Testimony Prepared for the Oregon State Legislature, House Agriculture Committee Regarding Wolves And Particularly Those Diseases And Infections That They Carry And Spread That Humans Are Susceptible To.

By James M. Beers, Retired Wildlife Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Thank you for allowing me to testify before this Committee today. My name is James Beers and I retired from the US Fish and Wildlife Service as a Wildlife Biologist in 1999 after 32 years as a Wetlands Biologist, Special
Agent, Congressional Fellow, Animal Damage Control Program Coordinator, Chief of Operations for the National Wildlife Refuge System, Administrative Officer for the Endangered Species Program, and Wildlife Biologist
responsible for the Excise Taxes collected on arms and ammunition and that, by law, may only be used by state fish and wildlife agencies for Wildlife Restoration. I was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and for 25 years in Washington, DC. I once worked for the Utah Fish & Game and I have a BS in Wildlife Resources from Utah State University and an MA in Public Administration from the University of Northern Colorado.

Since my retirement in 1999 after testifying twice before the US House of Representatives, Natural Resources Committee about the theft by US Fish and Wildlife Service Administrators of $45M to $60M (as reported in a General Accounting Office (GAO) Audit Report to the US House Resources Committee) from the excise taxes on arms and ammunition earmarked by law for state fish and wildlife programs I have written and spoken extensively about wildlife management and conservation across the nation. The Introduction,
Protection, and Impacts of Federal Wolf Programs are perhaps the most controversial and wide-ranging such issues today. As a result, requests for my assistance, writing informative articles, suggesting what those being affected can do, and speaking requests over the past decade have caused me to spend a great deal of my time confronting this very intractable issue.

The wolves that are entering Oregon as we speak and that Oregonians have watched causing havoc in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming for the past 15 years were released in Yellowstone Park in 1995. The capture, transportation, and release of those original wolves was paid for with excise tax dollars that were taken from Wildlife Restoration funds that were collected for and could only be used by state fish and wildlife agencies for authorized state wildlife restoration projects. The reason for this theft or diversion by US Fish and Wildlife Service Administrators as reported by GAO was that Congress had not agreed to fund the release with Appropriated funding so their illicit diversion was perpetrated secretly. Just last week I spoke about his matter at great length in Bozeman, Montana. There are other associated and legally questionable aspects of this wolf release and their subsequent spread that I covered in that presentation:

1. The illegal supplementing of the federal Budget with the (diverted?/stolen?) excise tax dollars.
2. The wolf introduction after Congress had not authorized funding the introduction.
3. The apparent failure by those importing the wolves into the US to complete the required paperwork (Form 3-177).
4. The total failure of federal documents to address or describe the impacts that wolves are having on human disease transmission, big game herds, hunting license revenue, domestic animal owners from ranchers to dog owners, rural economies, rural “tranquility”, costs to state governments, and human safety.
5. The role of Non-Government Organizations playing significant roles in the wolf program from verifying damages and assisting in operations to receiving federal funds while actively participating in federal elections lobbying and candidate opposition.
6. The unequal treatment of those being harmed by wolves by the federal wolf program overseers.
7. The failure of the USFWS to routinely audit state fish and wildlife programs for compliance every 5 years as required by the law authorizing the excise tax collection.
8. The very questionable firing of contract auditors hired to resume the required audits that found more than $100M in discrepancies in state programs halfway through the first cycle before being fired for “being behind schedule” and the disappearance of any follow-up or reporting of the discrepancies.
8. The current situation where in the US Department of the Interior Inspector General, that is responsible for USFWS oversight, is actually paid to conduct perfunctory state fish and wildlife audits BY USFWS.
9. The $2M-$3M being given , since the theft of the $45M to $60 M, to the 50 States’ Washington Lobby Organization BEFORE the excise taxes are apportioned to the state agencies based on the formula in the Act. While ostensibly for “multi-state” projects (nowhere mentioned in the Act) the lobby group, like those mentioned above under #5, has increased staffing and continued to engage in lobbying federal officials and institutions.
10. The scandalous fact that not one state ever asked for the stolen excise tax money to be replaced.

