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
Thursday, January 24, 2008
MISSOURI NEWS: 2007 Is Third Largest Deer Harvest On Record
Good hunting by archers contributed to the third-largest deer hunting harvest on record by the time the 2007 hunting season ended, according to the Missouri Department of Conservation.
Hunters took 302,666 whitetails during the hunting season.
Although the harvest was seven percent below the previous year’s hunt, the harvest still ranked third.
Several factors made the hunting season difficult to deal with, according to the department.
Acorn production was down, which caused deer to congregate where food was available. But warm, windy weather during November and an ice storm late in the hunting season affected hunter turnout. Biologists also found more evidence deer were infected with epizootic hemorrhagic disease in some areas.
Source: http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080124/BREAKING02/80124020
Hunters took 302,666 whitetails during the hunting season.
Although the harvest was seven percent below the previous year’s hunt, the harvest still ranked third.
Several factors made the hunting season difficult to deal with, according to the department.
Acorn production was down, which caused deer to congregate where food was available. But warm, windy weather during November and an ice storm late in the hunting season affected hunter turnout. Biologists also found more evidence deer were infected with epizootic hemorrhagic disease in some areas.
Source: http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080124/BREAKING02/80124020
Monday, January 21, 2008
KANSAS NEWS: More CWD Found Near Nebraska Border
Three Decatur County white-tailed deer have tested positive for chronic wasting disease, a discovery that comes on the heels of a similar discovery just a couple miles across the border in Nebraska.
The announcement concerning the positive tests was made Friday afternoon.
The Nebraska discovery prompted Kansas wildlife officials to accelerate the testing process for deer killed in northwest Kansas. Testing still remains to be done on about two-thirds of the samples collected during the state deer seasons, most of the samples coming during the firearms season, according to Mike Miller, a spokesman for the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks.
The hunters who shot the animals and provided samples to KDWP have been notified of the test results, he said.
This is the second time chronic wasting disease -- transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, similar to mad cow disease -- has been found in free-ranging deer in northwest Kansas, the first coming in December 2005 when a white-tailed deer from Cheyenne County tested positive for CWD.
Although there is no evidence CWD is a threat to humans, officials suggest any exposure to infected animals be minimized.
The deer that tested positive all were killed by hunters along Sappa Creek in central Decatur County, north of Oberlin. The Nebraska deer that tested positive was killed along Beaver Creek in Red Willow County about 2 miles north of the Kansas border.
Beaver Creek runs through about 10 miles of northwest Decatur County, while the more than 20-mile stretch of Sappa Creek virtually bisects the county. Sappa Creek passes through Oberlin, the county seat.
The positive results were made by the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, after initial screening tests were positive at Kansas State University.
Because of the Decatur County discovery, the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks will be implementing its chronic wasting disease contingency plan, which will prompt a series of events similar to what took place in Cheyenne County in early 2006 after the first free-ranging case of CWD was discovered.
That likely will include a public meeting in Oberlin, Miller said, as well as sampling deer in the county.
In the case of Cheyenne County, KDWP employees converged on the area, going afield after dark to sample the deer herd there.
Ultimately, 51 deer were killed in that case, and samples were taken to determine if other deer were suffering from CWD. No samples tested positive.
KDWP had been planning on sampling the Decatur County deer herd in the wake of the Nebraska discovery but had been expecting to perhaps take a slightly smaller number of deer. KDWP and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission still are planning a joint effort.
That sampling is expected to take place sometime in February and likely will include both the Beaver and Sappa Creek areas. KDWP already had started obtaining permission from landowners along Beaver Creek to shoot deer.
Miller said no timetable has been set for either the public meeting or when agency personnel will go afield to sample deer.
Although Miller said he was unsure when the deer were taken, he's assuming they came from the state firearms season -- primarily because that's when most of the deer in the state are killed. Tissue samples from 2,200 deer have been submitted for testing.
The discovery of CWD-infected deer in Decatur County didn't come as a big surprise to game officials, primarily because it appears where deer concentrate.
"We're pretty sure deer-to-deer contact is a way to spread the disease," Miller said.
Source: http://www.hdnews.net/Story/cwd012008
The announcement concerning the positive tests was made Friday afternoon.
The Nebraska discovery prompted Kansas wildlife officials to accelerate the testing process for deer killed in northwest Kansas. Testing still remains to be done on about two-thirds of the samples collected during the state deer seasons, most of the samples coming during the firearms season, according to Mike Miller, a spokesman for the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks.
The hunters who shot the animals and provided samples to KDWP have been notified of the test results, he said.
This is the second time chronic wasting disease -- transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, similar to mad cow disease -- has been found in free-ranging deer in northwest Kansas, the first coming in December 2005 when a white-tailed deer from Cheyenne County tested positive for CWD.
Although there is no evidence CWD is a threat to humans, officials suggest any exposure to infected animals be minimized.
The deer that tested positive all were killed by hunters along Sappa Creek in central Decatur County, north of Oberlin. The Nebraska deer that tested positive was killed along Beaver Creek in Red Willow County about 2 miles north of the Kansas border.
Beaver Creek runs through about 10 miles of northwest Decatur County, while the more than 20-mile stretch of Sappa Creek virtually bisects the county. Sappa Creek passes through Oberlin, the county seat.
The positive results were made by the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, after initial screening tests were positive at Kansas State University.
Because of the Decatur County discovery, the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks will be implementing its chronic wasting disease contingency plan, which will prompt a series of events similar to what took place in Cheyenne County in early 2006 after the first free-ranging case of CWD was discovered.
That likely will include a public meeting in Oberlin, Miller said, as well as sampling deer in the county.
In the case of Cheyenne County, KDWP employees converged on the area, going afield after dark to sample the deer herd there.
Ultimately, 51 deer were killed in that case, and samples were taken to determine if other deer were suffering from CWD. No samples tested positive.
KDWP had been planning on sampling the Decatur County deer herd in the wake of the Nebraska discovery but had been expecting to perhaps take a slightly smaller number of deer. KDWP and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission still are planning a joint effort.
That sampling is expected to take place sometime in February and likely will include both the Beaver and Sappa Creek areas. KDWP already had started obtaining permission from landowners along Beaver Creek to shoot deer.
Miller said no timetable has been set for either the public meeting or when agency personnel will go afield to sample deer.
Although Miller said he was unsure when the deer were taken, he's assuming they came from the state firearms season -- primarily because that's when most of the deer in the state are killed. Tissue samples from 2,200 deer have been submitted for testing.
The discovery of CWD-infected deer in Decatur County didn't come as a big surprise to game officials, primarily because it appears where deer concentrate.
"We're pretty sure deer-to-deer contact is a way to spread the disease," Miller said.
Source: http://www.hdnews.net/Story/cwd012008
UK NEWS: Muntjc Spreading North
A foreign breed of deer which threatens wild flowers has arrived in the North East, say conservationists.
Durham Wildlife Trust said recent sightings of muntjac, a small Oriental deer, near Darlington and Sedgefield were "very worrying".
The species, introduced into southern England in the early 1900s, is known to devour endangered bluebell woodlands.
The trust has now launched a survey in a bid to establish the strength of the population in the area.
Muntjac sightings have also been reported near the A1's Washington services, at a farm in Houghton-le-Spring and in the Tow Law area of Weardale.
