As a planned federal deer shoot was scheduled to begin last night in Lower Merion Township, animal-rights activists expressed their opposition and compared it to the deer cull they have sued to stop in Valley Forge.
"The ethical issues are basically the same," said Lee Hall of Devon, legal director of the Friends of Animals organization.
Although the group sued to stop the plan to shoot more than 1,500 deer in Valley Forge National Historical Park, similar action has not been taken over the culling of 576 deer planned in the next several years in Lower Merion.
A two-person team, one shooter and one spotter, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture will be shooting deer in baited fields on township and private land all week from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. A USDA spokeswoman said the team will return for another weeklong cull in December, with the aim of reducing Lower Merion's deer population by 100 this year.
On a good night, the team could harvest up to 20 deer, whose meat will be donated to food banks, said Carol Bannerman, spokeswoman for the USDA. She would not specify where the cull would happen within the township. She said safety and efficiency concerns would prevent allowing private citizens to observe the hunt, which Lower Merion police are supervising.
"It can be a rather quiet operation," Bannerman said.
No township roads are being closed during the nighttime cull, in which the sharpshooter uses a silenced rifle and night-vision accessories.
Lower Merion and federal officials said the township's population is 44 to 58 deer per square mile, far above recommendations that suburbs have 10 deer, or fewer, per square mile. The cull is intended in part to reduce car-deer collisions in the township and the risk of Lyme disease, which is carried by deer ticks.
Hall said that safe, slower driving would be a better means to reduce auto accidents with deer, and that deer ticks could shift to family dogs and cats if the deer population is suddenly reduced. Deer culls, she added, are a brutal form of population control and often kill mainly the strongest animals.
"We are affecting evolution," she said.
Hall said legal action might be considered over the Lower Merion shoot, though the township is not subject to the national-parks laws under which Valley Forge was sued. No protest is planned against this round of culling, Hall said, though her group has a plan to distribute literature and post signs at the time of the planned December shoot.
Another area animal-rights activist and plaintiff from the Valley Forge lawsuit said she was unlikely to take similar action over the Lower Merion kill.
Though "definitely opposed" to all deer culls, Allison Memmo Geiger - president of Compassion for Animals, Respect the Environment - said her West Chester-based group, which sued over the Valley Forge shoot, has not been as active against the Lower Merion one.
"Valley Forge is a national park, so we were able to join with people on a national level for support," Geiger said. "I don't live in Lower Merion, so I have very little say there."
Source: Philly.com
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
PENNSYLVANIA NEWS: Valley Forge NP Sued Over Deer Management
Valley Forge is 5.5 square miles. There are an estimated 232 per square mile, or about 10 times more than the park can support. I would love to see the parasite loads on these deer.
Two animal-rights groups filed suit in federal court yesterday to stop officials at Valley Forge National Historical Park from going ahead with a plan to shoot more than 1,500 deer.
Deploying sharpshooters in winter, the season when George Washington's troops suffered at Valley Forge, "is not only an appalling twist on the park's history," the suit says, but "another sign that the National Park Service has abandoned its century-old mission to strive for parks in which conservation of nature is paramount."
The filing by Friends of Animals, a national advocacy group, and Compassion for Animals, Respect the Environment (CARE), a West Chester organization, was lodged against park Superintendent Michael Caldwell, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, the National Park Service as an agency, and other park service officials.
Caldwell, reached yesterday evening, said he had not seen the lawsuit but knows that the park is acting properly.
"I'm confident in the proficiency of the plan, and we believe in its scientific validity, and we've had a transparent process," he said. "I believe in the plan and where it's headed."
Anthony Conte, an attorney for the park service, said he had not seen the lawsuit. Frank Quimby, a spokesman for the Department of the Interior, said the agency does not comment on litigation.
Park officials intend to reduce the herd by 86 percent - from an estimated 1,277 deer to between 165 and 185 - during the next four years. Federal employees or contractors are to fire silencer-equipped rifles, mostly at night, at deer lured to areas baited with apples and grain. The shooting is to take place between November and March, but administrators have refused to provide specific dates.
Valley Forge officials say the action is necessary to reduce a herd that has grown big and destructive, gobbling so many plants and saplings that the forest can't regenerate.
Administrators plan to shoot 500 deer the first year, 500 the second, and between 250 and 300 in years three and four.