The mounting losses of big game herds, big game hunting opportunity, and state revenue from hunting license sales as a result of the rapidly expanding wolf packs are staggering:

The Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, reputedly the largest such herd in the world is on the verge of total collapse and extinction. After years as high as 30K and a long-term average of 19K, today the outfitters believe there are as few as only 2K while state employees claim 4-6K. Of those left, winter counts of calves show fewer that 4 or 5 per 100 cows and the vast majority of cows and bulls are 7 years old or older. Not only are there so few; those left are non-breeders and the future for license sales, rural communities, and hunting is not only grim, it is lost if drastic action is not taken.

A somewhat similar herd in Idaho, the Lolo herd, is likewise on the verge of disappearance. Permit applications that were historically well over those available now go begging at this late date. The latest report I have is only about 3K applicants for more than 11K permits. The hunters have begun to realize that the state is selling more than they should. While selling too many permits for the elk available when elk are abundant results in reduced herds, selling too many when the herd is disappearing simply wrings a few more dollars from hunters that will be disappointed anyway.

Wolf kill permits, while apparently numerous, are based on totally ineffective quotas. Wolves are increasing at more than 30%/year and they are not amenable to any accurate surveying. Everyone agrees that there
are too many at this time but state fish and wildlife agency estimates are increasingly dismissed as extreme undercounts by those being affected. Even though quota increases from100 to 400 sound good to those wishing to manage the wolf numbers, if as is likely Montana has 4K wolves and they want to maintain say 1K – you would have to try and kill about 70% per year for several years and then about 40 % per year to reach and maintain 1K wolves. Add to that ineffective survey numbers and you see the problem.

Another issue is killing the required numbers over time. Wolves are very smart and very adaptive. Hunting (even for the current 2-3% of formerly un-hunted, i.e. “dumb” wolves) is insufficient. Wolves learn quickly to
be more secretive and since they do not come to calls or bait, shooting them becomes more and more opportunistic and luck-driven. Between the prohibitions on traps and poisons and aerial hunting and the patchwork of public and much private lands that prohibit it, hunting is a very ineffective control tool.

While we could go on about livestock losses, human attacks to be expected, dog losses, and the general strife and stress that wolves are bringing to rural American communities and their economies, I will conclude with a snapshot of human disease issues that like so many others went unmentioned when wolves were being introduced to the Lower 48 states.

Wolves are very wide-ranging animals. They are not only fearless, they frequent human habitations with impunity and often concentrate on pastures or homesteads or big game wintering areas so that when they pick up an infection or disease, they will likely go to similar surroundings where similar animals or humans can be infected. It is not that they carry all these diseases, it is that when they do get a really bad one like anthrax or rabies or foot-and-mouth or chronic wasting disease – stopping the spread is almost impossible as when dogs and other wildlife carriers that don’t roam far and wide (nor travel in packs like bats sleeping together are very able to spread disease among themselves) are killed when there is a rabies or Mad Cow (BSE) outbreak. Consider the havoc, often documented in early America of rabid wolves that go for miles biting everything they encounter. Indian villages, trappers, homesteaders, and even forts with soldiers all have records of the terror and death rabid wolves were capable of imposing.

The following list of diseases carried by wolves, while not totally comprehensive, represents over 30 infections that have been credited to wolves. Those that can infect humans are followed by an (H), those that affect other animals are followed by an (OA).

1. Rabies (H) (OA)
2. Brucellosis (H) (OA) Hydatid Disease:
3. Echinococcus granulosis (H) (OA)
4. Echinococcus multilocularis (H) (OA)
5. Anthrax (H) (OA)
6. Encephalitis (H) (OA)
7. Great Lakes Fish Tapeworm (H) (OA)
8. Smallpox (H) (OA)
9. Mad Cow (BSE) (OA) (H)
10. Chronic Wasting Disease (OA) From Ticks Carried by wolves:
11. Anemia (H)
12. Dermatosis (H)
13. Tick paralysis (H)
14. Babesiosis (H)
15. Anaplasmosis (H)
16. Erlichia (H)
17. E. Coast Fever (H)
18. Relapsing Fever (H)
19. Rocky Mtn. Spotted Fever (H)
20. Lyme Disease (H) From Fleas:
21. Plague (H)
22. Bubonic Plague (H)
23. Pneumonic Plague (H)
24. Flea-Borne Typhus (H)
25. Distemper (OA)
26. Neospora caninum (OA)
27. 2 Types of Mange (H) (OA)
28. GID (a disease of wild and domestic sheep) (OA)
29. Foot-and -Mouth (OA)

Of the 29 diseases and infections listed, 24 affect humans and many of these are deadly. Whether it is a child ingesting tapeworm eggs from a ranch house floor rug or a jogging soccer Mom encountering wolves as a
schoolteacher did recently in Alaska that resulted in a horrible death, the fact that these human health hazards have been given short-shrift by wildlife agencies and their veterinarians is nothing short of scandalous.

