In many ways you have to admire those who lobby for changes that they feel are in the best interest of hunters. The problem is with some of these proposals, not a lot of thought goes into the long-term affect such moves might have on the sport. I’ve talked about this before that not all ideas to increase hunting opportunities actually achieve the goal that is intended, especially when factoring in the long term.
LD284 is a proposal submitted by Rep. Cleary of Houlton. This bill would allow for an archery hunter who takes a deer during the archery season to also take a deer during the firearms season. I opposed this bill even though it wasn’t a popular stance to take. The reason, put as simply as I can, is because this plan appears to provide more hunting opportunities but falls short of providing those opportunities for the majority. It may in fact do such for archery hunters but does nothing to provide more hunting opportunities for everyone. My argument has been that if there are enough deer to allow additional deer to be taken, then efforts should be made to extend the season in order to provide additional chances for all hunters not just archery hunters. I have nothing against archery hunters but I do support providing sound and science-based opportunities for every hunter.
There are other bills that are being debated in committee. One of those is LD655, a bill that would change the dates of the deer hunting season in some of the southern Wildlife Management Districts to open one week later than normal. According to Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine representative and former Maine deer biologist Gerry Lavigne in an article in the Sun Journal, this bill would provide better hunting conditions for the southern hunter.
The rationale behind the proposal is simple and straightforward – it increases the odds of better hunting conditions in the parts of Maine that tend to have milder, late fall weather. As Lavigne testified, “it would increase the odds of hunting in cool weather and increase the chances of a tracking snow.”
The additional benefit would be that in these late opening districts, bow hunters, bird hunters and trappers would gain an extra week.
While this bill sounds good and may in fact be good, we have to examine the science behind this. By the way, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife does not support this bill but we’re not exactly sure why. Starting the season one week later creates the possibility of a few negative results and this is where science needs to be examined closely to make sure we don’t put at risk healthy deer populations.
Most would agree that some parts of the southern WMDs have too many deer. MDIFW biologists have attacked this problem by providing extended archery hunt opportunities. This new proposal would start the regular firearms season one week later, ending one week later as well. Adjusting the dates to provide what Lavigne says are better hunting conditions, therefore increasing the chances of tagging a deer, needs to be looked at closely. It’s not just a simple matter of moving the date and Lavigne knows that being a wildlife biologist. Lavigne is wearing a different hat these days acting as a lobbyist for hunters while representing the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine.
Anytime a deer hunting season runs later in a cold climate such as Maine, there is a risk of adding stress to deer heading into a potentially deadly winter season. The whitetail deer spends all of the fall fattening up in preparation for a long winter. Many people don’t realize that the biggest reason we hunt deer during the rut is for increased chances to shoot deer. Deer, especially bucks, are on the move. When hunters are in the woods harassing deer, they are adding stress that can create a situation where deer have less fat and are weaker heading into the winter.
Should Maine consider making a change to open and close the season a week later, this needs to be factored into the equation.
Another obvious factor has to be in making a decision as to how many more deer would be killed by opening the season later. If, as Lavigne states, this later season will increase chances, it only stands to reason more deer would be harvested. The question is, how many?
But we have to take into consideration all the areas in the proposed WMDs where this later season would be affected. I understand the proposal lists WMDs 1-11. For example, one of the reasons biologists opted for extended archery hunts on deer in some areas of southern Maine is because these overgrown populations of deer reside in heavily human populated areas. Are there ample areas open to firearms hunting that can handle increased hunting pressure? We need to be cautious that we don’t end up creating fewer hunting opportunities because of further land closures due to increased firearm hunting in more populated areas.
Further examination is necessary as to which WMDs actually could handle a later season and increased harvesting. To state simply that the southern WMDs should have a later season might be irresponsible.There are a lot of factors that go into making such a decision and all of those need to be closely examined. Should politicians be dictating which WMDs added hunting should be allowed on?
Another aspect of this proposed bill, according to Lavigne, is it would extend the hunting seasons by one week for archery, bird hunters and trappers. We must realize that this bill wouldn’t open the archery and bird hunting seasons one week later but add an additional week. This is another part of the overall equation that needs to be factored in. A longer season should equate to an increase in harvest numbers.
Another bill that SAM is supporting is LD421. This would change the current “Any Deer” permit system to a “Antlerless Deer” permit system.
The bill is aimed at an increasing deer management dilemma in Maine. Far too often, the doe permit is never used by hunters, who hold out for that big buck. The result is that in deer-rich southern and central WMDs, doe-harvest quotas are not being met, and too many does remain in the management mix. (Lavigne testified that in the past seven out of 10 years, the Department has undershot its doe-harvest quota by approximately 15 percent.) Under the new plan, a hunter, who holds an antlerless permit in a given WMD, could take a doe first and then a buck. This would apply to October archers and December blackpowder hunters as well. A bow hunter, for example, could harvest an October doe and then legally hunt bucks during the general firearms season in November.
It must be pointed out first of all that MDIFW disputes Lavigne’s claim that it is not meeting its doe harvest goals.
While this bill would better give a wider spectrum of hunters the opportunity to take more than one deer, more so than LD284, the bigger question remains as to whether or not the deer population could handle this system. If the deer population in these proposed areas isn’t large enough to fully support this system, it may in fact reduce hunting opportunities. If there are far too many doe deer in these WMDs and MDIFW is not reaching doe harvest quotas, then I believe an “Antlerless” permit system for those areas can work to reduce overgrown deer populations.
Wisconsin is one state that operates a similar “Antlerless” permit system. There’s is called an “Earn a Buck” program, where hunters must first tag an antlerless deer before they are allowed to shoot an antlered deer. Of course Wisconsin has a very serious deer population problem in much of their state.
Under the present system in Maine, hunters can apply for “Any Deer” permits. MDIFW determines how many to issue in each of the WMDs as part of their formula for maintaining deer densities, etc. Calculating how many “Antlerless” permits to issue to achieve this same desired results could be tricky at the onset. Depending on popularity and success rates, especially if combined with an approved LD655, it could have quite an affect on the herd. Implementing this change will be time consuming and costly as well. If no extra money is appropriated for this change, attention will be taken away from other projects to do this.
There are just too many unknowns to be able to state one way or the other how this would be beneficial to hunters while at the same time not having a real negative affect on management of the herd. We must realize that under the present system, which has been in place for over 20 years, biologists have tweaked their management formulas that they use to control deer populations. A change such as this would be an added expense and would take several years to get a firm handle on it.
Both LD655 and LD421 are interesting bills but we as hunters have to understand that it is not as simple as it may seem to just change the dates and alter the permit system that MDIFW claims has been extremely successful.
I support sound hunting opportunities that will benefit the majority of hunters but I also strongly believe that without good scientific measures in place, looking for more opportunities wouldn’t be an option.
Tom Remington