Jim Cokill, Director of Durham Wildlife Trust, said: "The problem with the muntjac is that it is an alien species, which was brought over to this country because people thought it made an attractive addition to the English landscape.
Real fears
"But as often happens with such species, they escape or are released and damage the ecological balance of the countryside.
"It happened with the likes of mink, which have devastated the water vole population, and grey squirrels, which are out-competing the now endangered red squirrel, and there are very real fears that it will happen again with muntjac."
Muntjac are small, stocky, russet brown in summer and grey brown in winter, with short antlers and a ginger forehead.
Any sightings should be reported to the trust.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7199963.stm
Durham Wildlife Trust said recent sightings of muntjac, a small Oriental deer, near Darlington and Sedgefield were "very worrying".
The species, introduced into southern England in the early 1900s, is known to devour endangered bluebell woodlands.
The trust has now launched a survey in a bid to establish the strength of the population in the area.
Muntjac sightings have also been reported near the A1's Washington services, at a farm in Houghton-le-Spring and in the Tow Law area of Weardale.
Jim Cokill, Director of Durham Wildlife Trust, said: "The problem with the muntjac is that it is an alien species, which was brought over to this country because people thought it made an attractive addition to the English landscape.
Real fears
"But as often happens with such species, they escape or are released and damage the ecological balance of the countryside.
"It happened with the likes of mink, which have devastated the water vole population, and grey squirrels, which are out-competing the now endangered red squirrel, and there are very real fears that it will happen again with muntjac."
Muntjac are small, stocky, russet brown in summer and grey brown in winter, with short antlers and a ginger forehead.
Any sightings should be reported to the trust.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7199963.stm
CONNECTICUT NEWS: Group Lobbies for Deer Kill to Control Lyme Disease
GREENWICH, Conn. - A group of Connecticut residents is lobbying state health officials to kill deer to reduce Lyme disease
Georgina Scholl, vice chairwoman of the Connecticut Coalition to Eradicate Lyme Disease, says the abundance of deer is a public health hazard. She says killing deer is the only method that has been found to reduce Lyme disease.
Lyme disease is spread by ticks, which feed off deer and other animals. Scholl's group cites studies that show the deer play a key role in the ticks' reproductive success and is trying to inform the public and lobby health officials.
"It's something whose time has come," said Scholl, a Redding resident. "There's nothing that's been attempted that has successfully reduced Lyme disease."
Animal protection activists vow to fight any efforts to kill deer.
Natalie Jarnstedt, a Greenwich resident, has organized local efforts to oppose the killing of deer and other animals.
"It would be irresponsible to raise people's hopes on reducing the incidence of Lyme disease," she said.
Opponents to deer kills say studies show that certain mice, chipmunks and other small animals carry the Lyme disease bacteria, and ticks carrying Lyme disease will find hosts other than deer.
In addition, reducing the deer herd in Greenwich could be complicated. It's unclear how many deer are in the area.
A survey seven years ago showed that the town has 68 deer per square mile, but more recent studies show Fairfield County has about 30 per square mile. Researchers acknowledge they do not have an accurate method of counting deer, particularly because the animals can roam large areas.
Rick Ostfeld, an animal ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, N.Y., said evidence shows drastic reductions in deer numbers that can lead to a drop in tick population on islands and other isolated communities, but that's not necessarily the case in wide-open areas.
For instance, on the institute's 2,000-acre property, where 50 to 70 deer are killed a year as part of a deer-management plan, the tick abundance is no different than in the surrounding areas where there is no deer management, Ostfeld said.
"Over the long term, there is no relationship between deer numbers and tick numbers," he said.
Source: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--lymedisease-deer0121jan21,0,3659746.story
Georgina Scholl, vice chairwoman of the Connecticut Coalition to Eradicate Lyme Disease, says the abundance of deer is a public health hazard. She says killing deer is the only method that has been found to reduce Lyme disease.
Lyme disease is spread by ticks, which feed off deer and other animals. Scholl's group cites studies that show the deer play a key role in the ticks' reproductive success and is trying to inform the public and lobby health officials.
"It's something whose time has come," said Scholl, a Redding resident. "There's nothing that's been attempted that has successfully reduced Lyme disease."
Animal protection activists vow to fight any efforts to kill deer.
Natalie Jarnstedt, a Greenwich resident, has organized local efforts to oppose the killing of deer and other animals.
"It would be irresponsible to raise people's hopes on reducing the incidence of Lyme disease," she said.
Opponents to deer kills say studies show that certain mice, chipmunks and other small animals carry the Lyme disease bacteria, and ticks carrying Lyme disease will find hosts other than deer.
In addition, reducing the deer herd in Greenwich could be complicated. It's unclear how many deer are in the area.
A survey seven years ago showed that the town has 68 deer per square mile, but more recent studies show Fairfield County has about 30 per square mile. Researchers acknowledge they do not have an accurate method of counting deer, particularly because the animals can roam large areas.
Rick Ostfeld, an animal ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, N.Y., said evidence shows drastic reductions in deer numbers that can lead to a drop in tick population on islands and other isolated communities, but that's not necessarily the case in wide-open areas.
For instance, on the institute's 2,000-acre property, where 50 to 70 deer are killed a year as part of a deer-management plan, the tick abundance is no different than in the surrounding areas where there is no deer management, Ostfeld said.
"Over the long term, there is no relationship between deer numbers and tick numbers," he said.
Source: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--lymedisease-deer0121jan21,0,3659746.story
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
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
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
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
Thursday, January 10, 2008
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/
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/
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
OREGON NEWS: Winter Feeding Kills Deer
KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. (AP) — Humans who feel sorry for the deer in the winter can do more harm by feeding them, say some wildlife experts.
Six deer found dead in the Klamath Falls area recently probably died because they were fed an improper diet by humans, officials say.
"Looking at some stomach contents, I'm seeing grain and alfalfa and things they're not supposed to be eating this time of year," said Liz Diver, who operates the nonprofit Badger Run Wildlife Rehabilitation Center. "I've also run into people in the feed store buying grain for the deer, which can be fatal."
She said people believe they're helping deer by feeding them during the winter, she said.
"When you give them apples, carrots, alfalfa and grain, their gut cannot handle it," Diver said. "They get something very similar to colic."
Tom Collom, district wildlife biologist with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, agreed.
He said deer have complex digestive tracts that depend on proper levels of vitamins, minerals and bacteria to digest food.
"If they are subjected to a quick change in diet it takes their system quite a while to change that bacteria makeup to be able to digest that food," Collom said. "It sets the stage where animals can starve to death on a full stomach."
A rapid change in diet actually inhibits the deer's ability to use the food they take in, he said.
Collom said feeding wildlife other than birds is against the law in the city of Klamath Falls under an ordinance approved in the 1990s.
Diver said she's trying to spread the word that feeding deer might end up killing them.
"Sometimes it's accidental," Diver said. "The deer are getting into people's hay barns where they've got it stashed for their horses.
"But you can also walk into feed stores and find people buying sacks of grain and things with the intent of feeding the deer because they feel sorry for them."
source:
http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/news-22/1199848810246700.xml&storylist=orlocal
Six deer found dead in the Klamath Falls area recently probably died because they were fed an improper diet by humans, officials say.
"Looking at some stomach contents, I'm seeing grain and alfalfa and things they're not supposed to be eating this time of year," said Liz Diver, who operates the nonprofit Badger Run Wildlife Rehabilitation Center. "I've also run into people in the feed store buying grain for the deer, which can be fatal."
