WISCONSIN OPINION: Perils of Suspending Earn-A-Buck

Another great column by Pat Durkin. Money quote: "When fishing, we don’t anchor in the same place daily and demand the DNR put walleyes or bluegills under our boats."

Many smart, concerned deer hunters are pleased the Department of Natural Resources suspended Earn-a-Buck rules for two-thirds of Wisconsin, but the DNR can’t expect them to suggest new ways to control deer where they exceed herd goals.

The trouble is, many hunters don’t want to control deer numbers. They want to raise the goals to match the herd’s current size, even though herds in half the state are at least 40 percent higher than goals set in state codes.

Let’s remember these goals aren’t designed to equal last year’s kill or previous record kills. They’re based on biological and sociological factors discussed in public forums, and approved by citizens in the Wisconsin Conservation Congress.

If DNR biologists have any professional integrity, they won’t raise the goals to achieve temporary peace. Besides, let’s not forget that herds in roughly 25 percent of the state were below goal last fall, yet we killed 453,480 deer.

Yep, even when handicapping one-fourth of Wisconsin, we killed 0.453 million deer. We must have had lots of deer somewhere, huh? Not only was that the No. 10 kill in state history, it ranks No. 33 in our nation’s history, according to the “2009 Deer Hunters’ Almanac.”

Of the five states on that list, Wisconsin has 10 kills exceeding 453,000 (all since 1995); Michigan, eight; Texas, eight; Pennsylvania, 4; and Alabama, three. Further, only Wisconsin requires hunters to register their kills. The others estimated their kills with surveys, voluntary registration and check-point data.

And yet the Democrat-controlled Legislature held three hearings to force the DNR to abandon its legislative mandate to manage herds in accordance with state code. If legislators have a better system than earn-a-buck, which requires hunters to first shoot a doe or fawn before targeting bucks, let’s hear it.

The fact is, many people don’t like EAB because it works. It shoves the herd closer to state-mandated goals, and it’s only used when lesser efforts fail. By attacking EAB, they ignore bigger problems facing the herd.

Meanwhile, legislators covered for the Conservation Congress, which demands the DNR improve its deer estimates while refusing aid. For instance, a 2006 audit suggested the DNR could improve the estimates by consolidating many of its 130 deer management units and conducting radio-telemetry studies.

Congress Chairman Ed Harvey dismissed the idea. Writing in the August 2008 “Conservation Chronicle,” he said, “We need to be careful about how far we’re willing to go for the sake of more accurate average deer density numbers.”

What about radio-telemetry? At the Congress’s annual hearings in April 2008, voters rejected a $1 deer stamp to fund those studies, 4,097-1,433. End of discussion.

Lawmakers also haven’t focused on areas with deer shortages, maybe because EAB wasn’t used there in 2007 or 2008. Nor did they suggest the DNR assess deer habitat by region, and consider how its declining quality affects predation and winter losses.

That’s puzzling because habitat conservation is the mission driving Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Ruffed Grouse Society and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Why emphasize habitat for all those critters and ignore it for deer?

Think about it. When fishing, we don’t anchor in the same place daily and demand the DNR put walleyes or bluegills under our boats. Yet many folks sit in heated towers, watch woodlots mature into pole timber with no underbrush, and blame the DNR when deer find better turf.

And consider Lake Michigan: When its forage base shrank and salmon grew lean, the DNR stocked fewer fish. Yet when weak or injured deer died in central Wisconsin the past two winters when heavy snows put farmers’ plants and spillage out of reach, few blamed the deaths on overbrowsed woodlots. No, they demand the DNR increase deer goals, even though it would further damage habitat and endanger more deer.

If we truly wish our children to enjoy deer hunting far into the future -- a plea we invoke often – we would deem quality habitat as vital to whitetails as clean water is to walleyes.

The Department of Natural Resources has suspended its Earn-A-Buck program and hopes hunters will suggest new ways to control deer when their numbers remain above goals set in state code.

Source: Wisconsin State Journal

VIRGINIA NEWS: Record Deer Harvest in 2008

A record 253,678 deer were checked in by hunters in Virginia in 2008, topping 242,792 deer reported killed last year and 16 percent higher than the average of 212,780 deer killed by hunters over the last decade. This number should go even higher once deer taken during the late urban archery or special late antlerless-only deer seasons are tabulated.

Deer take is up in all regions and especially higher in the Tidewater, which notched an 8 percent increase. Overall, 111,863 antlered bucks, 22,291 button bucks and 119,524 does were recorded. Does made up 47.3 percent of the overall harvest.

The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries provided a breakout of the deer kill by season. Archers, not including crossbow hunters, killed 17,881 deer, or 7 percent of the total. Crossbow hunters took 9,597 deer or 4 percent of the total. Muzzleloader hunters killed 57,038 deer, which equates to 22 percent of the total deer harvest.