After four years, officials say, they'll maintain a smaller herd through contraceptives and additional shoots. They estimate that shooting deer will cost between $2.0 million and $2.9 million during the next 15 years.
The plan has provoked enormous controversy among people who live near Valley Forge, site of the Continental Army's 1777-78 winter encampment, with residents both opposed and in favor.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court for the Eastern District, said that the park study that blamed deer for ruined vegetation was flawed, and that the law requires the park to protect and conserve natural resources - including deer.
"We want the park to just let them be," said Allison Memmo Geiger, president of CARE.
Unlike the paved roads, concrete buildings, and rebuilt log cabins in the park, the suit says, deer were present before, during and after Washington's encampment, making them part of the cultural and historical resources.
The suit claims that park service officials failed to follow federal laws and regulations in developing their plan to control deer. Among those failures, the suit said, is that the park gave short shrift to the idea of introducing coyotes as natural predators.
Studies show that coyotes can safely and effectively reduce urban deer populations, and improve the health of plants, said Michael Harris, who prepared the suit as director of the Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Denver. Coyotes kill the sick and weak, but more than that, they harass the herd, making deer wary of grazing and limiting their ability to freely reproduce.
The suit said the park also failed to consider how gunfire could endanger park visitors, local residents, and drivers on surrounding highways.
"The government's desire to deploy a rifle team to war on the deer," said Lee Hall, legal director for Friends of Animals, "lacks biological, ecological, and ethical sense."
Source: Philly.com
Two animal-rights groups filed suit in federal court yesterday to stop officials at Valley Forge National Historical Park from going ahead with a plan to shoot more than 1,500 deer.
Deploying sharpshooters in winter, the season when George Washington's troops suffered at Valley Forge, "is not only an appalling twist on the park's history," the suit says, but "another sign that the National Park Service has abandoned its century-old mission to strive for parks in which conservation of nature is paramount."
The filing by Friends of Animals, a national advocacy group, and Compassion for Animals, Respect the Environment (CARE), a West Chester organization, was lodged against park Superintendent Michael Caldwell, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, the National Park Service as an agency, and other park service officials.
Caldwell, reached yesterday evening, said he had not seen the lawsuit but knows that the park is acting properly.
"I'm confident in the proficiency of the plan, and we believe in its scientific validity, and we've had a transparent process," he said. "I believe in the plan and where it's headed."
Anthony Conte, an attorney for the park service, said he had not seen the lawsuit. Frank Quimby, a spokesman for the Department of the Interior, said the agency does not comment on litigation.
Park officials intend to reduce the herd by 86 percent - from an estimated 1,277 deer to between 165 and 185 - during the next four years. Federal employees or contractors are to fire silencer-equipped rifles, mostly at night, at deer lured to areas baited with apples and grain. The shooting is to take place between November and March, but administrators have refused to provide specific dates.
Valley Forge officials say the action is necessary to reduce a herd that has grown big and destructive, gobbling so many plants and saplings that the forest can't regenerate.
Administrators plan to shoot 500 deer the first year, 500 the second, and between 250 and 300 in years three and four.
After four years, officials say, they'll maintain a smaller herd through contraceptives and additional shoots. They estimate that shooting deer will cost between $2.0 million and $2.9 million during the next 15 years.
The plan has provoked enormous controversy among people who live near Valley Forge, site of the Continental Army's 1777-78 winter encampment, with residents both opposed and in favor.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court for the Eastern District, said that the park study that blamed deer for ruined vegetation was flawed, and that the law requires the park to protect and conserve natural resources - including deer.
"We want the park to just let them be," said Allison Memmo Geiger, president of CARE.
Unlike the paved roads, concrete buildings, and rebuilt log cabins in the park, the suit says, deer were present before, during and after Washington's encampment, making them part of the cultural and historical resources.
The suit claims that park service officials failed to follow federal laws and regulations in developing their plan to control deer. Among those failures, the suit said, is that the park gave short shrift to the idea of introducing coyotes as natural predators.
Studies show that coyotes can safely and effectively reduce urban deer populations, and improve the health of plants, said Michael Harris, who prepared the suit as director of the Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Denver. Coyotes kill the sick and weak, but more than that, they harass the herd, making deer wary of grazing and limiting their ability to freely reproduce.
The suit said the park also failed to consider how gunfire could endanger park visitors, local residents, and drivers on surrounding highways.
"The government's desire to deploy a rifle team to war on the deer," said Lee Hall, legal director for Friends of Animals, "lacks biological, ecological, and ethical sense."