She said people believe they're helping deer by feeding them during the winter, she said.
"When you give them apples, carrots, alfalfa and grain, their gut cannot handle it," Diver said. "They get something very similar to colic."
Tom Collom, district wildlife biologist with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, agreed.
He said deer have complex digestive tracts that depend on proper levels of vitamins, minerals and bacteria to digest food.
"If they are subjected to a quick change in diet it takes their system quite a while to change that bacteria makeup to be able to digest that food," Collom said. "It sets the stage where animals can starve to death on a full stomach."
A rapid change in diet actually inhibits the deer's ability to use the food they take in, he said.
Collom said feeding wildlife other than birds is against the law in the city of Klamath Falls under an ordinance approved in the 1990s.
Diver said she's trying to spread the word that feeding deer might end up killing them.
"Sometimes it's accidental," Diver said. "The deer are getting into people's hay barns where they've got it stashed for their horses.
"But you can also walk into feed stores and find people buying sacks of grain and things with the intent of feeding the deer because they feel sorry for them."
source:
http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/news-22/1199848810246700.xml&storylist=orlocal
WEST VIRGINIA NEWS: 2007 Deer Kill Up 6% Over 2006
Deer kills increased 6 percent in West Virginia last year as hunters killed about 7,900 more animals than the previous year.
The Division of Natural Resources says the total kill for the state’s various seasons was 145,577 animals in 2007. Hunters killed 137,621 deer in 2006.
The agency says anterless kills increased 11 percent last year as hunters took advantage of increased bag limits and the opportunity to hunt in more counties. Overall, 43,684 antlerless deer were killed.
DNR Director Frank Jezioro (JEZ’-uh-roh) says the agency will continue to watch the number of antlerless deer in West Virginia to ensure a healthy statewide population.
West Virginia’s various deer seasons started in October and ended Dec. 31.
Source: http://www.herald-dispatch.com/homepage/x607058991
The Division of Natural Resources says the total kill for the state’s various seasons was 145,577 animals in 2007. Hunters killed 137,621 deer in 2006.
The agency says anterless kills increased 11 percent last year as hunters took advantage of increased bag limits and the opportunity to hunt in more counties. Overall, 43,684 antlerless deer were killed.
DNR Director Frank Jezioro (JEZ’-uh-roh) says the agency will continue to watch the number of antlerless deer in West Virginia to ensure a healthy statewide population.
West Virginia’s various deer seasons started in October and ended Dec. 31.
Source: http://www.herald-dispatch.com/homepage/x607058991
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
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
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
MINNESOTA NEWS: HUNT TO SLOW BOVINE TB UNDERWAY
Hunters harvested 48 deer during the first weekend of a special hunt in northwestern Minnesota that aims to reduce deer density and stop the potential spread of bovine tuberculosis (TB), according to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
The hunt began Dec. 29 and continues through Jan. 13 in Permit Area 101, which is considered the bovine TB zone in far northwestern Minnesota. It is open to hunters who have a valid, unused permit to harvest deer regardless of the zone in which a hunter was licensed.
To date, four deer harvested in the TB zone during the regular firearms season in November have tested presumptive positive for bovine TB. Three tested positive prior to the DNR's Dec. 5 announcement of the late-season hunt. Since then, lab results have indicated that an additional deer taken during the regular firearms season has tested positive.
"Finding one additional deer with the disease is a concern," said Michael DonCarlos, DNR wildlife research and policy manager. "But the prevalence of the disease remains low and is confined to a small geographic region." All four of the infected deer from the fall 2007 hunt have been found within a five-mile radius of Skime.
After the late season hunt concludes, the DNR will conduct an aerial survey of the area to determine deer distribution and abundance. Once that information is collected, the DNR will finalize plans on the need for additional deer removal by sharpshooters. DNR also will continue to work with the agricultural community to expand and improve programs and policies to help prevent contact between cattle and deer.
This fall's testing of deer harvested in Permit Area 101 was part of the DNR's ongoing TB surveillance program, which began in 2005 when the disease was first discovered in cattle. Since then, DonCarlos said, bovine TB has been detected in eight cattle herds and 17 wild deer in Roseau and Beltrami counties. Officials from the DNR, Minnesota Board of Animal Health and U.S. Department of Agriculture have been aggressively working to manage the disease in deer and livestock so Minnesota can regain its bovine TB-free accreditation.
"This may be a narrow window of opportunity to stop this disease in its tracks," DonCarlos said. "As long as bovine TB continues to be found in deer, DNR will continue to work with local hunters, landowners, other wildlife and agriculture organizations and agencies to eliminate bovine TB in Minnesota."
Details of the special late-season hunt being conducted in deer Permit Area 101 only are:
- season dates are Saturday, Dec. 29, to Sunday, Jan. 13, 2008
- deer of either sex may be taken
- hunters can use any 2007 license or permit from any zone
- a hunter must have a license and use the legal weapon for that license; for example, a hunter cannot use a rifle if he or she does not
have a valid 2007 firearms license
- new or replacement licenses can be obtained at any Electronic Licensing System agent, and hunters can buy additional disease
management permits for $2.50
- deer also can be tagged with any remaining unused tags from the 2007 season; for example, deer can be tagged with an unfilled
firearms license, disease management permits, bonus permits or all-season tags.
All harvested deer must be registered at Olson Skime store in Skime; Riverfront Station in Wannaska; Thief Lake Wildlife Management Area headquarters during regular business hours; or Red Lake Wildlife Management Area headquarters during regular business hours.
DNR employees will staff the Skime and Wannaska registration stations during each weekend (Saturday - Monday) of the special season to examine harvested deer for clinical signs of bovine TB. If a deer is taken during the week that exhibits signs of bovine TB, such as lesions on the lungs, hunters should contact the Thief Lake Wildlife Management Area at (218) 222-3747 or the Red Lake Wildlife Management Area at (218) 783-6861.
Temporary deer population reductions may create short-term hardships for deer hunters in this particular area of northwestern Minnesota, Cornicelli said. But reducing the long-term risk of bovine TB becoming established and spreading in the deer population is extremely important.
"In the short term that means deer densities in the bovine TB area will need to be kept low," Cornicelli said. "However, Minnesota's deer populations are resilient, and while we recognize that dramatic reductions in populations won't be popular with everyone, history tells us deer rebound very quickly."
Following two severe winters in the mid-1990s, Minnesota's wild deer population was very low, he said. But fewer than 10 years later, deer populations had expanded to record levels.
Source:
http://www.buckmasters.com/bm/Resources/Articles/tabid/135/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/553/Default.aspx
The hunt began Dec. 29 and continues through Jan. 13 in Permit Area 101, which is considered the bovine TB zone in far northwestern Minnesota. It is open to hunters who have a valid, unused permit to harvest deer regardless of the zone in which a hunter was licensed.
To date, four deer harvested in the TB zone during the regular firearms season in November have tested presumptive positive for bovine TB. Three tested positive prior to the DNR's Dec. 5 announcement of the late-season hunt. Since then, lab results have indicated that an additional deer taken during the regular firearms season has tested positive.
"Finding one additional deer with the disease is a concern," said Michael DonCarlos, DNR wildlife research and policy manager. "But the prevalence of the disease remains low and is confined to a small geographic region." All four of the infected deer from the fall 2007 hunt have been found within a five-mile radius of Skime.