The telephone and Internet checking systems have been seeing about a 4 percent increase in use since 2004-05, and this past season saw 160,000 deer (or 63 percent of the total) checked this way.

Virginia's deer management plan emphasizes taking does as a means of stabilizing herd populations. Female deer kill numbers have been at record levels for the past six years and, for the past two deer seasons, the overall harvest increases have come from antlerless deer.

Beyond having liberal antlerless bag limits and emphasizing the need for doe harvest, programs such as the "Earn a Buck" regulation require hunters to kill antlerless deer before taking an antlered buck in some localities. Below is a table depicting harvest trends in the Fredericksburg region.

Source: Fredericksburg.com

WISCONSIN OPINION: The Science Says "Stop Baiting and Feeding"

It’s rarely a good idea to feed a wild animal, but it’s an especially bad idea to feed a wild deer.

That notion has gotten through to Wisconsin sportsmen. Now, it needs to get through to the state Legislature.

Last week, Wisconsin sportsmen vote, 54-46 percent, to ban the feeding and baiting of deer statewide. Baiting and feeding is already illegal in the 26 southern Wisconsin counties nearest to the 2002 outbreak of Chronic Wasting Disease.

The research is clear that baiting and feeding artificially concentrate deer and facilitate the spread of CWD and other diseases. Since deer, unlike bears, often move in groups, they feed together at the same locations. Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Biologist Ron Lichtie compares bait and feed piles to human beings at a buffet eating off the same plate.

Baiting also interferes with the normal deer hunt. Research shows:

* Feeding of deer increases reproduction and survival, which makes traditional herd control methods less effective and increases the need for earn-a-buck and October hunting seasons.

* Baiting and feeding cause deer to go nocturnal and concentrate deer on refuges, which makes a successful hunting experience more difficult.

* Baiting and feeding concentrate deer on private property -- especially parcels with the most bait -- and hinder opportunities for sportsmen who rely on public hunting lands.

But if you’re not inclined to believe the DNR, then perhaps you’ll believe the Wisconsin Farm Bureau. It raised the spectre of bovine tuberculosis, which has already been identified in Michigan and Minnesota, and the real possibility that the artificial concentration of deer threatens domestic livestock. The loss of Wisconsin’s TB-free status would cost state farmers nearly $2 million annually in additional testing costs.

Sportsmen and farmers have spoken up, but only the state Legislature can enact a baiting and feeding ban. It’s time for area lawmakers -- state Sens. Kathleen Vinehout (D-Alma), Dan Kapanke (R-La Crosse) and Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center), and state Reps. Terry Musser (R-Black River Falls), Sheryl Albers (R-Reedsburg) and Lee Nerison (R-Westby)-- to take a visible leadership role on this issue. The science is indisputable, and it should trump politics.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/5xvuzc

WISCONSIN OPINION: October Deer Hunt is Back

Pat Durkin's latest column:

Now that Wisconsin again will offer an October gun season for antlerless deer — our second-most popular hunt when held statewide in recent years — critics say the state Department of Natural Resources is ignoring its customers.

Let's pause for those who seldom follow deer hunting's inner debates.

OK, you guys. Let's concede the lead paragraph is a contradiction that makes no sense. But critics believe hunters hate this early season, even though harvest data shows the four-day hunt trailed only the traditional November season for participation.

Got it? OK. Let's continue.

To make this hunt even more popular, the DNR will move it to Oct. 16-19. Previous October gun hunts were closer to Halloween, which overlapped bowhunting's prime time.

Readers might recall why the agency canceled these hunts in 2006 and 2007: A stakeholders committee, which included all state deer hunting groups, wanted to show the DNR we didn't need October gun hunts to reduce deer numbers.

The committee voted in July 2005 to try these tools instead during the two-year experiment: extra free antlerless tags, a statewide December antlerless gun-hunt, a longer archery season and a two-day October youth hunt.

The experiment included this benchmark: Hunters must achieve a two-year antlerless-to-buck harvest ratio of 2-to-1, or the October season would return in 2008.

The results are in, and only the Central Forest region met the 2-to-1 ratio. Well, technically, it didn't, but the DNR figured a 1.95-to-1 ratio was good enough for the government. (Remember, the DNR ignores its customers.) Therefore, the five deer-management units in this small area won't have an October gun hunt.

The antlerless-to-buck ratios averaged 1.6- to 1.75-to-1 in the other four DNR districts. If not for widespread earn-a-buck regulations, which hunting groups opposed, those averages would have been worse. The ratio was 1.2-to-1 for deer units without free antlerless tags, 1.7-to-1 for areas with unlimited free tags and 3-to-1 for earn-a-buck areas.

