WISCONSIN NEWS: Deer Czar's Report Released

The long-awaited report is out.  All I can say is, "Really?  Really?"

Okay, it is not all bad.  The idea of creating a centralized deer management assistance program is a good one.  But between the obsession with wolves (Wisconsin's 6th or 7th leading source of deer mortality), the contradictory recommendations (Do away with population goals, but develop metrics to monitor progress towards population goals?), the empty platitudes (put the fun back into hunting!), to the recommendations involving how things have been done for the past 17 years (the impacts of deer depredation on agricultural crops, forest regeneration and biodiversity, deer/vehicle collisions, the special significance of deer to the Ojibwe people and other factors also must be considered in management of Wisconsin’s white-tailed deer resources), it is hard not to be underwhelmed.

We'll see how long this shiny new object holds the attention of deer hunters in the state.

A link to the report is here.

MINNESOTA NEWS: Hunting Areas Becoming "Overbuilt" on Public Lands

The presence of tree stands for deer hunting on public lands is not a new phenomenon.  However, the size and extent of these tree stands is growing out of control.

First, let's look at a trend in tree stands:

It’s not just a couple of boards slapped into a tree, but tree houses with stairways, decks, shingled roofs, commercial windows, insulation, propane heaters, carpeting, lounge chairs, tables and “even some with generators so they have electricity,” Krepps said.

One deer “stand” discovered on county land was a cabin 18 feet wide and 20 feet long. And, increasingly, some hunters are buying elaborate manufactured stands and leaving them in the woods all year.

When a stand is abandoned, much of it is left to rot in the forest. But plastic, metal, shingles and other materials aren’t biodegradable “and really leave a mess in the woods,” said Jason Meyer, who manages forests in the southern half of St. Louis County.

It crosses the line on what is appropriate for public lands.  These stands often have locks on the door. 

Next, let's look at the evolution of shooting lanes.  This used to entail cutting some branches or the occasional sapling to provide an unobstructed (and thus safer) area for shooting.  And now?

Some of those shooting lanes are more than 30 feet wide and up to 700 feet long. In one area of county land near state land, it’s estimated that a group of hunters had cleared more than six acres of forest combined for their 47 shooting lanes. “They are taking public land out of timber production and it’s adding up across the county,” Kailanen said. “The real impact of this may not be realized until 40 or 50 or 60 years from now, when those trees would have been harvested.”

Without all of that tree cover, what is to be done? Why not plant food plots to entice the deer to be closer to the tree stand?

In some areas, hunters have taken to clearing the forestland and planting clover and other farm crops to attract deer. While the ethics of food plots is hotly debated in the hunting community — some say it’s akin to baiting deer, which is illegal in Minnesota — county foresters say the plots are taking even more forestland out of production. Moreover, the seeds planted may not be just one crop, but may bring in invasive, non-native species that could damage the native forest and spread.

This all adds up to a pseudo-privatization of wildlife.  It involves constructing buildings and landscaping on lands people do not privately own to manipulate deer that are not "theirs" for the sole purpose of increasing their chances of having a successful hunt.  This is contentious enough within the community of deer hunters.  It amounts to another self-inflicted black eye in society at large.

Source: Duluth Tribune

WISCONSIN OPINION: I'm Sorry the Natural World Does Not Yield to Your Wishes

Another great column from Pat Durkin


Judging by their press releases on November's deer season, be prepared to pat the hands of state Sen. Russ Decker, D-Weston, and Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford, if you ever sit by them on an airplane bounced by turbulence.

If gentle reassurance doesn't stop their shrieking, suggest the flight attendant slap them.

Decker's hysterical demand on Dec. 3 to fire the state's top deer managers and Gundy's panicky call Dec. 4 to cancel December's four-day antlerless gun season show these lawmakers can't control their emotions.

"It is absolutely imperative the (Natural Resources) Board takes swift action to protect Wisconsin's deer heard (sic) from further harm that may take generations to recover from," Gundy declared.

The Board ignored him, and the low-impact season was held as scheduled. And what about Gundy's nonsense that deer might need "generations" to recover? Even if he meant deer generations, not human generations, he needs schooling in deer biology.

Researchers at Michigan's George Reserve twice showed deer herds capable of 50 percent annual growth. Starting with six whitetails in 1928, the reserve's herd boomed to 222 in seven years. And in 1975, after reducing the herd to 10 deer, most of which were fawns, researchers reported the herd at 212 after six breeding seasons.

But Gundy's outburst was nothing compared to that of Decker, majority leader of our Senate. Does that "D" in "D-Weston" after Decker's name stand for Democrat or Demagogue?

Granted, the DNR should stick to its harvest data and let others suggest wet, warm conditions and uncut corn helped lower the kill. By discussing factors beyond its control, the DNR sounds like it's making excuses.

Likewise, Decker shouldn't use his personal experience in Lincoln County to make statewide generalizations about hunting conditions.

"The swamps were pretty dry where our crew was hunting," he claimed. "We don't let a little water stop us from going after deer."

Bravo, sir! Give yourself another attaboy!

For the record, the National Agricultural Statistics Service reported 41 percent of the state's corn remained uncut because of wet soils as of Nov. 23 (the Monday of deer season). The five-year average is 19 percent uncut. That's a lot of extra hiding room.

The NASS also reported average temperatures were 7 to 11 degrees above normal during deer season, with average daily highs of 46 to 48 degrees. Research shows deer activity basically ceases in late autumn when temperatures hit 45 degrees.

But Decker went beyond weather with his pandering. He pleased barbershop biologists with this gem:

"The DNR has mismanaged the deer herd and a new team needs to be brought in that can do the job."

Unfortunately for Sen. Decker, the candidate pool appears thin. The Minnesota DNR reported a statewide kill of about 200,000 deer, the state's lowest figure in about 10 years. The agency also reported standing corn in 80 percent of Minnesota's fields.