After the late season hunt concludes, the DNR will conduct an aerial survey of the area to determine deer distribution and abundance. Once that information is collected, the DNR will finalize plans on the need for additional deer removal by sharpshooters. DNR also will continue to work with the agricultural community to expand and improve programs and policies to help prevent contact between cattle and deer.
This fall's testing of deer harvested in Permit Area 101 was part of the DNR's ongoing TB surveillance program, which began in 2005 when the disease was first discovered in cattle. Since then, DonCarlos said, bovine TB has been detected in eight cattle herds and 17 wild deer in Roseau and Beltrami counties. Officials from the DNR, Minnesota Board of Animal Health and U.S. Department of Agriculture have been aggressively working to manage the disease in deer and livestock so Minnesota can regain its bovine TB-free accreditation.
"This may be a narrow window of opportunity to stop this disease in its tracks," DonCarlos said. "As long as bovine TB continues to be found in deer, DNR will continue to work with local hunters, landowners, other wildlife and agriculture organizations and agencies to eliminate bovine TB in Minnesota."
Details of the special late-season hunt being conducted in deer Permit Area 101 only are:
- season dates are Saturday, Dec. 29, to Sunday, Jan. 13, 2008
- deer of either sex may be taken
- hunters can use any 2007 license or permit from any zone
- a hunter must have a license and use the legal weapon for that license; for example, a hunter cannot use a rifle if he or she does not
have a valid 2007 firearms license
- new or replacement licenses can be obtained at any Electronic Licensing System agent, and hunters can buy additional disease
management permits for $2.50
- deer also can be tagged with any remaining unused tags from the 2007 season; for example, deer can be tagged with an unfilled
firearms license, disease management permits, bonus permits or all-season tags.
All harvested deer must be registered at Olson Skime store in Skime; Riverfront Station in Wannaska; Thief Lake Wildlife Management Area headquarters during regular business hours; or Red Lake Wildlife Management Area headquarters during regular business hours.
DNR employees will staff the Skime and Wannaska registration stations during each weekend (Saturday - Monday) of the special season to examine harvested deer for clinical signs of bovine TB. If a deer is taken during the week that exhibits signs of bovine TB, such as lesions on the lungs, hunters should contact the Thief Lake Wildlife Management Area at (218) 222-3747 or the Red Lake Wildlife Management Area at (218) 783-6861.
Temporary deer population reductions may create short-term hardships for deer hunters in this particular area of northwestern Minnesota, Cornicelli said. But reducing the long-term risk of bovine TB becoming established and spreading in the deer population is extremely important.
"In the short term that means deer densities in the bovine TB area will need to be kept low," Cornicelli said. "However, Minnesota's deer populations are resilient, and while we recognize that dramatic reductions in populations won't be popular with everyone, history tells us deer rebound very quickly."
Following two severe winters in the mid-1990s, Minnesota's wild deer population was very low, he said. But fewer than 10 years later, deer populations had expanded to record levels.
Source:
http://www.buckmasters.com/bm/Resources/Articles/tabid/135/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/553/Default.aspx
MISSOURI NEWS: Hunters Can't Keep Up With Deer Population
I failed … again, as my wife would say.
I predicted the fall firearms deer season would set a new harvest record. The sun, moon and stars all seemed to line up as I thought about the upcoming deer season and penned my November column.
Lonnie Hansen, Missouri Department of Conservation’s deer expert also thought the season would produce a new record kill.
It wasn’t meant to happen. Missouri deer hunters killed 214,404 during the November firearms season, and for all seasons combined, we killed 260,162 deer, making 2007 the third-largest deer harvest, but not a new record.
Weather played a part, I’m sure. It was unusually warm the first weekend. I quit hunting early to process two antlerless deer I’d killed, and I’m sure many other hunters did, also.
There is another reality dawning on Missouri’s managers. The deer herd continues to grow despite increasing deer harvest, new seasons and increasing liberal harvest regulations. Heck, harvest is almost unlimited. You can kill as many antlerless deer as you have tags and can purchase more tags as the season progresses.
And each year we see different harvest regulations, seasons and expectations as managers continue to fine-tune the harvest and season.
Next year will be no different. MDC will propose new deer harvest regulations and different seasons, to increase, they hope, antlerless deer harvest. The experimental four-point regulation for 29 counties may be modified. It didn’t increase antlerless deer harvest, as managers hoped. Managers are now considering an antlerless season in October, rather than December, and changes in the four-point regulation.
The Missouri Department of Conservation’s Lonnie Hansen estimates Missouri’s current deer herd ranges between 1 million and 1.5 million deer. That’s a lot, and the population is still growing.
You have some control on how to manage that population. Beginning this month, MDC is holding a series of public meetings across the state to listen to your concerns and to discuss proposals for deer regulation changes. Once they hold the public meetings, the managers will propose regulation changes to the Conservation Commission for next year and the following year.
MDC managers are between a rock and a hard place. They must balance hunter expectations, maintain a healthy deer herd and consider social ramifications of an expanding deer herd. Crop depredation and deer automobile contacts continue to increase.
Let me stick my oar in the water on this topic.
In my opinion, Missouri’s deer herd is following the classic sigmoid population curve. The sigmoid curve is "S" shaped with slow growth on the left side, very rapid growth in the middle, followed by population maintenance as the population reaches carrying capacity for the habitat.
Missouri’ deer population is somewhere between full carrying capacity and the rapidly expanding segment, where the herd continues to increase. Current management slows the deer herd’s expansion. However, it isn’t able to stop the expansion.
There is another problem, however, nibbling at the edges of Missouri’s management approach.
What’s first prize: one deer? Second prize: two deer? Third prize: three deer? What do you do with all of the meat?
I suspect the amount of Missouri deer hunters is stagnant or decreasing, while deer numbers continue to increase. The only tool to manage the herd in our manager’s pocket is hunter harvest, and I fear we have reached saturation with regards to the number of deer that hunters are willing to harvest. I have an extended family that uses part of the meat I harvest each year. I process the meat myself. I don’t have to pay a processor $60 to $70 for each deer.
Hansen and MDC’s other managers continue to look for ways to increase deer harvest. Yet, the market is saturated. If you can’t kill a deer or two or four in Missouri, you’re not trying. How do you increase the harvest when fewer hunters participate? This is the conundrum MDC managers face.
Please don’t misunderstand. I believe MDC is doing a great job of managing our deer herd and meeting hunter expectations. Yes, I’d like to see more mature bucks with large racks, but for me, deer hunting is a food gathering exercise, all wrapped in a social event.
The nearest meetings to Columbia will be held Feb 4 at Marshall High School or February 7 at St. George Catholic Church in Linn. Both meetings will run from 7 to 9 p.m. If you can’t attend and would like to comment, write the Missouri Department of Conservation, Box 180, Jefferson City, 65102.
Source: http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Jan/20080106Spor001.asp
I predicted the fall firearms deer season would set a new harvest record. The sun, moon and stars all seemed to line up as I thought about the upcoming deer season and penned my November column.
Lonnie Hansen, Missouri Department of Conservation’s deer expert also thought the season would produce a new record kill.
It wasn’t meant to happen. Missouri deer hunters killed 214,404 during the November firearms season, and for all seasons combined, we killed 260,162 deer, making 2007 the third-largest deer harvest, but not a new record.