Further, in CWD (chronic wasting disease) zones, the ratio was 2.8-to-1 with earn-a-buck and 1.2-to-1 without it. This, despite hunters' promises to shoot more does and fawns if the DNR dropped earn-a-buck regulations in 2006.

It did, and they didn't. Lesson learned.

An objective person would agree hunters failed to meet goals set by their representatives. But objectivity is irrelevant in deer hunting. This is Ford vs. Chevy, Packers vs. Vikings, Gordon vs. Earnhardt.

That's why seven of 18 members on the Wisconsin Conservation Congress'big-game committee voted Saturday to reject the DNR's proposed 2008 deer regulations during a meeting at the Mead Wildlife Area near Milladore.

Before voting, they reviewed a lot of DNR data without dispute. For instance, the 2007 harvest showed a combined gun-archery kill of 518,573, Wisconsin's second-highest kill on record. The archery kill, 116,042, was a record.

They even heard appeals to their integrity from fellow committee members, reminding them that their representatives approved the 2006-07 experiment.

Ken Anderson of Eagle River said: "I don't enjoy someone saying the October hunt is being shoved down our throat. We had two years of warning. You guys all agreed to it; 2-to-1 was the ratio. We didn't get it done. Now you want to go back on what we agreed to?"

The opposition's response: The DNR shouldn't bully them. Hunter harmony and customer satisfaction would improve if the DNR dropped the October gun hunt.

It's odd that professed businessmen in the group made that argument. Whether it's the DNR, Wal-Mart or Joe's Tavern, few can define — and none can measure — customer satisfaction.

In deer hunting, we can't even link it to success. Some hunters weren't happy in 1971 when archers and gun-hunters combined to kill 77,357 deer. Judging by today's malcontents, a kill of nearly 520,000 deer didn't make hunters seven times happier than 37 years ago.

This much is certain: The big-game committee's majority realized that sacrificing October's gun season would not satisfy such a crowd.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/yrkfq6

IOWA NEWS: Deer Population Up, Deer Harvest Down

ORAN --- Sometimes you just can't beat Mother Nature.

Ice storms, cold and snow kept many hunters inside instead of stalking deer in December. Initial state estimates indicated the deer harvest was down about 34,000 after the first two shotgun seasons --- when the vast majority of deer are killed --- compared to last year at the same time.

Last year hunters killed a little more than 150,000 does and bucks. State officials hoped to match or exceed that number this year to keep the state's burgeoning deer herd in check.

Alarmed by the shortfall, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources enticed people back into the woods by extending certain hunting seasons and creating new ones so hunters could fill unused tags. The additional hunting time also was intended to help lockers that rely on processing the animals for income.

As numbers were updated and more kills reported, the harvest is still down but not as drastically as once thought. Willy Suchy, DNR wildlife research supervisor, estimates the harvest will be several thousand less than last year once all the deer hunting seasons end Jan. 27.

"The harvest is not where we wanted, but it's in the margin (of acceptability)," Suchy said.

Suchy said studies show Iowans believe a deer herd of about 300,000 is manageable. It's not that deer wouldn't have enough to eat or be more susceptible to disease if the herd was larger, but people believe that size is tolerable from the standpoint of property damage, he said.

The DNR estimates the deer population was about 370,000 after the last hunting season. Suchy said expanded hunting was needed to keep working toward the herd-size goal.

"Hunters are doing a pretty good job managing the deer population, passing on smaller bucks and taking does," Suchy said.

For some lockers that count on deer processing for a significant portion of their yearly revenue, the reduced harvest isn't good news. While some processors say numbers are as good or better than last year, that's not the case for many others.

Normally the locker in Oran is swamped this time of year with more than 900 deer, bringing in more than $120,000. Employees work overtime, just so customers can get their meat back in a few months.

This year, manager Todd Briddle said the deer count is down about 300 to 350 head. The pace is slower, revenue is lower, and customers are getting meat back in a matter of weeks.

"I'm not the only one hurting. I think a lot of lockers didn't get what they want," Briddle said.

From what Briddle can gather talking with customers and hunting himself, the weather played a significant factor. October hunting wasn't as successful, because rain pushed back harvest a little, and deer were feasting on corn and not in the timber. Then, harsh winter conditions hit.

"We got the weather, and it just killed us," Briddle said. "The state did it (extended hunting seasons) for a reason."

Tony Harford, owner of the locker in Wadena, said last year he processed about 500 deer. As of the last of December, the count was a little more than 400.

With three weeks left before deer hunting is done, Harford is optimistic more will come in, but there are no guarantees.

"I definitely count on deer. If you're down 100 deer, that's $10,000 down," he said.

On the bright side, Harford said labor expenses will go down if deer numbers remain behind last year, though that's not how he would like to save money.

