White-tailed deer in Osceola County, Florida. Copyright 1994 ©Timothy John Mallow	Florida panther mating pair on the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. Copyright 1995 © Larry Richardson (USFWS Biologist), Timothy John Mallow (Coryi Biologist), Catherine Dees (Biologist). All rights reserved.

Why white-tailed deer should not be managed for increased body and antler size: The ecological problems of herd culling, sport hunting, genetic manipulation for harvest yield, and why habitat management should be the only means to achieve population stability.

Timothy John Mallow, MS
Director and Wildlife Biologist
Coryi Foundation, Inc.
Copyright 2003 ©Timothy John Mallow

Notice 1: This scientific paper is the result of literature review. It is an independently researched and written paper that was not funded by sources outside of Coryi Foundation, Inc. It is not subject to non-disclosure agreements or censorship. No agreements exist whereby the publication of this paper was restrained. Nor was this paper chartered with any limitations in its publication imposed upon or agreed to by the author. Its publication is protected under the United States Constitution, First Amendment. There exist no second party ownership of this paper. Sole ownership of this paper and exclusive publishing rights reside with Timothy John Mallow, the legal copyright holder. All rights are reserved. This paper may be viewed and printed, but not distributed or published in any forum in any form or fashion without permission of the author. These rights are protected under Copyright Law.

Notice 2: This paper is an active research item, is in constant development, and will expand. Please check back periodically for updated versions.

Notice 3: This paper will be published in a number of professional scientific journals upon completion.

Contents

• Introduction

• Culling in the Deep Wilderness

• Culling in the Wild Land - Urban Zone

• Deer Size, Abiotic Influences, Genetics, and Introgression

• Natural History of Deer Morphometrics in the Southeast and Concerns of Genetic Status

• Deer Size and Panther Bioenergetics

• Comments on Selective Breeding Programs Designed to Augment Deer Body and Antler Size

• How Deer Herds and Deer Habitat Should be Managed

• Conclusions and Management Implications

• Acknowledgements

• References

• Figures

• Appendices

Introduction

Managing white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations, health, body and antler size for hunter harvest is not a universally shared philosophy. It is contrary to the views of as many people as it is compatible with others. Opponents to this view do not share the belief that humans were placed on earth to harvest animals for consumption. Rather, they view humans as stewards to preserve and protect all life. They also maintain that populations are better stabilized without lethal methods of population control such as culling or annual harvest. Proponents maintain that in the absence of extirpated predators, culling efforts by hunters are needed to balance herd numbers with available food resources. Additionally, due to the popularity of white-tailed deer hunting and the interest expressed by hunters to be able to acquire large antlered bucks, a number of genetic studies have been created over the last few decades and/or are in progress as conducted by some state game agencies and universities, in order to endorse selective breeding programs designed to maximize morphometric features. This aspect of herd management has created a number of problems for population stability. The existence of these two persistent diametrically opposed views mandates an intelligent resolve. This paper dispels the myths and misconceptions of culling and utilitarian management of deer herds and provides an exhaustive analysis on how deer are being mismanaged and how they should be properly managed.

Because of the broad based issues the paper addresses, it is not intended to specifically oppose hunter interests, though Coryi Foundation, Inc. does not officially support hunter interests or culling programs. Its purpose is to advocate the need for well balanced ecological management practices that take into account the entire assemblage of biotic life. This same view can be easily applied to other special interest groups that many times fail to consider larger picture issues of wilderness needs in a total and systematic package that promotes unbiased wildlife and ecosystem level interests across the board. Other special interest groups include mountain bikers, campers and hikers, ATV and motor cross enthusiasts, horseback riders, four wheel drive off road vehicle clubs, etc. - any group with a vested interest in resource utilization that possess the potential to impose a negative impact on ecological stability. Though each special interest group possesses unique aspects of operations that impact wildlife, the theme is common among them all: the potential for biased interests in resource utilization that are in direct conflict with preservation of biodiversity. 

This paper addresses total ecological balance requirements for the self-sustenance of populations whose inter-species interactions are critical to species survival and population stability. It goes beyond the topic of deer and demonstrates the intricate and complex interactions that occur between members of an animal and plant community assemblage. Because of these interactions, this paper also serves to encourage ecosystem level management approaches that take into account the full spectra of plant and animal life and associative interactions whenever attempts are made to implement conservation programs for any particular species.

Culling in the Deep Wilderness

Culling a herd to keep it healthy and robust has long been a justification for hunting interests. But the ecological and scientific truth is that when deer numbers reach saturation in a landscape, reproduction decreases as a result of food limitations and this leads to a reduction in deer numbers. Food resources can then recover and the deer population can once again increase. Animals regulate their own populations in this way, based upon available food and habitat. It is a cyclic event that has been ongoing long before predators were extirpated and a cyclic event experienced by many species. The absence of predators only means the cycle is more affected by lack of nutrients necessary for reproductive success and less by predation. And predation is only one factor that regulates prey numbers. Diseases, parasites, climatic shifts and unrelated habitat shifts all contribute to prey fluctuations, competing on the same plane with predation. Regardless, the absence of large predators in places such as Florida or the southeast is not the problem with deer herds. It is and always shall remain a habitat quality issue associated with habitat management issues such as the lack of frequent burns that would otherwise stimulate new plant growth for species in the browsing layer. Habitat loss and encroachment via development is another major factor that threatens deer herds, as it does many other species. 