Weather played a part, I’m sure. It was unusually warm the first weekend. I quit hunting early to process two antlerless deer I’d killed, and I’m sure many other hunters did, also.
There is another reality dawning on Missouri’s managers. The deer herd continues to grow despite increasing deer harvest, new seasons and increasing liberal harvest regulations. Heck, harvest is almost unlimited. You can kill as many antlerless deer as you have tags and can purchase more tags as the season progresses.
And each year we see different harvest regulations, seasons and expectations as managers continue to fine-tune the harvest and season.
Next year will be no different. MDC will propose new deer harvest regulations and different seasons, to increase, they hope, antlerless deer harvest. The experimental four-point regulation for 29 counties may be modified. It didn’t increase antlerless deer harvest, as managers hoped. Managers are now considering an antlerless season in October, rather than December, and changes in the four-point regulation.
The Missouri Department of Conservation’s Lonnie Hansen estimates Missouri’s current deer herd ranges between 1 million and 1.5 million deer. That’s a lot, and the population is still growing.
You have some control on how to manage that population. Beginning this month, MDC is holding a series of public meetings across the state to listen to your concerns and to discuss proposals for deer regulation changes. Once they hold the public meetings, the managers will propose regulation changes to the Conservation Commission for next year and the following year.
MDC managers are between a rock and a hard place. They must balance hunter expectations, maintain a healthy deer herd and consider social ramifications of an expanding deer herd. Crop depredation and deer automobile contacts continue to increase.
Let me stick my oar in the water on this topic.
In my opinion, Missouri’s deer herd is following the classic sigmoid population curve. The sigmoid curve is "S" shaped with slow growth on the left side, very rapid growth in the middle, followed by population maintenance as the population reaches carrying capacity for the habitat.
Missouri’ deer population is somewhere between full carrying capacity and the rapidly expanding segment, where the herd continues to increase. Current management slows the deer herd’s expansion. However, it isn’t able to stop the expansion.
There is another problem, however, nibbling at the edges of Missouri’s management approach.
What’s first prize: one deer? Second prize: two deer? Third prize: three deer? What do you do with all of the meat?
I suspect the amount of Missouri deer hunters is stagnant or decreasing, while deer numbers continue to increase. The only tool to manage the herd in our manager’s pocket is hunter harvest, and I fear we have reached saturation with regards to the number of deer that hunters are willing to harvest. I have an extended family that uses part of the meat I harvest each year. I process the meat myself. I don’t have to pay a processor $60 to $70 for each deer.
Hansen and MDC’s other managers continue to look for ways to increase deer harvest. Yet, the market is saturated. If you can’t kill a deer or two or four in Missouri, you’re not trying. How do you increase the harvest when fewer hunters participate? This is the conundrum MDC managers face.
Please don’t misunderstand. I believe MDC is doing a great job of managing our deer herd and meeting hunter expectations. Yes, I’d like to see more mature bucks with large racks, but for me, deer hunting is a food gathering exercise, all wrapped in a social event.
The nearest meetings to Columbia will be held Feb 4 at Marshall High School or February 7 at St. George Catholic Church in Linn. Both meetings will run from 7 to 9 p.m. If you can’t attend and would like to comment, write the Missouri Department of Conservation, Box 180, Jefferson City, 65102.
Source: http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Jan/20080106Spor001.asp
Monday, January 07, 2008
MICHIGAN NEWS: Cull in Jackson's Ella Sharp park Underway
Sharpshooters stationed themselves Sunday in Ella Sharp Park for the first day of a deer harvest that was to kill dozens of the animals that regularly roam the Jackson park's golf course and fields.
Eight men or women with Centerfire rifles shot antlerless deer, beginning after 4:30 p.m. and ending about 11 p.m. Sunday as part of an effort to control a deer population so prevalent many residents have deemed it a nuisance.
Late Sunday, there was no count available on the total number of deer killed. Park Superintendent Eric Terrian said he would not know until early today.
The shooting, depending on the weather conditions, could continue at 4:30 p.m. today and every night until the sharpshooters down 80 deer, Terrian said.
They are shooting in the afternoon to allow children to get safely home from school and avoid times of the day when people are more likely to visit the park and its museum.
Tuesday, sharpshooters also will station themselves in the Cascades Golf Course in Summit Township.
Shooting has been permitted by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources until Feb. 29, but Terrian said he is hopeful the harvest, discussed and planned for years, could wrap up as early as the end of the week.
By about 5:20 p.m. Sunday, as a fog made fuzzy the Jackson landscape, "several" deer already had been killed, said Terrian, who was sitting in a meeting room at the Ella Sharp Golf Course.
He said the shooters, who fire in close range of the animals, indicated the fog was not bothersome.
The roads around the golf course and park were closed, blocked with road signs that read "Deer harvest in progress." Police responded twice to calls about cars or people in the closed area.
Residents who live nearby said they did not hear shots nor see the sharpshooters.
"We were surprised," said Jeff Thomasson, who lives on Horton Road near the park and expected he'd notice when hunters took to the area.
He said he supports the harvest. "We need to thin them out for sure."
The deer overpopulate the park, causing car accidents and property damage. Neighbors have complained and many support efforts to reduce their numbers.
"We can't have flowers or flower beds. They just chew them up and eat them," Thomasson said.
Others say killing the deer is cruel.
"I think they are beautiful," said Nancy Crandell, who lives on Park Road across from the golf course. "I feel sorry for the deer. It's not their fault everyone encroached on them."
She said she has safety concerns about the harvest. "We didn't like the idea of guns and bullets. You don't know where they are going to end up."
Terrian said the process is safe.
Police are monitoring the area. Two DNR officers were at the park Sunday to make sure sharpshooters, who have to follow stringent guidelines, were following the rules, he said.
Once killed, at a price of about $110 a deer, the animals were taken out of the park.
The deer are to be locally processed, and the meat is to be donated to the food pantry at Immanuel Lutheran Church, 1505 W. Michigan Ave.
"We'll be glad to get it and put it to good use and distribute it," said Alice Wiltse, pantry coordinator.
She said demand is high. Last year, the pantry served 10,742 families, up 33 percent from 2006.
"There are many people in Jackson that need the food," she said.
Often, the pantry cannot get meat at a decent price, she said, and pantry clients enjoy venison.
With the donated meat, the pantry can use its money to buy more vegetables and fruit, and meet its goal of giving more food in 2008, she said.
Source: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/01/deer_herd_gets_thinner_in_park.html
Eight men or women with Centerfire rifles shot antlerless deer, beginning after 4:30 p.m. and ending about 11 p.m. Sunday as part of an effort to control a deer population so prevalent many residents have deemed it a nuisance.
Late Sunday, there was no count available on the total number of deer killed. Park Superintendent Eric Terrian said he would not know until early today.
The shooting, depending on the weather conditions, could continue at 4:30 p.m. today and every night until the sharpshooters down 80 deer, Terrian said.
They are shooting in the afternoon to allow children to get safely home from school and avoid times of the day when people are more likely to visit the park and its museum.
Tuesday, sharpshooters also will station themselves in the Cascades Golf Course in Summit Township.
Shooting has been permitted by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources until Feb. 29, but Terrian said he is hopeful the harvest, discussed and planned for years, could wrap up as early as the end of the week.
