Zach Pack
ENGL 2010
4-30-14
Pest Problems? Let’s Fix That:
An Investigative Report
Wildlife management has been a topic of conflict for many years. The argument has
several aspects but the majority of conflict arises with the topic of Conservation versus
Population Control. Animal rights activists speak out in favor of conservation and protection of
wildlife, stating that animals have the right to live just as much as humans. They also assert that
we as humans have the obligation of defending their right to life. Others argue that we need to
set parameters to govern the population and reproduction of species. They claim that animal
populations need to be controlled to prevent overpopulation of animals, both for the good of
humanity as well as for the good of the controlled species. When we look at each one, however,
how do we know which is best?
To understand these two viewpoints we must first understand the problem at hand,
overpopulation. According to a study conducted by the SUNY College of Environmental Science
and Forestry “Overpopulation is the world’s top environmental issue” (SUNY). David Von
Drehle, a writer for Time magazine, agreed in his article titled, “America’s Pest Problem: It’s
Time to Cull the Herd.” In his article, Von Drehle delves into the “pest problem” that America
faces today. “We have too many wild animals--from swine to swans,” said Von Drehle, “Thirty
million strong and growing, the population of white-tailed deer in the U.S. is larger today than it
was when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, according to National Wildlife Research Center
scientist Kurt VerCauteren” (Von Drehle)
But what’s the problem? People like animals, don’t they? Von Drehle answered that
question as well. He mentioned the problem that many farmers face as they fight to keep wildlife
from “gobbling up” their hard earned living. He also brought up the introduction of wild hogs
into the American Continents by Spanish explorers the sixteenth century. Wild hogs have
pillaged farmland ever since that day and continue to be a nuisance, as well as a danger,
throughout the United States.
So we have hogs, deer and other critters devouring crops and pillaging trash cans.
Unfortunately, that’s not where it ends. New Jersey, for example, has had record-breaking
numbers of Black Bears in the past few years (Von Drehle). The bear population has increased at
such a rate that the animals are overcrowding New Jersey’s national forests to the point where
they are now living in much smaller territories than is normal or natural.
This crowding has been attributed to the abundance of food that is, of course, provided by
humans and that is easily accessible in suburban areas. The bears that once required large areas
of land to sustain them can now survive on much smaller territories. The drawback? That
territory includes backyards. And with closer proximity comes increased risk of dangerous
encounters with the teeth and claws.
And it’s not just New Jersey. We’re seeing it in Utah as well. During the summer of
2013, I went camping with troop 1170 to a Boy Scout Camp in the Uinta Mountains. The boys
were all warned about bears and had been instructed to keep all food locked in the trailer
overnight. Our troop heeded the counsel but there was another group of boys that did not. The
lack of care that was taken by this particular troop attracted the local wildlife, including a large
black bear that came to the camp in broad daylight and began rummaging through tents. This
bear was a repeat offender and was shot as a threat to the safety of the boys. Repeat offenders
like the bear at this scout camp are, unfortunately, becoming more common.
This is where we come back to the question: Conservation or Population Control? Many
claim that the bear encounter at our scout camp could have been avoided if everyone had obeyed
the rules and kept all food in a bear-proof container. That’s what is suggested by Wildlife Policy
Director of the Animal Protection League of New Jersey, Susan Russell. Russell wrote an article
that was published by Greenville Post in direct response to Von Drehle’s “America’s Pest
Problem” in which she claimed that almost all dangerous human-animal interactions could be
avoided if people were to lock all potential food sources that are stored outside, such as trash
receptacles. She referenced towns in Canada and West Virginia that have mandated lockable
trash cans. In such towns, animal-related incidents have decreased.
In addition, a recent study of wildlife focused on the effects of human-produced food
sources. “Opportunistic feeding” as it is referred to here “often leads to negative welfare and/or
human-wildlife conflicts… the feeding of deer and bears (as well as many other species) will
continue to trouble communities without effective local bylaws, enforcement and education”
(Debois, pg. 10).
So the removal of human-supplied food is shown to reduce the number of interactions
between humans and wild animals. But what happens to the animals after they leave the suburbs?
Von Drehle answered that question for us; they starve. The oversized populations are
dependent on our food supply. They are crowded into unusually small territories, surviving on
the surplus in the suburbs. If we cut off that surplus, the animals starve to death in the wild
because there is simply not enough food for all of them in their natural habitat (Von Drehle).
What is the alternative then? Von Drehle gave us this solution as well. He suggested that
we need to “cull the herd,” to control of animal population, by means of hunting and other such
practices. That is what New Jersey has begun to do for their bear population. They have issued
hunting permits to licensed hunters to help bring the local population down to a number that can
reasonably be sustained by natural resources (Von Drehle). If successful, this would mean that
animals would no longer have the need to stray into the suburbs in search of food but would be
able to gather enough without human confrontation.
Many argue that this is inhumane, but as Von Drehle put it, “Slow starvation is no
happier a way for a bear to die than by a hunter's bullet or arrow.” Why should we force the
animals to suffer a slow and painful death rather than end things quickly and restore them to
natural’s sustainable numbers?
Although some will still disagree, the most humane and effective method of reducing
wildlife populations to safe numbers is to do as Von Drehle suggested and “cull the herd.”
Works Cited
Dubois, Sara, and David Fraser. "A Framework To Evaluate Wildlife Feeding In Research,
Wildlife Management, Tourism And Recreation." Animals (2076-2615) 3.4 (2013): 978994. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
Russell, Susan. “Response to “America’s Pest Problem: Why the rules of hunting are about to
change” TIME Magazine, December 9, 2013.” The Greenville Post. The Greenville Post.
n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2014.
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. "Worst Environmental Problem?
Overpopulation, Experts Say." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 20 April 2009.
Web. 2 Mar. 2014.
Von Drehle, David. “America’s Pest Problem: It’s Time to Cull the Herd.” Time. Time
Magazine. 9 Dec. 2013. Web. 2 Mar. 2014.