At the opposite side of the spectrum, the locker in Edgewood is as busy as ever. As of the last of December, co-owner Terry Kearn said he had accepted about 200 more deer than last year, when the business processed 3,400.

Kearn said deer accounts for 30 percent of his revenue.

"Absolutely, no doubt, for most lockers deer is a pretty big part of their business," Kearn said. "I do think the kill is down, but I hope we're up (due to) what we do."

Source:
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/01/07/news/top_story/1d1fe4d84c4add87862573c9004c7f35.txt

OPINION: Sport Hunting Losing Efficacy

The state's annual November deer hunt, which is the primary method that the Department of Natural Resources uses to reduce the number of deer in the state, begins in another 10 days.

But in recent years, the DNR and many observers have realized that the hunt is not reducing deer populations adequately.

Tom Givnish, Henry Allan Gleason professor of Botany at UW-Madison and a member of the Chronic Wasting Disease Stakeholders Advisory Committee established by the DNR, says he is concerned that recreational hunting can no longer control the deer herd in Wisconsin.

A native of Pennsylvania who previously taught at Harvard before coming to UW 27 years ago, Givnish says that deer densities are much higher than they should be and as a consequence researchers have documented adverse effects on natural communities.

Deer are hindering the establishment of several tree species, such as yellow birch and hemlock, and driving to local extinction dozens of herbaceous species and shrubs.

"It is clear that our forests are much less diverse now than they were 50 years ago," Givnish said.

Because people have eliminated predators, such as wolves and bears, in southern Wisconsin, society relies on hunters to control deer densities.

"There is a social contract between hunters and the rest of society, because deer are owned by the state for all of us," Givnish said. "Hunters are allowed to harvest deer and in exchange the expectation is they will help manage deer so they don't have an adverse impact on the ecosystem. That hasn't worked out in recent decades in Wisconsin or in the eastern U.S."

Givnish points out that this wasn't always the case, as toward the end of the 19th Century people virtually drove deer to extinction in many areas. Conservationists realized that harvest restrictions were necessary.

Those restrictions, including shortening seasons and limiting the way deer could be hunted, worked and populations increased.

"But today we find ourselves hip-deep with deer and they are causing enormous ecological damage, interfering with tree reproduction, eliminating shrubs, there are high numbers of car/deer accidents affecting insurance rates, and they are a reservoir for Lyme disease," Givnish said.

He attributes this to the fact that the country has had a cultural change since the 1930s. The country is richer so the need for wild meat is not as great, and cultural changes mean that older hunters haven't convinced their youngsters to take up hunting.

"The DNR and the hunters have failed to control the deer herd," he said. "Deer have a very high rate of reproduction, sometimes dropping two fawns in their first year. When the deer population and density is high with a limited number of hunters, they escape control, which has happened."

The DNR and hunters are hunting with regulations and an "ethos" that were right in the 1930s and '40s, but are not the right thing now, he said.
"Back then it was right that you don't kill female deer and fawns, they were the future of the herd," he said. "But today the only way to control the deer herd is to shoot female and young deer. It is paradoxical that a system that involves forests, deer and humans, the intelligent part of that system is lagging in response."
In fairness, he notes that the regulations are changing, but there is resistance to things such as the Earn-a-Buck rule that requires hunters to shoot an antlerless deer before they can shoot a buck.

Rather than the traditional views on regulations and deer management, he believes there must be a place for minority and rational views.
Despite the DNR's best intentions, deer populations have not been reduced. But he said the DNR operates under the old rules and ethos, and hunters are currently not able to reduce damage to the environment.

"I would recommend reexamining some of the assumptions behind hunting regulations," he said. "I would greatly lengthen the hunting season, and in some extreme areas we should consider hunting with dogs, using bait, and hunting at night."
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits that and the situation has changed from decades ago.

Givnish, who is not a hunter but says that he is not an animal rightist and has no problems with hunting and thinks it is wonderful because it gets people outdoors, said he does not know how to recruit more hunters but so far those efforts have not brought out a substantial increase in hunter numbers.

He thinks that many people believe that ethics are timeless, but he believes current
ethics were good under different circumstances. They are learned and they can change with circumstances.

The solution, Givnish says, is to either increase the number of hunters or to increase the efficiency of the hunt.

Source: http://www.madison.com/tct/sports/255520

MAINE NEWS: Combatting Deer Overpopulation in Maine Wildlife Park

Oh, deer!

The four whitetail bucks at the Maine Wildlife Park in Gray may get vasectomies to keep the population in check, and not everyone is happy about it.

Friends of Maine Wildlife Park, a group of park volunteers, say sterilizing the bucks would permanently prevent the park's does from having fawns, meaning the public would not be able to watch does care for their young.