Meanwhile, the Michigan DNR reported the deer kill fell 20 to 30 percent in the Upper Peninsula, 15 to 25 percent in the northern Lower Peninsula, and 5 to 10 percent in southern Michigan. Agency biologists said the main reasons for the slump were "unseasonably hot weather" during hunting season and harsh winter a year ago.

In addition, Michigan's corn harvest was 35 percent by Nov. 16, the second day of its 16-day season. "In an average year, it's 80 percent, " said Brent Rudolph, Michigan DNR deer program leader. "It's likely some deer never left the standing corn."

How about Illinois? Even though Illinois lacks northern forests and severe winters, its gun-hunters failed to kill 100,000 deer for the first time since 1999. The reasons cited? Warm weather and a 33 percent harvest of its corn crop.

Despite these declines in herd sizes and harvest figures across the Great Lakes, the bigger question remains: Why is anyone surprised?

The Wisconsin DNR issued a reminder before the season — Nov. 10, to be exact — that this year's deer kill would be lower than in 2008.

In addition, the mission of wildlife agencies isn't to match previous kills or produce records annually. Their task is to manage the herd to publicly approved biological and sociological goals. For much of the past three decades, that meant reducing herds.

That the Wisconsin DNR might finally be succeeding is hardly a firing offense. The same can't be said of Sen. Decker's childish tantrum.

Source: Green Bay Gazette

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

NEVADA NEWS: Fractal Stupidity in Deer Management

Fractal stupidity - exhibiting stupidity at every level of analysis.

State wildlife officials have announced a plan to kill more mountain lions to help increase the deer population, a move criticized by animal advocates who say drought and development are more important factors in the decrease of deer numbers.

The Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners told agency staff last week to employ the help of sport hunters and contract employees from the U.S. Agriculture Department's Wildlife Services for the state wildlife department's new "program of intensive, sustained predator reduction."

Ken Mayer, director of the Nevada Department of Wildlife, said his agency would use science to figure out the number of lions to be killed in areas where the predators have been found to adversely affect deer numbers.

"It's not an effort to exterminate mountain lions," Mayer said. "It's an effort to better manage lions with the prey base. Some hunters think the solution to the deer problem is to kill a lot of lions and the deer will come back."

The state's deer population fell from 240,000 in 1988 to 108,000 in 2008, while its current lion population ranges from 1,500 to 2,400, according to the wildlife department.

Nevada already allows lion hunts, each year issuing a quota of lion tags that a hunter can obtain. Commissioners set the quota at 306 tags for the year beginning March 1 and increased the number of tags allowed each hunter from two to three.

Lion advocates compared the new policy to the "Sarah Palin method of wildlife management," which wildlife biologist D.J. Schubert described as removing "animals with big teeth in order to promote the animals hunters like to shoot."

"It's an archaic form of wildlife management," said Schubert, of the Washington-based Animal Welfare Institute. "Unfortunately, they're making the mountain lion a scapegoat, despite the importance of the mountain lion as a top-line predator in any ecosystem."

Palin, Alaska's governor, supports a predator control program that allows private citizens with permits to shoot wolves from the air in an effort to reverse a decline in moose and caribou numbers.

Don Molde, a former board member of the Defenders of Wildlife and a member of the Humane Society of the United States, called the plans "nonsense."

"This is a nonscientific effort to kill an animal just because they don't like it," he said. "It's an irrational dislike of an animal that has every right to live here."

He said similar programs in Washington, Oregon and New Mexico were cut back because of unintended damage to lion numbers.

Wildlife commissioner Scott Raine of Eureka said no one was trying to eliminate the population of mountain lions. He cited studies that showed lions eat one "deer-size"
animal a week.

"We just want to bring them down to a reasonable number, a sustainable number. Otherwise, deer will continue to die off," said Raine, a hunter.

In 2007, hunters killed 145 lions and Wildlife Services killed 37 lions in the state.
Commission chairman Gerald Lent did not return phone calls seeking comment over the weekend.

Source: AP (Google Hosted)

OPINION: What's More Likely To Kill You, A Shark Or A Deer?

Are you more afraid of being killed by a shark or a deer? The answer may surprise you.

There are lots of deer-vehicle collisions every year. Here is some data on fatalities in the United States.

A new study reports that fatalities from vehicle crashes with deer and other animals have more than doubled in the last 15 years. The study cites the overlapping of urban sprawl into deer habitat as a primary reason.

The report by the Highway Loss Data Institute found that 223 people died in animal-vehicle crashes last year, up from 150 in 2000 and 101 in 1993.

Source: Waterfowl and Retriever

There are also about 10 deaths per year in the U.K. due to deer-vehicle collisions, and I do not have data for Canada, Western Europe, or New Zealand. How does this compare to death by shark?

According to the latest figures by the International Shark Attack File, there was only one fatal shark attack in 2007. It took place in New Caledonia in the South Pacific. The mean number of deaths between 2000 and 2007 was 5 a year.

In 2007, there were 50 shark attacks in U.S. waters, compared with 13 in Australia in the same year -- none were fatal.

The big difference between Florida and Australia is that the later has much bigger sharks and therefore more fatal attacks. From 1990 to 2007, Australia had 19 fatal attacks, Florida 4.

But there have only been a total of 56 fatal shark attacks in Australia in the past 50 years, or an average of about 1 a year, says the Australian Shark Attack File.

Source: Reuters

You are at least 46 times more likely to be killed by a deer than you are by a shark.

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

CONNECTICUT OPINION: Reducing Deer Population Key to Fighting Lyme Disease

Winston Churchill famously remarked to Franklin D. Roosevelt that Hitler's war ought to be called "The Unnecessary War" because responsible governments of the democracies could so easily have prevented it, had they acted in time. Connecticut's decades-old Lyme disease epidemic can be accurately called "The Unnecessary Epidemic" because it too could have been nipped in the bud.

From 1996 to 2006 there have been 29,000 reported cases of Lyme in Connecticut, the majority among children and many with tragic, long-term effects. A great many more cases go unreported or are misdiagnosed. A more realistic number of cases is estimated by some to be 29,000 every year.

