Preying on the predators

[The Grand Nudger]

Also as an aside deer culls don't work either 
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...eer-herds/
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/sc...56763.html
https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/defa..._FINAL.pdf

I read through these.

-The first was from 2011.  The main point comes near the end.

Many animal advocates oppose such practices. In Defense of Animals (IDA) reports that even permitted sport hunting, under current wildlife management guidelines and outdated land management policies, contributes to deer overpopulation problems. “Currently, there are approximately eight does for every buck in the wild,” the group explains. “Laws restrict the number of does that hunters may kill.” Since bucks will often mate with more than one doe, the ratio of does to bucks “sets the stage for a population explosion.” And open season on both sexes won’t solve the problem, as too many does would die, stranding needy fawns and depleting the reproductive pool—as happened in the early 20th century when deer numbers fell precipitously low. IDA and many other animal protection organizations believe that sport hunting should be banned and that deer populations should be allowed to regulate naturally.

I'm sure that many animal advocates oppose killing animals.  I'm also sure that, no matter what angle you approach it from, they will oppose killing animals.  

Should be allowed to regulate naturally™ is a strange euphemism for extinction, though.  

-From the second.

"Given the significant costs to taxpayers, local and provincial governments should want a cost efficient and effective conflict resolution program" said Liz White, Director, Animal Alliance and spokesperson, BCDPS. "For example, Oak Bay spent $16,000 to kill 11 deer."

That does sound like it's a bad idea.  If hunting deer costs us billions rather than made us billions then it might extend to a comment further than the poor management of Oak Bay.  Further, there would be less of a problem with urban intrusion of wildlife if that species weren't overpopulated.

-The third, weeeeeeeeell,......the humane society is actually a very well funded anti-hunting astroturf group - people think that they're donating money to local pet shelters but that's not what they actually use that money for.  Still, assuming that you began with the idea that you absolutely weren't going to kill deer, it's full of ways to try and avoid collisions, disease spread, property loss, etc.  

Hunting deer would also achieve those things, generate money for conservation in the process, while protecting the deer themselves from extinction.  At the point where you're considering culls you already have the problem that hunting would have resolved, and that just not killing them could only exacerbate. More deer in an area that already can't hold the deer it has, more intrusion, more disease both within the deer pop and spreading to humans. More property loss, more collisions.......and none of the money that local and national business, as well as a little thing called conservation, depends on.

I understand peoples ethical and personal objections to hunting, but the case against hunting is difficult to make in the us and positively relies on that objection being the first principle of any argument that we should do away with it. Ultimately, their goal isn't to stop deer from dying, it's to stop people from killing them - and whatever happens next..well, That's Natural™.

I did like the bit they included about bcc vs ccc - fun fact, both numbers correlate upward with an increase in hunters in the region - in the us, at least. The cultural carrying capacity increases because people understand that there are people out there applying pressure to the numbers - you wake up and see a deer in your mixed veg - it sucks, but you know her ass aint long for this world. You think, meh, what's a few deer and isn't it nice that we still have them here. The biological capacity increases because hunters directly fund conservation and land management with the taxes they pay and their hunting related expense. That's how their numbers came back up in the fantastic way that the first article briefly describes. Contrast this against an alternate senario - a suburban or exburban gated community goes up, no hunting. The bcc of the land just increased while the ccc decreased (deer, you see, prefer the same things that property developers do) - leading necessarrily and inevitably to conflict, and, apparently, super expensive and useless culls.

The relationship between hunting and the management and conservation of species is inarguable - but for some animal advocates and people who just have a general objection to people hunting, it doesn't matter that the numbers are clear and argument is sound and the results manifestly successful in the real world - they believe that even so, it's an illegitimate situation - because people are hunting and killing animals. Meanwhile, deer themselves are a major driver of wildlife death, from mushrooms on up to plants and tress and past that to other large mammals. Without us killing them, they would be very much (more) like us in effect.