The deer debate continues December 22, 1999 Ms. Kathy Tucker writes that it is once again "time for the great debate between animal rights and common sense to begin" (Dec. 1). It is only right to keep this debate going, and to assist Ms. Tucker in doing so, I would like to clear up some misconceptions she has regarding her opponents (animal rights advocates and deer). It is a fallacy that animal advocates are ignorant sentimentalists who will be brought around to a common sense position through a simple verbal, or written, dressing down. They are people who had the courage to examine accepted beliefs and practices and compare them with a vast body of scientific evidence. Most are highly educated and hold respectable positions in our community. While Ms. Tucker's anger comes through quite clearly in her letter, her grasp of simple evolutionary and ecological facts does not. Animals, such as humans and deer, have evolved the same senses for the same reasons: defense and propagation of their gene lines. These senses include pain and fear. We cannot ignore the suffering of deer simply because they occasionally eat our flowers or grass. The fact that deer-car collisions are an extreme hazard for humans does not mean we must ignore science or ethics. It is all the more reason to approach the problem as the reasoning beings we are. Deer hunting, in this case, can be considered immoral for two simple reasons. First, deer are sentient beings that suffer when they are injured or lose their kin. Second, our deer problem results from habitat fragmentation caused by over-development and sprawl. As the "villains" behind urban sprawl are less easily identified, those unwilling to put any real thought into the situation blame the deer. In fact, hunting can often increase animal populations. Reducing a population too dramatically can cause it to rebound at a logarithmic rate due to the increased availability of resources, i.e., food. The population then explodes beyond the capacity of its environment to sustain it and you have a larger, unhealthy population. Such population eruptions are well documented, especially with regard to ungulates, like deer. Hunting, especially hunting that focuses on females as in Montgomery County, can also adversely affect the genetic variation within a population. This can lead to unhealthy, inbred populations. Ms. Tucker's concerns about Lyme disease are understandable but, she seems slightly unfamiliar with the life cycle of the deer tick. Killing deer because people get Lyme disease is no more logical than permitting the slaughter of other mammals that carry ticks for the same reason. If a person is bitten by a Lyme-bearing tick, it is highly unlikely that tick has ever encountered a deer. It is the white mouse that harbors deer ticks before they catch their final rides on humans or deer. Should we start hunting mice? Finally, I would like to address Ms. Tucker's contention that "it is not safe to swerve to avoid hitting an animal." She specifically mentions squirrels. Ms. Tucker, we do not live in a vacuum. We must make moral and, yes, common sense choices everyday. If you can safely avoid a squirrel, do it! That is not to say a squirrel's life is more valuable than yours. It is to say you have the ability to reason and hence the obligation to consider another's life and the value of that life to that other being. Steve Maloney, Gaithersburg *** This is in response to Rebecca Soubra's letter (Dec. 1). An injured deer will lie down and only run if felt threatened. A live deer that can be picked up and moved is seriously injured. If a deer is in the road and presents a hazard, it should be moved, but to stay with the deer to hold and pet it is cruel. Not only was the last hour of this animal's life spent in physical pain from the car accident, but it was also spent in shear terror from being continuously handled by people. Hans Glista, Gaithersburg | 