By about 5:20 p.m. Sunday, as a fog made fuzzy the Jackson landscape, "several" deer already had been killed, said Terrian, who was sitting in a meeting room at the Ella Sharp Golf Course.
He said the shooters, who fire in close range of the animals, indicated the fog was not bothersome.
The roads around the golf course and park were closed, blocked with road signs that read "Deer harvest in progress." Police responded twice to calls about cars or people in the closed area.
Residents who live nearby said they did not hear shots nor see the sharpshooters.
"We were surprised," said Jeff Thomasson, who lives on Horton Road near the park and expected he'd notice when hunters took to the area.
He said he supports the harvest. "We need to thin them out for sure."
The deer overpopulate the park, causing car accidents and property damage. Neighbors have complained and many support efforts to reduce their numbers.
"We can't have flowers or flower beds. They just chew them up and eat them," Thomasson said.
Others say killing the deer is cruel.
"I think they are beautiful," said Nancy Crandell, who lives on Park Road across from the golf course. "I feel sorry for the deer. It's not their fault everyone encroached on them."
She said she has safety concerns about the harvest. "We didn't like the idea of guns and bullets. You don't know where they are going to end up."
Terrian said the process is safe.
Police are monitoring the area. Two DNR officers were at the park Sunday to make sure sharpshooters, who have to follow stringent guidelines, were following the rules, he said.
Once killed, at a price of about $110 a deer, the animals were taken out of the park.
The deer are to be locally processed, and the meat is to be donated to the food pantry at Immanuel Lutheran Church, 1505 W. Michigan Ave.
"We'll be glad to get it and put it to good use and distribute it," said Alice Wiltse, pantry coordinator.
She said demand is high. Last year, the pantry served 10,742 families, up 33 percent from 2006.
"There are many people in Jackson that need the food," she said.
Often, the pantry cannot get meat at a decent price, she said, and pantry clients enjoy venison.
With the donated meat, the pantry can use its money to buy more vegetables and fruit, and meet its goal of giving more food in 2008, she said.
Source: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/01/deer_herd_gets_thinner_in_park.html
Friday, December 28, 2007
WISCONSIN NEWS: You Have a 1 In 99 Chance of Hitting A Deer in 2008
If snow or ice doesn’t mangle your car, a deer might.
State Farm Insurance says Wisconsin drivers have a 1 in 99 chance of hitting a deer in the New Year.
That’s the third highest in the nation, behind only Michigan and West Virginia.
Eric Englund of the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance says about five cents of every dollar spent on auto policies pays for deer damage.
Those claims totaled $100 million statewide last year.
Keith Warnke of the state Department of Natural Resources says you’re 209 times more likely to hit a deer on the road than to get injured in a hunting accident.
Warnke should know. His vehicles have struck five deer in his lifetime.
A year ago, Waupaca County had the most deer crashes in the state, just more than 1,900.
Dane and Eau Claire counties were next on the list.
Most insurers include deer crashes in their comprehensive policies which also cover things like fires and vandalism.
About three-fourths of insured Wisconsin motorists have comprehensive coverage.
Source:
http://www.newrichmond-news.com/articles/index.cfm?id=19445§ion=Wisconsin%20News
State Farm Insurance says Wisconsin drivers have a 1 in 99 chance of hitting a deer in the New Year.
That’s the third highest in the nation, behind only Michigan and West Virginia.
Eric Englund of the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance says about five cents of every dollar spent on auto policies pays for deer damage.
Those claims totaled $100 million statewide last year.
Keith Warnke of the state Department of Natural Resources says you’re 209 times more likely to hit a deer on the road than to get injured in a hunting accident.
Warnke should know. His vehicles have struck five deer in his lifetime.
A year ago, Waupaca County had the most deer crashes in the state, just more than 1,900.
Dane and Eau Claire counties were next on the list.
Most insurers include deer crashes in their comprehensive policies which also cover things like fires and vandalism.
About three-fourths of insured Wisconsin motorists have comprehensive coverage.
Source:
http://www.newrichmond-news.com/articles/index.cfm?id=19445§ion=Wisconsin%20News
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
CALIFORNIA NEWS: Plan to Remove Deer from Santa Rosa Island Clears Hurdle
WASHINGTON — Congress appears on the verge of overturning a year-old federal law that critics say would in effect have allowed deer and elk hunting to continue indefinitely on Santa Rosa Island.
Language that would repeal the law and allow for the herds' removal from the island has been included in a $500 billion, end-of-year spending bill that Congress is expected to approve this week.
The House passed the bill Monday night on a vote of 253-154. The Senate is expected to give its approval later this week.
"This marks the end to a long battle over Santa Rosa Island," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who inserted the language into the massive spending bill during negotiations between the House and Senate.
The Santa Rosa language is part of a 1,482-page bill that covers the budgets for every Cabinet except the Pentagon. Because it is included in the broader budget bill, opponents will have little, if any, opportunity to strip the language from the legislation.
President Bush said Monday he is hopeful he can sign the bill, but only after Democrats agree to accept funding for U.S. troops in Iraq.
If approved, the measure would mark a huge victory for environmentalists and other groups who have been battling for years to get the non-native deer and elk removed from Santa Rosa by the end of 2011, as mandated by a court settlement.
Santa Rosa, which sits off the coast of Ventura County, is part of Channel Islands National Park.
Ron Sundergill of the National Parks Conservation Association said the Santa Rosa language in the spending bill "would turn around something that shouldn't have been done in the first place.''
"It is a huge victory for all Americans who own the national parks and should be able to use the national parks at all times," Sundergill said.
Lawmakers have been battling over the future of the park for more than two years, when California Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, began pushing legislation to allow the deer and elk to remain on the island permanently.
The herds are owned by Vail & Vickers, a company that runs a commercial hunting operation on the island. Hunter has said he wants the animals to remain on the island so members of the military and their families can continue to take part in the trophy hunts.
The federal law, passed last year at Hunter's urging, rescinded the court settlement and would have allowed the deer and elk to stay on the island permanently. While the law says nothing about the hunting operation, critics have argued it would in essence allow the hunts to continue indefinitely.
Vail & Vickers has said it has no desire to continue the hunting operation beyond 2011.
Regardless, the new legislation pushed by Feinstein and other congressional Democrats would reinstate the terms of the court settlement, facilitating the herds' removal and ending the hunting operation after 2011.
"Santa Rosa Island is a jewel in our national park system and should be open to all of our people, not just a select few," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who had worked with Feinstein to overturn the law.
"With this legislation, we are correcting a mistake that should never have been made," Boxer said.
Rep. Lois Capps, who had pushed similar legislation in the House, said the repeal of the federal law would guarantee that the court-ordered settlement will be fully carried out to protect Santa Rosa and provide unrestricted access to the island year-round after 2011.
Most of the island is closed to the public for four to five months of the year because of the hunts.
"As someone who's visited Santa Rosa Island and witnessed its beauty and rare archaeological and natural resources, I know we have to do all we can to protect this unique national treasure for future generations," said Capps, D-Santa Barbara.
Channel Islands National Park spokeswoman Yvonne Menard declined to comment directly on the legislation because it is pending.
But, she said, until the animals are removed and the hunting operation ends, "much of the island will remain closed to the public for nearly half a year."
"We're very anxious and eager to make this island, which has spectacular resources, available to the public full time for their enjoyment," Menard said.