How do you control wolves as vectors of these diseases when there is an outbreak? Who pays for control? What methods are permissible? Who is responsible? These sorts of questions need to be answered before you (the State Government) can determine where wolves are to be tolerated; in what numbers; and how these things are to be achieved ad infinitum. I am a strong believer that State Governments are the proper place for such decisions if the first and foremost purpose of government – “domestic Tranquility” and “the general Welfare” of the all the citizenry are to achieved and maintained.

Thank you and I am willing to answer any questions you might have.

James Beers
25 May 2010

Hat tip goes to Rex Howell of Deer Camp Blog for the news tip!

David McFadden of Water Valley, Mississippi set up his trail camera just after Christmas hoping to catch a shot or two of deer in an area he hoped to hunt. After retrieving his memory stick, he was disappointed to find no pictures of deer but he did capture a photo of a black bear, which is quite unusual for Mississippi.

Get the whole story from the North Mississippi Herald.

Tom Remington

We are at a point where it would be safe to say that this year’s outbreak of Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease (EHD) is quite widespread. Here’s a list of states that have confirmed cases of the virus that is carried to deer by biting midges or no-see-ums: Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Montana, Mississippi and Georgia. In addition, some states are waiting for test results to confirm what they already suspect – South Carolina is one such state.

To confirm the presence of the disease, blood and certain tissue has to be analyzed.

According to both the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and the Alabama Department of Conservation, dealing with EHD is quite routine. Charles Ruth, Deer/Turkey Project supervisor for the South Carolina DNR says flair-ups in that state seem to run in cycles of 3-5 years and there’s a reasonable explanation.

“This is probably related to the fact that once deer are exposed to the disease they are more resistant to it. Therefore, if you have disease one year the deer become exposed or inoculated to the disease and you do not see much disease activity until there is turnover in the deer population. After several years you are dealing with another cohort of deer and their systems are ‘naïve’ to the disease. The last time there was significant hemorrhagic disease activity in South Carolina was in 2002, therefore, disease activity could be relatively high this year.”

This theory is confirmed by a spokesman for the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

“We have some cases every year,” said Keith Guyse, a whitetail specialist with the Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division in the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. “In the Coastal Plain, the virus is there frequently enough that deer have been exposed to it and have some resistance to it.

Both representatives indicate that EHD in their respective states is pretty much routine only because of the build up of a certain degree of immunity. Therefore, these southern states don’t see wide outbreaks of the disease that often. When EHD hits the more northern climes, EHD seems to grab harder. Ruth explains.

Deer likely die in South Carolina each year from hemorrhagic disease, however, there is no indication that a major outbreak has occurred in the state since the mid 1970s. The disease is part of life for deer in the Southeast and fortunately it appears that Southern deer have acquired some immunity to the disease, said Ruth. Northern deer, on the other hand, are not exposed to the disease as frequently since the insect vector is not as common in cooler climates. For this reason, significant outbreaks and mortality from hemorrhagic disease are more likely in northern deer populations.

Guyse from Alabama makes reference to the same theory.

“Typically in North Alabama and above the fall line, they’re not exposed to it as often. So over a period of time you have a population that doesn’t have much resistance. When you have (outbreaks) up there, it tends to be more noticeable.”

This helps us understand why some states may have more severe outbreaks, killing larger numbers of deer, than others but why this year are outbreaks so widespread across the landscape of the country? Some have related it to the summer heat and drought. That may be true, I don’t know. It would be logical to assume that being that the virus is carried and spread by tiny midges or gnats, a larger than normal population of that insect would be directly proportional to the spread of the disease. Of course science isn’t that simplistic and we know that there are probably many more factors to consider or it could be just merely a coincidence.

