Suuri ja kattava valkohäntäpeurakeskustelu

Harrastuneille tuore tutkimus punkeista, myyristä ja hirvieläimistä (linkki MT:n jutussa, open access eli on luettavissa ilmaiseksi). Riistakeskuksen Wikström tykkää viitata tutkimuksiin, jotka ovat mieleisiä metsästäjille. Tässä työssä ei havaittu yhteyttä ihmisten alueellisen borrelioosiriskin ja alueen kasvinsyöjänisäkkäiden populaatioiden välillä. Tarkastelusta kuitenkin puuttui kasvisyöjälajeja, lintuja ja petoeläimet kokonaan. Tutkimus ei pystynyt kuitenkaan sulkemaan pois tutkittujen kasvinsyöjien vaikutuksia.

Lyme borreliosis incidence in relation to mammalian abundance, climate, and landscape characteristics in a boreal area

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13071-025-07162-7

Methods

We analyzed long-term (1997–2018) and spatially extensive (277 municipalities covering 230,000 km²) data on human LB incidence in Finland. Using dynamic species distribution models, we assessed the effects of (i) the abundance of pathogen reservoir hosts used by immature ticks (voles and squirrels), (ii) abundance of the key reproductive hosts for adult ticks (moose and deer), (iii) landscape characteristics, and (iv) climatic variables on the risk of LB.

Results

LB presence and incidence varied across the study area and exhibited a clear increasing trend. While host species showed temporal and regional variation in abundance, their relationships with LB risk were inconsistent. In contrast, environmental variables showed more consistent patterns: increased forest fragmentation, longer growing seasons, and higher humidity were generally associated with elevated LB risk.

Syksyllä laimennetun Tricon ruiskutus, nyt käytännössä kaikki 2 vuotta sitten istutetut männyn taimet syöty. Todennäköisesti peurat asialla. Onneksi kuviolla on hiukan istutettua ja luontaistakin kuusta, ihan koko alaa ei tarvitse istuttaa. Alkaa vaan heinikko olla melkoista, kaikki taimen pituus olisi kelvannut, vaikka useimmat mättäät vielä erottuukin. Ehkä osa taimista elpyy kasvuun, kun vahva juuristo sitä tukee. Tuon kokoisessa ei edes runkoon jää mutkaa, jos joku oksa tai silmu ottaa latvan paikan.

Ei ole peurakanta tarpeeksi vielä pudonnut.

Noniin. Gla siis kertoo ettei moottoriruiskulla koko alueelle levitetty laimennettu Trico anna riittävää suojaa.

Jatketaan siis yksittäisruiskutusta laimentamattomalla latvoihin kuten tähänkin asti. Olin kyllä tulevaan syksyyn jo vaihtamassa torjuntamallia. Kiitos Gla.

Käsitykseni mukaan siihen aikaan keskusteltiin vain hirvistä.

Valkohäntäpeuran haitoista vs. hyödyistä Minnesotassa: Voyageurs Wolf Project 2.1.2026.

Some more thoughts on wolves, deer, and vehicle collisions…

A few days ago, we shared our thoughts on whether we think wolves likely reduce deer-vehicle collisions and therefore benefit residents by protecting vehicles and human life. Our conclusions: we are skeptical for the reasons listed in our last post.

Unsurprisingly, how some felt about our assessment depended on one’s views of wolves. Some folks on the wolf advocacy side were not happy with our assessment because we put a wet blanket on a purportedly positive impact some think wolves have. As one commenter asked: “Do you get paid to sell out wolves?”

On the flip side, many on the pro-wolf management cheered our assessment because they think the notion that wolves help humanity by reducing car collisions is a contrived, ridiculous notion meant to make wolves look good and therefore limit the management of wolves (i.e., hunting/trapping).

Many commenters from this perspective simultaneously also went on to explain how wolves have decimated all of the deer and action must be taken to reduce wolf populations because of this.

Ironically, however, anyone who thinks wolves have dramatically decreased deer populations are unknowingly supporting the notion that wolves do indeed benefit residents considerably by reducing deer-vehicle collisions.

The number of deer-vehicle collisions are influenced by a variety of factors but one of the biggest and most substantial is deer density. The more deer on the landscape, the more accidents, and vice versa.

So if wolves are indeed decimating the deer population, then the only logical conclusion insofar as we can see it is that wolves are saving residents millions of dollars from collisions that would have otherwise happened, and almost certainly saving lives and reducing human suffering caused by deer collisions. This is especially true when you think of the economic and human cost of deer-vehicle collisions over longer time periods (e.g., a decade).

And if wolves’ impact on deer is as extreme as some purport, the positive financial impact for residents via the reduction of deer-vehicle collisions would far outweigh the negative financial impacts of having wolves on the landscape (wolf predation on livestock, pets, etc).

Further, the notion that wolves greatly reduce deer populations would be strong evidence as to why wolves would greatly benefit humanity if allowed to recolonize the rest of the United States where “2.1 million deer are killed annually [via collision]…injuring nearly 60,000 people with >400 human fatalities at a cost of >$10 billion”.

Per the National Deer Association, deer account for 96% of all wildlife-related deaths in the United States. And while not nearly as large of a number, there are numerous attacks and injuries to people from deer each year.

Not to mention that the cost for annual crop losses because of deer in the US are sizable, with estimates of $900 million per year in 2002 ($1.6 billion dollars in today’s costs), a number that has likely only increased over time given increases in deer populations.

In other words, there are very real and considerable negative impacts of having more deer on the landscape. And while deer do have a positive economic aspect via money generated by hunting, a recent assessment by researchers concluded “that economic costs of high deer populations are likely to greatly outweigh their benefits”.

And this does not even include the well-known and studied negative ecological impacts of overabundant deer which are having sizable impacts on many ecosystems across the United States. For instance, an assessment of 39 national parks in the eastern US concluded: “without intervention, the likely outcome, which we are already observing in some parks, is widespread forest loss”—this is, in large part, because of over-browsing from dense deer populations.

In other words, if wolves do have the power to “decimate” deer populations, then wolves would undoubtedly be lifesavers and money savers, a critical tool to combat overabundant deer populations that have been challenging to manage or control in much of the US.

But one cannot have their cake and eat it too: one cannot state wolves kill off all the deer and then conclude wolves do not positively benefit society in myriad ways by keeping deer populations low. Such a perspective simply defies basic logic.

However, we do not think wolves play this beneficial role for society because we have seen little evidence wolves impact deer population size in a meaningful way, a stance for which people scream at us routinely. This is based on our own work and that of many others including a recent assessment that concluded restoring wolf populations across the US would almost certainly have little-to-no impact on hyper-abundant deer populations.

Like much of the “wolf debate”, there is scientific information that provides credence to the values that are held by pro-wolf folks and pro-wolf management folks. However, the science DOES NOT support any particular perspective…it simply tells us how the natural world works and what impact our actions might have on it. Values are ultimately what matters when it comes to how wolves are conserved and managed.

Sources:

Blossey et al. 2024. Where have all the flowers gone? A call for federal leadership in deer management in the United Stated. Frontiers in Conservation Science.

Miller et al. 2023. Overabundant deer and invasive plants drive widespread regeneration debt in eastern United States national parks. Ecological Applications.

Blossey et al. 2022. Myths, wishful thinking, and accountability in predator conservation and management in the United Stated. Frontiers in Conservation Science.

Stern et al. 2023. Identifying deer vehicle collision concentrations in Minnesota. Final Report 2023-38. Minnesota Department of Transportation.

Ross. 2024. 3 reasons deer attack people. National Deer Association article.