It must be mentioned at this point that natural cycles in predator numbers occur from a loss of nutrients when predators over-consume a prey species and that this is an event that parallels ungulate density and forage availability cycles. For example, in areas where bobcat (Lynx rufus) numbers have increased and are killing prey to the point that prey populations radically decrease, a shortage of animal-derived sources of protein and vitamin A from prey liver leads to an acute reduction in a female bobcat's ability to reproduce. In this case, the predators experience a drop in offspring production and many do succumb to disease and parasitic insults as a result of a suppressed immune system associated with poor nutrition. Many bobcats can die as a result, especially neonates. But during this low point in bobcat numbers, prey numbers are then able to increase due to reduced predation. Once prey numbers recover, the bobcat population also recovers. The cycle processes in this fashion. Furthermore, in areas where prey numbers are low as a result of low-grade prey forage, bobcat densities are also low, compared to areas where prey forage and prey numbers are abundant (Mallow 2002). The same pattern occurs in deer herds in relation to food resources. In locales where deer herds experience a drop in forage quality, reproduction potential also drops (McCown 1991). This lowered fecundity (drop in offspring production) allows plant sources favored by deer to recover because deer numbers have been lowered and there is less consumption of plant material. Available plant biomass and mast can then return to higher levels, which in turn, will result in increased reproductive potential of deer. Deer numbers then increase and the cycle repeats itself.

The examples discussed above demonstrate the resilience of wildlife to bounce back and furthermore demonstrate the act of self-regulation. Truly, hunter activity is merely another factor that only creates additional cycling. Without hunting, cycling back tracks to a natural dynamic of processes that achieves balance of its own accord.

With regards to panther (Puma concolor couguar) and deer, deer are actually not as favored by panther as hog (Sus scrofa). Maehr et al. (1990) documented the frequency of prey components (bones and hair) found in panther scat. Of 270 scats analyzed, deer components accounted for only 28%, whereas hog components accounted for 42% of all prey items found in panther scat. In a parallel study, bobcat stomachs only contained 2% deer components (Maehr 1984). The data suggest that deer are not as dependent on predatory sources of morbidity for population regulation as may be regarded by many. Thus, the hunter justification to cull a herd as a means of population regulation in the absence of predators is all the more diminished. I.e., the view shared by many hunters that feel they have now become the required predators to regulate deer herds as a result of a drop in natural predators is not a well-supported theme in the literature of scientific data.

In fact, deer hunting quotas set in many places are an attestation to the idea that deer numbers are sufficiently low, thereby mandating measures to prevent hunter over-harvest. Collectively, the aforementioned factors lend credence to the idea that deer herds are not over-running the landscape as a result of a lack of natural predatory deaths. It suggests that deer numbers are low as a result of over-harvest by hunters, coupled with poor habitat quality in many unmanaged areas, as well as habitat loss and fragmentation by development and urban sprawl.

Another problem with hunting deer for the purpose of population control is that a population may never really decrease. In some instances it can increase ("In Defense", n.d.). A typical hunting season will kill off a significant portion of the population. The result is that the deer who do survive are healthier, due to decreased competition for food, and mate more often due to decreased competition for mates. Hunted groups, over time, can actually have higher population growth rates than non-hunted deer populations. Thus, hunting activities may be actually compounding over-population problems, or in the least, merely inducing a unneeded cycle that would otherwise not be replicated in the absence of hunting. Alternatively, if humans were to simply not intervene, nature would take care of itself, as has been demonstrated over the last several thousand years.

The following is a statement made by the Humane Society of the United States ("Humane", n.d.) regarding population increase as a result of demand for antlers by hunters:

Is hunting to prevent wildlife overpopulation usually effective? No. Wildlife, to a large degree, will naturally regulate its own populations if permitted, eliminating any need for hunting as a means of population control. Discussions about supposed wildlife overpopulation problems apply primarily to deer. Hunters often claim that hunting is necessary to control deer populations. As practiced, however, hunting often contributes to the growth of deer herds. Heavily hunted states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, for instance, are among those experiencing higher deer densities than perhaps ever before. When an area's deer population is reduced by hunting, the remaining animals respond by having more young, which survive because the competition for food and habitat is reduced. Since one buck can impregnate many does, policies which permit the killing of bucks contribute to high deer populations. If population control were the primary purpose for conducting deer hunts, hunters would only be permitted to kill does. This is not the case, however, because hunters demand that they be allowed to kill bucks for their antlers.

Consider the math: Hunting tends to be regulated so that most of the deer killed are bucks - because the antlers are prized trophies for hunters. Let's say that there is an unhunted herd of deer consisting of 200 individuals - 100 does and 100 bucks, the ratio that would most naturally occur in nature. Contrast that with a hunted herd using a "buck-only hunting policy" that also has 200 deer - 180 does and 20 bucks - a sex ratio that results from hunting only the bucks. Remember, bucks are polygamous and even 20 males can impregnate 180 does. Given the same food conditions and if every doe gave birth to one fawn, the first herd will produce 100 fawns resulting in a total of 300 deer, and the second herd will produce180 fawns, resulting in 380 deer, thus each year increasing the size of the herd that is hunted. This is how the hunting of bucks leads to population increases. 

Another quote from the Humane Society of the United States ("Humane", n.d.):

Does hunting ensure stable, healthy wildlife populations? No. The hunting community's idea of a "healthy" wildlife population is a population managed like domestic livestock, for maximum productivity. In heavily hunted and "managed" populations, young animals feed on artificially enhanced food sources, grow and reproduce rapidly, then fall quickly to the guns and arrows of hunters. Few animals achieve full adulthood. After 20 years of heavy deer hunting at the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey, for example, only one percent of the deer population lived longer than four years, and fewer than ten percent lived longer than three years. In a naturally regulated population, deer often live twelve years or longer.

Thus, not only are sex ratios being skewed as a result of hunting practices, resulting in subsequent population increases, but so too is age distribution being radically impacted.