Source: Philly.com
Thursday, November 12, 2009
MAYRLAND NEWS: Sligo Creek Park Battles Deer
One day in 2007, after a morning spent at Sligo Creek Park removing invasive plants so native plants could survive, Sally Gagne took a moment to look back on the acre of parkland she had proudly worked to save.
Her pride turned quickly to panic.
"I couldn't believe how little was left," said Gagne, a Silver Spring resident and founder of the Friends of Sligo Creek, a group dedicated to improving the quality of the Sligo Creek watershed, which covers 11.6 square miles from Wheaton to Hyattsville. "There were very few young trees and even fewer native plants."
A new adversary -- a rapidly increasing deer population in Sligo Creek -- had eaten almost all of the native plants and saplings.
The deer problem was bad in 2007, she said, and is worse now. For the first time, members of the Friends group are debating whether to cull the deer population in Sligo Creek before the ecosystem is ruined.
"It will happen slowly, but the woods will be gone," Gagne said. "The whole community of woods, the animals that live there and the birds that fly through."
By the group's count, between 98 and 123 deer live within one square mile along Sligo Creek Parkway between Colesville Road and Arcola Avenue in Silver Spring. Depending on the area, the deer population should be between 15 and 30 deer per square mile for the ecosystem to be unaffected, Montgomery County Parks Department officials said.
A deer-management program is in place at 19 county parks, using some form of sharpshooting or controlled hunting. The program covers more than 15,000 acres and 44 percent of county parkland.
The sharpshooting takes place three to four times at each park between January and April, said Rob Gibbs, the department's natural resources manager. Trained marksmen kill 25 to more than 100 deer a night, Gibbs said.
But sharpshooting is rare downcounty, where the parks are too small, too narrow or too urban for sharpshooting or controlled hunting, Gibbs said. Those areas have attracted deer that have grown wise to some of the long-standing upcounty sharpshooting programs, he said.
The deer population at Sligo Creek has increased almost twofold since 2007, leaving the Friends of Sligo Creek with a difficult predicament: Lobbying for sharpshooting or controlled hunts to manage deer could anger some members who say that sharpshooting would be too dangerous at Sligo Creek or that it is inhumane.
"It could end up being a lose-lose: not controlling deer and losing a lot of members," said Bruce Sidwell, the group's president.
At least part of the watershed is among sites in which the county would like to begin sharpshooting. The Sligo Creek Stream Valley Park, units 3, 4 and 5 -- the square mile between Colesville and Arcola -- is among six locations marked for future deer-management programs. The programs would cost about $150,000 and remove an estimated 355 deer initially.
The money would go a long way toward assisting a program that is "stretched as far as we can go," Gibbs told the Montgomery County Council's Public Safety Committee in a work session last Thursday. The deer-management program has two full-time employees covering 15,000 acres and was budgeted $121,000 for fiscal 2009 and $91,000 for fiscal 2010, according to a letter from Parks Department Director Mary Bradford to the council in August.
At Thursday's meeting, Council President Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville) praised the deer-management program's work but was noncommittal about allocating more money.
Even if Friends of Sligo Creek members can come to an agreement on sharpshooting at the park, by the time a program could be implemented, the ecosystem would be damaged beyond repair, Gagne said.
She resigned from running the group's Removal of Invasive Plants program because her efforts were no match for the deer.
"Everybody is affected by it," Gagne said. "I can't imagine letting all these plants disappear."
Source: Washington Post
Her pride turned quickly to panic.
"I couldn't believe how little was left," said Gagne, a Silver Spring resident and founder of the Friends of Sligo Creek, a group dedicated to improving the quality of the Sligo Creek watershed, which covers 11.6 square miles from Wheaton to Hyattsville. "There were very few young trees and even fewer native plants."
A new adversary -- a rapidly increasing deer population in Sligo Creek -- had eaten almost all of the native plants and saplings.
The deer problem was bad in 2007, she said, and is worse now. For the first time, members of the Friends group are debating whether to cull the deer population in Sligo Creek before the ecosystem is ruined.
"It will happen slowly, but the woods will be gone," Gagne said. "The whole community of woods, the animals that live there and the birds that fly through."
By the group's count, between 98 and 123 deer live within one square mile along Sligo Creek Parkway between Colesville Road and Arcola Avenue in Silver Spring. Depending on the area, the deer population should be between 15 and 30 deer per square mile for the ecosystem to be unaffected, Montgomery County Parks Department officials said.
