Advertisement

Killing Bambi

Erik in AK

New member
Joined
Mar 28, 2002
Messages
676
Location
not killing a ram
Hey all,
This is a continuance of "Deleted Posts" in SPORTSMANS ISSUES. I referenced an article I read in RMEF Bugle in Mar-Apr 2000 issue.

If I may digress a little...some background on what a quality organization RMEF is. I went to the RMEF site after Ithaca asked about a link. Well the back issue archive only goes back a year but there was a 1(800) # so I called and was referred to Bob Raub the RMEF webmaster he did some research and emailed me the article in its entirety which I have pasted below.

Its very thought provoking.
Enjoy and Cheers!
Erik

Women and Children First: Killing Bambi
by David Petersen

Bambi must die.
I'm not talking Hollywood hokum, though the Disney cartoon movie has certainly planted a bumper crop of antihunting seeds in the minds of children during the past half-century. But what I'm talking about is biological imperative, and maybe even the future of big game management in North America.
Bambi must die because a high percentage of Bambis-that is, all infant creatures of the deer family-are destined to die young. This is not opinion, but rock-hard reality. Like it or not, most Bambis die within the first few months of their lives. While I don't like it much-the suffering and death attendant to all life-I'm learning at least to acknowledge natural reality and the evolutionary wisdom it implies.
It seems to me that nature "intends" or "selects" infant wild ungulates to suffer a high mortality rate, with much of that mortality owing to focused predation during the spring calving/fawning season. All my reading and personal observations suggest that winterkill, starvation, disease, parasites, and especially predation-essentially all the natural killers save human hunters-gang up on cervid young. Yet all this "baby killing" continues, century upon millennium, without the prey population base being eroded. Herd composition actually seems to be positively influenced by high infant mortality. So an "intentional" excess seems to have evolved in wild cervid reproduction, with most of this surplus of infant flesh going to feed predators and scavengers.
I see this scheme in action when I watch local mule deer does birth twin fawns each June, one of which is usually bear-scat within a month. Besides bears, we have cougars, coyotes, bobcats, foxes and eagles, all of them with young of their own to feed. This leads me to wonder if evolution has deemed twins as the norm for deer so that one fawn-the stronger, quicker, or merely more fortunate-can be assured of escape while its sacrificial sibling occupies the predator.
A similar force seems at work among elk, with their naturally high cow/calf ratio. In response, witness the incredibly concentrated predation-by grizzlies, black bears, wolves, cougars and coyotes-on infant elk calves at Yellowstone National Park during the annual mid-May to mid-June calving season. Yet Yellowstone wapiti thrive.
But I'm just a layman hunter, long on questions and opinions and short on answers and facts. So I posed this pair of questions to Valerius Geist, one of the world's most respected authorities on wild ungulates: Do you believe that cervids have evolved to produce excess young in response to and "in service of" their coevolutionary predators? And if so, should wildlife managers emulate nature by redesigning hunting seasons to put more emphasis on killing calves and fawns, and compensate by reducing hunting pressure on mature males?
This is his response:

