OK, so let’s have a go at this.  I’ve started and stopped this post several times already, so apologies in advance if it seems a bit scattershot.  It’s something that’s been itching to come out for a long time, but finding the right words has been quite a challenge.  I doubt I’ve pulled it off here… but I had to write something.

To preface, let me be clear.  On this blog I often write from a factual position… the voice of authority.  I know what I’m talking about and there is clear, empirical evidence to support my knowledge.  There’s not a lot of room for argument there, although my facts can always be disputed.   I’m fallible. 

I also often write from my own perspective, in my own opinion, and there aren’t always facts to back me up.  It’s just what I think about something, or even what I’ve seen from my own point of view.  But I recently realized that I don’t always differentiate between factual posts and opinion…  I don’t provide disclaimers, nor do I document my sources.   So that may make it seem as if I think my opinion is always fact… and let me assure you now that I know better than that. 

So…

The following is the latter case… What I’m about to write is primarily based on my own opinion.  I welcome and encourage rebuttal of my position.  Although you may not change my mind, I like to think folks who are reading stand to benefit from seeing different sides of the discussion… rather than just mine (which is always right, of course, but I like to humor those who would disagree). 

And on we go… 

I’ve had the current poll online now for several weeks, in which I ask you, the readers, what you prefer when it comes to deer hunting.  Are you out looking for Mr. Big, only, or are you just looking to fill the freezer?  Do you pass all shots at small bucks, and hold out for a mature buck or doe?  Does it matter to you at all?  Would you rather go home empty handed than shoot anything below Boone and Crockett (or Pope and Young) minimum? 

In the poll, it looks like most of you (38% at the time I’m writing this) are primarily interested in filling the freezer… you’re meat hunters.  Buck, doe, spike or record-book, the only thing that matters is that it’s made of venison.  The next largest group of respondents would pass on a small buck in order to take a mature doe or buck (my pick too…although antlerless hunts are a rarity here in CA).  Following very closely to this group are those who aim to kill only “trophy” bucks.  Bringing up the tail end of the list are those of you who don’t care one way or another… if it’s brown, it’s down. 

This is an extremely unscientific poll, and while I gave some thought to the wording of the questions, they’re hardly ironclad without wiggle room.  But the poll results were fairly enlightening to me.  Here’s why…

Early this fall I took a weekend and a friend and went up to Sonoma County for a deer hunt.  On that hunt I spotted and killed a pretty small deer (I wrote about it here).  In California, with a couple of exceptions, a deer must have forked antlers on at least one side (brow tines don’t count) to be legal.  You can’t shoot does or spikes.  My deer was legal, but despite the small forks, he couldn’t have been more than a year and a half old.

So I posted a little write-up about the hunt on a couple of forums, including Jesse’s Hunting and Outdoors.  Most of the folks who saw it were congratulatory.  Meat in the freezer and everything… but there were a few who wanted to take me to task for shooting such a small deer. 

To them, and to others, I ask… what’s the harm? 

Since when did a hunter have to live up to the TV shows and magazines with every hunt, and harvest only the biggest, baddest buck in the woods?  Is the trophy the only measure of a successful hunt?  Not to me, and according to the survey, it’s not to the majority of you folks either. 

There’s nothing new about the quest of deer hunters to take a real bruiser of a buck.  I don’t think I know anyone who wouldn’t get a big thrill from putting a “Book” buck on the ground, even if they would never bother to actually put the buck in the “Book”.  For most of us, a true “trophy” deer epitomizes the deer hunting experience, and to take one under fair-chase conditions represents the ultimate challenge.  The truest value of a “trophy” deer comes from its rarity… from the fact that a real bruiser buck is not an everyday occurrence. 

But, over the past several years, it seems like the emphasis on “trophy” deer has rapidly outpaced the emphasis on the hunting experience itself.  In fact, a term that is gaining popular use is “quality” deer.  This trend disturbs me for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the implication that, if a deer isn’t a trophy then it (and the hunter who bagged it) is not “quality”. 

When we start to value our hunting experiences based on someone else’s appraisal of our quarry, then the whole spirit of the hunt will degrade into yet another pointless competition.  I don’t hunt for a “score”, and I don’t give a damn if my deer meets or doesn’t meet the standards of some committee.  

Any successful deer hunter has accomplished something that the majority of deer hunters could not do.  I don’t know all the statistics, but  even in states with an over-abundance of deer, I don’t think you’ll find overall hunter success over 50%.  In many states, it’s far, far lower.  Anyone who manages to find and kill a deer has reason to feel a sense of accomplishment.  That shouldn’t be demeaned simply because the deer wasn’t a “trophy”.