A deer-management program is in place at 19 county parks, using some form of sharpshooting or controlled hunting. The program covers more than 15,000 acres and 44 percent of county parkland.
The sharpshooting takes place three to four times at each park between January and April, said Rob Gibbs, the department's natural resources manager. Trained marksmen kill 25 to more than 100 deer a night, Gibbs said.
But sharpshooting is rare downcounty, where the parks are too small, too narrow or too urban for sharpshooting or controlled hunting, Gibbs said. Those areas have attracted deer that have grown wise to some of the long-standing upcounty sharpshooting programs, he said.
The deer population at Sligo Creek has increased almost twofold since 2007, leaving the Friends of Sligo Creek with a difficult predicament: Lobbying for sharpshooting or controlled hunts to manage deer could anger some members who say that sharpshooting would be too dangerous at Sligo Creek or that it is inhumane.
"It could end up being a lose-lose: not controlling deer and losing a lot of members," said Bruce Sidwell, the group's president.
At least part of the watershed is among sites in which the county would like to begin sharpshooting. The Sligo Creek Stream Valley Park, units 3, 4 and 5 -- the square mile between Colesville and Arcola -- is among six locations marked for future deer-management programs. The programs would cost about $150,000 and remove an estimated 355 deer initially.
The money would go a long way toward assisting a program that is "stretched as far as we can go," Gibbs told the Montgomery County Council's Public Safety Committee in a work session last Thursday. The deer-management program has two full-time employees covering 15,000 acres and was budgeted $121,000 for fiscal 2009 and $91,000 for fiscal 2010, according to a letter from Parks Department Director Mary Bradford to the council in August.
At Thursday's meeting, Council President Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville) praised the deer-management program's work but was noncommittal about allocating more money.
Even if Friends of Sligo Creek members can come to an agreement on sharpshooting at the park, by the time a program could be implemented, the ecosystem would be damaged beyond repair, Gagne said.
She resigned from running the group's Removal of Invasive Plants program because her efforts were no match for the deer.
"Everybody is affected by it," Gagne said. "I can't imagine letting all these plants disappear."
Source: Washington Post
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
WISCONSIN NEWS: Possible Word Record-Setting Deer, DNR to Receive No Credit
Do not let this record buck fool you--the DNR has ruined the herd! I read that on the internet somewhere.
A Wisconsin hunter is holding his breath and waiting to hear whether he will hold a hunting world record.
Michael Gregoire of Sheboygan Falls may break the current record for the largest whitetail rack of a buck he shot with a bow and arrow Thursday on his brother's farm.
The 12-point buck weighed 240 pounds and the rack was unofficially set at 217 5/8 inches.
The current record was set back in 1993 in Canada, with a rack of 213 5/8 inches. The state record is 206 1/8 inches.
There is a 60-day drying period Gregoire must sustain before the official measurements and scores are released.
Source: wkowtv
A Wisconsin hunter is holding his breath and waiting to hear whether he will hold a hunting world record.
Michael Gregoire of Sheboygan Falls may break the current record for the largest whitetail rack of a buck he shot with a bow and arrow Thursday on his brother's farm.
The 12-point buck weighed 240 pounds and the rack was unofficially set at 217 5/8 inches.
The current record was set back in 1993 in Canada, with a rack of 213 5/8 inches. The state record is 206 1/8 inches.
There is a 60-day drying period Gregoire must sustain before the official measurements and scores are released.
Source: wkowtv
KANSAS NEWS: Shawnee Mission Park Cull Nets 313 Deer
Shawnee Mission State Park is 1250 acres, 150 of which is a lake. This harvest is the equivalent of 182 deer per square mile of habitat.
Volunteer sharpshooters killed 313 deer in Shawnee Mission Park last week, park officials reported Monday.
Randy Knight, a spokesman for the Johnson County Park and Recreation District, said the first phase of the park’s deer harvest has ended and the herd will be surveyed later this month to determine whether more deer should be killed.
If a second phase is needed, bow hunters would be brought in beginning Dec. 7.
Source: KansasCity.com
Volunteer sharpshooters killed 313 deer in Shawnee Mission Park last week, park officials reported Monday.
Randy Knight, a spokesman for the Johnson County Park and Recreation District, said the first phase of the park’s deer harvest has ended and the herd will be surveyed later this month to determine whether more deer should be killed.