It must be pointed out that modern hunting is just sport. Hunters defend their activities as sport and the right to engage in the sport. Hunting leases are specifically managed only so that hunters can kill deer and trophy the head or antlers, and then consume the meat. Often, meat is discarded and only the antlers, head and/or hide are retrieved. Modern man, especially in North America, has no need to hunt for survival and no hunter defends his position in such a way. The notion that hunters need to regulate deer herds for the overall maintenance of herd health is logically a convenient justification for culling since such a claim serves to advocate sport hunting. But all this defies the truth of scientific evidence, so sadly ignored because of the determined and tenacious hunter interests that have created a powerful lobby that hunters have traditionally employed in government legislation through financially powerful members of the hunting community and hunter-friendly government legislatures. The irony exists though, that it is common knowledge that hunters are becoming fewer in numbers and hunting itself is less popular than it has ever been before. It seems then that Americans, who are by now largely conservation-sensitive and ecologically aware, have for the most part faced up to the fact that hunting activities possess no viable usefulness for ecological stability or resource management. And even if there is any miniscule attempt to justify lethal herd management, Americans are generally disgusted with the killing of animals. 

Finally, part of the problem with any prey over-population occurrences is the lack of predators. Even though it can not be regarded as a major issue in light of the equilibrium that all species, prey and non-prey, can experience under conditions of stasis by other factors that limit population growth, it is one of the reasons that destabilization is currently occurring. Needless to say, it was human expansion of developments and the bounty by hunters in the first place that have contributed to the local extinction of predators. And here is the sad procession: Humans kill off the predators, prey numbers increase and create problems for some localities, humans then proceed to kill the prey, the prey disappear. Does anyone not see the problem with this trend?

Culling in the Wild Land - Urban Zone

In areas where deer herds have overrun a community, it is logically the result of habitat infringement by development into an area presently experiencing an upswing in population numbers. These situations typically occur in what is called the "wild land-urban interface zone". These are marginal zones where human settlements exist on the fringes of civilization or are located in human island centers that are surrounded by wild lands. In these areas, wildlife is quite visible to the human population and the interactions between humans and animal are more frequent than anywhere else. These areas have increased in numbers over the course of the last several decades as a result of human invasion into what was once a pristine and untainted wilderness. In these areas, deer frequently utilize a homeowner's assemblage of flora for food, are found wandering along roads and on streets, and are increasingly involved in automobile accidents. Predators such as bobcats often come onto a property and kill domestic animal stocks such as ducks, chickens, goats, geese, as well as pets in these semi-rural areas. Cougar in areas such as on the outskirts of Los Angelas, California and similar places in Wyoming and other western states have attacked joggers and campers that have come just outside the residential areas and into the wilderness areas at the marginal zones. The net result of human sprawl as experienced by such expanding human settlements has been the increase in human and animal encounters, many of which have involved the death or injury of a human. 

The typical response by humans is to eradicate or relocate the wildlife. But these solutions are only short term answers. Each year, a fresh new generation of wildlife returns to the human margins and the problem does not go away. This researcher attests to the fact that when animals are removed from an area, either by hunting, natural death or by trapping to relocate, that a resource niche has been opened up for re-occupation by another. In the Mallory Swamp of north Florida, it was observed that after the death of bobcats, that home range space had been made available for adjacent neighbors to move into and that such newly vacated ranges were soon occupied by other radio-collared bobcats (Mallow 2002). In the Mallory Swamp study, after the death of a male bobcat as a result of hunting, the neighboring male moved into the deceased's range space and impregnated the resident female. Removal, death or take opens up niches and allows other members to move into the vacant space or fill the void, and also promotes the propagation of offspring via increased contact between the sexes as a result of range expansions and reduced competition. 

The problem is not with the wildlife, but with the urban sprawl that puts animals and humans in close proximity. The problem is also a failure of humans to realize that such encounters are persistent only when urban sprawl continues. If the interface zone was to cease from migrating deeper into wilderness,  given time, the population of animals at such zones would decrease in a natural cycle as food resources cycle out and away. The system would reach a stasis and there would be no need for culling intervention. Chance encounters would continue, but not at elevated rates so witnessed in modern times. And in cases where population numbers continue to pose inconveniences to human urban settlements, non-lethal methods of population control such as fertility management may provide viable alternatives (Warren 2000).

And in the personal experience of this researcher, more and more Americans are less concerned about wildlife foraging through their domestic stocks of plants and animals. The majority actually enjoy the encounters and viewing of backyard wildlife and are voluntarily engaging in practices that employ non-lethal methods of wildlife management to protect their domestic stocks and plants. This includes a growing interest in the use of non-lethal predator repellant methods as described in Shivik et al. (2003). It also includes the construction of predator proof enclosures for domestic animals and the installment of suitable fencing to exclude deer from entering onto properties. 

Deer Size, Abiotic Influences, Genetics, and Introgression

There exists no definitive information that supports the suggestion that increasing deer size through genetic introgression of larger non-native animals alone is ever required to improve deer health or size. Habitat quality has always been the dominant factor leading to large or small deer (McCown 1991). The gene base that expresses for a large animal is still present in any modern deer population that has experienced recent reduction in size as a result of a loss of good quality habitat. This is because any noted shifts in deer size would be attributed to a comparatively short amount of evolutionary time (on the order of 300 years; e.g., since man initiated a wide spread impact on southeastern habitats compounded by associated hunting pressures). That is to state, 300 years is likely insufficient time for genetic shifts to result in the elimination of large deer genes in the absence of events such as genetic bottlenecks. 

Deer size is dictated by abiotic (environmental) influences, such as nutritional quality, that interact with the gene code to dictate size; that is, to determine how genes that dictate size are expressed phenotypically (actual physical characteristics exhibited by an animal). In cases where deer are larger, it is not due only to genetics. It is also from increased habitat quality management or forage that is superior compared to poor habitat areas (Harmel et al. 1988, McCown 1991). Literature on this subject confirms that deer size is modulated by nutrition to a significant degree, and that this influence determines how genes are expressed. Where better foods are provided, deer do increase in body size, reproductive success, and numbers (McCown 1991). The genes of large deer are often not expressed phenotypically when nutrition is low, though those genes are still present in those individuals.