Dear David,
I have argued that no hunter should be legally allowed to shoot an adult cervid until he or she has handed in the jaws of 10 infants! I have also proposed that over-the-counter hunting licenses be restricted to calves and fawns-period. Not even "antlerless." Limited cow/doe, bull/buck licenses would be available by lottery. Neither did I make these arguments in jest, having "wasted" my own precious hunting tags every so often on infant cervids to indicate that I mean what I preach.
The fact is that calves and fawns suffer a high mortality on the way to growing into competent adults. Generally, only a small fraction will succeed. That fraction, on average, is two out of 10 calves or fawns born to a female cervid across her reproductive life. In cause-and-effect terms, the high birth rate is both the consequence and ultimate cause of the high mortality.
That is, over hundreds of thousands of years, females that produced one calf or two fawns per year were able to maintain their genes in the population. Those that put out fewer young did not.
You need not invoke some cosmic principle that cervids are born to feed myriads of predators-although, factually, that's perfectly correct. Cervid flesh makes predators. Deer, which tend to twin, have suffered, on average, higher predation historically than have elk and other species that bear only one young.
However, if you weigh mother and young at birth, you may discover that both the mothers of twins (deer, moose) and singles (elk, bison) in terms of foetal weight relative to the mother's body mass, produce exactly the same birth mass! For an instance, moose and bison cows weigh virtually the same. Bison normally produce one 35-pound calf, while moose generally make two 17-pound twins. While elk do it in one package (single calf), mule deer prefer two (twin fawns).
One can play with this phenomenon, as I have done, to show that foetal mass at birth reflects predation pressure and adaptation to that pressure. What is crucial is that most calves/fawns will soon die. Only the luckiest and best (fittest) will survive. Therefore, either hunters or Mother Nature can take them. By contrast, healthy adult cervids have low mortality rates from predation and winter.
Thus, the logical harvesting strategy is to take calves or fawns during the fall hunting seasons, before winter can waste them, compensating with a lowering of the adult kill quota.
Such a scheme generates, on average, an older population of females who, because of their age and acquired experience, make much better mothers, producing larger, healthier and more young, while better protecting them against predation. Additionally, being better acquainted with where to feed, older moms produce richer milk in greater quantities, leading to superior body growth and survival of their offspring.
This higher-young, lower-adult harvest is the cervid management strategy I favor. It's also the strategy used to manage moose in Sweden, with wonderful results.
In short, a population of cervids in which females live well into maturity-say, eight to 12 years-will produce far more calves or fawns, so that either more hunters can participate or more calf/fawn permits can be given out per hunter. And wild predators win as well. Moreover, on average, hunters who take infants rather than adults are harvesting much better quality table meat, leading to a heightened enthusiasm among their spouses for the hunt!
At the same time, by "keeping our fingers off" bulls and bucks, we get an adult population with a high male/female ratio-a natural sex ratio. Now miracles begin to happen: The rut is advanced and shortened. Young are born earlier in the spring and across a shorter time. Ergo: a shorter "spread" of vulnerability to predation and more time to grow large before winter, resulting in fewer young lost to carnivores and winterkill.
Another benefit of a high mature-male ratio is that with more big boys about, more "young bucks" drop out of the breeding. These youngsters then can save their precious fat stores for winter. Consequently: better male survival. Additionally, these unhappily celibate young males will have fewer, if any, rutting-battle wounds to heal. They can, therefore, stick their caloric reserves into improved body and antler growth the following spring. In this way, when not heavily harvested, bulls and bucks, relative to females, not only become more numerous but larger in body and antler mass as well.
In this scenario-more hunting of calves and fawns, less hunting of mature bulls and bucks-hunters soon will start seeing lots of big males. If they wait their turn and are drawn by lottery, they will be able to go out and likely get a very nice trophy. Meanwhile, they are hunting calves and fawns and bringing home the finest meat.
Additionally, if this management scheme is used for mule deer, invading whitetails have little chance of breeding with estrus mule deer does, as those does will virtually always be defended by a big buck, and white-tailed bucks avoid large muley bucks. Thus, management in favor of producing mature bucks reduces the chances of white-tailed deer gradually "taking over" mule deer populations through hybridization, as they currently are doing in parts of the Canadian and American West.
Focusing the annual cervid kill on fawns and calves is a winner in every respect!
Sincerely,
Val Geist
A curious concept, at first blush. But in fact, it's a logical restatement of the old axiom of "quality over quantity." We can have better trophy hunting via less trophy hunting.
After having my musings bolstered by Dr. Geist, I ran them past the critical ears of Colorado bowhunter, wildlife biologist and hunting ethicist Tom Beck. Here is Beck's response, all the more impressive in that it was offered without foreknowledge of what Geist had to say:

