Audubon: Letters

(letters)

Deer Debate

Re: “Public Menace” [Incite, July-August]: One of the points I've tried to make to anyone willing to listen is just how much the overpopulation of deer has impacted the habitat and how little food is now available to deer in many extensively forested areas. An adult deer requires at least four pounds of food a day. So go out in the woods any winter day with a hand clipper and a plastic bag, and clip four pounds of twigs—of a size and species that a deer would eat, and that are within reach of a deer. Then do it again tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that. Except for those who choose to ignore the obvious, most people—hunters, nonhunters, anti-hunters—get the point.

Charles E. Schwarz
South Williamsport, PA

I love all the creatures that God put on this earth, and could never harm any of them. However, I would rather have the deer killed swiftly, with as little pain as possible, and provide food for needy families through food shelters, than see deer killed on the roadside or dying a slow death of starvation.

Laurie M. Rispoli
Tappan, NY

I consider myself very much an “animal rights” type and have not eaten red meat in 23 years. But your article convinces me there is no other way to control this very real crisis short of reintroducing wolves, which certainly would not work. Thank you for a thought-provoking article. It made me see things in a different light.

Pete Vogt
Orlando, FL

I have just purchased 10 acres of former farmland, which I plan to attempt to gradually restore to a semblance of the native ecosystem. This area is overrun with deer, which take a heavy toll on almost any planting one tries to establish. There is a strong local tradition of deer hunting here as well, and I'm hoping that once the hunters fill their lockers with venison, the deer problem diminishes, at least seasonally. If not, in the interest of trying to reestablish native plant species, I may have to acquire a taste for venison myself.

Bruce Turner
Eggleston, VA

The “practical” solution to Pennsylvania's deer policy, the massive deer hunt, is a shallow and ineffective stopgap. Pennsylvania habitat must be returned to a semblance of its original state, Longfellow's “forest primeval, the murmuring pines and the hemlocks.” Cougars and wolves must be reintroduced. The habitat will never be balanced without its top native predators.

Constance Spenger
Big Pine, CA

Ted Williams responds: I don't blame Ms. Spenger for being unenthused about hunting as a solution to deer irruptions, but unfortunately it's the only solution. Contraception doesn't work, and cougar and wolf habitat no longer exists in most of the East, especially in parts where these predators are most needed.

Crichton Critique

Perhaps Michael Crichton should have stated that some of “the research supporting the theory of human-caused global warming is ‘shockingly flawed,' ” because some of it is [“Pulp Fiction,” May-June]. And the popular media is not doing a proper job of connecting the dots from research to conclusions; in many instances it seems to be just telling us what to believe. I find many of Crichton's criticisms valid.

D.C. Durstewitz
Cape May, NJ

Senator James M. Inhofe has called global warming “a hoax” and commended Michael Crichton on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The 1998 “hockey stick–shaped” Northern Hemisphere warming graph, attacked by Crichton as being at the root of the hoax, is described in detail in the March 2005 issue of Scientific American. That issue also presents what I consider to be yet another scientific study irrefutably proving global warming is influenced by mankind, in this case by looking at ice cores dating back 400,000 years.

The time is now to do more than simply fight for an equally bright spotlight as Crichton's when trying to catch the public's eye regarding the veracity of warming. To all those who continue to defend the case for global warming as a hoax, such a defense is as perjurious in many scientists' minds today as claims made by CEOs just a couple of years ago that tobacco smoking presents no public health risks.

William Brock
Redding, CA

Correction

The photography credit for “Treasure Island” on page 62 in the July-August 2005 Audubon was incorrect. The photographer was William Abranowicz. Additionally, the photography credit for page 65 of the same issue should have been Matthew Hranek. Both photographers are represented by Art + Commerce. We apologize for any confusion.

Don't Forget to Write
Send letters to Letters to the Editor, Audubon, 225 Varick St. 7th Floor, New York, NY 10014 or editor@audubon.org. Include your name, address, and daytime phone. Letters may be edited for clarity and length. To see more letters, and letters on previous issues of Audubon, go to "Sound Off!"

Sound off! Send a letter to the editor about this piece.

Enjoy Audubon on-line? Check out our print edition!