The root cause of Connecticut's epidemic is an unnatural, environmentally destructive population explosion of deer. The deer are not infected with the disease themselves, but they feed, transport and disperse the deer ticks that pass it on to humans. Just one tick-infested deer can facilitate the delivery of about 1 million deer tick eggs that it scatters as it walks through our backyards, parks, playgrounds, meadows and playing fields. The eggs hatch and turn into ticks that then infect their victims.

Deer numbers have gone from an estimated 12 (yes, you read that correctly, 12) in 1896 to approximately 150,000 today. Neither this number, nor the resulting Lyme epidemic, needs to continue any longer. It started in Connecticut; it can end here.

What to do? Controlling the deer population, which means culling the herd, has ended Lyme epidemics in parts of three New England states — Great Island, a peninsula on Cape Cod; Monhegan Island in Maine; and Mumford Cove in Groton. No other method has reduced Lyme case numbers, either in New England or elsewhere.

When deer populations are reduced to around 10 per square mile, the deer ticks that spread Lyme and other diseases become locally extinct. It takes a lot of deer to keep the tick species reproducing successfully in an area. But when there are no ticks left, there is no Lyme disease.

Much of the work that led to this understanding was done here by the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, funded by the state. We now need a policy to let people know about this research and why it should lead to legislation to control the deer population.

The Connecticut Coalition to Eradicate Lyme Disease was recently formed for just this reason. It is supported by the Connecticut Audubon Society, the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, seven of Connecticut's Regional Councils of Government representing more than 70 towns, plus emergency physicians, pediatricians, Lyme disease task forces, veterinarians and many others.

But what may seem obvious to most people is not so to others. Some believe that ticks do not need large numbers of deer for survival, but can live just as well on other animals. Others claim that deer management only works on islands; or that it doesn't work at all and tick numbers go up instead of down when deer numbers decline.

Even more far-fetched is the notion that all the white-footed mice, mammals and songbirds in Connecticut would have to be killed to end Lyme disease. None of this is true. The towns that are now free of their epidemics liberated themselves by controlling deer numbers, nothing else. And the animals and birds are all thriving and do not sustain the deer tick populations.

According to a recent joint publication of the Connecticut Department of Public Health, Yale University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, current attempts at prevention of Lyme disease through personal protection such as inspecting one's body for ticks and using tick-killing chemicals on one's property were "not found to be an effective strategy to prevent Lyme disease." These measures failed to stop the growth or spread of the Lyme disease epidemic.

This is why we need a reliable source of information, promulgated by the state Department of Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control. We can then develop a strategy based upon the work of our research scientists with 25 years of experience in Connecticut.

As the good news and its implications become more widely known, the next steps should include a public airing of the alternatives that confront us: Do we act now to control deer numbers and the incidence of Lyme disease? Or do we let both continue to rise inexorably?

It is to be hoped that Gov. M. Jodi Rell and state legislators will lead new statewide efforts to bring an end to Lyme disease. House Bill 5852, sponsored by the Environment Committee, is currently under review in Hartford to address the issue, but it needs the support of citizens and concerned legislators.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/273szl

WISCONSIN OPINION: Overabundant Deer Vs. National Parks

The latest Pat Durkin column:

SHILOH, Tenn. — While approaching a row of cannons on a famous site called the Hornet's Nest at the Shiloh National Military Park last weekend, my thoughts shifted from the Civil War's awful carnage to the annoyance of avoiding deer pellets wherever I stepped.

Minutes later, I studied the shoreline of the Bloody Pond, another tragic site from 146 years ago. I tried to envision the horror of soldiers and horses, Union and Confederate, taking their final drinks. I tried to grasp the futility of trying to sate thirst caused by fear, fatigue and massive hemorrhage.

Then I noticed cloven hoof marks of whitetails pocking the mud everywhere I looked. The spell broken, I moved on.

After a short walk, I saw large wire cages protecting young trees in Sarah Bell's peach orchard as I approached the eastern end of the Hornet's Nest. When I spotted W. George Manse's cabin in the orchard's corner, a harsh browse line in the adjoining woods validated the need for the peach trees' cages. Overpopulated deer are hell on buds and twigs.

Then, I recalled Jeff Shaara mentioned Shiloh's deer and this orchard in his book, "Civil War Battlefields." Shaara wrote: "The peach trees there today are maintained in the original location of the orchard, though keeping the trees healthy is a constant headache since the park's enormous deer population delights in devouring the trees' delicious leaves and blossoms."

My U.S. Park Service leaflet said Miss Bell's orchard was in full bloom on April 6, 1862, as Confederate troops hammered the Union's left flank. Shaara is more specific: "There are no more poetic descriptions of battle than those written by soldiers who fought here, several of whom described how the fully blossoming trees were so cut by the storm of musket fire that the white petals swirled around the men like a snowstorm."

Problems caused by deer aren't unique to this national park. Whether it's deer browsing down the woods of Shiloh in Tennessee, Gettysburg in Pennsylvania or Great Smoky Mountains in eastern Tennessee and North Carolina, or elk strip-mining the herbage of Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota or Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota, we see the pitiful results of overprotection. This is what happens when we set aside treasured areas, then allow almost all forms of human recreation except hunting.

Our nation forever will owe Theodore Roosevelt and other visionaries for setting aside millions of acres for national parks. What Roosevelt couldn't have foreseen was a society 100 years later so disconnected from nature and the food chain that it lacks the common sense and political courage to prevent one species from wreaking havoc on lands that once held diverse species.

Meanwhile, that society somehow produces people who righteously try to remove species they deem alien or exotic if it threatens a native ecosystem. Whether it's lake trout in Yellowstone Lake, or elk and mule deer in Channel Islands National Park off California, the Park Service wants them dead or gone.