Well Dave, it's as simple as this: Most of each year's crop of calves and fawns will die before they see a second spring, and the primary killer is winter. Therefore, if you hunt them in the fall, you're hardly affecting the infant-death dynamics at all. What we're talking about here is compensatory mortality-the fact that most cervid young are going to die within a few months anyhow, making them biological supernumeraries-so we might as well hunt them, then compensate by curtailing the harvest of genetically essential adult males. In this way, without reducing herd numbers, we can improve both age and gender ratios, more closely imitating the conditions of natural selection.
And in all age categories, with both deer and elk, we need to be killing more females and fewer males.
Dale McCullough, who's done extensive herd-density research with mule and black-tailed deer, presents a clear and convincing argument that we don't want the maximum number of cervids on a given range, as we often get with current management paradigms favoring male-only hunting. Say you have a range that can "support" a thousand cervids. With male-only hunting, you'll eventually wind up with a radically skewed sex ratio. What's more, with the range being cropped at maximum carrying capacity, both flora and fauna are severely stressed.
To escape this trap, you have to reduce the number of females, so that the survivors will have better nutrition, leading to more and bigger young, along with a higher percentage of male births. Although we don't understand the precise dynamics of it, well-nourished cervids tend to produce more male young than female.
Additionally, with a healthier range operating at less than full carrying capacity, you get a higher first-winter survival rate for infants. This is a very compelling argument for hunting females and young instead of mature males, and why I almost never kill a bull or buck.
Even should we stop all hunting, as the animal rights folks would like, the ratio of male to female cervids will never return to normal and healthy unless a lot of females are somehow removed from the population. A primary reason for this is that every time you get a hard winter, the males-being nutritionally stressed and maybe wounded from the fall rut-are the first to die.
Therefore, the very concept of "carrying capacity," as interpreted by livestock ranchers and most wildlife managers, is misleading and harmful, in that you obtain optimum herd balance and health when a range is utilized at below its ecological carrying capacity. Rather than maximum carrying capacity, we should be managing for optimal carrying capacity. And the only way we can achieve that is to emphasize the hunting of females and young.
The genetic imperative for all life is to reproduce itself. Under relentless predatory pressure, evolution naturally favors the gene strains of those individuals who produce larger numbers of young. Were it not for countless millennia spent living under heavy infant-predation pressure, deer might never have evolved to the present norm of having twins, or elk to one calf almost every year. But because, genetically, they "know" they'll be losing most of their young, cervids have "learned" to produce more-an excess large enough to compensate for predation, winterkill and other "baby" killers.
For all these reasons and more, in most situations, were it possible to make the distinction, the primary hunter's target-from biological, ecological and evolutionary points of view; and thus from an ethical perspective as well-should be female calves and fawns.

Indeed. All points considered, it's not only Bambi who must die for the good of his kind, but his doe-eyed girlfriend Faline as well-even especially.
In a memorable essay titled "In the Snow Queen's Palace," Mary Zeiss Stange recalled a meat hunt she and her husband, both then in grad school and poor, shared the day before Thanksgiving out on the frozen, wind-scoured plains of eastern Montana in the record-breaking cold winter of 1985.
Early in their hunt, she writes:

. . . after several hundred yards of crunching through ice-encrusted grass, we sprinted along a fenceline toward the creek bed. Skidding down an embankment . . . we were suddenly brought up short by what lay ahead: a little fawn, curled as if asleep, snugly nestled in the snow drifted against a fencepost. The tiny deer was frozen solid . . . Doug knelt and stroked the fawn affectionately, as one might a cat or dog found napping by the woodstove . . . A little death like this could not go unmarked, unmourned.

Farther along, the couple encounters a group of deer clustered in a patch of woods, too cold and winter-weak even to run away as the hunters approach. These pitiful creatures were "trapped by their instinct to survive." Stange says, "In such a situation, shooting was impossible."
Exchanging "a quick glance and a wordless nod," she and her husband turned and walked away. Finally, as their hunt was about to end, Mary and Doug spotted some deer at the far end of the field:

No more than indistinct shapes, they appeared and disappeared, phantoms in the now thinly falling snow. With the wind in our favor, and the snow as much camouflage for us as for them, we proceeded along the fence until we were perhaps two hundred yards away. Steadying my .30-06 on a fencepost, I focused the scope on a doe, another doe, a fawn, another fawn. Teeth chattering and my right hand burning with cold . . . I thought quickly about the fawn we had seen curled peacefully in the snow, about those deer paralyzed for sheer survival in the trees. "I'm taking the one farthest to the left," I whispered to Doug, who was also aiming his rifle. I placed the crosshairs for a heart shot, and fired. His shot came an instant later. We had killed the two fawns.

