DEER AND THE NEW BIO-DIVERSITY

On January 22nd the Greens launched a policy, that, if successful, will see deer reclassified as a pest species.  At present in NSW, deer are classified as game animals and, as a result, enjoy certain ‘privileges’ denied other introduce species. These privileges aim to sustain deer populations for the purpose of recreational hunting e.g. seasons apply dependent on species and it is necessary for hunters to hold a Game Licence to hunt deer, whether on private or public lands (State Forests). 

The Fallow deer

As a hunter and amateur ecologist, my first reaction to news of the Greens’ proposal was mixed. I like to hunt deer; they present the greatest challenge amongst Australia’s relatively limited legal quarry and their flesh, when compared to other introduced species, is undeniably superior.

I also use deer by-products in a number of traditional craft endeavours – sinew, antler and even bone – some of which may be obtained from other introduced species, though all lacking certain attributes that are unique to deer.

On the other-hand, deer are undeniably an introduced species and all introduced species have some impact on the land. That impact is invariably considered detrimental to the ecology of a continent, the geographical isolation of which over millions of years resulted in a great many, very highly specialised inhabitants that have learned to eek-out a living in Australia’s harsh and often marginal environs.

This being the case we should surely strive to wipe them out, as we do species such as foxes, pigs, goats, feral cats and others that enjoy no special privileges to speak of under the law? 

You can see my dilemma and as a result, I challenged myself to think about the impact of deer in the landscape, objectively and from a ‘big picture’ perspective. What follows are a few thoughts on the subject, about which I would be very interested to know the readers’ opinions.

The first issue that comes to mind is the impact of deer on agriculture, mainly, I admit, because that was the perspective the media and the Greens were pushing with the most vigour to justify the eradication of deer. Yes, eradication, because it is to facilitate their total eradication that the change to the way we view and ultimately manage deer has been proposed.

NSW lists the damage caused by deer as a “key threatening process” and Victoria has listed Sambar impacts as a threatening process too. Yet both states, as well as Tasmania, protect deer as a hunting resource.

The most common impact cited is the deer’s competition with sheep and cattle for grazing land. Their impact on fencing is also high on the list of complaints, as is the perceived threat they pose to Australia’s bio-security, should we ever experience an outbreak of something like the dreaded Foot & Mouth disease. 

I must confess that I would not have thought deer competed for grazing land as much as, say, kangaroos and wallabies and while unlike deer both are native to Australia, kangaroos and wallabies have benefited greatly from our various efforts to drought-proof the land with dams and irrigation and so on. 

As a result, the common macropods are said to enjoy greater numbers today than at any other time in Australia’s history. It also bears remembering that sheep and cattle are themselves introduced, if not feral species. Surely then, the agricultural arguments against deer are not ecological, but rather a simple case of economic favouritism.

I believe the impact of deer on fences is also a somewhat opportunistic justification, unless the concern is that they add to fencing damage already wrought by roos and wombats. The question is surely whether they present a singular problem that cannot be countered in some clever manner, or whether it may be possible to offer incentives to farmers that would mitigate additional pressure from deer populations. Perhaps the answers lie in the US, where deer exist in great numbers alongside stock?

In the 35 years I've lived in the bush, I've heard farmers complain bitterly and with obvious justification, about the damage done to fences by kangaroos and I have certainly seen first-hand and up-close the devastating impact wombats have on fencing and farm structures, including homes, yet I cannot see the Greens pushing legislation to declare open season on Wally and Skip. In fact the Greens are (in)famous for their opposition to native animal culls in just about all circumstances. 

The threat deer may pose to our bio-security is not something I’m equipped to ponder in much depth, but I would have thought that in a country seething with pigs, goats, buffalo, banteng, feral cattle and horses; a country that boasts the world’s largest wild camel population estimated at something like 1.2 million head, deer represent the least of our troubles.

The Red deer stag

It seems to me the eradication of pest species is too often predicated on the notion that if we just get rid of them all, Australia will return to the Shangri-la it must once have been. But is that the case?  Perhaps the whole “it’s not 'native' so we must wipe it out” attitude needs to be reassessed for the naive philosophy it surely is?