Additionally, studies at Texas A&M University have shown that there are members of a population that will always produce large antlered and large bodied offspring, regardless of lowered nutrition, and that others will produce small body size when nutrition is inferior (Harmel et al. 1988). These studies demonstrate that deer genomes that dictate large body size are not absent from the populations in the south, and that small body and antler size are partly the result of poor nutrition.

Natural History of Deer Morphometrics in the Southeast and Concerns of Genetic Status

Why are deer in the southeast smaller than their conspecifics in the north and midwest? There is paleontological evidence that clearly demonstrates that deer size in the southeast has been decreasing for the last 4000 years (Purdue et al. 1993). Changes in food resources as a result of climatic shifts have likely induced selective pressure regimes that have resulted in deer shifting to an optimum body size to keep apace with these environmental changes. Over the course of the late Holocene, genetic shifts likely occurred in mainland deer that resulted in the adaptation to different genotypes. Deer in the southeast were not too different in body size from deer in the midwest 5000 years ago. But from about 4000 to 5000 years ago and onward, southeastern deer have been decreasing in size as indicated by measurements of key skeletal features found in the remains of deer located in dated strata throughout Georgia and South Carolina. The reduction in size of southeastern coastal plain deer, which began 4000 years before present, correlates with the reduction in summer monsoon rains in the southeast over the past 3000 years (Purdue et al. 1993). This drop in precipitation would inhibit the growth of forage important for maximizing deer size. Thus, climatic change is concluded to be the dominant force leading to nutritional and vegetative shifts in the southeast, with a subsequent reduction in deer size. 

In this sense, genes that dictate large bodied deer have been lost or reduced in frequency as a result of the climatic selective pressure over an immense period of time. As such, this is a change in body size that would have no relation to modern hunting pressures or changes in habitat by anthropogenic influences since Europeans settled into North America. It was a natural change of which man had no control, nor should attempt to reverse, if even it was possible. The earth and its collection of flora and fauna as it exists today are largely the result of natural environmental shifts that have not had any relation to human influences. Significant man-induced shifts have only occurred in the last 200 - 500 years, as far as North America is concerned. The reduction in body size in southeastern deer has, therefore, been an ongoing trend largely disassociated from influences by modern man.

There is concern that deer herds in the southeast have experienced a loss of genetic diversity as a result of habitat mismanagement, over-harvest, or habitat loss. It may be true that many populations across North America had been hunted close to extinction by the end of the 1800s. However, barring the suggested trend over the last 4000 years where the gene code has been modified by climatic shifts in floral composition, there exists no definitive data to support the idea that deer herds have suffered genetic loss through typical episodes such as bottlenecks or founder effects. This is because deer herds have not experienced population isolation to the extent required for such events, except perhaps for certain populations that reside on coastal islands along the Atlantic seaboard. The mainland deer populations have not been limited in genetic dispersal or relative isolation that leads to increased levels of inbreeding.  Deer in the southeast have been persistently pervasive in numbers across the region, with only fluctuations occurring in areas over-harvested, but not geographically isolated by barriers of travel. Genes continue to flow between source and sink areas with no impediment whatsoever. Deer are not impeded by roadways, they utilize the grazing vegetation along roads and cross roads without significant impediment. Local deer herds have not been eradicated by hunting to the same extent that bounty has eliminated the large carnivores in eastern North America. The deer herds of the southeast exist along a geographic continuum in two dimensions without isolation. Generally, only small populations that are relatively isolated by geographic barriers would be subjective to the loss of genes due to inbreeding. This has been well documented in Florida panther (O'Brien et al. 1990, Roelke et al. 1993), and other species. For deer, the probability that genes (including size-oriented genes) have been lost due to inbreeding is unfounded given that the species had not undergone a bottleneck similar to that of the panther or other felids and in light of the observations discussed above. 

Deer Size and Panther Bioenergetics

Can increasing deer body size through better habitat management and selective breeding offer an advantage for southeastern ecological stability? The answer is no. Panther in south Florida survive quite well on the current size of deer and in fact, larger body size in deer would only mean that more meat would spoil after a kill. This is because after a few days, meat becomes unpalatable in the warm and humid sub-tropics of south Florida (Land 1991) and southern temperate forests of North America. Furthermore, adult panthers consume on average one deer or hog per week supplemented by opportunistic kills of smaller prey (Maehr 1997). This means that the required caloric intake is met by a single deer kill, at its given size, at a rate (one per week) that is lower than the spoilage rate of a few days. Panthers gorge themselves in the first days of a kill. Panthers do not kill another deer until after about a week has passed. Thus, a certain percentage of metabolizable protein is never consumed or in the least, all requirements for caloric demand are met with one deer kill, at the current size of deer, per week. Otherwise, a panther would kill more than one deer per week or have the need to kill a larger deer, which is not the case. 

In the south, warm seasonal temperatures result in meat spoilage at a faster rate than in northwestern states, where carcasses can be cached with snow or cold temperatures in winter and remain palatable for several days beyond that which can be achieved in the south. Larger deer in the northwest probably help offset the increased energy demand experienced by cougars in winter because their larger biomass can be frozen for many days and remain palatable. Even though deer that are killed by panther and bobcat are cached for subsequent feeding visits, the effect is short-lived in the south because of the aforementioned rapid  protein degradation. Carcass reduction is facilitated in the last stages not by upper trophic predators such as panthers and bobcats, but by scavenger and detrivore species such as vultures, raccoons (Procyon lotor), carrion beetles, and fly maggots. The carcass is reduced to skeleton within 4-7 days (Land 1991). And because panthers are killing one deer on average every 7 days, it means that the time before additional protein intake is required exceeds the time it takes for a carcass to spoil and be reduced, therefore indicating that the one deer was sufficient for about a 7 day period. That is to say, a panther does not go on to kill another deer right after the previously killed deer becomes unpalatable after about 3 days; it is able to obtain its fill from the one kill and has no need to consume more from another kill until a few more days have passed. A panther can do this by supplementing its diet with smaller prey. As a result, deer are sufficiently large as they are and predation upon larger deer would simply result in greater spoilage of unconsumed deer biomass. 

