File under "what!?"

As not only the blog editor, but the systems administrator here, I have been pulled away by a major database project this month, so you may have noticed the blog has been quiet. I was going to come back to the blog today with a look at our recent staff retreat, where we spent two intensive days strategizing about how best to ensure connected wild areas create healthy ecosystems for wildlife and people across the future. That was the plan, anyway...

Then I read a USDA press release announcing the approval of deer contraception to control overpopulation by deer.

Huh. That's a new one to me.

Yes, heavy deer populations have a well-documented negative effect on ecosystems. They trample and mow down stream-side vegetation, not allowing vital shade trees to grow and create the cool streams fish need. Homeowners don't love them either. Too many of any one species in a landscape is never a good thing.

And I can see where wildlife managers are struggling to control deer in urban environments, especially the suburbs where development continues to creep into the surrounding rural and wild areas, encroaching on deer habitat (not to mention working farms, forests, and ranches).

But out in the wilder areas, wouldn't restoring the ecosystem to its natural balance by allowing the deer-hunting animals to thrive be a better way to keep populations in check than deer contraception? How about wolves? All over the west, studies have shown that the return of wolves to wild places isn't just helping with deer over-populations, but is having a profound effect on the health of the streams, forests, fields, and even boosted populations of other vital wildlife like pronghorn. Heck, their presence in the forest has even helped soil! 

Call me old fashioned, but somehow I feel like allowing balanced ecosystems  to thrive, where possible, seems a much better solution than the Deer Pill. What's next, Squirrel Sex Ed?