However, Guyse from Alabama eludes to the theory of increased numbers of midges, somewhat.

“Auburn (researchers) had traps out to catch the flies and they might catch a few every once in a while, and then all of a sudden they catch hundreds,” Guyse said. “Much of that still is a mystery.”

Obviously, they don’t have a good handle on it either.

Hunters and others should be aware of the symptoms they may find on deer suffering from the disease.

Symptoms of hemorrhagic disease include poor physical condition, sloughing hooves, abrasions or sores on the brisket and legs, and ulcerations on the mouth, tongue, and rumen (stomach).

As I said earlier, verification of the disease has to be done in the lab.

If you see sick or dead deer in your travels, please report it to the appropriate authorities. It is highly recommended that nobody eats any of the meat from deer sickened by EHD.

Tom Remington

Joe Hill of Brandon, Mississippi bid $8,001 for the first of five moose permits auctioned off by the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. A total of about $29,000 was raised through the auction that will go to the department. The moose hunt season is a split season with one occurring in October and the second in November.

Get more information and a list of auction winners and the prices they paid here.

Tom Remington

The state of Mississippi has been debating the issue of baiting deer and shooting deer over bait piles for some time. In early February, the House passed a deer baiting bill. In late March a baiting bill ended up on the governor’s desk. Last month the governor opted to sign a bill that would study the issue of deer baiting first.

Baiting gets into two issues, ethics and a useful tool for deer management. Generally the tool for management gets overlooked in order to debate the issue of ethics. I have jumped on that bandwagon myself on several occasions. As a matter of fact I discussed at length this issue pertaining to Mississippi in a previous blog post.

The other day I found another letter to the editor from a 60-year old gentleman from Mississippi sharing his take on deer baiting. He points out that he hunts strictly on his own land and does not hunt over bait. How he views the practice and those who do, you might find interesting.

Concerning bait, let people hunt however they want to in order to attain as much enjoyment as possible from the hunting experience. Whether they hunt with a shotgun or a slingshot is irrelevant to me, and I think the baiting issue should be just as much a matter of personal choice.

Hunting is expensive, and people don’t have the time that they used to to put into it. For these two reasons, and others, hunting is on the decline; we should be encouraging the sport, and not discouraging it.

I think to tell someone it is unethical and unsportsmanlike to bait for deer is about as ridiculous as telling a fisherman that he or she must fish with artificial bait instead of live bait because the live bait just makes it a little too unfair for the fish.

The writer’s attitude is to be commended in that he does not sit in judgment of those who choose to use tactics to hunt that are different than his own. He doesn’t even say whether he approves or disapproves of any of it. All he says is that for himself he opts not to bait. The good part about this is that he finds no need to become the god of the hunting ethics world and demand that others conform to his style of hunting.

I also liked his analogy of hunting and bait to suggesting that restrictions placed on live bait versus artificial bait for fishing would be likened. He is exactly right but I wonder if in his analogy he really understands that this same kind of sportsman exists today. He almost sounds like he doesn’t think anyone real fisherman would suggest such a thing. Well, I got news for the man from Mississippi. They are out there.

There are sportsmen that have become so self serving in their own choices of sport that they can only see their own methods as viable and ethical. How ridiculous.

Tom Remington

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has signed a bill that will allow the Commission on Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks to study the notion of allowing hunters to hunt deer over a pile of grain. Presently it is illegal to hunt over the grain but not illegal to feed the deer up until hunting season begins.

Barbour says he’ll let science dictate the issue although he personally views hunting over bait unethical.

Barbour said commissioners will talk to biologists and other scientists to determine whether baiting will have negative effects.

“The commission should develop and make public an appropriate deliberative process that allows the science to decide the outcome,” Barbour said. “I have great confidence the commission will do so, and I appreciate the Legislature’s decision to turn the issue over to the professionals, rather than deciding it on a political basis.”

Tom Remington

The state of Mississippi recently approved a law that will allow hunters to shoot deer over a baited field. Of course this comes with some controversy as it delves into the ethics of the sport. This morning in the Clarion Ledger online, a reader submits an opinion piece in that regard.

Who’s to blame for the baited-field deer “hunting?”

“Hunting” deer over a baited field is for sissies, of course.