However, the nutritional and caloric requirements of panthers and bobcats can benefit from improved reproduction, increased density, and improved demographic stability of deer as a result of improving forage for deer (McCown 1991, Schortemeyer et al. 1991). This speaks nothing of deer body size, but of increasing deer density and availability in places where panthers have had to somewhat shift prey selection to smaller animals such as raccoons as a result of reduced deer density (Maehr et al. 1990). No doubt that deer herds suffer in reproductive ability and numbers when quality forage is in short supply. Thus, what is needed as far as deer herds are concerned and their relationship to panther, is sufficient habitat management to maintain high quality foods for deer so that numbers are high enough to meet the energy and nutritional needs of predators without severe predation impacts on deer numbers or demographic stability (Schortemeyer et al. 1991).

Comments on Selective Breeding Programs Designed to Augment Deer Body and Antler Size

If reduction in deer size in the southeast occurred as a result of climatic and vegetative shifts over the course of 4000 years, and that if these shifts led to a genetic shift in local populations, can genetic introgression or selective breeding reverse the reduction in body and antler size? The answer is probably yes. However, such a program can never be expected to exhibit any long lasting effects without continued management. This is because the evolutionary landscape induces a population to strive to its peak fitness regime. For deer, this is the current body size as dictated by post-Holocene floral composition. Placing larger deer into an area would be a temporary measure to maintain larger deer. After time, selective forces would have the population return to the smaller body size in the absence of continued influx of larger deer genes because the plant species that allowed large deer to thrive prior to the aforementioned Holocene event are now absent. Thus, the real ethical issue revolves around whether it is or is not sound conservation management to manipulate populations in the face of natural selective pressures that are beyond man's control (e.g. current climatic and flora composition that dictates the current body size).

Genetic introgression is a short-lived prognosis when natural forces immensely oppose continued persistence of the new genome. Since 1995, the State of Florida has been introducing Texas cougars into south Florida to increase the genetic diversity of the highly inbred Florida panther. Though after 8 years of hybridization that has resulted in over 84 intercross offspring spanning 3 generations, the newly enriched gene base of the population can not be expected to persist without continued introgression with Texas puma (Land et al. 2003). Without continued introgression, the effects of inbreeding would once again increase and result in a drop in heterozygosity, with a reversal back to an increase in associated deleterious traits that threaten the population with extinction. Though deer are not facing the same prognosis, the costs of continued introgression and selective breeding would be comparable to panther recovery efforts, and likely outpace the ability of managers to keep stocks afresh with the new genes on any large scale. With deer, the natural forces are environmental (an altered climatic and associated change in vegetative composition in progress for over 4000 years) and will always force populations to adapt to the peak in the micro-evolutionary landscape that has defined the relatively smaller southeastern white-tailed deer since the late Holocene. Under this tremendous force of the natural world, introgression and selective breeding will have no wide-scale or long-lasting impact for the southeast at large, and only be of value to the few private landowners that can muster funds from hunter lease fees to implement ongoing continued selective breeding programs. Because of this, selective breeding can only be done on a microscale level of implementation.

Equally important, private selective breeding programs are usually not compatible with broad-based ecological needs. That is to say, they tend to only maximize deer habitat,  herd strength, body and antler size  without equitable attention given to all the other species in a managed area. I.e., deer are often the preferentially selected first class citizens for management on private leases and all other species are often given second class status. This is because the motivation for improved deer size on private leases is not always bound to a truly ecological foundation that strives to maintain total animal community stability. Rather, motivations possess the vulnerability of being strictly hunter-oriented that only serve the desires of the hunter community to produce large bodied and large antlered deer that can then be killed for trophy by hunters. That is, such selective breeding programs are biased to the hunters' interests for trophy. 

And any attempts to implement selective breeding on public lands with the intention to increase body and antler size would fail. This is again because of the pervading natural selection forces that would prevent continuation of large bodied gene dominance without costly continuous introgression. And because such ventures are not ecologically or financially sound on a large scale for continued persistence, nor are compatible with the current adaptive course of white-tailed deer that exists today in its current morphological state as a result of climatic forces, they are irresponsible acts of stewardship.

How Deer Herds and Deer Habitat Should be Managed

Clearly, the problem with deer herds is habitat management. Genetics may play a role, but largely one that is coupled to the quality of forage. Deer diet consists of leaves and tender tips of woody shrubs and vines, succulent green plants, grasses, acorns, mushrooms, aquatic plants, as well as many other types and parts of plants that are within 4.5 feet above the ground (Schaefer and Main 1997). Thus, deer favor a resource niche that is relatively young or early successional. Logically then, what deer need is the improvement and increase of young forage through prescribed burning, the creation of native food plots, and the creation of openings in forested tracts (McCown 1991). All these measure stimulate young plant growth that provides palatable growing tissues that deer need. Mature tissue is less palatable, digestible, and nutritional than growing tissue  (Short et al. 1972).  Furthermore, burns are considered to likely result in a two to three fold increase of crude protein for up to 3 months after the burn, and crude protein is important to deer for body growth and biomass maintenance and contributes to a healthy micro-flora in the ruminant tract (McCown 1991). Stransky and Harlow (1981) showed that calcium and phosphorus levels are more than doubled in new growth after a fire. Calcium and phosphorus are notoriously known to aid in skeletal growth of mammals. Interestingly, it is no wonder that the most competitive horses in the race industry (the largest, with the biggest and strongest long bones) are raised on farms in Kentucky that reside on lands rich in calcium and phosphorus and that these same places also possess a rich saturation of large hardwood tree species. The blue grass species of grazing matter that horses feed from source their minerals from the same soils as the large hardwood tree species. This poignantly affirms that not only are young plants critical to deer and horse nutrition in what they offer in terms of minerals essential for skeletal growth, but that soil conditions are equally important. Burns free up minerals to be recycled into new and young plant growth. Without burns, minerals remain locked up in old growth and can not be put into a pathway readily available and palatable for deer and other herbivores.