— The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source: www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/dec/18/santa-rosa-deer-elk-law-may-be-repealed/
Language that would repeal the law and allow for the herds' removal from the island has been included in a $500 billion, end-of-year spending bill that Congress is expected to approve this week.
The House passed the bill Monday night on a vote of 253-154. The Senate is expected to give its approval later this week.
"This marks the end to a long battle over Santa Rosa Island," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who inserted the language into the massive spending bill during negotiations between the House and Senate.
The Santa Rosa language is part of a 1,482-page bill that covers the budgets for every Cabinet except the Pentagon. Because it is included in the broader budget bill, opponents will have little, if any, opportunity to strip the language from the legislation.
President Bush said Monday he is hopeful he can sign the bill, but only after Democrats agree to accept funding for U.S. troops in Iraq.
If approved, the measure would mark a huge victory for environmentalists and other groups who have been battling for years to get the non-native deer and elk removed from Santa Rosa by the end of 2011, as mandated by a court settlement.
Santa Rosa, which sits off the coast of Ventura County, is part of Channel Islands National Park.
Ron Sundergill of the National Parks Conservation Association said the Santa Rosa language in the spending bill "would turn around something that shouldn't have been done in the first place.''
"It is a huge victory for all Americans who own the national parks and should be able to use the national parks at all times," Sundergill said.
Lawmakers have been battling over the future of the park for more than two years, when California Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, began pushing legislation to allow the deer and elk to remain on the island permanently.
The herds are owned by Vail & Vickers, a company that runs a commercial hunting operation on the island. Hunter has said he wants the animals to remain on the island so members of the military and their families can continue to take part in the trophy hunts.
The federal law, passed last year at Hunter's urging, rescinded the court settlement and would have allowed the deer and elk to stay on the island permanently. While the law says nothing about the hunting operation, critics have argued it would in essence allow the hunts to continue indefinitely.
Vail & Vickers has said it has no desire to continue the hunting operation beyond 2011.
Regardless, the new legislation pushed by Feinstein and other congressional Democrats would reinstate the terms of the court settlement, facilitating the herds' removal and ending the hunting operation after 2011.
"Santa Rosa Island is a jewel in our national park system and should be open to all of our people, not just a select few," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who had worked with Feinstein to overturn the law.
"With this legislation, we are correcting a mistake that should never have been made," Boxer said.
Rep. Lois Capps, who had pushed similar legislation in the House, said the repeal of the federal law would guarantee that the court-ordered settlement will be fully carried out to protect Santa Rosa and provide unrestricted access to the island year-round after 2011.
Most of the island is closed to the public for four to five months of the year because of the hunts.
"As someone who's visited Santa Rosa Island and witnessed its beauty and rare archaeological and natural resources, I know we have to do all we can to protect this unique national treasure for future generations," said Capps, D-Santa Barbara.
Channel Islands National Park spokeswoman Yvonne Menard declined to comment directly on the legislation because it is pending.
But, she said, until the animals are removed and the hunting operation ends, "much of the island will remain closed to the public for nearly half a year."
"We're very anxious and eager to make this island, which has spectacular resources, available to the public full time for their enjoyment," Menard said.
— The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source: www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/dec/18/santa-rosa-deer-elk-law-may-be-repealed/
PENNSYLVANIA NEWS: Suburban Cull Impinges On Deer Season--Anger Ensues
Over six months sharpshooters have killed 465 deer in Solebury in a program that farmers and hunters say has led to a noticeable drop in the whitetail population — though they disagree on whether that is a good thing.
“We're seeing an immediate response,” said Harris Glass, who is overseeing the cull. “The deer are just not there.”
This year, supervisors approved a more than $250,000 plan that calls on the federal Department of Agriculture to kill deer at volunteer properties over 24 months. In June, a three-man crew began the effort, which provoked outcry from animal lovers and sportsmen, who feared it would hurt the hunting season.
Glass, the state director of USDA's Wildlife Services, said 465 whitetails have been taken— made up of 126 bucks, 181 does and 158 deer less than 1 year old.
That's out of a Solebury population originally estimated at 4,500, or roughly half the number of people in the township. Officials say the program is necessary to reduce a nuisance animal that threatens farmers' livelihood, slows reforestation and causes almost daily car accidents.
But the lower numbers have some hunters saying it has hampered their sport, as they have found fewer, and smaller, deer.
It's a constant topic of conversation among sportsmen, said Bill Campo, a Doylestown bow and muzzle-loader hunter who has hunting spots in Solebury.
“The opportunity to take larger does and larger bucks is a lot less,” Campo said. “It's kind of sad because you've got the sharpshooters hunting a lot of older does and just leaving the yearlings.”
In total, the crew spent 26 nights in the field, and shot deer — including bucks — throughout the six months.
That runs counter to statements Wildlife Service made earlier this year, when it said it would take only does while hunters were in the field during the primary sport season, which ran from Nov. 26 to Dec. 8.
Glass said the crew reduced its effort during that time, and focused on does. But four bucks were among the 42 deer killed in November and December, he said.
“If we found the deer in the act of doing damage, we did take bucks. If they are in a fenced in, enclosed nursery, they are fair game,” Glass said.
It is rare for culling programs to continue at all during the hunting season, said Jerry Feaser, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Usually, they are held afterward, to avoid competing with sportsmen, he said.
“This is unusual,” Feaser said. “But the driving force behind the effort in this case is based on reducing the amount of deer depredation to nursery stocks, arboretums, etc.”
Lars Crooks, who helps manage a tree farm off Route 263, said he is seeing a fifth of the deer he used to at his family's 72 acres. Instead of herds of deer, smaller family groupings are more prevalent, he said.
“We've absolutely seen a reduction in numbers. There's no doubt about it,” Crooks said. “Before it was almost the suburbs for them, they were just everywhere.”
He said the impact is sure to show for farmers who have long seen significant losses to deer grazing.
“This is the first year that I remember that I've found acorns on the ground at this time of year,” he said. “Usually, the deer would have eaten them all up by now.”
Paul Lanctot, a bow hunter who lives on Laurel Road in Solebury, said he did get his buck this year, though it took longer than expected.
“There are a lot less deer, no question about it,” Lanctot said. “I'm not the only one; we've all said the same thing.”
Solebury's effort comes as many communities are looking at ways to bring down high deer populations.
Upper Makefield has hired a private company to coordinate bow hunting in the township. Lower Makefield is also considering encouraging archery after they had mulled sharpshooters.
Solebury's crew bags deer only from properties that have signed up for the program. It has been granted access to 13 percent of the township's acreage, though it has so far been concentrating on the largest parcels, Glass said.
On those lands, the number of deer has fallen significantly, Glass said. But in other places in the township, he said he is sure strong deer populations remain.
“We pass up numerous properties where we're seeing deer, but we don't have permission to enter,” Glass said. “The bucks are still there to be taken. And I'm sure [hunters] have taken them there, nice ones.”
Wildlife Services gives the meat of the deer it takes to area food banks. So far, more than 12,000 pounds of venison have been donated, Glass said.
Source: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-12182007-1458015.html
“We're seeing an immediate response,” said Harris Glass, who is overseeing the cull. “The deer are just not there.”
This year, supervisors approved a more than $250,000 plan that calls on the federal Department of Agriculture to kill deer at volunteer properties over 24 months. In June, a three-man crew began the effort, which provoked outcry from animal lovers and sportsmen, who feared it would hurt the hunting season.