But Lisa Kane, who supervises the wildlife park for the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, said allowing overcrowding in the deer pen does not teach the public about responsible game management.

The park, which treats injured wildlife for eventual release, currently has 20 deer in a three-acre enclosure at the park. Animals that can't be released are kept to educate the public about wildlife.

"The mission of the park is to house unreleasable wildlife for the public to learn from and enjoy," Kane said. "The mission of the park is not to breed animals in captivity, particularly whitetail deer."

Joe Jones, president of the park friends group, agrees that 20 deer is excessive, but he worries about the impact of the change on the public.

"I am upset because people love to see the babies. That is the biggest reason they come to the park, to see the babies," Jones said. "If they had done the proper thing, reduced the herd early last spring, they wouldn't have any problems."

Kane said there will always be fawns at the park, because orphaned fawns end up there virtually every spring.

In the past, the park has tranquilized and moved year-old deer to the wild, but park officials say this is not the most humane approach to thinning the herd. Park Superintendent Curtis Johnson said the method is expensive, time-consuming and does not guarantee the survival of the released deer.

"Darting animals is not a precise science. It never produces the same result," Johnson said. "I think it is better to go with a one- time technique."

A vasectomy does not affect a buck's ability to go through typical mating behavior, a fall ritual that the public does not view because the park is closed.

Vasectomies are a common practice for controlling deer numbers at many zoos, said wildlife department veterinarian Russell Danner.

"It's one possibility. The Milwaukee County Zoo had used vasectomies for 10 years, and it worked quite successfully," Danner said.

If newborn fawns are needed to fill out the herd in the future, the sterilizations would not be a problem because a doe can produce two fawns, and a doe several months old is capable of breeding, he said.

The department is also considering a vaccine for does that would prevent their eggs from fertilizing. Danner said that vaccination would be needed once a year.

Although Kane said the cost of vasectomies was not prohibitive, Johnson and Danner both said it could be.

"There is the cost of the anesthesia, and if a surgeon is going to charge or volunteer their time," Danner said. "I want to find the person most skilled who is willing to do the job. That may or may not be me. My job is as a fish pathologist. Maybe there is someone more qualified."

Danner said the cost could be as low as $200 per animal, but Johnson said vasectomies for the four bucks could cost a few thousand dollars, depending on the fee.

The park's annual budget is about $500,000, and its revenue comes from gate fees and interest accrued from a dedicated fund, Johnson said.

Simply feeding the 20 whitetail deer in the park now costs several thousand dollars a year, because of the cost of grain that is used to supplement the browse that has been depleted by the herd, he said.

The decision on vasectomies has to be made by fall, Kane said.

Danner doesn't want to rush it.

"That wildlife park has been around for 50 years," he said.

source: http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=130944&ac=PHnws

WISCONSIN NEWS: Deer population at 1.7 million

By Jim Mense, Outdoor Columnist, Dunn County News

Wisconsin’s white-tailed deer population is projected to be 1.5 to 1.7 million this fall, which figures to be 12 percent higher than last fall. According to Keith Warnke, big game ecologist for the DNR, that projection is well above established population goals, but better than biologists expected or ever hoped for. Given the limited herd control seasons last year and the extremely mild winter in northern Wisconsin, hunters did a fine job limiting projected herd growth to 12 percent. But, he continued, you can see by the amount of herd control and earn-a-buck units this fall, of which 59B is a part, that hunters really need to step up to the plate this fall and harvest antlerless deer to keep the deep population within the carrying capacity of the land and reducing crop and garden depredation. And last but not least, vehicular collisions.

No four-Day October Hunt

Hunters are reminded there is a not 4-day October antlerless gun hunt. A moratorium on October gun hunting of deer will be implemented on a two-year trial basis with an option to reinstate the October antlerless hunt after one year if deer harvests in herd control units such as 59B, drops below a 1.4 to 1 antlerless to buck ratio. The October herd control hunt, we know as the Zone T hunt was effective at reducing deer populations. But, according to Warnke, it was unpopular with hunters who felt that it interfered with the very best time for archery deer hunting. Not only bow hunting but pheasant, grouse, turkey and even waterfowl hunting.

Warnke is asking hunters to harvest two anterlerless deer for every antlered buck. If that is accomplished, it has the potential to resolve some of the conflict in deer management. What to do with multiple deer carcasses? Can you think of an easier way to help feed the hungry among us? The Dunn County Fish & Game Club will again be coordinating the program along with area food pantries, meat processors and the DNR that will be happy to accept every deer you harvest if you want it that way. You shoot it, and hungry folks will be happy to eat it.

MICHIGAN OPINION: Sometimes Aggressive Deer Management Necessary

Bruce Bischoff, Outdoor Columnist for the Record-Eagle (northern LP) writes:

It took exactly one night last week for the deer to discover my dad's tomato seedlings and nip them in the bud.