Fascinating. If someone took a species from somewhere else in North America and released it where it wasn't living when Europeans arrived 400 years ago, the Park Service crusades with a zealot's conviction, dismissing protests as naïve and uneducated.

But when a species is native to a national park and destroying its home from within, the Park Service merely mopes and hopes the problem goes away. When hunters outside park boundaries don't shoot enough animals to make a difference, the Park Service crafts expensive sharp-shooting plans rather than work with qualified hunters who would solve the problem and be grateful for the opportunity.

The feds should consider Wisconsin's approach. When ecologists show just cause to open a state park to deer hunting, we hold hearings, let everyone bark and open the park to controlled hunts.

A few weeks later, everyone is back to normal, their outrage looking for a new perch. The system works.

Source:
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080221/GPG07/802210566/1233/GPGsports

NEW YORK OPINION: Costs of Feeding Deer Outweigh Benefits

As I sit down to write this article, the wind chill outside is a frigid -20F. It’s predicted to be nearly that cold tonight without the wind and the winter storm watch posted for tomorrow night has just been upgraded to a warning, with the potential for up to a foot of new snow, and maybe more.

I don’t know about you, but this winter has already kicked my behind.

We’ve seen record snowfall, bone-chilling temperatures, relentless wind, blizzard conditions on a number of occasions (the most recent being two nights ago), very little sunshine, and plenty of ice, sleet and freezing rain. Oh, and did I mention the power outages, lingering cold and flu symptoms, and seasonal affective disorder?

The harsh winter weather has been hard on wildlife, too, and even though it probably hasn’t been as difficult as some people believe, if unforgiving conditions prevail into March, some animals won’t survive. Late winter snowstorms, especially when coupled with extreme cold, can be especially hard on deer, particularly does that have burned off most of their fat reserves and are carrying fawns.

That is creating considerable concern. Several individuals that I’ve spoken with recently desperately want to do something to help the deer survive the winter. They feel that feeding them is one way to help. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Besides, feeding deer is prohibited in New York. It has been illegal to do so since 2003.

That doesn’t discourage some people. They speak as if the deer are their own or feel that they are protecting them. A small number seem at times to have lost sight of the fact that deer are wild animals.

Others become angry.

“I don’t care.”

“They can put me in jail. I won’t admit to it, and no one’s going to tell me I can’t feed deer.”

These are the types of arguments I have heard.

The fact is, the feeding ban is in place as a precautionary action; one of several proactive measures taken to help curtail the spread of and, hopefully, eradicate Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in the state’s deer herd. CWD is caused by infectious protein particles called prions and spread from animal to animal through saliva. The potential for the spread of the disease is markedly increased when deer continuously feed from the same trough or feeding station, where grain with saliva on it can easily fall from the mouth of one animal only to be eaten by another. The disease is progressive, degenerative and always fatal.

Even if that weren’t the case, there are several other considerations that need to be taken into account. In the wild, deer will select the most nutritious foods in their environment, and their diet varies with the seasons. They are ruminants, or cud chewers. Like cows, deer swallow food without chewing and store it in the rumen, the first and largest chamber of their four-chamber stomachs. Essentially, they eat until the rumen is full. Then, the partially digested food, or cud, is regurgitated, chewed and swallowed.

They are dependant upon a variety of bacteria and microorganisms in the rumen, not digestive juices, to break food down. The types and concentrations of these microorganisms are food specific. If deer have been feeding on native browse, they have built up the micro-organisms that digest only that type [of] vegetation. If a deer suddenly fills its stomach with corn or hay, it may not have enough of the proper micro-organisms in its stomach to digest the food.

Suddenly introducing grain to their diet may also cause deer to suffer scours (diarrhea) and acidosis, a condition where excess acid builds up in the rumen killing natural, digestive-tract bacteria.

Symptoms of acidosis include indigestion, dehydration, staggering and apparent blindness, and death.

Even when deer are able to consume supplemented foods without becoming sick, they receive very little nutrition until their systems adjust to the change of diet. As a result, they can actually starve to death with full bellies.

Keep in mind, too, that many of the deer visiting feed stations are carrying fawns. If they become sick or undernourished, their fawns are put at risk, as well.

There are several other very good reasons not to feed deer. Those that visit feeding stations often become abnormally aggressive. They may injure one another fighting for food. The younger and less assertive deer are often kept away by larger and stronger ones.

Deer that become dependent upon artificial feeding often ignore their natural instincts. They lose their fear of humans and become pests, often returning in the summer to feast on garden plants and landscape and fruit trees. And, since feeding sites encourage deer to crowd together in unnaturally high densities, the risk of death by predators, like coyotes and domestic dogs, is greatly increased.

There are ways for neighboring landowners and hunting clubs to help sustain wild deer populations during winter months without breaking the law and without creating a disease or health risk. If animals go into the winter in good condition, most are able to survive prolonged periods of cold temperatures, persistent deep snow and icy conditions.

By developing and putting into practice a management plan that provides the best possible natural feed and optimal habitat, you can help to better ensure herd survival and health. This will involve timber management practices that use habitat as a guiding objective, along with the development, improvement and fertilization of food plots in areas that already provide quality wintering habitat.

For general tips on management of native vegetation and timber, creating and improving habitat, and establishing food plots on your land, please contact your local DEC regional office or Cornell Cooperative Extension.

Source: http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/Columns/articles.asp?articleID=10438

WISCONSIN OPINION: Deer Management Undermined by CWD Panel's Petty Squabbles

by Pat Durkin

Last July, then-Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources secretary Scott Hassett appointed 17 citizens and an agency biologist to study Wisconsin's six-year battle with chronic wasting disease in white-tailed deer, then decide how to minimize its impact on the herd, woodland habitats, our economy and all who benefit from healthy deer.

Hassett also appointed a technical team to give the advisory group the latest science on CWD, and review and offer guidance as it developed recommendations. The team included a DNR sociologist, conservation warden and wildlife-disease veterinarian; and two CWD experts from the U.S. Geological Survey and University of Wisconsin.