Glass, the state director of USDA's Wildlife Services, said 465 whitetails have been taken— made up of 126 bucks, 181 does and 158 deer less than 1 year old.
That's out of a Solebury population originally estimated at 4,500, or roughly half the number of people in the township. Officials say the program is necessary to reduce a nuisance animal that threatens farmers' livelihood, slows reforestation and causes almost daily car accidents.
But the lower numbers have some hunters saying it has hampered their sport, as they have found fewer, and smaller, deer.
It's a constant topic of conversation among sportsmen, said Bill Campo, a Doylestown bow and muzzle-loader hunter who has hunting spots in Solebury.
“The opportunity to take larger does and larger bucks is a lot less,” Campo said. “It's kind of sad because you've got the sharpshooters hunting a lot of older does and just leaving the yearlings.”
In total, the crew spent 26 nights in the field, and shot deer — including bucks — throughout the six months.
That runs counter to statements Wildlife Service made earlier this year, when it said it would take only does while hunters were in the field during the primary sport season, which ran from Nov. 26 to Dec. 8.
Glass said the crew reduced its effort during that time, and focused on does. But four bucks were among the 42 deer killed in November and December, he said.
“If we found the deer in the act of doing damage, we did take bucks. If they are in a fenced in, enclosed nursery, they are fair game,” Glass said.
It is rare for culling programs to continue at all during the hunting season, said Jerry Feaser, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Usually, they are held afterward, to avoid competing with sportsmen, he said.
“This is unusual,” Feaser said. “But the driving force behind the effort in this case is based on reducing the amount of deer depredation to nursery stocks, arboretums, etc.”
Lars Crooks, who helps manage a tree farm off Route 263, said he is seeing a fifth of the deer he used to at his family's 72 acres. Instead of herds of deer, smaller family groupings are more prevalent, he said.
“We've absolutely seen a reduction in numbers. There's no doubt about it,” Crooks said. “Before it was almost the suburbs for them, they were just everywhere.”
He said the impact is sure to show for farmers who have long seen significant losses to deer grazing.
“This is the first year that I remember that I've found acorns on the ground at this time of year,” he said. “Usually, the deer would have eaten them all up by now.”
Paul Lanctot, a bow hunter who lives on Laurel Road in Solebury, said he did get his buck this year, though it took longer than expected.
“There are a lot less deer, no question about it,” Lanctot said. “I'm not the only one; we've all said the same thing.”
Solebury's effort comes as many communities are looking at ways to bring down high deer populations.
Upper Makefield has hired a private company to coordinate bow hunting in the township. Lower Makefield is also considering encouraging archery after they had mulled sharpshooters.
Solebury's crew bags deer only from properties that have signed up for the program. It has been granted access to 13 percent of the township's acreage, though it has so far been concentrating on the largest parcels, Glass said.
On those lands, the number of deer has fallen significantly, Glass said. But in other places in the township, he said he is sure strong deer populations remain.
“We pass up numerous properties where we're seeing deer, but we don't have permission to enter,” Glass said. “The bucks are still there to be taken. And I'm sure [hunters] have taken them there, nice ones.”
Wildlife Services gives the meat of the deer it takes to area food banks. So far, more than 12,000 pounds of venison have been donated, Glass said.
Source: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-12182007-1458015.html
Monday, December 17, 2007
GERMANY NEWS: Germans Seek Bad Odors to Combat Deer
Hanover, Germany - A motorists' group in Germany on Monday demanded greater use of repulsive odours to keep deer off roads. Deer are scared by the smell of humans and wolves, so the decade-old German technology requires a foam containing those odours to be stuck to trees every 5 metres along the side of the road.
The noise of traffic combined with the scent deters deer from crossing the road and being killed in collisions with cars. When the road is quiet, the deer pluck up courage to run across.
The Lower Saxony branch of the ADAC appealed for hunters to create more of the odour barriers, saying 2,300 people were injured or killed last year in 220,000 collisions with wild animals. A much higher number of the deer and boar perished in the crashes.
The group said animal-car collisions had been reduced 80 per cent in places in Lower Saxony where the virtual barrier was employed.
The blobs of polyurethane foam about the size of tennis balls have to have fresh scent repeatedly added to them.
Source: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/160246.html
The noise of traffic combined with the scent deters deer from crossing the road and being killed in collisions with cars. When the road is quiet, the deer pluck up courage to run across.
The Lower Saxony branch of the ADAC appealed for hunters to create more of the odour barriers, saying 2,300 people were injured or killed last year in 220,000 collisions with wild animals. A much higher number of the deer and boar perished in the crashes.
The group said animal-car collisions had been reduced 80 per cent in places in Lower Saxony where the virtual barrier was employed.
The blobs of polyurethane foam about the size of tennis balls have to have fresh scent repeatedly added to them.
Source: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/160246.html
OHIO NEWS: Village of 3500 To Kill Deer
AMBERLEY, Ohio (AP) - A southwest Ohio village is spending $3,000 for a professional deer count to make sure no more deer will be killed than necessary during a thinning of the herd.
Amberley officials say deer-related traffic accidents and residents' complaints about deer prompted the village to authorize culling, or thinning, the herd.
Councilman Louis Katz convinced the village council to wait to cull until a professional deer count is taken.
Katz says it's true the only way to have no deer-related accidents is to kill all the deer, but that's not what Amberley is all about.
Village police say there were 22 deer-related traffic accidents in Amberley in 2006 and 13 so far this year. None were fatal.
Source: http://www.wdtn.com/Global/story.asp?S=7503389
Amberley officials say deer-related traffic accidents and residents' complaints about deer prompted the village to authorize culling, or thinning, the herd.
Councilman Louis Katz convinced the village council to wait to cull until a professional deer count is taken.
Katz says it's true the only way to have no deer-related accidents is to kill all the deer, but that's not what Amberley is all about.
Village police say there were 22 deer-related traffic accidents in Amberley in 2006 and 13 so far this year. None were fatal.
Source: http://www.wdtn.com/Global/story.asp?S=7503389
AUSTRALIA NEWS: Farmers Want Introduced Sambar Deer Declared Pest
East Gippsland farmers in south-east Victoria are continuing their campaign to have sambar deer declared a pest animal.
A scientific committee has recommended to the State Government that the deer be declared a threat to biodiversity under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act.
Shooters' organisations want the deer protected so their numbers are maintained for controlled hunting.
The Member for Gippsland East, Craig Ingram, says landholders should be able to kill deer grazing on their properties, and use the carcasses.
"I've copped a bit of criticism from the shooting fraternity, but if they think about this rationally their sport should not be impacting upon the biodiversity in the state forests and national parks and so their game species should not be impacting upon private landholders," he said.
source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/17/2120818.htm
A scientific committee has recommended to the State Government that the deer be declared a threat to biodiversity under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act.
Shooters' organisations want the deer protected so their numbers are maintained for controlled hunting.
The Member for Gippsland East, Craig Ingram, says landholders should be able to kill deer grazing on their properties, and use the carcasses.
"I've copped a bit of criticism from the shooting fraternity, but if they think about this rationally their sport should not be impacting upon the biodiversity in the state forests and national parks and so their game species should not be impacting upon private landholders," he said.
source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/17/2120818.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