So the greatest share of the blame goes to the true sportsmen of the state who let it happen.

No pride.

Then the idiots we have elected to the Legislature have their share of blame. No courage.

Since no “real” man would participate in a “hunt” over a baited field, we now have a quandary. If you see a trophy deer head hanging in someone’s den, how do you know if he is a true sportsman or a sissy?

It becomes, therefore, appropriate to ask any “hunters” with a trophy deer head whether they wear pink, lavender or chartreuse panties underneath all that camo disguise.

The true sportsmen in Mississippi need to fix this.

I can certainly understand the frustration expressed by the writer of this piece but let’s take a closer look at the issue. The baiting bill in Mississippi, allows the fish and game commission to regulate baiting. At first a bill was proposed that would allow pretty much any type of baiting for deer. This bill is said to be a compromise from the original.

From this perspective, I can see that having the authority to regulate deer baiting, would give the commission another tool to effectively manage the deer population. If the commission decided there were too many deer and that if baiting could be used effectively to reduce that population, then I guess you could say it was useful.

But there are downsides to the baiting issue aside from an ethics point of view which I’ll look at in a moment. It is surmised that when deer or other ungulates congregate in masses, the chances for the spread of diseases such as chronic wasting disease, increases. Allowing for baiting of deer, no matter how the baiting is done, could promote the spread of that disease and others like Lyme.

Hunting ethics is quite a different story. For those of you who read my blog regularly, you know that I believe that hunting ethics should not be legislated. That isn’t to say that ethics shouldn’t be taught and within the law. Ethics is a personal thing usually passed down from father to son during our growing up years.

Here’s an example of what I mean. Growing up, deer venison was a necessary thing for my family. As a kid, I recall eating venison at least 3 nights out of the week and sometimes for breakfast as well. I grew up poor and between my father and my three older brothers, having more than one deer in the freezer was a God send.

Living this way forced us, with instructions from my Dad, to “meat hunt”. This meant that we took whatever was available to us at the time. Also understand that growing up and hunting in Maine, you didn’t go out and see several deer each day. Most of the time you were lucky to see several deer in an entire season. When you had a shot at a deer, you took it.

I can also say that my father or any of us boys, never took a deer illegally but I can assure you that if it had been a matter of need, there would have been venison in the freezer.

There are many hunters today, who still hunt this way. They are meat hunters and the need is there. I have heard many an argument over the years that there is no reason why anyone would hunt these days when there is plenty of food in the grocery stores. Those who make those statements, do so out of ignorance. They need to get out into the real world where people in many rural locations rely on game and gardens for survival.

On the other side of the coin, there are also many hunters who believe that hunting for meat is not in the true sense of the sport of hunting. Some have even gone so far as to call it unethical. Some hunters refuse to shoot female deer because those deer produce the offspring that will continue to provide a population of deer.

So you see much of what we discuss in conversations dealing with ethics is all part of background. There are obvious issues that result in laws to protect the management of the game. Poaching is one of those. Without seasons and limits to the hunts, it would be nearly impossible to manage game animals effectively. History has shown us what can result from unchecked killing of game. Such laws are necessary for that purpose.

Some states ban the use of baiting, not so much because they view it as an ethics issue but because it makes for the taking of deer easier. In states with a balanced or a sparse population, baiting would be detrimental to the herd.

Ethics and hunting is really in the eye of the beholder. When I speak of these ethics, I am referring to all methods employed that are within the law. To legislate ethics for the mere reason to prevent someone from doing something you don’t approve of is not right. To make a law that will effectively protect the game animals we hunt, is necessary and prudent.

So, what is baiting anyway? Good question. When most people think of baiting deer, they envision salt licks, piles of grain or apples. They picture a hunter sitting in a tree stand looking down on this pile of fine dining and waiting for a deer to come and eat so he can shoot it.

While I have to agree that that is baiting, we have to ask about other forms of baiting and where to draw the line with such. There’s an organization in this country called Quality Deer Management. This group advocates for the growing of food plots for deer. They encourage hunters to take an active role in managing the deer on their own land or the land they lease for hunting.