Soon after Stange's essay appeared in Sports Afield, the magazine's letters column bristled with outrage, accusing Stange of being a heartless baby-killer and glorifying her blood-lust in print. But as director of women's studies at Skidmore College and author of Woman the Hunter, Stange is hardly your run-of-the-mill sexist pig or redneck hunter. What her critics missed is that had she and her husband killed the two does, both fawns would certainly have died as well, due to their inexperience in finding food and shelter and the severity of the winter. Even had the hunters killed nothing, statistical probability predicts that both youngsters would have succumbed to winterkill.
Of course, the Stanges could have killed one doe/fawn pair, thus preserving the other "family unit." But then, the one spared fawn would likely soon have died, leaving only one doe to reproduce herself come spring. By killing both of the fawns and sparing both of the does, they had gotten some excellent meat without harming either the post-winter population or the reproductive potential of the local herd.

There can be little doubt that human predators have been killing Bambis from the beginning. This was brought home to me this past late May, while enjoying an evening walk with my good dog Otis. As we slipped
quietly along a game trail through a green tunnel of aspens, an elk cow rose suddenly and silently just 20 yards ahead. We stopped short (from long practice in the presence of large wildlife, Otis knows the drill), and the cow just stared.
Figuring the cow had a calf stashed nearby, and not wishing to disturb them further, we did an about-face to backtrack out of there. Within a few steps, Otis detected what we'd both missed on the way in: a tiny spotted elk calf curled beside a mossy log just a few feet off the trail.
Too young to run away and instinctively paralyzed by what biologists call the "hider strategy," the calf just lay there, moving only its big brown eyes. I quietly called Otis back-he only wanted to sniff the furry little bundle, but even that was too much-and we made ourselves scarce. But had I wanted the calf that Otis and I had stumbled upon, it would have been as simple as stepping up and whacking it on the head with a club or rock, no more difficult than clouting a fool hen.
Long before ancestral humans developed the tools and skills of true hunters, they doubtless included the capture of infant animals in their foraging strategies. Just as all four-legged predators do yet today. Of course, no "sporting" hunter would consider "murdering" a "helpless" 40-pound spotted calf. But by fall and hunting season, that same calf will weigh some 200 pounds-as big as a big deer-and be anything but helpless.
In a report titled "Results of Special Calf-Only Hunting Seasons in the East Kootenay Region of British Columbia," researchers Raymond A. Demarchi and Anna J. Wolterson observe that:

The strategy of maximizing calf harvest may be difficult for some hunters to accept. However, it is our experience that if explained that calf harvests form the basis of both the cattle ranching industry and natural [wild] ungulate population regulation, most hunters will agree with the concept. Hunters in the East Kootenay have demonstrated a willingness to harvest calves when directed. [More than] nine years of experience . . . have proven that calf elk hunting is an effective management regime in regulating elk population structure and numbers while increasing recreational hunting opportunities.

Of course, it's one thing to intellectualize about the biological wisdom of killing "supernumerary" young and females while allowing more mature males to live and reproduce, and quite another to bring that wisdom to the field. Like so many others, I may never completely rid myself of big-antler compulsion, especially regarding elk. Once you're out there-the bugling, the rut-stench, those antlers-everything changes. To most of us, elk hunting means bull hunting.
It's in the blood, we could say, and one hell of an urge to try and overcome. But someday, it may just have to be, if not by free choice, then by regulation. For now, if for no better reason than an experiment in personal will and self-control, I have reason to try. This next elk season, my trophy of choice will be Bambi.


David Petersen hunts, guides and writes from his home in Colorado's San Juan Mountains. His most recent book is Elkheart: A Personal Tribute to Wapiti and Their World (Johnson Books, 1998).

--------------------------------------------------------
Bob Raup
Webmaster
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
406-523-4578
 
Interesting article, I know around here Whitetail twins are the norm with triplets not uncommon.

We have lot's of winter food from acorns and scattered corn from combine loss, but still you can find dead fawns in the winter if it hits early and hard.

Our biggest predation discounting hunters is cars with "stupid" fawns taking the hardest hits. But still with high season kills and all the one's falling to other reasons the herds still seem to grow or atleast maintain the status quo.
 
Erik, Thanks for getting us that article!
It should be required reading for all hunters!