The DNR presented everyone with a handbook that explained the project and encouraged teamwork. The booklet even included an inspiring quotation from famed anthropologist Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Well, forget that. Six months and eight meetings later, this small group went home Jan. 26 doubting their work would change anything in Wisconsin, let alone the world. The final report offers many insignificant suggestions, but no ultimate goal for managing CWD, and no step-by-step plan with verifiable benchmarks.

Tom Givnish, a University of Wisconsin botany professor who served on the committee, wrote this in his minority report: "The majority report must be judged an abject failure. … The majority (took) so many management tools off the table that it will be impossible to achieve substantial herd reduction or substantially slow the spread of CWD."

The plan merely tweaks hunting regulations that, if approved, would more likely confuse hunters than thwart disease. For instance, the group recommended a statewide ban on recreational deer feeding, but endorsed current deer-baiting laws for hunters, which allow 2 gallons of bait during deer season.

Ed Harvey, chairman of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, rejected most of the recommendations in a letter on Jan. 23. "Perhaps most importantly, we want to be very clear that (we) do not support the baiting or feeding of deer," he wrote.

When considering the atmosphere surrounding the group, maybe it's noteworthy they crafted anything. For instance, they voted 9-6 at their Jan. 12 meeting to silence the technical team, directing they not speak unless spoken to. This prompted Dr. Julie Langenberg, the DNR's wildlife veterinarian, to walk out.

That wasn't the first sign of trouble. Dr. Daniel Griffiths, a Lomira veterinarian representing the Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association, attended the group's meetings in July and August, missed the next two for other commitments and never returned.

He said angry e-mails from group members dissuaded him. "E-mails were flying back and forth that if people missed meetings, their voices shouldn't be heard," Griffiths said Sunday. "There was nothing I could tell them that they wanted to hear. Some of them had set agendas. They were hostile to the scientists giving presentations at the first two meetings and treated them with disrespect. We had no common ground to work from at that point."

Givnish had similar thoughts. "There was too much going on behind the scenes," he said after the Jan. 26 meeting. "There were ugly blogs on the Internet associated with this committee. Some people have a creepy idea of what public service involves. We're supposed to resolve our differences through rational argument and common sense, not fisticuffs or worse. It's sad that happens, but I wasn't surprised."

Alan Crossley, the DNR's CWD project leader, represented the agency on the committee. He said he tried to create a collaborative spirit within the group, and felt terrible that animosity often resulted instead.

"If anyone is to blame, it's me," Crossley said. "I never should have allowed that vote (to silence the technical team), but I never thought it would pass. Maybe I'm too accustomed to the emotions surrounding deer. People who don't work in this environment were probably more shocked than I was."

Whew. Big ol' sigh.

As disgracefully as the advisory group sometimes behaved, and as noble as it might be for Crossley to take the hit, the true fault lies with the DNR's hierarchy, our governor and Legislature and all state institutions involved in CWD policy-making.

Wisconsin has yet to specify a long-term goal and comprehensive plan for managing CWD, and no leader has championed one. Expecting 17 citizens and one DNR employee to go beyond the chieftains' audits, indifference and second-guessing proved foolish.

Meanwhile, deer continue paying for our apathy.

Source: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080131/GPG0204/801310553/1233/GPGsports

WISCONSIN OPINION: Deer Baiting Ban Misguided

Rooney notes: I am not sure if agree with the entire argument made here, but parts are well-reasonsed and worth considering.

Dear Editor: Tim Eisele's condemnation of the Department of Natural Resources stakeholders advisory group on chronic wasting disease, of which I was a member, needs a response. This is my personal view.

He fails to tell his readers that baiting has been banned in the CWD zone for five years; has it stopped CWD from spreading? He fails to inform readers that research shows the prion involved with CWD binds tightly to soil and fails to inform us that healthy animals put in a pen 16 years after CWD-infected animals were removed caught the disease. This indicates an environmental reservoir (soil?) exists for years.

In areas of Wisconsin where CWD is not present, no amount of saliva exchange can transmit CWD.

The advisory group got it right, i.e., they recognized the difference between baiting and feeding -- one used to kill deer, the other to protect deer -- something the DNR and some state organizations seem unable or unwilling to recognize.

Eisele fails to tell readers that hunting over bait is the safest hunting method; no hunter has been wounded or killed by another hunter hunting over bait. The same can't be said about deer drives, which are the most dangerous hunting method. Yet we don't hear a safety-conscious DNR or any outdoor writer wanting to get rid of deer drives, just baiting.

But maybe we all have it backward. In the CWD zone where we want to reduce the deer population, maybe we should allow baiting, like DNR sharpshooters did, since an environmental prion reservoir exists, and ban baiting in the rest of Wisconsin where it's not found.

One concern I have is that we allow tens of thousands of gallons of doe urine from deer farms to be spread across our landscape as "buck lure" when a synthetic alternative exists.

I believe the most significant recommendation of the CWD advisory group was to enact regulations restricting movement of whole deer carcasses out of the CWD zone. That, I predict, would do more to prevent the spread of CWD than any baiting ban.

Ken Anderson
Eagle River

Source: http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/letters/269838

SOUTH DAKOTA OPINION: Bill Would Give Landowners Extra Deer Tags

Two things are quite certain in the rural sections of South Dakota: The deer population is too high, and their constant depredation is tough on farmers, ranchers and landowners.
South Dakota’s landscape is crawling with deer. They’re everywhere — whether it’s along the roadsides at night or in a farmer’s stores of silage at sunup.

Anybody who has a new plan to cut the deer population should speak up. We’re listening.

State Sen. Julie Bartling, D-Burke, has done so.

Earlier this week, she told the Legislature about her plan to allow landowners and lease-holders an additional deer license to be used on their land. The extra tag can be used at the landowner/lessee’s discretion and given to resident or nonresident hunters. The tags would only be valid on the landowner/lessee’s land and can only be issued to those with at least 320 acres of agriculture, grazing or timber land.