He didn't have his electric fence up because last year he didn't have any trouble with deer, and because local folklore insisted that there weren't any deer in our area any more after years of liberal doe permits and other DNR mismanagement.

Based on personal observations and conversations with adjoining landowners, I wasn't so sure. And sure enough, after last hunting season, the deer slowly began to come out of the woodwork — not as many, perhaps, as there were 20 years ago, but enough to continue the species.

But another species came out in even more force than whitetails over the winter: hunterrus irateus. Petitions demanding that the DNR do something to build the deer herd back up sprouted in nearly every convenience store. Sportsmen's club meetings got heated. "We want our deer back," was the angry refrain.

It's true that deer populations and harvests have been down in the northern Lower Peninsula for the last couple of years. It's a management campaign that was undertaken for several reasons — to severely cull the herd in the bovine TB-infested areas, to bring the herd more into line with the carrying capacity of the range, and to attempt to modify the extremely lopsided buck-doe ratio of years past. Others might say it was a reaction to political pressure from agricultural interests and auto insurers. Or it might be all of the above.

The DNR's first step to address bovine TB — eliminating baiting — raised a firestorm of protest from hunters and retailers throughout the north, and under heavy political pressure was scaled back to the point of being almost irrelevant.

If there's one thing I've learned from a lifetime of hunting in northern Michigan, it's that pretty much anybody with a blaze orange hat considers himself a game manager of far greater skill and insight than your average professional wildlife biologist. If there's a problem, real or perceived, they have the answer, and they're certain about it. Very certain.

I'll admit I was a bit leery of the changes several years ago, but as they took hold my hunting actually got better. I didn't see as many deer, but I saw more bucks and actually harvested a couple of decent ones. So I hunted patiently and didn't complain.

But apparently a lot of hunters are in a complaining mood now. To address the issue, the DNR is holding meetings with hunters like one scheduled at West Branch this Saturday to outline proposed reductions in doe permits.

Now, I'll admit that doe permits have gotten out of hand at times. Nobody really needs one tag per day.

But I'm not to keen on going back to the days when I would see a dozen or 15 deer every day of the season and never a single set of horns. There were simply so many does available that the bucks didn't need to move around to find them.

There's no question that does need to be managed along with bucks to maintain a healthy herd. The problem is coming to a consensus that everyone can live with.

If it were my choice, the major change I'd make to deer regulations would be the elimination of the second buck license. Hunters who know they only have one shot are going to think twice before taking a small buck. I think a lot of spikes and forks would survive the season and have a chance to grow into decent bucks in the second year.

Or how about a two-tag license, one buck and one doe, where appropriate? Or even a license like a scratch-off lottery ticket, where you might get either a buck tag or a doe tag? Indulge me; I've got a blaze orange hat, too.

For many years I thought of the balance of nature as kind of a finely tuned gyroscope just humming along with no need or intervention or correction from us puny humans. But in recent years I've become convinced that it's a lot more like a teeter-totter, with the weight of species frequently sliding from one end to the other, and we may have to apply a light, judicious hand now and then.

PENNSYLVANIA PERSPECTIVES: Too many or too few deer?

from www.publicopiniononline.com - Chambersburg PA

Hunters: There are fewer deer in area woods

We recently asked hunters who read Public Opinion whether they're seeing fewer deer in the woods. Yes, they are! We heard from so many hunters that we'll be publishing more comments later in the week.

They shared their thoughts on why there are fewer deer and offered suggestions for making hunting more enjoyable.

Despite fewer deer, I enjoy hunting

George Naugle, St. Thomas: There is no question there are fewer deer in the places I hunt. It is also not rocket science why the numbers are down. One needs only to look at the harvest figures published by the Pennsylvania Game Commission for the years from 2000 through 2004 to find out why.

In 2000, we harvested 504,600 deer in Pennsylvania. This was followed by a harvest of 486,014 in 2001, 517,529 in 2002, 464,890 in 2003 and another 409,320 in 2004.
This is a tremendous number of deer. We hunters were also being encouraged to take mature does and to avoid taking button bucks during those years. Mature does give birth to twin fawns, occasionally triplets. Taking them out of the herd reduces the number of fawns being born at the same time it reduces the overall herd. In my opinion, this was necessary to bring a ratio of does to bucks more in line with what it should be.

While the number of deer I am seeing has been reduced, I will not agree that the population is "unhuntable." During the past year while hunting exclusively on state gamelands, I saw less than 30 deer during the two-week rifle season. That is still enough for me to take as many deer as I had tags for, one of which was a nice, fat, eight-point buck. I hunted 10 out of the 12 days of the 2005 rifle season. ...