Food plots should include what is referred to as joint vetch (Aeschynornene americana). This native legume species is rich in crude protein and minerals. These food plots are early successional areas and when implemented on a substantial scale, can result in profound effects on deer herd numbers and health. When the Fakahatchee Strand in south Florida was subjected to clear cutting in the 1940's, the newly created openings resulted in the regeneration of young plant growth and an abundance of deer that was 7 times more abundant than today (McCown 1991). 

The Fakahatchee Strand in the present day is an overgrown and poorly managed assemblage of thicket swamp. This researcher has spent quality in-field time in the strand and can attest to its poor quality. Though the clear cutting of the 1940's resulted in a short term increase of prime forage for deer, it was an irresponsible act because it was not maintained or managed thereafter and worse, because it eliminated old growth cypress on a large scale and radically disturbed the natural balance. The net result is that present deer populations are low in numbers in the Fakahatchee and panthers that reside there have had to shift prey selection to small prey such as raccoons. From a bioenergetic point of view, the return of caloric intake from a diet of small mammals is much less efficient than a diet of large ungulates because the energy expended to kill and consume the same amount of biomass of small mammals is much greater than that of a single deer. That is to say, the energy expended to capture small prey compared to that which is gained through consumption is much greater than that experienced with large prey such as deer. Indeed,  clear cutting to create food plots needs to be done on a smaller scale in order to avoid the larger scale negative impacts on native vegetative quality and abundance and animal community balance. Creation of openings must also be done conservatively so as not to infringe upon species that are arboreal and rely on resource niches in the middle and upper canopy of the forest trees.

The above described deer herd management practice is the best approach to offer stability for prey and predators alike. It has been proven time and time again to be the most useful and ecologically useful venue. It is also more cost effective than any genetic management program. Not only do deer benefit from regeneration of young growth, but so do panther as a result of increased deer numbers - one of their primary prey types. Pioneering species of small mammals such as the cotton rat and cottontail rabbit also benefit since these early successional areas of openings in the forest are prime forage and habitat for these species (Mallow 2002). In turn, bobcats benefit because their primary food staple (cotton rats and rabbits) are abundant. Equally, raptors such as great horned owls and hawks benefit from the abundance of small mammals. The eastern diamondback rattlesnake shares in this bounty. 

In the end, a beautiful assemblage of wildlife persists in a state of balance that can never be replicated by other motives, when those motives fail to take into account the full picture of total animal and plant community interactions. That is to say, selective breeding of deer is not beneficial to ecological stability. On the other hand, habitat improvement is.

Conclusions and Management Implications

The objective of increasing deer numbers, body or antler size for hunting interests alone does not possess a satisfactory ecological justification for herd management. It is counter-intuitive to what is really happening in the natural world or at best a decidedly disjointed issue. Of its own accord, it only reflects an interest to increase hunting opportunities. The state of Florida does not even engage in such practices. Florida, like many states, merely regulate hunting quotas to insure that herds are not over-hunted.

Deer in the southeast are as they are because of where they are, from a genetic and forage composition point of view. Any increases in body or antler size that result from an improved nutritional plane are subordinate to the genome that characterizes southeastern deer of today. Deer have likely undergone shifts in gene coding that now yields smaller body and antler size as a result of selection pressures induced by climatically modified food resources. Therefore, it makes no ecological sense to genetically manipulate a population for the desired and even misconceived objective of increasing body and antler size.

Deer herd management should always be based on total animal community stability foundations, and not on hunter harvest opportunities or sustaining yield potential. Hunter harvest interests are biased for production of antler size, and not for ecological stability. Deer herds should not be manipulated for large bodies and large antlers, but be nurtured for maximized and abundant quality forage (habitat) and nutritional robustness to insure the continued prevalence of healthy individuals and maximized reproductive potential, in order to meet the nutritional demands of predators without imposing severe impacts on herd demographic and genetic stability as a result of predation. With improvement in quality habitat and forage will deer increase in size to the maximum dimensions allowable as limited by the current genome.

With all that has been presented in this paper, it is strongly encouraged that all special interest groups that have vested interest in resource utilization need to revise their agendas and bring themselves into subordination to the pristine, altruistic, and severely neglected needs of wildlife and total ecological stability. To fail to do so only perpetuates ecological destabilization. The natural world can no longer tolerate special interest agendas that neglect comprehensive and total ecological facets of truth. There are many conflicting and divisive programs that, in the wake of narrow vision, have failed to sufficiently resolve the problems that are so prevalent and continue to erode the environment in ways that are quickly making the natural world a thing of the past.

As for hunters and hunt leasers, the message is clear: If they are going to manage lands and deer populations, then they should do it with consideration given to all species and do it with total animal and community level ecological needs as the priority. Selective breeding programs designed to yield large bodies and antlers should not be implemented. Management should be implemented to improve forage to yield quality health and population stability for not only deer, but all other species in the system with which deer coexist in interactive ways. Hunters should not view themselves as substituted predators to control populations. Their presence is not needed in the culling capacity. They should view themselves as individuals with invested interest in maintaining biological diversity. Hunters all know that the dollars they spend on licenses are used for conservation. By further adopting a philosophy of altruistic concern and implementing altruistic management practices or by donating greater dollars to pure research and altruistic conservation programs designed to employ non-lethal management strategies, the hunting community can be doing greater service in the end than to merely be acquiring trophy. Most hunters benefit from the experience of being in the outdoors and existing astride wildlife. For many, hunting is more than just a means to acquire a rack, mount, or meat. It is also about experiencing nature in all its biodiversity of plants and animals. Those elements can only persist with wise management practices that place the needs of animals foremost among the special interests of humans.