I don't see how anyone could criticize fawn or calf harvesting after reading it!
 
Interesting article to say the least! Here is my two cents cause thats all I got!!
I know over here in the olympic mountain range the Roosevelt take a pretty hard hit from Natural predation Especially cougar and bear! In the Quinalt cooridoor alone there is a 80% mortality rate among the first year calves. The problem starting with calving season. Bear populations have exploded in this area cosiquently bringing the survival rate down for these young calves. They know when the mothers are ready to drop and some of the calves do not even make it out before being killed. It's that bad! The ones that do make it a few months are subject to cougar predation. This has became ever so clear as the stopage of hound hunting for bear and cougar was implicated. There are several ways to bring the mortality rate down but the Dept of Fish and Game would be subject to more political pressure! It's a nasty world out there for these little ones and when thought about in detail one realizes that it is all about competition and we are one of the competetors! :eek:

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-17-2002 20:40: Message edited by: raybow 1 ]</font>
 
Sounds like some sow bears and female kitties need to get knocked back. Too bad about the houndsmen getting the shaft there. There's no real way to control cats without dogs.
 
In addition to his letter to Mr. Peterson I recall reading other, past articles by Dr. Geist to this same point of view. What I found particularly interesting (and something I never considered before) was how when we do talk about taking a doe for the table, our focus is on the biggest doe we can find. My guess is the average thought process for most of us with a doe tag is if we're just out for meat and can only take one animal, we might as well make it worth the trip.
I've read here (and uttered those same words myself) how many of us believe we're taking "dry" does when hunting exclusively for the table. After this article I came to realize we are probably taking any one of the 70-80% that lost their fawns. These does seem dry in the fall most likely because they haven't been nursing since they lost their latest litter.
Something else I've read here (and said elsewhere) is first-hand or anecdotal accounts of we as hunters watching the "lead" doe in a group to best guage what the group will do or if her body language indicates that a buck might be following soon. Hell, three generations of outdoor writers have made careers expounding on just such topics.
By taking the big does we are taking mature, "leader" does.
What we have possibly been doing in trying to get more bang-for-the-buck (or maybe more doe-for-the-bang in this case) is taking out the better mothers and teachers as the article stated.

Personally, I don't think this really an issue fo rmost eastern white-tail herds. In many states they are so numerous they've gone from big-game to big pests.

Out west, I believe hunter pressure plays a proportionally bigger role in impacting herd dynamics so these ideas might apply more there than in say, Wisconsin where the F&G can't beg the public to take enough deer.

When I first read it it really made me stop and think which is why I thought you folks would find enjoy it too and that it would spark some interesting debate.

To be honest I'm kind of curious to see what Catman's response will be. He seems pretty hardbitten that killing fawns(or yearlings most likely) is genuinely wrong.
 
Good stuff.

When we talk about killing bambi how small are you talking?
We have to be real here,how small of a animal are YOU willing to shoot?
Im not a trophy hunter ,and I will shoot a small buck,doe,or calf elk.
But there is a limit,dont ya think?
When we talk about shooting smaller animals for food,over shooting say a small bear or lion for the hide ,is that different?
Lets face it if someone tells you ,hey lets go out and shoot some fawns,cub's or calfs. how excited for the hunt would you be?
Everyone has there own reasons for hunting,but I think if we were told we could only take fawns there would be a drop in hunters.
When I hear the word fawn,or cub,the first thing that comes to mind is some little animal that is still nursing.
That does not make me want to go hunting.
I had a doe/fawn antelope tag a few years back,(I learned a good lession)on judging size LOL I saw a lone antelope doe so I decided to take it,It looked like a adverage size doe antelope to me ,but when I walked up to it I saw it was a fawn,all legal ,but I felt bad.
When talking about taste,I couldnt eat it,I kept thinking how the meat looked while cleaning it ,I hear it tasted real good.
When hunting when we had doe deer tags we would pick out a med. size animal trying to meke sure it wasnt the old lead doe or the smallest (only because I knew I would have a hard time eating it)
:confused: :confused:
 
You couldn't eat a fawn lope that you accidentally shot?? Did you notice that you probably didn't need a knife to cut the meat? A spoon usually works fine.