I enjoy every minute of my hunting, whether I am seeing deer or not. It sure beats work. Getting out in the woods for a few days or hours is its own reward to me. I think that if you absolutely must take a deer in order to have had fun, you are missing the point of hunting. It is not the same as shopping. Actually with the lower populations of deer, hunting is more rewarding than it used to be.

Have we reduced the population enough? If the goal was to bring the doe-to-buck ratio more in line, I think we did. Of the 30 or so deer I saw last rifle season, eight were bucks and six would have been legal to shoot. I have hunted many years out of my 52 years of hunting (I am 64) in which I saw a hundred or more deer and not one legal buck. In this sense, hunting is better than it ever has been, and I find myself in agreement with the (April 3) article written by Ben Moyer and Bryon Shissler.

We hunters do have to adjust our expectations and hunt smarter. I would prefer to see one nice rack buck any day rather than 20 does and fawns, but that is the type of hunter I am. I am also seeing signs of the damage that was done by too many deer for too many years being repaired. There used to be a browse line in the woods I hunt. Browse is the primary food deer eat during the winter months. The browse line is disappearing, and I see underbrush and sprout growth where I haven't seen such in years.

I believe we need to keep populations low for a few more years but not reduce them any more than we have. When we have healthy forests, we can allow more deer to inhabit them.

There are those who will state that they hunted hard and saw no deer this past season. As I said previously, I hunted 10 out of the 12 days during rifle season. I saw four other hunters in the woods during all of that time. Again, I hunt exclusively on state game lands. Where are they all hunting? Here is a hint for them. I had to drag the deer I killed half a mile or more to get them back to my cabin. Since I hunt high on the mountain, it is mostly downhill. You can't get there without walking some.

Hunters kill too many female deer

Larry Highlands, Shippensburg: In recent years I have noticed fewer deer in the field. I think the reason is because of the doe license allocations and the bonus license. When you kill a doe you are killing two or maybe three deer.
To me, after many years of hunting, I always find it enjoyable. I think there needs to be some compromise between hunters and officials. I certainly hope each side uses some common sense.

Last year was worst hunting year ever

Todd Shuman, Newburg: I've been hunting in Pennsylvania for 23 years, and the 2005 deer season was the worst season for seeing deer or signs of deer.
I hunted the entire first week from our cabin in Franklin County, in the pouring rain, fog, wind, etc. I did not see a deer until the first Saturday.

I am also an avid archery hunter. During the entire month and half of archery, I saw four different bucks and only one was legal to take.

My opinion is the slaughtering of the doe and button bucks is the main reason for the drastic reduction in deer in the 4B management unit, and statewide. The Pennsylvania Game Commission divided the state into different management units, but are still hunting the state with the same rules and regulations state-wide.

Each unit should be looked upon as such. Our deer per hunter ratio in 4B cannot compare to the areas surrounding Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. So why do we hunt by the same set of rules? If the state passes the license increase this year, it will be crippling to the PGC. I for one will be hunting out of state.

Many hunters are frustrated in Pa.

Chuck Bowers, Shippensburg: I see fewer deer since the Pennsylvania Game Commission started harvesting does in the past three years, starting in archery season up to the late muzzle-loader season.
I was heading back to my truck at 1 p.m. the first day of buck season. I was sitting in the rain not seeing any deer, hardly any shooting, if any. I just couldn't take it any more.

I hunt on the Upper Strasburg Mountain on state game land. I always got something in the area I hunt. Not this year; I got zip. Now the Game Commission is going to increase the hunting license fee and, to top it off, I understand there will be a $20 fee for hunting, hiking, picnicking or anything else you might do on state land.

I heard some guys say they won't pay all that money for a hunting license or a fee to step on state game land. They'll just hunt without one. People are really upset over hearing all this. ...

... Why don't they bring it back the way it was? To get it back the way it was they would have to stop killing does for a year or two.

I've been to the Sportsman's Show in Harrisburg, telling the Game Commission there what I think of their hunting regulations. They don't want to hear it. Now I will say, from what I understand, there are a lot of deer around the Pittsburgh area and Philadelphia areas. All I know is that there are hardly any deer around here.

A lot of guys are getting into coyote hunting. I believe there's more of them than deer. I killed one two years ago. ... They are really smart animals. I also saw a mountain lion about eight years ago. Yes, a mountain lion.

Spring turkey hunting starts the end of April. Other surrounding states bring it in earlier. By the time the season gets here the turkeys are call-shy. That's from people out now calling them and hunting them. Where is the Game Commission now?

If they want to make some extra money, they should get in the woods now and listen to the gunshots in the mountain, because there is outlaw killing going on as we speak.

I think I'm going to do like a lot of other guys are doing and start hunting out of state.

