripped of pretty language (uncovering euphemisms, once one important part of Swarthmore College's education) this is nothing more than a"canned" hunt in which a community espousing Quaker values chooses lethal alternatives( animals don't count; let's go blow them away) then engages in extra rendition (hiring the killing out) over the Winter break I guess to shield the campus students' sensibilities because clearly there is little or no protest. Just don't look.

What happened? We share this our planet. We don't own it. We are not the top of the heap and attending Swarthmore doesn't imply we stand head and shoulders above the rest. We don't question when we should question. Often the present minority view is simply a glimpse of the future. Life has an intrinsic value---absolute, not comparative---that should be protected. We can have win-win solutions rather than win-lose. Why not? None of the many species sharing our world is inferior; that is just our egocentric view. Animals do have rights deserving of recognition and protection as opposed to those who dismiss this concern with " It's just an animal." Harriet Beecher Stowe said once that concern for all creatures " is a matter of taking the side of the weak against the strong, something the best people have always done." That is what this struggle is all about. Why trivialize these concerns and a different view? Can't the Swarthmore community rise to this challenge?

Gail O'Connell-Babcock, Ph.D '65
Citizens for Humane Animal Legislation
16004 SW Tualatin-Sherwood Road, Box 506
Sherwood, OR 97140
503.625.4563

— Gail O'Connell-Babcock | Unregistered, Swarthmore

So, to paraphrase Gail, "I'm an alumni and thus my opinion is more valid than yours." Your response reeks of arrogance.

"I remember a different Swarthmore where open-mindedness and compassion stood in the stead of bad humor and trivialization"

Clearly you lack open-mindedness if you refuse to accept a view point other than yours as a possibility. With you being a member of a heavily biased watchdog group, however, it doesn't surprise me that you would be so inflexible on the issue.

"Of course Swarthmore can afford it."

But apparently a good number of Swarthmore's students cannot afford it, in case you were unaware, many students are complaining that they aren't getting enough financial aid and that the college is too expensive. But hey, if your principles are more important than an education that could form the basis for a person's entire life, than who am I to judge, for I am selfish as well and wouldn't want to make a hypocrite of myself.

"How ethical is it for Swarthmore College to feed the poor lead tainted meat? Why not demonstrate the college's unconcern and confidence by serving campus venison in the Swarthmore cafeteria in January?"

If the poor don't want it, I'd be more than happy to have it, its been far too long since I've had fresh venison and I could sure go for some. The amount of lead-hunted meat you'd have to eat to get any amount of lead poisoning is far more than any individual would be receiving, although I am assuming we will pay enough for a butcher who isn't totally incompetent and thus minimize the risk. The lead build up in frequent eaters of lead-hunted meat does not normally affect their health unless they butcher the animal improperly or eat lead-hunted meat constantly. I'd be more worried about the poor eating McDonald's and the such than I would be of them getting an insignificant amount of lead, far beneath unhealthy levels. But hey, why not stretch an argument if it serves your agenda?

"Can't the Swarthmore community rise to this challenge?"

People like you are the challenge we must overcome, we cannot allow ourselves to veer from the path of rationality to appease your clearly biased agenda. I was happy, even a bit proud, to see Swarthmore finally address an issue with sensibility, and I'd prefer to keep it that way, rather than see our college give up on finally being a bit reasonable.

— Dr House | Registered, Swarthmore

I have a few points that i would like to make-this issue clearly requires another public hearing.
1. Have you recieved unbiased information?
NRC (Natural Resources Consultants) appear to be the party that will be hired and paid to conduct the shoot yet they are the party that issued the report recommending the shoot. This is obviously biased and self-serving. I would further look into the membership of the "Natural Lands Trust and Continental Conservation" committee and "Crum Woods Stewardship Committee" and ask how many members are associated w/the Penn Game Commission, are hunters themselves or members of other pro-hunting organizations involved in this decision?
The Penn Game Commission is 100% funded by license hunting fees (including special permits from a hunt like Crun Woods) and a federal tax on guns and ammunition (as the NRC admits in its own report on p. 17-18)
2. Although there is an outcry of some kind (I might ask from who exactly?) that the deer are harming the ecological balance and biodiversity of the forest, what evidence is there that this is the case? A recent study from Penn State Univ has found that forest soil erosion is because "decades of acid precipitation has removed alkalinity and lowered pH of the forest soil". Light is also a limiting factor-and the forest canopy if too thick should be cut back. The study says forests are in need of mineral replenishment and deer overpopulation is not the cause, in fact, "deer have been villanized, but in many cases forest soils are a bigger problem than deer".
Further, Ohio State researchers found in a 2008 report that the commonly held premise that large deer populations damage forest ecosystems is not true. They found that snakes, salamanders and insects appear to thrive in forests and parks with large deer populations and that "management of deer populations could have the unintended effect of reducing local diversity of herpetofauna and invertebrates"
3. Another question regarding the severity of the so-called deer problem is how many deer are there in Crum Woods? The infa-red counting method used (how much did that cost?), saw only 50 deer. From this number it was extrapolated that there are about 29 deer per sq mile. In general, wildlife managers consider average acceptable densities to be 20-40 deer per sq mile. Whats the problem?
4.Lyme Disease-The New England Journal of Medicine confirms that lyme disease is carried by the white footed mouse. The term "deer tick" is a misnomer-deer are one of many l