Bartling’s plan is backed by the state’s two largest livestock organizations: the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association and the South Dakota Cattleman’s Association.

The state Department of Game, Fish and Parks is trying to cull the herd, and has been for several years now. The agency has increased the number of tags regularly in the past several years, and that has correlated to a much larger harvest. For instance, hunters killed 51,666 deer in South Dakota in 2000; in 2006, the number was 86,806 — an increase of 56 percent.

We need those kinds of harvest increases in South Dakota because the same conditions that have allowed our pheasant population to soar past 10 million have been equally kind to the wild, hooved quadrupeds of our state.

All of those foodplots, trees and switchgrass fields that have been planted to aid pheasants have, in some eyes, backfired when it comes to deer numbers. Several straight years of moderate winters haven’t helped, either.

And as we have said many times before: If you want proof of the state’s growing deer numbers, simply take a drive along a rural highway late at night. They’re everywhere, and they’re a danger to the lives of motorists.

The GF&P does not back Bartling’s second-license plan. The worry is that nonresident hunters would be able to compete more directly in seeking the limited pool of buck licenses during the East River season.

Would this program take a large bite out of the deer herd? Probably not, but we feel that anything to promote more deer hunting in South Dakota is a good idea.

For years, landowners have been dealing with depredation to their valuable crops and stored feed as the deer population grows. We don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed a chance to harvest more of those troublesome pests.

Source: http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/articles/index.cfm?id=24044§ion=Opinion

COLORADO OPINION: "Emergency Feeding" of Mule Deer Is Not a Good Idea

GUNNISON — Sometime later this week, the Colorado Division of Wildlife will begin an emergency deer feeding program in the Gunnison Basin.

With night-time temperatures hovering around 20 below zero and snow deeper than a deer’s belly blanketing the surrounding hills, biologists fear mule deer will suffer some unacceptable losses should the snow and intense cold continue.

But it’s winter, and deer are genetically programmed for long, hard winters, biologists say. While feeding the deer might be the socially acceptable thing to do, there are reasons why wildlife agencies across the West are reluctant to begin a feeding program unless it’s absolutely necessary.

Once you start feeding big game, you can’t quit until spring when natural forage returns. Deer can’t readily digest hay and require a specially formulated pellet feed that costs about $300 per ton. Figure each of the estimated 20,000 deer in the Gunnison Basin needs two-three pounds of feed per day and the cost spirals very quickly.

Not all those deer will get fed, since some are in inaccessible places and others might be finding enough food. Still, the DOW plans to feed about half the deer in the area.

“In most cases there’s not much benefit for all the expense,” said Rick Kahn, state terrestrial program leader for the DOW.

“Bluntly, deer are programmed to starve to death in the winter, that’s how they get through a winter.”

Not quite starve to death, but close. Once the snow and cold arrive, deer cannot obtain enough high-quality food to gain weight. Instead, they slowly use their summer reserves all winter long, relying on their reserves and what little feed they find to make it to the spring green-up.

“As long as there is forage, they’ll stay on their natural food but when the sage gets buried and the snow gets crusted, they are in trouble,” said Ron Velarde, Northwest Region manager for the DOW.

It’s part of a deer’s make-up to suffer through winter, Kahn said.

“Ecologically, these things are adapted to pretty tough climates conditions and losing body weight is a normal condition,” Kahn said. “Then, from mid-March to mid-May you get green-up and, boom, the deer get back into good enough condition to fawn.”

Feeding also concentrates animals that normally winter in small herds. Bringing together several hundred deer increases stress and the possibility of disease transmission. Plus, the aggressive nature of deer means the weak and the young might starve anyway.

Some winter mortality occurs every year. Colorado suffers about a 10-15 percent loss of does in an average winter, Kahn said, while fawns may suffer up to 30 percent loss.

“But if you anticipate losing 30 percent of your adult females, that’s a significant, significant loss and it’s time to feed,” Kahn said.

That’s where the Gunnison area deer herds are headed should present conditions continue, biologists said last week.

“We have to look at body and weather conditions and you can’t anticipate what the weather is going to do,” Kahn said.

The last time the DOW fed game in the Gunnison area was 1997. Since then, a growing deer population has increased interest in the deer herds. Plus, Gunnison’s deer winter in areas where watchers can easily see them.

“I think the dynamic has changed in the last 10 years,” Kahn said. “There are so many more animals out on the landscape, there is a lot more competition from elk and a lot more development that keeps pushing deer into smaller and smaller areas.”

Elk find it easier going in winter because they are bigger, stronger and able to digest a wider variety of foods. The DOW said it will “minimize” its elk feeding.

Habitat loss because of development, particularly new subdivisions and energy development in what historically was deer winter range, affects deer winter survival as does the prolonged drought that has reduced sagebrush habitat across the West.

Source: http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/sports/stories/2008/01/16/011608_OUT_why_feed_WWW.html

OHIO OPINION: Deer Damage Justifies Expanded Deer Seasons

If there’s anyone out there who still thinks that deer hunting is unnecessary or cruel, they ought to read the story published in Monday’s T-R on the damage deer have caused to area farms and nurseries.

James Smith, who operates Smith Evergreen Nursery in Carroll County, planted 15 acres of Fraser firs earlier this decade. Smith lost 99 percent of them after they were devoured by deer.

The number of deer in Ohio has exploded in the last few decades. In 1970, the statewide population was estimated at 17,000. The current estimate is 675,000. According to the Ohio Division of Wildlife, deer cause $2 billion in damage nationwide, including $100 million in agricultural crop damage, $750 million in damage to the timber industry and more than $250 million in damage to home landscape and nursery damage.

That’s not counting the cost of vehicle-deer crashes. State Farm estimates that one out of every 164 cars on Ohio’s highways will be involved in a deer-related crash within the next 12 months. The average property damage cost of one of these crashes is $2,900, up 3 percent in the last year.