This researcher has conducted research in places such as Bear Island, Big Cypress National Preserve, Bull Creek, Three Lakes and Prairie Lakes, Ocala National Forest, Wekiva State Park, Fakahatchee Strand, Tosohatchee State Preserve, Green Swamp, Mallory Swamp, St. Johns NWR, Florida Panther NWR, Merritt Island NWR, on private lands, and countless others. He has seen the results of poor management, over-harvest, over-use, and neglect. He has also seen the results of effective, controlled, and wise management. In all cases, quality of wildlife and species robustness are the result of balanced stewardship and a full and complete understanding of the interactive complexities of the full array of plants and animals in any given system.

Finally, to the hunter it must also be made clear: When the trigger is pulled or the arrow is loosed, a life that God had created has been destroyed. The life that is destroyed is a remarkable work of creation and which no man can ever replicate in his wildest dreams. In destroying that life, the hunter has denied life to a creature that God cherishes and about which He deeply cares because He in fact had created it. Biblical arguments justifying hunting are not valid because the Bible has been poorly misinterpreted by hunters. Theologically speaking, God does not endorse the killing of animals, though certain events in biblical history involved animal killing and were part of the general revelation message of the old testament. Those events, which included animal sacrifice and procedures for preparing meat, served only as events that God had directed to bring mankind into a state of unification with Him, as part of the prophetic pointing to the coming of the Messiah. They in no way endorse hunting or the eating of meat outside of the original divine purposes for which they served at that time. Animal killing, as understood by theologians, is the result of man's original sin, and began after the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. So too is predation by animal and man alike a thing that occurred only after, and as a direct result of, that fall. This is because in the Garden of Eden, as directly written about in Genesis, man and all beasts were to eat from the plants of the earth, not from each other (Genesis 1: 27-30, see Appendix 2). Life in the pre-fall era was a perfect environment by all accounts of scripture. Man was to live in perpetuity and care for the earth, its plants, and animals, as commanded by God. There was logically no death in that period whatsoever because the world had yet to be tainted by the universal effects of sin. Life in the Garden of Eden was how God had purposed life to proceed. It was the truly natural order of things; for all animal life was protected and guarded from death because there was no death. Populations were not destabilized because there were no hunting or carnivorous predation pressures whatsoever. It was only after that original sin that all life had been rendered into a state of death and decay, and that God had ordained that man's days in this world would be numbered. That ordination set into motion events with cascading deleterious impacts on the natural world. That episode (which is man's fault because of his disobedience to God) is the origin of destabilization in nature, disease, natural disasters, unstable weather and climatic patterns, carnivory, predation, war, murder, and all manner of things that destroy life. As a result of man's sin which had led to the down spiral of ecological stability, all life was thrown into a state of disarray. It is likely that many plant species that certain animals relied upon for nutritional quality had disappeared as climatic forces in nature became widely erratic and also because of over-herbivory. When those species disappeared, many animal species that relied upon them had probably gone extinct, and the animals that survived were the ones that shifted to carnivory. So too did man make a shift to a carnivore diet. This was not because his physiological being mandated such a shift as a result of the disappearance of key plant species, but likely because his own inclination to laziness after the fall had ushered in an associative inclination to do something that was easier than tilling the earth: killing animals. It is then interesting to note that the disappearance of carnivores through time has typically been proceeded by a reduction in certain other animals, who themselves have disappeared as a result of radical shifts in plant composition or the extinction of key plant species, or as the result of man's impact on natural order through hunting. All this is the result of the cascading effect of man's original sin. And clearly does it demonstrate how a single perturbation in nature can have profound effects for all time. 

Perhaps the hunter can live with the act of killing an animal, but the animal he kills does not. If one has ever spent any quality time with a tame deer, bobcat, cougar, bear, or fox, then one sees just how sentinel, interactive, cognitive, self-aware, socially aware, and emotionally-oriented these creatures are. Perhaps some hunters do see this - through the bond of trust and interaction they experience with their hunting dogs. Curiously, one wonders how the hunter would feel about someone hunting his dog for sport. This notion of comparative reasoning is worth consideration. Of course the hunter would not want his dog hunted, yet he has no problem killing a wild animal. This dichotomy of reasoning only demonstrates the hypocrisy and discrimination against animals beheld by humans that possess a biased and self-absorbing agenda.

Conservation biology is about preserving life, all life. Man can not prevent predation by animal upon animal. But man can prevent predation by man on animal and at the same time, exercise his innovative mind to create positive solutions for the betterment and resolve of the natural world. Man possesses superior intellect and intelligence above all life forms and this attribute has qualified him as the true overseer of life in this world. He has the power and potential to either protect or destroy. In his duty as a steward of the natural world, he is obligated to God to protect all life. Man has witnessed and experienced plenty of negative examples of how not to proceed. It is time that man aggressively measures up to his true duties and brings into effect practices that defend the natural world and all its inhabitants.

Acknowledgements

Appreciation is extended to Dr. Elizabeth Reitz of the University of Georgia for providing a copy of her citation. Thanks is also given to God for giving me the insight to see the truth of things and to be forthright and brave to not suppress the truth, to proceed with conviction, and to place trust in Him and His Son, Jesus Christ, the Messiah, for all things. Gratitude is expressed to B. Hoelscher for her advice on related matters and technical issues regarding the genesis and publication of this paper. Appreciation is extended to K. Trundle for his advice on publishing aspects of this paper. Appreciation is extended to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation in providing pro bono legal counsel resources regarding issues about the publication of this paper. And finally, I wish to thank my wife, B. Mallow,  in her support of helping me to sort through certain human-related details related to the contents and origins of this paper. 