The true value of a hunt should be in the experience.  The time outdoors, the skills applied and lessons learned…  these are the rewards of a hunt.   An animal on the meat pole is a bonus, and a big, mature buck can make it even sweeter, but that shouldn’t demean the value of a smaller animal, if the hunt and experience were still as good. 

But let’s move away from the emotional and personal aspect and look at it from a different perspective.  What about the biology? 

I’ve been reading and hearing an awful lot about the Quality Deer Management (QDM) programs over the last few years.  The overt suggestion is that these programs ensure bigger, “better” bucks in the herd.  

To me, I have a hard time seeing the benefit to either the habitat or the species of simply increasing the trophy value of the deer herd.  I mean, on deer ranches, where the herd is carefully managed to provide trophies to customers who pay big bucks for big bucks…  that makes sense.  But that’s different.  That’s private business.  There is also the opportunity to control the herd through cull hunts, to manage the buck-doe ratio, and to keep the population to a sustainable level on the property. 

For public wildlife administrators, such as those in Pennsylvania to step in and tell hunters that they can only shoot bucks that meet certain criteria (three-points or better, four points or better, etc.), simply because that means trophy hunters will have a better opportunity to shoot trophies…  that’s bogus to me. 

I can’t speak further to the situation in Pennsylvania, because I honestly don’t know the whole story.  I’m sure there are a ton of details that would better make the case.  If deer are scarce in general there, then maybe something to slow the harvest is necessary.  I can buy that.  But now I’m hearing about similar programs on a State level in other places, states where I AM familiar with the situation… like North Carolina where there’s apparently an emerging push for statewide point restrictions to improve the trophy potential of the state’s deer. 

But what else do point restrictions do besides increase the trophy potential?  Do they make the herd healthier?  How?  And, in most of the whitetail territory, is a “healthier” herd really something to aim for?  Doesn’t a healthier herd imply an increased survival rate, and an accompanying increase in population?  An increase in the population is exactly what most states DON’T need. 

I’m not against programs on private land.  But that’s where that sort of thing belongs.  If you own a place or run a club, and want to try to improve the “quality” of bucks on your place, then go for it.  You have every right to impose your own values on the people who hunt your property, whether those values include shooting big boys only, or no bucks at all. 

But for the state to push trophy hunting values on the general public, in order to improve the chances for the trophy hunters to shoot bigger bucks… that’s just wrong.  Plenty of hunters are happy to shoot cowhorns, spikes, and forked horn deer.  The table fare is the same (or better), and the hunting experience can be just as rewarding. 

Sure, there’s usually the option of shooting a doe instead of a young buck.  That’s the choice I’d take if I had it (not an option in CA).  I’d gladly take a nice doe and leave the young buck in the field, but I’d rather take the young buck than not take any venison home at all.  I love the hunting experience, but I also love the meat.  I don’t have much use for horns…they go out in the garage.  Only the venison goes on my table.

Point is, though, as the states are finding out, most hunters are still not willing to shoot does.  In many cases, it’s a generational thing.  I started whitetail hunting in NC just as they were turning the corner on the deer population.  Does were still very much tabu for deer hunters, and like most other youngsters of my generation and those before me, I was strictly schooled to “make sure it’s got horns before you shoot!” 

That kind of training takes some getting over, which is usually easier for us youngsters than it is for the folks who were around in the 40s and 50s when whitetails were scarce or non-existant in that part of the country.  That generation also tends to carry on the attitude that does just aren’t as “sporting” or “right” to kill as bucks… even the tiniest antlered deer is a better target than a doe.  I can’t explain or justify that attitude, but I know it exists. 

Before I go too far off on this tangent, the point is that a lot of folks don’t want to shoot does.  If small bucks are removed from the legal list, these people really won’t have anything acceptable to shoot.  Now they’ll not only pass on does, they’ll pass on small bucks too.  And why?  Simply because someone thinks we need more “quality” deer? 

Again I ask, what benefit does that serve?  Keep in mind that the State can legislate point restrictions, but it can’t legislate hunters to kill what they don’t want to kill. 

It seems to me that this lust for trophies is beginning to outpace conservationism and common sense in our sport.  It’s outstripping sportsmanship and the camaraderie of the hunt, and replacing it with a consumer value-set.  The trophy-craze is largely responsible for the glut of gadgets and gizmos in the market, and for the existence of hunts that cost in the six figures. 

Maybe it’s time to re-evaluate priorities a little bit. 

Related Posts

No related posts.