But, new studies by Blair Page and Brian Underwood of the State University of New York confirm that supplementary feeding vastly improves deer winter survival.
"How deer survive tough winters is influenced largely by energetic costs due to the length and severity of winter," the researchers said.
They added that "consecutive severe winters can devastate a deer population, especially in an adequate number of fawns do not survive."
Extensive tests on deer physiological condition in winter show "supplemental winter feeding can significantly influence the protein and energy status of deer," Page siad. "Deer fed supplemental winter diets are in much better condition than those that are not fed."
Even so, there are those who oppose winter deer feeding.
"It causes deer to go from being wildlife to deer as domesticated animals," said Robert Brown of Texas A&M University. "The recreational value of a deer is inverse to the artificiality of its origin. At some point, deer stop being wildlife."
But, there is no doubt that winter feeding helps deer through bad winters, whether or not that makes them less appealing as trophies to hunters. "By providing high-quality, readily accessible feed through the duration of the winter in sufficient quantity to both maintain metabolic needs and minimize competition, wildlife managers can maximize benefits" to deer, the researchers reported.
A quantitative analysis of deer physiological variables shows that deer fed artificial diets in winter survive winter better, are in better condition the following spring and produce healthier and more offspring.
"It think it is mainly hunters who object to it, because they think it lowers the value of a deer as a target," the researchers claim.
- Whereas many farmers have incurred financial losses due to depredating wildlife, especially deer, they are not keen to allow sportsmen to thin out nuisance wildlife on their property, a new study shows.
Even though 53 per cent of farmers report that they themselves are hunters, they do not relish having others hunt on their land.
According to the results of an extensive questionnaire survey, co-ordinated by researchers at the University of Arizona, "hunter-farmer relations appear strained due to damage caused by hunters on farms."
Whereas wildlife managers try to encourage farmers to allow hunters on their land, "farmers, overall, have negative experiences with hunters who create unacceptable amounts of damage.
"The study shows that the main reasons farmers do not want hunters on their land are: damage from all-terrain vehicles, leaving gates open or closed, trespassing and vandalism."
Another finding is that there is a huge gulf between how the general public views wildlife values, and how wildlife managers view wildlife values.
Only about one quarter of the public hunts. But, fully 83 per cent of wildlife managers hunt. That means that managers who hunt manage wildlife for a public that essentially does not hunt.
The question is whether the views of managers reflect public views on hunting, the researchers say. There is a gaping discrepancy between the public and public servants, with regard to the value of deer.
"Farmers are right in the middle," the report says.
"Some like to see deer. Others like to hunt them. Most farmers like both. They say they are willilng to put up with a bit of damage from deer so long as they have a chance to see deer from time to time on their land."