Goodness, what did the meat look like that turned you off so much? I'll intentionally shoot a fawn.. just because of the meat!

I'd much rather shoot a fawn than an imature buck or bull. Those are the ones that get too hammered on by all the hunters. Leave the spikes, forkies, and raghorns alone to grow into adults. Take a big mature animal or yearling for the meat... or better yet.. both!


They are giving out 2 doe/fawn permits in my lope area this fall. I'm going to slay 3 lopes.. a big buck, and 2 teeny-weeny female fawns. Some tender steaks, a bit of jerky, and another big goathead for the wall!
 
Great article, Erik!

I can't comment on antelope seasons and so forth, but here if you shot a yung'un it's not like you're shooting a spotted baby anyway. By the time season rolls around these suckers are a half year old, and it's safe to assume they're pretty much on their own. Well, by gun season in November, anyway. But either way, other than emotional problems, Erik's article just backs up the opinion that there's no BIOLOGICAL reason not to shoot young animals (in appropriate populations). There are reasons TO shoot them, though.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-18-2002 09:58: Message edited by: dgibson ]</font>
 
Mars makes a good point. Many of us probably grow our meat does (in the way many 100lb bears double in weight by the time the hauling is finished, maybe) My point was any doe over a year old is in the breeding population and since the scientists are convinced that fawn/calf recruitment is linked at least in part to doe/cow experience, then maybe taking the younger does is better in the long run. Mars I used to live in southern New Mexico and hunt the Sacremento mountains. Whitetails have pioneered successfully there and NM's deer management policy sucks to put it plain. Years of any buck seasons have produced a herd where 80% of the bucks are 1 to 1 1/2 years old. A few spindly 4x4s are taken every year but those deer are usually no older than three. I certain drainages in those mountains I have seen alive, and friends have shot hybrids. Perfect 8 point whitetail basket racks on an other wise mule deer head and body with a somewhat bushier tail.

With no big mulies left the whitetail bucks, who are naturally more agressive rutters are out competeing the sub-dominant muley bucks left behind.

In most places in the west it seems not to be too much of a problem because mulies and whitetails don't normally compete directly for the same range but in some areas where there is significant range overlap hybrids are fairly common.
 
MD4Me.. That's an interesting idea.. Just how small will you go? Heck let's start a new thread. It reminds me of my smallest elk kill. And you think calves are good eatin. :D
 
To be honest Erik, I think around here most of the guys that say they "took a big doe" are puffing up the size a bit. I'm guessing it is to compensate for not "getting" a buck. An ego thing.

To take the scope of this topic a little further if I may, as I understand it, the Whitetail wasn't really prevalent in the western states, and only recently (last ten - fifteen years or so) did they really start growing in population out there. How much pressure do they put on similar species like Muley's? I know hybridization is getting more common, and the competition for food must hurt... so, why doesn't the F&G depts. treat Whitetails like carp out there to help out critters more specialized to an area? I mean , Whitetails will grow anywhere, but Muleys, etc won't.... why don't the managers cull them hard? Would they rather have the cash for Whitetail tags than try to manage for other species or what?

Here are some quick facts I thought might give the westerners some idea of how well whitetails can adapt to (and take over) an area.

McLean county (my county)
Total acres 759,795

acres in farms 709,106 or 97.7 % (think semi rolling former prairie all black dirt with no fencelines to speak of)
of the 2.3 percent left there is a metropolitan area with over 100,000 people and a dozen or so smaller towns averageing 1,000 people

804 deer were harvested last year in the county
average success rate for the state 25%
so it would be reasonable to estimate 3216 deer growing mainly on black dirt.

Better keep them cleaned out or they will crowd everything else out....
 
Interesting that you brought that article up, as I just read the extended version in Peterson's book Heartsblood. What a read, very thought provoking. From now on, if I'm to shoot an animal for meat I'm shooting the youngest I can find. I hope to take full advantage of the calf part of my cow/calf tag in WY this fall.
 
Bump for a good Geist-related article...I can't believe my post in this thread. My goodness, but I was a talktative bugger way back then.
rolleyes.gif
wink.gif
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,809
Messages
2,034,103
Members
36,341
Latest member
sbwooten2016
Back
Top