I hear this all the time. I hear it in the middle of the deer management controversy in Pennsylvania and now I’m reading about it in a Vermont newspaper.

Where I once found it nearly impossible to spend a day in the woods of Vermont without seeing a deer, I now may go an entire deer season without seeing so much as the flicker of a whitetail.

Is this what we hunters have come to expect? And is this the way it should be? It’s a difficult walk to make. Most states mandate that fish and game manage game to provide hunting opportunities for its license holders. That same law doesn’t express how many deer we are supposed to see in a day or a season.

In Pennsylvania, authorities say there have been so many deer they are destroying the ecosystem and therefore the numbers must be reduced. This has angered hunters who say this is not true and Pennsylvania fish and game are caving in to the foresters and other special interest.

From the perspective of the game managers, it looks like a losing proposition no matter what they do. If they are using the best available science in the creation and implementation of a deer management plan which then calls for a reduction in deer numbers, some hunters cry foul. If they allow numbers to grow, landowners, foresters and automobile owners get worked up as well.

It appears that as each state has opted to manage wildlife, especially game, for everyone not just hunters, there has ensued controversy. States created fish and game departments for the purpose of regulating the hunting, fishing and trapping industry. Unregulated hunting was putting the animals being hunted in danger of extinction in some cases. But now, politics and money rule the day and wildlife management doesn’t very much resemble what it once did.

Fish and game manages its game for hunters and wildlife gawkers, yet the hunter is asked to pay for it. Wildlife watchers demand to see animals and some get angry because hunters kill them. Fish and game has to find ways to fund the great demand being put on them which often forces them to sell more licenses, up the cost of licenses or become creative in finding more ways to dupe the would-be hunter out of more fees for more licenses.

I have said this many times before. Our management of game species is heading in the wrong direction. Maine is even considering a move to integrate the fish and wildlife department in with other departments in order to save money. This will resemble other state’s larger, less efficient and less caring toward game management, natural resources departments.

People cry asking that we find ways to charge those who reap the benefits of the money and efforts of outdoor sportsmen. I say move the fish and game back to its original focus of managing game for the purpose of providing hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities. If others want to build wildlife viewing platforms and place demands on the state to provide them their opportunities, then find other ways of funding it other than on the backs of sportsmen.

There is seldom a lot of love between the hunter and fish and game. One of the biggest reasons I think is that all too often, the hunter believes he/she knows better than the game expert. In the case referred to above and much of what I have heard in Pennsylvania, hunters demand to see deer on nearly, if not every, trip to the forest to hunt. Is this demand reasonable?

Deer densities vary in every state and within those state’s regions. Ideally biologists want to manage numbers at what is called carrying capacity – that is the amount of deer that can live in an area that can be sustained by the habitat they are in. This amount can vary between 8 as a low and perhaps as high as 25 or 30 per square mile.

I have hunted my whole life in areas where deer density probably runs around 10-12 per square mile on average. I am not a sitter but a stocker or still hunter. Seldom do I see deer every trip out, although I would like to for the excitement. Seldom am I successful in bagging a deer as well in those areas. Should I then demand that the state do more to provide me the opportunity to see more deer and shoot more deer? Some would say yes.

There is one thing for sure. There will never be complete satisfaction between the hunter and those who have been given the authority and are paid by the fees hunters pay, to provide the opportunities.

We, the sportsmen, need to continue to learn and gain a better understanding of the complexities of wildlife management, especially in dealing with the politics, yet at the same time question the actions of our managers and biologists to make sure they are looking out for our best interest. After all, it is our investment and we need to protect it.

Tom Remington

Related Posts