An Ecological Dilemma: A New York Times Editorial Review

I came across an editorial in the New York Times this morning about deer overpopulation.  I can really see the dilemma here:  Many people love deer, yet they (the deer...and humans as well in other cases) pose a threat to forest shrubbery, which in turn has a ripple effect on the entire habitat.  In this case, the ripple is affecting birds (Warblers in this case).  As an ecologist, I agree with the author: deer overpopulation is detrimental to ecosystems and is costing the welfare of other flora and fauna in their vicinity. 

While at Rutgers, I went to Duke Farms for a Plant Ecology class and observed the barrier (fencing) method that was brought up in the editorial, which was quite effective there.  It was also interesting at how there are plants springing up at the Great Swamp that my fellow staff members thought could be invasive since they haven't seen them in a long time, but were actually native shrubbery that was growing due to lower deer populations due to hunting.  Plus I heard gunshots yesterday there as well, although very off in the distance.

Lyme Disease is supposed to be a major problem this year, and I believe that less dear leads to less deer ticks, which in turn leads to fewer cases of Lyme Disease.  Only time will tell whether that is a true hypothesis or not. 

Yes, it may be painful to see Bambi die (kudos to the author), but the same thing would happen in nature:  Overpopulation leads to depleted resources (like food), which in turn leads to starvation until the population drops below Carrying Capacity and the plants recover as well.  Since we took wolves and other natural predators out of the picture, humans are one of the few remaining biotic pressures on the deer.  Mother Nature has no concept of ethics; that's a human thing.