Although this work is important, some of the most impacting contributions we make comes with the education we do to the public. I am a requested speaker to local communities and governments/municipalities to help guide them with decisions on conflict. I have personally influenced many to allow nature to balance itself, while educating the public on how to avoid the conflict all together. I have authored and driven to law the first “no wildlife feeding” ordinance in the state of Georgia to prevent conflicts like those outlined on this string. I am a naturalist, docent and educator, (focused mostly on children’s programs), with one of the most requested topics; “Peaceful Coexistence with Wildlife.” I have been dealing with indigenous wildlife for too many years to count and do know about this subject and would like to share here.

This is an emotional topic because people that have not been in professional wildlife circles (either as a formal profession or educated formally), see the sides that touch their heart. There are many truths to the facts and words offered here on both sides, however, part of the conflict with removal of any animal is the motivation by the removal services to get paid to do the deed and the outcome of the animal during that process which pains people. The two go hand in hand, whether it’s trapping, shooting or poisoning – it’s all a paid service that someone is hired to do and motivated to perform for money in a not so compassionate way.

In my experience, trappers are more motivated to remove the animal and don’t have a vested interest in what happens post removal. In my state, it’s illegal for them to release any of the animals they trap elsewhere, and there are biological reasons to support this theory I won’t go into here. Ultimately their final disposition is extermination, not compassionate euthanasia (mind you it’s not like taking your elderly family dog to the vet where they are given a twilight sedation before they are injected with the “pink juice” in ritualistic compassionate action). Wildlife euthanasia by trappers is true extermination, many methods are brutal – most people would not approve with how it’s done or why. This is the reality with the mentality of how wildlife is treated when trapped and disposed of and this situation falls into that same category.

One of the biggest things that I have not seen in all of these strings is regarding this “culling concept” and the fact that trapping/removal (regardless of the method – in this case corralling and shooting at close range), of “some animals” biologically causes the remaining members of that species to over breed in order to repopulate an area. It is commonly referred to as a “carrying capacity.” This leads to increased wildlife populations year after year.

At the end of the day, the trappers get called back over and over again to take care of following year’s families, which now can be bigger and more imposing. In short, culling actually creates “additional opportunities” for trapping because the circle of life continues (breeding) with greater intensity.

With deer, what is concerning is the fact that the males from neighboring territories will react to this culling and will aggressively compete to take over the vacancy created. After a cull, the remaining deer produce more offspring and a higher percentage of females in response to the increased availability of space. This is essentially nature’s way of filling in the gap. This is a common occurrence in any wildlife trapping practice, and specifically those which remove quantities of animals. It just is not a sound practice, and in contrast, causes greater human to animal conflict in the long run.

It’s plain and simple, urban culls do nothing to change the long-run total deer population in an otherwise stable environment.

There are other options available, but it sounds like the city wants to take the easy road here without exploring them.

The deer populations are going to get much worse following this action. It is true, when wildlife comes in contact with people, they almost always end on the wrong end of situation. Much of this is due to ignorance and fear because people are conflicted over the decision for a reasonable solution and they are not willing to do what is right, rather will do what is easy.

Liz Nicholas

Georgia State Licensed Wildlife Rehabilitator