logo
How white-tailed deer came back from the brink of extinction

How white-tailed deer came back from the brink of extinction

Fast Company2 days ago

Given their abundance in American backyards, gardens and highway corridors these days, it may be surprising to learn that white-tailed deer were nearly extinct about a century ago. While they currently number somewhere in the range of 30 million to 35 million, at the turn of the 20th century, there were as few as 300,000 whitetails across the entire continent: just 1% of the current population.
This near-disappearance of deer was much discussed at the time. In 1854, Henry David Thoreau had written that no deer had been hunted near Concord, Massachusetts, for a generation. In his famous ' Walden,' he reported:
'One man still preserves the horns of the last deer that was killed in this vicinity, and another has told me the particulars of the hunt in which his uncle was engaged. The hunters were formerly a numerous and merry crew here.'
But what happened to white-tailed deer? What drove them nearly to extinction, and then what brought them back from the brink?
As a historical ecologist and environmental archaeologist, I have made it my job to answer these questions. Over the past decade, I've studied white-tailed deer bones from archaeological sites across the eastern United States, as well as historical records and ecological data, to help piece together the story of this species.
Precolonial rise of deer populations
White-tailed deer have been hunted from the earliest migrations of people into North America, more than 15,000 years ago. The species was far from the most important food resource at that time, though.
Archaeological evidence suggests that white-tailed deer abundance only began to increase after the extinction of megafauna species like mammoths and mastodons opened up ecological niches for deer to fill. Deer bones become very common in archaeological sites from about 6,000 years ago onward, reflecting the economic and cultural importance of the species for Indigenous peoples.
Despite being so frequently hunted, deer populations do not seem to have appreciably declined due to Indigenous hunting prior to AD 1600. Unlike elk or sturgeon, whose numbers were reduced by Indigenous hunters and fishers, white-tailed deer seem to have been resilient to human predation. While archaeologists have found some evidence for human-caused declines in certain parts of North America, other cases are more ambiguous, and deer certainly remained abundant throughout the past several millennia.
Human use of fire could partly explain why white-tailed deer may have been resilient to hunting. Indigenous peoples across North America have long used controlled burning to promote ecosystem health, disturbing old vegetation to promote new growth. Deer love this sort of successional vegetation for food and cover, and thus thrive in previously burned habitats. Indigenous people may have therefore facilitated deer population growth, counteracting any harmful hunting pressure.
More research is needed, but even though some hunting pressure is evident, the general picture from the precolonial era is that deer seem to have been doing just fine for thousands of years. Ecologists estimate that there were roughly 30 million white-tailed deer in North America on the eve of European colonization—about the same number as today.
Colonial-era fall of deer numbers
To better understand how deer populations changed in the colonial era, I recently analyzed deer bones from two archaeological sites in what is now Connecticut. My analysis suggests that hunting pressure on white-tailed deer increased almost as soon as European colonists arrived.
At one site dated to the 11th to 14th centuries (before European colonization) I found that only about 7% to 10% of the deer killed were juveniles.
Hunters generally don't take juvenile deer if they're frequently encountering adults, since adult deer tend to be larger, offering more meat and bigger hides. Additionally, hunting increases mortality on a deer herd but doesn't directly affect fertility, so deer populations experiencing hunting pressure end up with juvenile-skewed age structures. For these reasons, this low percentage of juvenile deer prior to European colonization indicates minimal hunting pressure on local herds.
However, at a nearby site occupied during the 17th century—just after European colonization—between 22% and 31% of the deer hunted were juveniles, suggesting a substantial increase in hunting pressure.
This elevated hunting pressure likely resulted from the transformation of deer into a commodity for the first time. Venison, antlers and deerskins may have long been exchanged within Indigenous trade networks, but things changed drastically in the 17th century. European colonists integrated North America into a trans-Atlantic mercantile capitalist economic system with no precedent in Indigenous society. This applied new pressures to the continent's natural resources.
Deer—particularly their skins—were commodified and sold in markets in the colonies initially and, by the 18th century, in Europe as well. Deer were now being exploited by traders, merchants and manufacturers desiring profit, not simply hunters desiring meat or leather. It was the resulting hunting pressure that drove the species toward its extinction.
20th-century rebound of white-tailed deer
Thanks to the rise of the conservation movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, white-tailed deer survived their brush with extinction.
Concerned citizens and outdoorsmen feared for the fate of deer and other wildlife, and pushed for new legislative protections.
The Lacey Act of 1900, for example, banned interstate transport of poached game and—in combination with state-level protections—helped end commercial deer hunting by effectively de-commodifying the species. Aided by conservation-oriented hunting practices and reintroductions of deer from surviving populations to areas where they had been extirpated, white-tailed deer rebounded.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Pennsylvania food banks worry about SNAP cuts in federal government's proposed budget bill
Pennsylvania food banks worry about SNAP cuts in federal government's proposed budget bill

