If we are to believe the conclusions reached by compiled data at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, we can determine that the deer herd in Maine is healthy. The same data show us that in Northern Maine, most of Eastern Maine and parts of the Western Mountains of Maine have deer densities that are far below management targets and in some cases nearing unsustainable levels.
In Part I, I examined some charts that clearly showed that the number of big-bodied deer and trophy-antlered deer had dropped significantly in Maine since 2002. When Lee Kantar, head deer and moose biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife examined and compared those charts with his own deer harvest and population data, he concluded that the descending registration of trophy deer was in direct proportion to a reduction in deer population and annual deer harvest.
In Part II I tried to answer the question raised in Part I as to whether the reduction in deer harvest and population was a result of an unhealthy herd or perhaps even poor management.
We all have to be willing to accept Kantar’s conclusions that the herd is healthy and then we can move on. I did however opt to create my own graph comparing trophy deer registrations with annual harvest numbers and estimated post hunt deer populations, done as a comparison of percentages to see if Kantar was right in his assessment that trophy deer reductions mirrored that of harvest and population. It appeared to me that they did.
If we put all this together and conclude that the herd is healthy, that the shrinking number of registered trophy deer isn’t a function of poor management, in the sense that we are shooting too many or the wrong deer or letting them starve to death, and that we simply have a problem with deer densities in some locations around the state, then we have to ask two questions. Why and what can be done about it?
Answering those questions isn’t easy. I’ll spare readers the details of the laundry list of events that affect a deer herd. Nearly every hunter in Maine recognizes the items on the list but seldom can there be a real consensus in which ones have the most effect on deer. As given to me in Kantar’s response, here’s a list of things that he points out as problems. These are in no particular order and I may expound a little on them to clarify Kantar’s reasoning.
1. Winter weather – Northern Maine has always dealt with harsh winters, it’s when the extreme ones come along when it can hurt. Kantar explains: “Despite a terrible 2008 winter and a horrible start to the 2009 winter, we were fortunate that March 09 came in and out for the most part like a lamb with lots of snowmelt and very little precipitation. This shortening of the winter will be positive for overwintering fawns and give a boost to pregnant does near the end of their term, hopefully they will drop hearty fawns and give populations a boost.”
2. Consider 3 Decades of Changes in Maine – Kantar: “3 decades have not been good from a deer management perspective.”
3. Forest Cover – Spruce Bud Worm and changes in logging practices.
4. 25,000 miles of private logging roads – Kantar: “Think of driving down logging roads cutting a track and following that buck.”
5. Predation
6. Road kill
7. Poaching
8. Wounded Deer Loss
9. Increase in Human Population – Encroachment
10. Less Available Land to Hunt – Kantar: “This means you are putting the relatively same numbers of hunters on smaller accessible lands to hunt, squeezing folks into pressuring the herd in the same areas.”
11. Deer Management Objectives – Kantar: “In addition deer mgt objectives (set by the public) changed in 1999 from growing deer to maintaining levels at 15-20 per square mile in order to reduce negative impacts of deer including risk of lyme disease, car-vehicle collisions, and overbrowsing of ornamentals, etc…”
I wouldn’t want to try to shuffle this list around and prioritize it to what I think is the most to least negative impact on deer. I think there’s enough others who are willing to do that. From my perspective I see the deer problem in Maine as one that is affected by everything on this list and when you break the list down, I find it frightening.
How many things on that list can we really control easily? Obviously we can’t control the weather. How much do you honestly think we could or should control what landowners do with their land? We are up against tough economic times and we certainly don’t want to be talking about restrictions to landowners that would cost jobs and personal livelihoods. Although we are rapidly approaching a fascist state, we aren’t there yet. We must respect landowners and their rights. I like the idea of working with landowners to offer some kind of incentive to protect deer yards and migration corridors, etc.
The shocking fact here that may leave hunters standing with their mouths wide open is that there may not be anything that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife can do about our problem with deer densities outside of what they are doing now. Please don’t think I am trying to make excuses for them. I just think the reality is they don’t have the resources to get the job done.
Just today I read about the frustrations of one Maine hunter who said he had heard a rumor that MDIFW didn’t plan to do anything about the low deer population. His comment was he was sick and tired of it all. I haven’t heard anything as to whether MDIFW plans to do anything about the deer problem but I can assure you maintaining the present course is doomed for failure. We can wait for better weather but even during those years when the weather was much less severe, there were density issues.
MDIFW has eliminated Any-Deer Permits in those regions mostly affected by reduced populations. The risk the department faces should they opt to close the season altogether, then becomes economic. With closed seasons, it would mean a reduction in license purchases further hindering the MDIFW from being able to do their job. There already is a serious economic problem in parts of Northern Maine which lack of hunters whose money spent is a viable part of that region’s economy.
In my opinion, here’s the real problem. It began several years ago when the brain trust of the Maine Government decided that the fish and game department was going to expand out to include the management of all wildlife and other assorted goodies. The problem with that is quite clear unless you have selective blindness.
We now have the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife whose job it has become to do more than just manage fish and game and how it has been paid for has been on the backs of license buyers. Not only has MDIFW taken on the role of managing butterflies and caterpillars but we fund search and rescue and other responsibilities that hunters shouldn’t be paying for. In short, the department is pulled and stretched so thin, all funded on the backs of license holders.
Hunters, fishermen and trappers are seeing their money being spent on programs that do not directly have any affect on hunting, fishing or trapping. They are also beginning to feel like their money is being spent to promote and cater to the wildlife watchers, hikers, canoeists, kayakers, etc. who pay nothing for that privilege and yet demand more.
When animal rights groups step in with their unending lawsuits, these same hunters, fishermen and trappers are seeing more and more of their rights and privileges being taken away. They are tiring of digging deeper and deeper into their pockets while seeing their deer herds disappear while wildlife viewing platforms are being built or more of their money going to fund non-game activities.
Some feel that the non-consumptive outdoor enthusiast has to start paying their way. Nobody has come up with any creative way of doing that as of yet. The answer is not in funding fish and game with general tax money. The worst thing that could ever happen to Maine’s fish and game interests is to lose further control over it. Once general tax dollars are brought into the mix, there will be more demands for representation to the MDIFW from animal rights groups, environmentalists and preservationists.
The current administration has proposed lumping together several departments into one bigger “natural resources” entity. Bad idea. Simply visit several states who have done this. Hunting, fishing and trapping are disappearing and all funds and efforts are going into locking up land use, preservation and non-game efforts.
Unfortunately, I hold out little hope that Maine will do a 360 and return the MDIFW to the Maine Department of Fish and Game and go back to managing game and fish and leave the search and rescue and the migration of the ruby-throated croople poop to the department of conservation or Bird Watchers Anonymous.
The short of all this is, those of us who continue to pay for MDIFW, are being used and abused. In this regard we really only have two options – try to reverse the trend or seek general taxation, or some other creative tax, to fund MDIFW and fight to retain as much control over our investment as we can.
Part IV will deal with things we can do to help our deer herds. If we have healthy deer and low densities we have to figure out how to work within the parameters we are faced with and restore our deer populations. MDIFW does not have the option to do nothing about it. They are mandated to care for our deer.
Perhaps the days are over that hunters, fishermen and trappers can just populate the local coffee shop and bitch and complain about what a lousy job fish and game does. Let’s be proactive instead of reactive.
Tom Remington