These food plots contain certain kinds of plants that are healthy for the deer and provide the right nutrients to grow bigger deer with larger antlers. In some states, this tactic is illegal but in most it’s not. In all fairness to the discussion of hunting ethics, we have to ask ourselves, isn’t this deer baiting? With these food plots, often times it is not illegal to sit in a blind or a stand and shoot the deer you’ve been growing all year long or for several years, when they come to the plot to eat.

What else is baiting? Many hunters will scout out game trails before the season. They learn the deer’s habits, particularly those of the bucks. They find scrapes and pawings and get their tree stands our ground blinds built in time before the start of the season so any deer become accustomed to any changes in the landscape.

On that given day when the hunter arrives at the stand, they often bring with them scents and lures that they hope will attract a rutting buck. Sometimes they dump this on the ground and spray it all around the area. They might hang scent tubes and boxes from trees nearby. They then retreat to their place and wait for the buck to arrive. Isn’t that baiting?

Along with the scents, the hunter while waiting, uses tactics such as rattling deer antlers. This is employed to imitate two sparring bucks which is a natural event that occurs when two male deer are fighting over the rights to mate with an estrous doe. It has been learned that when other bucks hear that sound, their curiosity draws them to it. Isn’t that baiting?

If not rattling horns, hunters may be using instruments that will mimic the sounds made by other deer. They practice the sounds made by both the doe and the buck while mating or in the process that leads up to mating. They also mimic sounds of a fawn that might draw in other does, which might in turn lure bucks. Isn’t this baiting?

Baiting can be defined as any method used to lure a deer into a prescribed area. That area is where you the hunter sit and wait in ambush. Any tactic used to achieve those desired results has to be defined as baiting. So where do we draw the line? Or do we? Who decides?

We can carry the ethics debate that much farther and ask a lot of other questions. Take a look at the technology that now exists in the sport of hunting. There’s such things as clothing that covers up the scent of man underneath. The odor that man emits that can easily be detected by deer, has been likened to deer in the same fashion as man detects the odor of a skunk – pungent and easily recognized.

The weapons we use have been questioned and the features we can add to them. Some hunters have even questioned whether the use of GPS is ethical or scopes for a rifle. I know hunters who believe using a rifle for deer hunting is not right.

Are tree stands ethical? They have them now that are easy to carry and simple and fast to get up into a tree. Does this give hunters an unfair advantage? Does this “dumb down” the sport as some have called it?

I can add to this list forever but what items on that list you employ, is really up to you. Your hunting methods are what you are comfortable with. Again being that all are within the law.

I am not completely attune as to why Mississippi has decided to make baiting, in the sense of luring to piles of grain, etc., a part of their legal methods of taking deer. I do know that state has a burgeoning deer population.

So, before you go calling hunters who use bait sissies and not true sportsmen, take a minute to look at all the things you do, first. Take the time to educate yourself about the reasons some hunters do what they do and from what areas of the country they grew up in and under what circumstances. If you find certain methods of hunting offensive then talk to a friend and explain to them the reasons you feel that way, while being receptive to their explanations as well.

Tom Remington

Another controversial deer baiting bill made its way through the Mississippi Congress and now sits in the hands of Gov. Haley Barbour. Nobody seems to know Barbour’s position on the bill. The bill would give the 5-member wildlife commission the authority to regulate deer baiting. This is being called a compromise effort from a bill that would outright permit deer baiting.

It appears as though the most important issue in this debate is the ethics of deer baiting or as one senator put it it would “dumb down” the sport of hunting.

On the other hand, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is asking for a statewide ban on deer baiting because of concerns for the spreading of chronic wasting disease.

Tom Remington

The Mississippi House passed an amended bill, HB423, that will permit hunting over bait in 34 of the states counties. Most of these counties are in the southern half of the state. The bill will meet its next challenge in the Senate that hasn’t looked upon any previous bills of this nature with kindness.

Tom Remington

Big game hunting license sales are lagging far behind last years sales in Mississippi, yet revenue is slightly higher than last year. How can that be?

That’s simple to answer, more fees were levied. Hunters were charged a new fee to hunt on public lands and non-residents were hit pretty hard with new permit fees for deer, turkey and using public lands.

These added fees increased the revenue even though sales of hunting licenses have dropped. Officials speculate it was the result of hurricane Katrina but won’t really know until next season.

More on this story here.

Tom Remington