If a second phase is needed, bow hunters would be brought in beginning Dec. 7.
Source: KansasCity.com
Thursday, October 29, 2009
NEW YORK NEWS: Municipality Supports Deer Management
Cayuga Heights village residents spoke overwhelmingly Wednesday evening in favor of a plan to either sterilize or cull all the deer in the village.
The village trustees held a special public hearing at Cayuga Heights Elementary School as part of their environmental review process on a deer remediation plan that calls for sterilizing 20-60 does, then culling or killing the remainder of the deer. The meeting drew more than 100 people.
Among villagers who spoke, supporters of the plan outnumbered detractors 4 to 1. Supporters recounted stories of car-deer accidents and near-misses, neighbors and friends with Lyme disease, and deer unafraid of dogs or people.
Forty-year village resident Barbara Collier said she was annoyed by people telling her to plant a garden the deer won't like, because she doesn't like it either.
"I'm an animal lover, but I don't need my herd of 11 deer coming through my yard," she said.
Robert Harris, a 35-year resident, said he was jogging early in the morning and saw a small herd of deer. He continued on his path, assuming the deer would move but instead, "the deer hissed at me," he said, to appreciative laughter from some of the audience.
Villager Corinne Frantz said she spoke with her children around the dinner table about the deer problem and told them that it's possible to have strong, conflicting emotions about killing the deer, but that with no natural predators, humans have a responsibility to reduce the deer herd.
"We can cry. We can cry and we can cull," she said.
In two hours of comment from villagers, with each speaker limited to two minutes, roughly half a dozen villagers spoke against the plan to kill the deer.
Full story is available at: Ithaca Journal
The village trustees held a special public hearing at Cayuga Heights Elementary School as part of their environmental review process on a deer remediation plan that calls for sterilizing 20-60 does, then culling or killing the remainder of the deer. The meeting drew more than 100 people.
Among villagers who spoke, supporters of the plan outnumbered detractors 4 to 1. Supporters recounted stories of car-deer accidents and near-misses, neighbors and friends with Lyme disease, and deer unafraid of dogs or people.
Forty-year village resident Barbara Collier said she was annoyed by people telling her to plant a garden the deer won't like, because she doesn't like it either.
"I'm an animal lover, but I don't need my herd of 11 deer coming through my yard," she said.
Robert Harris, a 35-year resident, said he was jogging early in the morning and saw a small herd of deer. He continued on his path, assuming the deer would move but instead, "the deer hissed at me," he said, to appreciative laughter from some of the audience.
Villager Corinne Frantz said she spoke with her children around the dinner table about the deer problem and told them that it's possible to have strong, conflicting emotions about killing the deer, but that with no natural predators, humans have a responsibility to reduce the deer herd.
"We can cry. We can cry and we can cull," she said.
In two hours of comment from villagers, with each speaker limited to two minutes, roughly half a dozen villagers spoke against the plan to kill the deer.
Full story is available at: Ithaca Journal
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
WISCONSIN NEWS: Where the Deer Are
The Wisconsin DNR just published this map, showing where deer exceed population goals and where deer are relatively scarce.
ARKANSAS NEWS: A Look at Historic Deer Harvests
From the low three figures to a steady six figures — that's the story of Arkansas' deer harvest records.
Numerous hunters in the state, sometimes after an unproductive session in the woods, many grumble that "deer hunting just isn't what it was in the old days."
The statistics are not on their side, however.
Many other hunters realistically realize that the state has many, many more deer here in 2009 than it did a couple of generations back. They may also have gripes about not enough deer in this area, few bucks in that county, too small racks on the bucks somewhere else. But the numbers are indisputable — Arkansas deer are plentiful, although not to everyone's satisfaction.
The first year of official checking of deer taken by hunters by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission was 1938.
Picture that autumn. The state and the nation were still in the grips of the Great Depression. Many Arkansans sought deer for the most basic of objectives. They needed food on the table. That hunting season, 203 were checked by hunters with AGFC's representatives.
The economy was bleak, but restoration of Arkansas's deer had been under way for more than a decade, most as the efforts may seem today. Deer "farms" were in operation in several locations. Deer were being relocated to places where they were absent and had been scarce for years since the late 19th century and early 20th century.
It is a reasonable assumption that some deer were taken by hunters in the fall of 1938 and were not checked, but were taken straight to kitchen use.