Australia will never again be the continent it was prior to European settlement, unless of course European settlement itself is declared a pest, and I've no doubt there are those who’d applaud such a move. However, we are here and here to stay and our presence has changed the continent in many ways, in a very short time. Ways I believe can never be undone.  

We have cleared land, dammed rivers, drained swamps, created lakes where none existed to irrigate huge tracts of land that was once desert. We have felled native forests here and planted new forests of exotic timber there and we have altered the flow of once mighty rivers, destroying native river and wetland ecologies in the process. We have even replaced native fishes with new species, some intentionally, others not. And yes, we have introduced species that have precipitated a rate of extinction hitherto unsurpassed in the continent’s long history.

My point is this, for as long as we inhabit this continent and for as long as our population grows, no amount of eradicating so-called pest species will ever return Australia to the pristine system it once was. That Australia, free of rats, cane toads, rabbits, foxes, hare, sparrows, bulbuls, starlings, toads, European wasps, fire-ants, the Crown of Thorns starfish  and innumerable other illegal aliens, is gone forever! 

Perhaps, then, it is time to consider the place some of our "new natives" occupy and the roles they play in a changing Australian landscape? Some species will change that landscape less than others, but change it they have and continue to change it they all will. 

We can kid ourselves into believing it’s possible to turn the clock back and no doubt we’ll continue to toss huge amounts of money and resources into that forlorn objective, but perhaps deer eradication should not be identified as yet another major front in a war that may never be won.

Of all the introduced species, deer are perhaps the most useful. They are certainly one of the most prestigious and sought-after and it seems to me there is some as yet insufficiently tapped potential to exploit their numbers for economic, culinary and even cultural benefits. 

The Greens, with their dogmatic opposition to all forms of hunting, stand against all of these opportunities; hence their preferred strategy for the control of non-endemic species is total annihilation. 

Of course I would add to the list of exploitable resources, a number of native species such as the plentiful types of kangaroos and wallabies. Although natives, in terms of sheer numbers and pressure on the land, farming and agriculture, in some locations they are so plentiful that they easily meet the general criteria for 'pest' classification and could therefore be harvested with little or no detrimental effect. 

It is illegal to hunt all native mammalian sources of meat in Australia; in itself a rather unique state of affairs. Nowhere else in the world, so far as I'm aware, is it illegal to harvest plentiful native mammalian species from the wild in a sustainable manner.  In this environment, deer represent a significant public resource, whether people choose to avail themselves of it or not and I believe the capacity for every citizen to sustain him/herself through the responsible harvest of plentiful wild food sources should be a basic human right. At this point in time, that right is reserved only for those of aboriginal decent.

The more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that the Greens’ call to reclassify deer is based on a combination of their general disdain for all that is not endemic and their drive to find a soft target with the potential to return an ego-boosting victory to a moribund party desperately seeking relevance. Deer numbers are still relatively small and their herds comparatively isolated. Thus while it may not be possible to wipe-out other species that pose far greater threats, the Greens might at least succeed in wiping out deer, if only out of spite. 

Fallow deer doe with newborn fawn

The Greens' attempt to rob deer of their game status, thus facilitating their total eradication, has animal welfare implications I'm certain they'd rather the public was not made aware of.

The main benefit of game status is the identification and management of hunting seasons aimed at ensuring that the quarry is not hunted during its breeding season. Remove that status and hunters, cullers, exterminators, whatever the case, will be at liberty to kill deer while carrying or nursing their fawns.

Surely I cannot be the only person who thinks this a curious objective for the Greens, given their oft espoused animal welfare concerns?

I, for one, would rather see the huge amount of additional money that will inevitably accompany the changed status of deer, ploughed into something more practical such as the development of species specific viruses to control feral cats, foxes or rats, all introduced species and all of them with a proven extinction track-record that deer simply cannot boast.

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

For those wishing to leave comments under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section below. You do not need to enter a URL.

If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com  This service will not include notification of new comments. All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.