Those opposed to deer hunting “probably don’t have a relative that was killed when their car hit a deer,” Michael Hogan, the Ohio State University Extension agent assigned to Carroll County, told GateHouse Media. “They probably are not farmers; their crops are not destroyed by deer. The problem is we have protected them as a society.”

With no natural predators to control the deer population, hunting is the only practical option available.

And even with an extra weekend of gun season in December, the number of deer isn’t getting any smaller. We think it’s time the state considers expanding gun season again. Perhaps that would help curb the deer population in Ohio.

Source: http://www.timesreporter.com/index.php?ID=78044

MONTANA OPINION: Is Managing Urban Deer Worth the Cost?

Pardon the cliché, but if you want to know why something is happening, follow the money. So, that’s what I did this week, and at the end of my search, I found what must be the most expensive deer in the world.

You could have some of these high-priced deer in your town, too. What’s happening in Helena, Montana, could be coming to a city near you.

Most cities have urban deer populations. In Helena, we host as many as 700 deer, both whitetails and muleys. These are not country deer coming into the city for a geranium treat now and then. These are third or fourth generation city deer born, raised and reproducing within the city limits, deer that have probably never heard a rifle shot or seen a hunter. They’ve become habituated to humankind for a simple reason. Helena is great deer habitat. Cities unintentionally provide the two primary characteristics of quality wildlife habitat, food and security.

Some people in Helena consider deer an amenity or at worst, a nuisance, but others consider them a pestilence--no better than oversized, hoofed rats. And sure enough, once or twice each fall, an aggressive, love-starved buck threatens somebody, and the incident gets the front page play it doesn’t deserve. Adding to the furor caused by these high profile incidents, our deer neighbors always make landscaping and gardening a challenge, which most of us solve by fencing or netting and planting deer-resistant species.

(All this has, incidentally, has created a substantive “deer economy” in Helena for fence companies and nurseries--and auto body shops, of course.)

To me, urban deer are just part of the we-don’t-live-in-a-perfect-world deal, no different than pigeons and squirrels and dog poop or your lawn amd neighbors who don’t shovel their walks. We city folks created this great deer habitat, so how can we be surprised or upset when deer use it? As any hunter knows, game animals naturally gravitate to habitat closed to hunting--and stay there if they find enough to eat.

But I might be in the minority in Helena. A survey conducted by the University of Montana Business School for the Urban Wildlife Task Force, (UWTF) created by the Helena City Commission to advise them on what to do about the “deer problem” found that 78 percent of city residents surveyed wanted the deer herd “reduced,” but only 54 percent wanted this reduction if we had to use “lethal means.”

This majority appears to be carrying the day in Helena, and the city commission has decided we need to kill deer because they pose a public safety hazard.

So, here’s the plan. Or perhaps I should say, here’s what probably will happen--unless the city commission steps in and stops it. Sometime next winter, Helena police officers will start baiting deer into open space areas and then in the dark of night using night-vision scoped rifles, they’ll shoot 50 deer.

Plan A was to kill 350, but the Fish and Game Commission, the board that sets policy for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP), rejected this proposal. At a later meeting, though, the commission agreed to allow the city to kill 50, as long as no hunting license dollars were spent on the project. (That qualifier is sort of comical, as you’ll soon read, because lots of “hunters dollars” have already poured into Helena’s deer management plan, and under any government scenario, more will be spent.)

I’m hardly against killing deer, having done it as much as possible in my life. But the Helena plan brings out my fiscally conservative side. When I followed the money, here’s what I found. (As a disclaimer, agencies can’t accurately track all the publicly financed staff time that goes into administering projects, so the following figures certainly undershoot the true expense of killing deer in Helena.)

To get the ball rolling, the City of Helena created the UWTF and tapped its general fund for $12,000 to finance its work. FWP joined in with a $7,000 grant, which covered most of the cost of the survey.

In addition, according to FWP information officer Tom Palmer, the agency has already devoted $23,000 in staff time to work with the UWTF. The city didn’t keep track of the staff time, but parks and recreation director Randy Lilje told NewWest.Net that “a fairly substantial amount” of staff time has gone into the deer plan. Since I’m fiscally conservative guy who supports equality, I’ll be kind and assume the city only did as much as the state, even though the expenditure of city staff time was likely much higher.

If you’re adding this up, you know we’ve already spent $65,000, all public funds, on targeting these 50 deer or $1,300 per deer. And many more thousands will be spent. The city must hold public hearings and plans to lobby the legislature to pay for its deer reduction plan. I doubt the police department has special urban deer-killing equipment, so we have to buy it. And by the way, I’m a bit stressed about my police force out baiting and killing deer when they should be catching child predators, closing down meth labs, or busting those punks who prowl around Helena slashing tires and shooting out car windows with air pistols.

The venison must be handled properly, so somebody has to field dress the deer and take the meat over to Montana Food Share. And clean up the gut piles, of course, because I suspect people might object to finding them in our city parks.

I’ve probably missed a few expenses, but I feel safe saying the true cost isn’t any less than $2,000 per deer this year. It might be less in future years, and I suppose it’s a little unfair to put the entire amount on those 50 soon-to-be-dead deer instead of amortizing it over hundreds of more deer we plan to kill in the future. Killing deer might cost less than $2,000 per animal going forward, but still cost us deerly.

If somebody wants to challenge my numbers, I’ll make the adjustment and move on because the exact cost is not the point.

The point is: Do we want to spend so much public money to kill urban deer? And then repeat it every year to keep up with Mother Nature? Keeping in mind that close to half of Helenans don’t want deer killed, would this public money be better spent on maintaining parks, buying a fire truck, reducing energy use, making our town more pedestrian or bicycle friendly, promoting recycling, repaving streets, or paying for a hundred other underfunded city services? Ditto for FWP money. Would it be better spent on hunting access programs or wildlife research?