References

Harmel, D.E., J.D. Williams, and W.E. Armstrong. 1988. Effects of genetics and nutrition on antler development and body size of white-tailed deer. FA Report Series No. 26. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Humane Society of the United States. (n.d.). Learning the Facts about Hunting. Retrieved December 2003, from http://www.hsus.org/ace/12043?pg=3

In Defense of Animals. (n.d.). Deer population control. Retrieved December 2003, from http://www.idausa.org/facts/deercontrol.html.

Land, E.D. 1991. Big Cypress deer/panther relationships: deer mortality. Final Report 7509. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, FL. 30 pp.

Land, E.D., M. Cunnigham, M. Lotz, D. Schindle, R. McBride, and B. Ferree. 2003. Florida panther genetic restoration and management. Annual Report. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, FL.

Land, E.D. and R.C. Lacy. 2000. Introgression Level Achieved through Florida Panther Genetic Restoration. University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment.

Maehr, D. S. 1997. The comparative ecology of bobcat, black bear, and Florida panther. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 40(1):1-176.

Maehr, D.S., R.C. Belden, E. D. Land, and L. Wilkins. 1990. Food habits of panthers in southwest Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 54(3): 420-423.

Maehr, D.S, and J.R. Brady. 1986. Food habits of bobcats in Florida. J. Mamm. 67:133-138.

Mallow, T.J. 2002. Ecology of the bobcat in the Mallory Swamp. Masters Thesis. University of Central  Florida. 285 pp.

McCown, J.W. 1991. Big Cypress deer/panther relationships: deer herd health and reproduction. Final Report 7508. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, FL. 75 pp.

O'Brien, S.J., M.E. Roelke, N. Yuhki, K.W. Richards, W.E. Johnson, W.L. Franklin, A.E. Anderson, O.L. Bass Jr., R.C. Belden, and J.S. Martenson. 1990. Genetic introgression within the Florida panther Felis concolor coryi. National Geographic Research 6(4): 485-494.

Purdue, J.R., and E.J. Reitz. 1993. Decrease in body size of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) during the late holocene in South Carolina and Georgia. Morphological Change in Quaternary Mammals of North America, edited by Robert A. Martin and Anthony D. Barnosky, pp. 281-298. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Roelke, M. E., J. S. Martenson, and S. J. O'Brien. 1993. The consequences of demographic reduction and genetic depletion in the endangered Florida panther. Current Biology 3(6): 340-350.

Schaefer, J. and M.B. Main. 1997. White-tailed deer of Florida. Document WEC-133. Institute of Agricultural Sciences. University of Florida. Gainesville.

Schortemeyer, J.L., D.S. Maehr, J.W. McCown, E.D. Land, and P.D. Manor. 1991. Prey management for the Florida panther: a unique role for wildlife managers. Trans. 56th N. A. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. (1991).

Shivik, J.A., A. Treves, and P. Callahan. 2003. Non-lethal techniques for managing predation: Primary and secondary repellants. Conservation Biology 17 (6): 1531-1537. 

Short, H.L., R.M. Blair, and L. Burkart. 1972. Factors affecting nutritive values. Pages 311-318 in Wildland shrubs: their biology and utilization. USDA For. Serv., Gen Tech. Rep. INT-1.

Stransky, J.J. and R.F. Harlow. 1981. Effects of fire on deer habitat in the southeast. Pages 135-142 in G.W. Wood ed. Prescribed fire in southern forests. Belle W. Baruch For. Sci. Inst., Georgetown S.C.

Warren, R.J. 2000. Overview of fertility control in urban deer management. Pages 237-246 in Proceedings of the 2000 Annual Conference of the Society for Theriogenology. San Antonio, Texas. Society of Theriogenology. Nashville, Tennessee. 

Figures

Figure 1. Odocoileus virginianus. Unknown source.

Figure 2. Odocoileus virginianus. Osceola County, Florida
Copyright 1994 ©Timothy John Mallow

Figure 3. Odocoileus virginianus. Osceola County, Florida
Copyright 1994 ©Timothy John Mallow

Figure 4. Odocoileus virginianus. Osceola County, Florida
Copyright 1994 ©Timothy John Mallow

Figure 5. Puma concolor couquar killed by hunters.

Figure 6. Puma concolor couquar killed by hunters after a chase by hounds. This cat was likely treed by dogs and then shot and killed while in the tree. This style of hunting is very common, but is banned in some states. 

Figure 7. Puma concolor couquar killed by hunters.

Figure 8. Deer killed and eviscerated by a hunter.

Figure 9. Deer killed and eviscerated by a hunter. Notice the irony that with technology such as weapons and even something as benign as porta-scoots for the handicapped, that animals possess a tremendous disadvantage against survival odds.

Figure 10. Art depicting the savage nature of animal killing by hunting dog and man. "Deer hunt",
A deer hunt, detail from the mosaic floor signed Gnosis in the 'House of the Abduction of Helen' at Pella, late 4th century BC, Pella, Archaeological Museum.

.

Figure 11. Line drawing of joint vetch (Aeschynornene americana). Source: US Geological Survey.

Figure 12. American joint vetch (Aeschynornene americana). Source: US Geological Survey.

Appendix 1. Data on joint vetch
(Source: US Geological Survey)

Appendix 2. Genesis, from The Holy Bible
(Source: Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library)

Genesis 1, Revised Standard Version


1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2: The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
3: And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
4: And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5: God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
6: And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7: And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
9: And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
10: God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11: And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so.
12: The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13: And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14: And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
15: and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
16: And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth,
18: to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19: And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
20: And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens."
21: So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22: And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
23: And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24: And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
25: And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28: And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
29: And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.
30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
31: And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

Genesis 1, King James Version

   
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

"Above all, do no harm"