Deer on Birth Control:

A Socratic Dialogue

Is pharmaceutical contraception

a humane, ecologically aware way

for human society to deal with

free-living animal populations?

Setting:

A conference room, Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania.

The park biologist, Ida Park, has just presented a public informational session to comply with the National Environmental Protection Act.

The three characters in the Dialogue are:

Ida Park, National Park Service biologist

Socrates Jones, local resident

and Mercedes Boggs,founder of Pennsylvania-based charity Pity the Poor Deer, Inc.

Socrates Jones, to Ida Park: Thank you for your slideshow presentation. Some of my fellow local residents have pressed you to kill the deer, so that we can enjoy our azaleas.

I’m fond of azaleas myself, but I have a different take on this.

May I ask you a few questions?

Of course, Socrates.

I’ve been reading about coyotes. To my surprise, I’ve found that they can take down an adult elk. Is that true?

We at the Park Service publish a good bit of information on this. We’ve explained that Yellowstone coyotes successfully prey on elk and deer up to a year old, and sometimes kill adults during winter. We’ve explained that coyote scat found in Moraine Park in the Rockies contained 45 percent deer and elk.

Ah, you’re confirming my impression. I’d imagine coyotes could keep deer in check here, then, given the chance to work in concert. I suppose you’ve noticed the coyote population around here?

Yes. In fact, some coyotes live primarily in Valley Forge Park itself.

Your presentation didn’t mention that. You made a case, essentially, for shooting as many deer as possible for four winters…

The White-tailed Deer Management Plan

would reduce a reported population of 1,023 deer to about 165.

…and possibly putting survivors on Leuprolide, a hormone-based contraceptive.

Aren’t there solid environmental reasons to question shooting deer and imposing pharmaceutical control on them?

Of course, nobody would seriously entertain the idea of reintroducing wolves to a five-square-mile park across the highway from one of the world’s largest shopping malls. But coyotes are here; can’t they live safely in such a space?

Probably so. They already do.

But all around the park, they are hunted and trapped year-round. From a biologist’s perspective, isn’t it better to stop the suppression of their numbers so that they can reach their potential as capable predators?

I would think so…

Yes.

Why, then, can’t Valley Forge Park work on such a collaboration with the state?

Because it would take a lot of time and patience, and local residents are angry. They say they’ve been waiting ten years for us to solve the deer problem.

But is it really a deer problem? Or is it a problem of a predator-prey imbalance?

The latter. But we’re guided by the National Environmental Policy Act to consider the social and economic effects of the situation. So a perceived problem is still a problem.

Well, Ida, you have answered my first question in an understandable way. My concern, however, is whether social and economic considerations swallow the main purpose of conducting an environmental impact study. The plan you’ve selected conforms to the desires expressed by the most vocal residents all along.

Well, we do live in a political ecosystem, and…

…people also have rather negative conceptions about coyotes.

Hasn’t education made inroads in other populated suburbs—like Pasadena?

People are impatient, Socrates.

They’re not asking to be educated; they’re demanding a fix to the problem now.

And we have sharpshooters now.

This brings up my second question, and then I’ll let you go. You said in the presentation that we’ll have an approved birth-control method in four years’ time. Or at least that’s anticipated in your plan.

I overheard you mentioning birth control.

I’m Mercedes Boggs of Pity the Poor Deer.

I persuaded the Park to include contraception in the preferred plan—but I meant immediately!

Not after four years of bloodshed!

That’s right; we included contraception as a compromise with the animal-rights sector.

Some compromise!

You’re ready to shoot up to 1,300 deer.

Then shooting deer would offend animal rights, Mercedes; but trapping them and imposing a fertility drug on them would not?

Oh, it’s you, Socrates.

We’ve discussed this before.

Contraception is better than shooting, so yes, it is the animal-rights view.

Could you explain?

Seems to me you are seeking the lesser evil, not rights.

This is not about human rights. This is different.

I could see there would be a difference between human rights and animal rights. Humans’ rights arise in the context of human society, in which everyone, in theory, can and should be able to interact as full members.

Of course, for animals, rights within human culture would hardly be meaningful.

So then, wouldn’t animal rights mean some sort of shield against human management?

You can’t just ask officials to take a hands-off position.

They will manage deer—no matter what airy-fairy philosophy you espouse, Socrates.

In truth, that’s our reality. Freedom for animals in public places has stopped being an option.

Some management is necessary.

Why’s that?

Rising suburban populations, our gardens, new strip malls, the widening of the Penn Turnpike, commercial development, lack of corridors...

Life in the 21st century, Socrates.

Socrates, OK, I’ve thought a little more about what you’ve been saying. You’re right; our charity is not technically promoting animal rights.

But we have to do what we can to minimize suffering.

I just think the worst thing for these animals is to be shot dead.

I understand that you think it is a matter of shooting or birth control, Mercedes. But perhaps the best answer instead involves letting the animals be—respecting the ways animals themselves live and interact.

Well, I don’t think it’s a great idea to let them be eaten by coyotes either. I would hate to see those little fawns suffer.

Don’t deer suffer and die when contraceptives are tested on them?

And if the deer studies involve post mortem analyses, how does fertility control fit your idea of respect for the lives of deer?

Let’s say one of these experimental patents gets Food & Drug Administration approval in four years. Would you really want it, Ida?

I’m asking you for your perspective as a biologist.

I’d have to say there is a problem with the idea. Experimental fertility control has prolonged the life spans of the Assateague Island mares from an average of 6 years to an average of 20 years, by eliminating the stress of reproduction. Obviously if a contraceptive vaccine prolongs animals’ lives, that goes against the desire to promptly reduce the population—our key objective here with deer.

It will only be used where hunting isn’t feasible, in contained areas. The vaccinated deer need to be found again for boosters.

Then although you said the plan’s contraception component represents the spirit of compromise, doesn’t this claim merely put off your real announcement—that the Park plans shootings year after year, as the deer continue to rebound in an area where predator populations are suppressed year-round—meaning nothing is “solved”?

The problem will be solved as far as the residents are concerned.

But isn’t that perpetuating a much bigger problem?

What do you mean?

Whether you use guns or drugs to control deer, you’re putting carnivores out of business. So most people treat them as pests, rather than key predators, necessary for the healthy functioning of a bio-community.

Doesn’t that contradict your basic claim—that this deer-management plan protects the Park’s ecosystem?

I suppose so, Socrates. Suburban ecosystems would play an important role in protecting biodiversity, if our populace were more aware of the need. I’m sorry to inform you: Most Park visitors and local residents view coyotes as nuisances who threaten people’s dogs.

In England, Ida, as you know, free-living wolves have been flat-out eradicated, and there are no coyotes. Their deer are proliferating, needless to say. This presents Britons with a massive social and economic problem.

By resolving to educate communities on this side of the Atlantic about biodiversity, we could save ourselves from greater emergencies down the road. On this land, including Valley Forge, predators still roam. Will we acknowledge the importance of carnivores and act to promote their safety before it’s too late?

Conclusion

Pharmaceutical contraception has been pursued, tested, and heralded as an ethical way to deal with free-living animal populations. Its acceptance for experimental uses by the U.S. government would suggest that it is also an ecologically aware way of addressing overpopulations.

These claims, and the continued rush to increase the availability of these substances, warrant critical examination.

Author:Lee HallVermont Law School LL.M. Mini-Thesis, October 2012

Advisors: Professor Craig PeaseProfessor Marianne Tyrrell

Art: Denys AlmaralRoyalty-free 3D cartoon charactershttp://www.denysalmaral.com/