HSUS has always been anti-hunting, so none of their sponsored studies are likely to support
any hunting as a control measure. Just for an instance, look at the comment in the press release about arrows causing the deer to bleed out. That's true, but
all hunting projectiles do the same--be it bullet or arrow, most of the time the cause of death is bleeding out. If you ever saw a deer killed with a well-placed arrow, they hardly react to the arrow. There is a flinch, about like that illicited by horse flies, the deer continues to browse, or moves off slowly and then just collapses. If archery is truly
the most inhumane way to hunt as HSUS claims, then other forms of hunting must be even less stressful to the animal?
Also, immunocontraception? First, likely the agent would have to be delivered by injection--and we have had as many as 1.5 million deer
in this state alone.... If they get started now, and use something akin to a dart gun to deliver the dose, how long might it be before enough deer are injected to get anything like effective contraception?
Sometimes ideas sound really good on paper, but don't necessarily hold up well in the field.
Just another
-worth to mull over...