CBS News

time15 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Pennsylvania food banks worry about SNAP cuts in federal government's proposed budget bill

Food banks fear that if the budget bill heading to the U.S. Senate gets passed, thousands of people in Pennsylvania will go hungry. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program helps nearly 2 million Pennsylvanians put food on the table. "For every meal the food bank provides, SNAP provides nine meals," said Jennifer Miller, CEO of the Westmoreland Food Bank. Leaders from the Westmoreland Food Bank and Feed Pennsylvania came together with the secretaries of the Pennsylvania Departments of Human Services and Agriculture to discuss how proposed federal changes would impact the most vulnerable in the state. They said the House-passed reconciliation bill would cut nearly $300 billion from the SNAP program through 2034. "We have existing work requirements in SNAP, but this bill would make them more strict. And as a result, we believe at least 140,000 Pennsylvanians could lose access to food assistance that helps people be healthy enough to go to work in the first place," Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Val Arkoosh said. Food banks fear they will see substantially more people lining up for food. "We are not equipped to absorb the massive demand that would result from reduced access to federal nutrition programs. Food banks cannot replace the scale, the reach and the stability of the SNAP program," Miller said. "If enacted, these cuts would eliminate more meals per year distributed by the entire charitable food network in this country," said Julie Bancroft, CEO of Feeding Pennsylvania. State Agriculture Secretary Russell Redding said losing SNAP dollars would also hit farm families. "Roughly 25 cents of every grocery dollar spent goes straight back to the farm, 25 cents for every dollar for food purchased at the grocery store," Redding said. Arkoosh said the proposed cuts would cost the state over $1 billion more annually. "The result would be devastating for Pennsylvania families and for our economy," Arkoosh said. Many believe the fight is not over, though. "You all have a role in contacting your senators, your congressperson, letting them know how this impacts our commnity, our neighbors, our friends," Westmoreland County Commissioner Ted Kopas said.

Acting FEMA Chief Told Staff He Didn't Know About U.S. Hurricane Season
Acting FEMA Chief Told Staff He Didn't Know About U.S. Hurricane Season

New York Times

time25 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Acting FEMA Chief Told Staff He Didn't Know About U.S. Hurricane Season

The acting head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency told employees on Monday that he did not know the United States has a hurricane season, according to two people who heard the remarks and said it was unclear if he was serious. The official, David Richardson, has served in the Marines and worked in the Department of Homeland Security's Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office. After he joined FEMA in May, some FEMA workers expressed concern about his lack of experience in emergency management. The remark, coming a day after the start of the Atlantic hurricane season, could deepen those concerns. The two people who described the comment asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees FEMA, said in a statement that Mr. Richardson was joking. The agency statement said FEMA would be focused on disaster response this hurricane season and said the Trump administration is in the process of reforming an agency it believes is bloated. Even if the comment was a joke, the timing would be questionable. The hurricane season, which began on Sunday and lasts through Nov. 30, is considered the agency's most challenging period, during which the country is the most vulnerable to large-scale devastating disasters that can overwhelm state and local disaster managers. In addition, FEMA has just gone through a major reduction in staffing. During the same meeting, according to the two people, Mr. Richardson told agency employees that FEMA should plan to respond to this year's hurricane season the same way the agency responded to last year's hurricane season. But employees have expressed concern with that approach because of the agency's reduced staff. Since the start of the Trump administration, FEMA has lost about a quarter of its full-time staff, including one-fifth of the coordinating officers who manage responses to large-scale disasters, according to a former senior official. The departures came after pressure from the Department of Government Efficiency, previously led by Elon Musk, for a massive culling of federal workers. Mr. Richardson's predecessor at FEMA was Cameron Hamilton, who was pushed out in early May, a day after telling members of Congress that FEMA was vital to communities 'in their greatest times of need' and should not be eliminated. The comment appeared to be in conflict with President Trump, who has suggested the agency be eliminated. On his first full day as acting administrator, Mr. Richardson told the agency's employees that if any of them tried to obstruct his agenda, 'I will run right over you.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store