In conclusion, I’d like to see the UWTF do another survey and ask this question: Are you in favor of reducing Helena’s deer population at a cost of $2,000 per deer the first year and an undetermined expenditure of public funds in future years? I suspect that when the results came in, I might be in the majority.

source: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/our_most_expensive_deer/C108/L108/

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

WISCONSIN OPINION: Good Reasons to Ban Deer Baiting and Feeding

Keith McCaffery, retired northern deer biologist for the DNR, emphasizes that the state can not effectively manage deer in the presence of baiting and feeding.
"It changes their productivity, survivorship, their behavior and distribution, and greatly confounds harvest management," McCaffery said. "This is 'old hat' and has been known by deer biologists for a long time."

"But, some of the new reasons for concern are that saliva was proven to be a means of transmission for CWD, which converted a number of doubters," he said. "They had speculated that saliva was highly suspect and that has now been proven. Researchers took saliva from animals that manifested symptoms and orally gave it to fawns that later came down with CWD."

Other relatively new factors that should turn the tide against baiting and feeding, include the report last December by DNR Chief Conservation Warden Randy Stark that highlights problems wardens are seeing with illegal baiting. To McCaffery the violations that occur and the way some hunters use baiting to take over land that should be open to the public is an embarrassment.

Third is University of Wisconsin-Wildlife Ecology assistant professor Tim Van Deelen's report analyzing the effect of baiting on herd control."Van Deelen found that baiting tended to increase the archery harvest slightly, but it decreased the firearm harvest and the net effect was no effect," McCaffery said.

Another new reason why baiting and feeding should be banned, McCaffery said, is the emergence of new diseases. Michigan has had a problem with Bovine tuberculosis in its wild deer herd, and more recently Minnesota has found tuberculosis in part of its deer herd. In addition, Pseudorabies has appeared around Marshfield and there is speculation that it may have come from feral hogs. McCaffery wonders if baiting is playing a factor in its transmission.

"The fact that diseases continue to pop up should be an alarm bell," McCaffery said.
McCaffery said he has been concerned about the lack of political support for actions to control CWD in Wisconsin.

Source: http://www.madison.com/tct/sports/200107

WISCONSIN OPINION: Studies and Audits Will Not Affect Hunters' Opinion

Rooney's note: Pat Durkin slam-dunked this one. For most people, the validity of the science is based on whether or not it is congruent with their pre-existing beliefs or biases. These expensive studies will have zero effect on the hunting public's opinion of the DNR's deer management program or the quality of deer density estimates.

Sometime before or soon after the state's traditional nine-day gun season opens on Nov. 18, we'll be treated to the findings of two high-profile studies involving Wisconsin's ever-popular white-tailed deer.


One study is by the Legislative Audit Bureau, which analyzed Wisconsin's costly efforts to control chronic wasting disease.


The other is by a panel of noted national deer biologists, who analyzed the Department of Natural Resources' deer census methods.


We're all eager to read the reports, but here's a certainty: A year from now, about 40 percent of deer hunters will be unhappy. Many will claim there are no deer where they hunt. Just as many will say "the DNR is killing way too many deer" where they hunt.


Another certainty? Neither survey addresses the obvious: How do we kill too many deer if they aren't there, year after year?


The fact is, about 40 percent of deer hunters have cried wolf since 1930.


This is mere recreational griping. Yet politicians and the Natural Resources Board forever spend money on redundant studies, foolishly assuming malcontents hunger for knowledge.


A more useful study might ask: Why do political leaders respond to nonsense? Is it the malcontents' persistence? Their repetition? Their passion?


Is there a psychiatrist in the house?


If our leaders studied the past 75 years of Wisconsin deer hunting, they might concede it's too crazy to comprehend or change. They might then tell the DNR: "Hey, sorry for the misunderstanding. Here's the keys to a rubber room. I have schools to fund, businesses to rescue and air and water to cleanse. Do what you must."


Too harsh? Maybe, but just because some deer hunters have mastered the tantrum doesn't mean we must honor it.


Wisconsin has so many whitetails that in 2005, we shot more bucks on opening day of gun season, 74,880, than the combined buck-antlerless kills during the entire nine-day seasons in 1970, 72,844; 1971, 70,835; and 1972, 74,827.


Further, on opening day, the combined 2005 buck-antlerless kill was 138,608 deer. That one-day kill is more than any single year's regular-season total from 1930 through 1979, when we registered 125,570 deer. The 1980 nine-day kill was 139,624.


Now let's look at Wisconsin's 2005 opening weekend, in which the buck-antlerless kill was 195,735. Just so we're clear, that's almost 200,000 dead deer in two days. We killed a similar total, 197,600, during the nine-day season in 1983, which was a record harvest.


For fun, let's ignore the opening-weekend harvest from last year and just compare the season's final seven-day kill, which was 111,193. Only three times from 1930 through 1974 did Wisconsin deer hunters shoot more deer during the nine-day gun season. Since 1975, when we registered 117,378 deer, we've stayed far above 110,000.


In case you didn't notice, we haven't even discussed the other deer seasons. During 2005, we also killed 78,450 deer during archery season, 53,127 during the October and December gun seasons and 8,553 during muzzleloading season.


Those totals came during a year when the traditional gun season ranked only seventh all-time. For further perspective, 2005 also was one of 14 seasons during the past 17 in which gun hunters registered more than 300,000 deer.


Think about that: All those hunting opportunities and all those millions of bloody carcass tags, and yet a 2005 DNR survey found 44 percent of deer hunters think agency biologists overestimate the herd.


The 2005 survey also found 36 percent of deer hunters rated their hunt's quality as "fairly low" or "very low," and 42 percent rated their satisfaction 6 or lower on a 10-point scale.


And rational people question the supremacy of self-pity and mudslinging?


One would think politicians understand the power of negativity and would not allow the 40-percenters to frustrate the other 60 percent of deer hunters.


Then again, maybe our leaders view the 40-percenters as kindred spirits.

Patrick Durkin is a free-lance writer who covers outdoors for the Press-Gazette. E-mail him at patrickdurkin@charter.net