Hunter disagrees with commission

Walter Sheely: Chambersburg: There are fewer deer. What would you expect when hunters are allowed to kill doe during the two weeks of buck season? The Game Commission has caved in to the insurance companies to reduce the deer herds. Now it (the commission) is complaining about the decrease in the sale of hunting licenses. Its answer is to increase the fee for hunting licenses.
It ... is going to take many more years to win back the hunters and the future hunters that (the commission) lost. Deer hunting is the main reason many hunters buy hunting licenses.

Consider changing hunting methods

Randy Wilson, Fayetteville: I enjoyed reading the "Hunters should alter their expectations" article on April 3 and agreed with several points.
It is probably easy for me to do so because of the deer hunting experience I gained while growing up in St. Lawrence County, New York, just south of the New York/Canada border.

During the two years I deer hunted, before joining the military and moving away, I recall hunting with my Dad all day just to find a single fresh deer track in the snow. Stillhunting and putting on drives was the common method of hunting at that time. Fast forward about 13 years and the deer population skyrocketed in the same location. Once that happened, my dad and I (when I went home on leave) would more often sit on stands and wait for the deer to come to us.

However, we continued to stillhunt some, primarily so I could learn more about the 40,000 acres of woods that my Dad has been hunting since he was old enough to do so. During the last couple of years we hunted together, we have gone more to the stillhunting method, and less hunting on stands, because the deer aren't as plentiful now.

How does all that relate to Pennsylvania? I moved to Fayetteville in July 2004 and have enjoyed two deer seasons here. While I wasn't able to spend as much time in the woods as I would like, I did enjoy success during both seasons through a combination of stillhunting and sitting on a stand.

I can't say how the present deer numbers compare to those in the past, but I can say that on many of the days, I did see deer.

Of the deer I saw, I could have shot a few of them. For me, the enjoyment is trying to match wits with the deer while learning about Michaux State Forest. To be successful, I changed my hunting habits along the way. If the stand hunting wasn't working, I tried the stillhunting. If the stillhunting wasn't working, I tried the stand hunting. We need to alter our expectations as well as our hunting methods to be successful.



Originally published April 10, 2006

NEW YORK NEWS: Antler Restrictions Controversial

J. MICHAEL KELLY
OUTDOORS WRITER, syracuse.com

The debate over deer-hunting antler restrictions is so fractious that the New York State Conservation Council has decided to play pollster on the issue.

Hunters throughout the state are being invited to fill out a two-page survey on deer management, with several questions directly related to minimum antler criteria. According to council President Harold L. Palmer, the organization has no intention of taking a stand on the issue, but is merely doing a little research to learn what its constituents are thinking.

In this case, neutrality is probably the best policy.

An umbrella organization which lobbies in Albany on behalf of an estimated 300,000 rod and gun club members, the Conservation Council generally tries to build a consensus from the grass roots up before it takes sides on contentious issues.

Antler restrictions, for the uninitiated, are any rules which prohibit hunters from killing a deer whose rack falls shy of a specified minimum standard, such as a certain number of points or a beam-to-beam spread that is wider than the gap between the tips of the ears.

The concept has gained a foothold in the Northeast in the past decade or so, first among hunting clubs and landowner associations and more recently in clusters of state-designated wildlife management units.

Last year, a minimum three points-on-one-beam rule took effect in two Ulster County WMUs, 3C and 3J; and units 3H and 3K in Sullivan County are expected to go the same route this fall.

Meanwhile, an ad hoc group of landowners and hunters in Central New York is trying to gain support for a minimum antler-width rule in WMUs 7F, 7J and 7H, here in the Syracuse area. Public meetings on that proposal will be held at 7 p.m. April 18 at the Auburn Bass Pro Shops store and at the same time April 19 at the state fairgrounds.

Advocates argue that barring the harvest of young, small-antlered bucks will assure that deer herds in the future have a higher percentage of older, larger bucks - in fact, more bucks of all ages. The end result would be a healthier whitetail population with a more natural age structure and a nearly even ratio of does to bucks.

Detractors fume at the prospect of having to hold fire on yearling bucks they would gladly have shot in the past, and worry that antler restrictions will curtail opportunities for hunters who have only a few days to go afield each season.

They're concerned, as well, that tighter rules on buck hunting will cause a reduction in big-game license sales or somehow accelerate a trend toward leasing of prime deer hunting acreage by individual hunters and clubs.

Finally, opponents of antler restrictions fear they'll incur heavy legal penalties for inadvertently killing a buck with a rack that's an inch too narrow or one point short.

The Conservation Council survey won't shed light on such hot-button issues, for it includes only general questions about the role of antler standards in deer management.

Survey respondents are asked to rate the importance of meat hunting versus trophy hunting, whether they favor antler regulations as a means to protect yearling bucks, if they support either point restrictions or minimum antler widths, and whether hunters should be limited to one buck each per year.