The next year, 1939, there were 540 deer checked as information spread around the state about this new requirement for hunters. In 1940, just 408 deer were checked, and in 1941, 433 deer were checked.
These totals seem tiny compared to recent years of Arkansas hunting.
Last season, the 2008 hunt that stretched into early 2009, 184,991 deer were tallied by Arkansas hunters, a total second only to the peak season of 1999 when 194,687 deer were logged across the state in records of all three hunting methods archery, muzzle-loader and modern gun.
long with the outright poaching and night-hunting, is present today as it was in 1938. Unknown, of course, is the extent of these illegal takings of deer. Does poaching account for a small percentage of the deer taken each year or a large amount?
Deer hunting numbers rose steadily from the early years, especially after the AGFC was reorganized into its present form by Amendment 35 of the Arkansas Constitution which went into effect in 1945. From the 1,687 deer checked that year, the state total was 5,122 just five years later. Fifteen years later, in 1960, the deer harvest total was 15,000.
Deer harvest growth continued through the 1960s and see-sawed a bit in the 1970s as the first steps toward hunting of female deer, does, in some areas began. Some protests came forth after the 1978 season when 43,452 deer were checked. Doe hunting was reduced, and in 1979 the total for the state was 36,074.
About this time, more tailored deer hunting regulations were crafted by the AGFC, allowing for more hunting days and more taking of does in areas where deer had become plentiful. Restricted rules were in effect for areas of lesser deer numbers.
It was 1987 when Arkansas's deer take reached six figures, with 106,392 checked that year by hunters. The total dipped in 1990, again with tightened hunting rules. Then it returned to six figures in 1991. The peak of 1999 climaxed five years of impressive numbers on the deer hunting scene.
Some hunters protested that too many deer were falling to hunters. New strategies in deer management came forth, including quality deer objectives on both private land and some public land.
After a dip in 2003, when tighter deer hunting rules were coupled with unfavorable weather, the statewide deer totals have climbed again to approach the peak of a decade ago.
Source: Baxter Bulletin
Numerous hunters in the state, sometimes after an unproductive session in the woods, many grumble that "deer hunting just isn't what it was in the old days."
The statistics are not on their side, however.
Many other hunters realistically realize that the state has many, many more deer here in 2009 than it did a couple of generations back. They may also have gripes about not enough deer in this area, few bucks in that county, too small racks on the bucks somewhere else. But the numbers are indisputable — Arkansas deer are plentiful, although not to everyone's satisfaction.
The first year of official checking of deer taken by hunters by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission was 1938.
Picture that autumn. The state and the nation were still in the grips of the Great Depression. Many Arkansans sought deer for the most basic of objectives. They needed food on the table. That hunting season, 203 were checked by hunters with AGFC's representatives.
The economy was bleak, but restoration of Arkansas's deer had been under way for more than a decade, most as the efforts may seem today. Deer "farms" were in operation in several locations. Deer were being relocated to places where they were absent and had been scarce for years since the late 19th century and early 20th century.
It is a reasonable assumption that some deer were taken by hunters in the fall of 1938 and were not checked, but were taken straight to kitchen use.
The next year, 1939, there were 540 deer checked as information spread around the state about this new requirement for hunters. In 1940, just 408 deer were checked, and in 1941, 433 deer were checked.
These totals seem tiny compared to recent years of Arkansas hunting.
Last season, the 2008 hunt that stretched into early 2009, 184,991 deer were tallied by Arkansas hunters, a total second only to the peak season of 1999 when 194,687 deer were logged across the state in records of all three hunting methods archery, muzzle-loader and modern gun.
long with the outright poaching and night-hunting, is present today as it was in 1938. Unknown, of course, is the extent of these illegal takings of deer. Does poaching account for a small percentage of the deer taken each year or a large amount?
Deer hunting numbers rose steadily from the early years, especially after the AGFC was reorganized into its present form by Amendment 35 of the Arkansas Constitution which went into effect in 1945. From the 1,687 deer checked that year, the state total was 5,122 just five years later. Fifteen years later, in 1960, the deer harvest total was 15,000.
Deer harvest growth continued through the 1960s and see-sawed a bit in the 1970s as the first steps toward hunting of female deer, does, in some areas began. Some protests came forth after the 1978 season when 43,452 deer were checked. Doe hunting was reduced, and in 1979 the total for the state was 36,074.
