Do you see what I see

 PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION
POLICY MANUAL

Natural Resource Conservation
2.30 Actions

E. Fertility Control Agents


Where safe and appropriate, hunting always is the primary method used to manage wildlife populations in all environments. The Game Commission recognizes that species overabundance in localized or isolated areas is often largely influenced by landscape features and human manipulation of the environment, and these factors may not be easily modified. Therefore, when hunting methods are not adequately controlling wildlife populations, the Game Commission considers alternate methods that complement current

management efforts including properly approved and registered fertility control agents. Fertility control agents are only to be used in conjunction with hunting and other wildlife management methods because contraception alone cannot reduce wildlife populations to healthy or socially acceptable levels.


Application of any wildlife fertility control will be based on appropriate science and species population biology. Educational efforts to disseminate information on scientifically sound solutions for reducing problems with overabundant wildlife, including limitations of wildlife fertility control will be made available to the public. If fertility control agents prove to be safe, humane, and effective methods for resolving human-wildlife conflicts associated with overabundant species, the Game Commission may authorize their use.


Recommendation: The Executive Director and staff recommend the Commission approve this policy statement.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/747405/january_2010_agenda_pdf




Is the PGC self-destructing ?    Or is this the PGC attempting to gain control of the situation ?    And is this harmful to hunting ? 

It's what every anti hunting organization has been pushing for as long as I can remember. Notice where "safe and APPROPRIATE" hunting is the primary method. Who determines when it's appropriate now that the PGC has decided to agree with the organizations that want to use methods that will take the place of hunting. Valley Forge park is suited for bow hunting, it's just they don't want to deal with the anti-hunters protests. It's just more of our hunting dollars being used to reduce our hunting opportunities.

ORIGINAL: hiclassHilbilly

in urban settings like Valley Forge Nat'l Park, these control methods are essential. 100s of deer in every field, just milling around and there are housing developements that surround the whole park. The animals are malnourished and extremely over populated.

You can't really effectively hunt/remove the animals without putting people in danger or sparking massive controversy. So, birth control is used to limit reproduction and then they trap out some animals when they can to limit numbers.

I'm not familiar with valley forge so I can't speak of such.    But I see more than just managing tight areas from this.   I see anti-hunters licking their chops.   

I want to make it very clear..  I don't think outdoors people should ever support non-hunters being elected to take seat on the board of commission.
 
I agree with ya S-10.

Great posts!!! I always talk about hidden agendas; like a magician,watch this hand don't look what the other hand is doing.

I agree with what you folks are saying about setting precedent, but in certain cases, it is required. I hope that the libs would not try to expand it any, but in a small park, like valley forge, in a heavily suburban or urban setting, it is not practical to kill the deer. If you try bow hunting, you will have bloody deer running into people's backyards and you could only shoot them with special teams of proffessionals.

Sometimes it is best to let the bleeding heart people have a small victory in a few specific cases so that you don't run the risk of increasing the opposition ten fold when you start killing deer near population centers.

The non-lethal options of population control should only apply in areas where collateral damage is a concern.

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

So... let's say the cost to implement such comes from hunting dollars.    Who supports their use of hunting license dollars being used to prevent animals from successfully breeding ?

Not me, that's for d*** sure!

There is probably a few situations where it is a viable solution, but if the foot gets in the door, where does it end. We hunters are so outnumbered we have to be leary of a thing like this.Common sense is not common. It could come back to bite our butts.Who makes the call to use sterility drugs? If it was effective in a small area, how much would PETA and other groups be screaming to use it everywhere.Remember their fiasco,a few years back, in Florida capturing the deer and moving them? News cameras everywhere while they collected the "poor, frightened" deer and how they were saving them? Almost all the deer died later from stress;not shown or mentioned by the boneheads or media.They out number us!!!!

my question is,did they try the fertility drugs on penned up ,tame deer or did they go into the wild and experiment?i just worry about how its gonna affect a wild deer,s immune system.we all know that deer are pretty hardy in the wild and can adjust to almost anything to survive.whats going to happen to these deer when they,re natural urge to breed is taken away? wouldnt that be too much shock to they,re fragil system? just a few questios and concerns i have about this.if someone can answer and clear my mind i would be grateful.till then,im against fertility 100%

from the article --
 

However, even with current advancements the immunocontraceptive
approach is expensive, with estimated costs ranging from
$500 to $1,000 per deer (due mainly to deer capture and handling
costs).