About this time, more tailored deer hunting regulations were crafted by the AGFC, allowing for more hunting days and more taking of does in areas where deer had become plentiful. Restricted rules were in effect for areas of lesser deer numbers.
It was 1987 when Arkansas's deer take reached six figures, with 106,392 checked that year by hunters. The total dipped in 1990, again with tightened hunting rules. Then it returned to six figures in 1991. The peak of 1999 climaxed five years of impressive numbers on the deer hunting scene.
Some hunters protested that too many deer were falling to hunters. New strategies in deer management came forth, including quality deer objectives on both private land and some public land.
After a dip in 2003, when tighter deer hunting rules were coupled with unfavorable weather, the statewide deer totals have climbed again to approach the peak of a decade ago.
Source: Baxter Bulletin
Monday, October 26, 2009
OPINION: Counting Deer in Wisconsin
How many deer are in Wisconsin? It depends on who you ask. From a recent story:
The debate is not new. What is new is some vehicle collision data that can be brought to bear on the question.
A collision data seems like a good source of data, at least at the level of a township. But does this hold up statewide?
You can look at the 2008 DoT Report here. I do not think there is much ammunition to give credence to the hunters saying deer populations are down. Here is data showing the relationship between deer-vehicle collisions in Wisconsin from 1993 to 2008. Do you see a trend? Because there isn't one.
What does this mean? The interpretation is ambiguous. If you think deer densities should correlate with deer crashes, you would probably be suspect of the crash estimates, the deer population estimates, or both.
I don't think Keith is correct here, either. His reasoning is correct, but he seems to exclude fewer deer as an explanation. The ideal approach to estimating population trends should incorporate all sources of data, but of course that is easier said than done.
In the final analysis, the exact number of deer does not really matter. If you are a hunter, what matters is seeing a deer during deer season. If you are a driver, what matters is not colliding with deer. Actual population estimates are nothing more than a tool to help population managers do their job. By this measure, the current SAK model, with all its flaws, does a reasonable job. That is not to say the DNR cannot do better. However, I think this latest salvo from the disgruntled deer hunters association has missed its target.
Source: NBC26
A debate continues to rage between Wisconsin hunters and the Department of Natural Resources over the true number of deer in the state. Hunters have repeatedly argued the deer population is dropping. The DNR counters saying there are too many deer in Wisconsin and the agency is studying a plan to extend the deer hunting season.
The debate is not new. What is new is some vehicle collision data that can be brought to bear on the question.
Now, hunters say they have the proof they need, a study that reportedly shows car-deer crashes in Wisconsin has dropped and has been dropping for years. Joe Terrien of MJ Collision Center in Bellevue has seen the numbers drop first hand. "Six years ago, we saw at least on deer hit a day. Now we're seeing two a week."
A collision data seems like a good source of data, at least at the level of a township. But does this hold up statewide?
Data from the Department of Transportation seem to confirm the drop. In 2003, a peak year according to the DOT there were more than 20 thousand car deer crashes reported by the State Patrol. Since then, the numbers are trending lower.
You can look at the 2008 DoT Report here. I do not think there is much ammunition to give credence to the hunters saying deer populations are down. Here is data showing the relationship between deer-vehicle collisions in Wisconsin from 1993 to 2008. Do you see a trend? Because there isn't one.
What does this mean? The interpretation is ambiguous. If you think deer densities should correlate with deer crashes, you would probably be suspect of the crash estimates, the deer population estimates, or both.
But DNR Spokesperson Kieth Warnke denied the connection between less deer and less car deer crashes."I don't think they reflect a magnitude of change in deer population state wide." Warnke does not deny the numbers in the study. But The DNR and DOT say there could be other factors involved. They give examples such as the bad economy is keeping many drivers off the roads and that may be responsible for the lower numbers.
I don't think Keith is correct here, either. His reasoning is correct, but he seems to exclude fewer deer as an explanation. The ideal approach to estimating population trends should incorporate all sources of data, but of course that is easier said than done.
In the final analysis, the exact number of deer does not really matter. If you are a hunter, what matters is seeing a deer during deer season. If you are a driver, what matters is not colliding with deer. Actual population estimates are nothing more than a tool to help population managers do their job. By this measure, the current SAK model, with all its flaws, does a reasonable job. That is not to say the DNR cannot do better. However, I think this latest salvo from the disgruntled deer hunters association has missed its target.
Source: NBC26
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
