Reprinted from my Land Ethics column in the International Hunter Education Assoc Journal, spring issue, 2008
Do you remember where you harvested your first buck? Of course you do, but for many of us if we returned to that spot, we’d find a housing development, mall, golf course, or a Walmart. Our favorite spot, sucked under by more development. That comes as no surprise because we see more and more development as we drive to our favorite hunting honey hole. More roads, more malls, just more of everything.
Our wildlife habitats get hammered from two directions. The first is from human activity of the type mentioned above. I know the following list is a bit long and tedious, but it gives some idea how devastating our activities have been to wildlife and wildlife habitats.
Consider that; two out of every three woodland species in the Central United States have declined in abundance during the past 30 years, 95 percent of the original 400,000 square miles of tallgrass prairie have been destroyed or converted to agriculture, 98 percent of 27 critically endangered ecosystems have been lost since this country was first settled, more than 75 percent of riparian woodlands in the West are gone, three out of every four of our grassland bird species have declined in the past 30 years, 72 percent of the original hardwood forests in Minnesota are gone, only 5 percent of our coastal Caribbean prairies remain, one million acres a year are lost to development, more than 50 percent of all wetlands have been drained or filled since our country was first settled, around 90 percent of forests in Eastern Montana’s wooded draws are gone, and over half of our barrier island vegetation has been destroyed. The list of destruction goes on and on.
The second problem faced by good habitat are losses caused by over-abundant wildlife. The most common example of over browsing is caused by deer. "Just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does the mountain live in mortal fear of its deer," wrote Aldo Leopold. Indeed, more than ever deer hammer habitat. State wildlife agencies work hard to maintain deer numbers at levels where habitats are not affected, but two factors make their efforts difficult. First, as suburbs stretch into rural deer habitat, hunting becomes limited and deer numbers skyrocket. I recently read that it is common to find over 50 deer per square mile in the suburbs and only 30 deer per square mile in adjacent rural areas. In response to these high deer densities, many communities utilize bow hunters to control deer, and most private citizens support such efforts. However, a few citizens do not want any deer killed by hunters and they work tirelessly to stop suburban deer management. Too bad, for bow hunting works and it is an economically feasible way to help suburban citizens.
A second factor that makes it hard for states to keep deer numbers down is hunters themselves. Take the situation in Pennsylvania as an example. In 2002, the Pennsylvania Game Commission liberalized doe hunting because data showed that the forest ecosystem was severally affected by deer. This situation is not unique to Pennsylvania as many Eastern states have over browsed forests. Pennsylvania data showed that totally forested habitats could only support 20 deer per square mile, while mixed hardwoods and agricultural habitats could support 40 deer per square mile. Any higher deer numbers and you lost native wild flowers, ground nesting song birds, and forest regeneration from seedlings.
But a year after the Game Commission took steps to lower doe numbers by increasing bag limits and seasons, the hunters grew restless. They’d been used to seeing 30 deer a day, and grew up believing that such sightings were normal. In fact such deer numbers were changing the ecology of the forests, and that continues in many areas today. After several years of lowering doe numbers, hunter unrest grew to a level where political intervention curbed doe hunting. Of interest was one Pennsylvania study that followed hunters in an area totally forested with steep ravines. That study showed that hunters did not venture far from roads to hunt, while telemetry showed that the deer quickly moved to more inaccessible habitats. Even though the hunters complained that there were few deer available, data showed plenty of deer in the area. The hunters just needed to work a bit harder to get after them.
What happened in Pennsylvania was a signal to other states that determining how many does should be harvested involves more than ecology, and when making such determinations, the wildlife agency is walking a thin line when it comes to hunter support. Maybe that is because we "trained" hunters to conserve does as we grew our deer herds in the 60's and 70's. Changing years of "no doe hunting" turned out to be a bigger problem than expected. Another possible reason for hunter dissatisfaction may be one of timing. Many of those who entered into deer hunting from the mid-1980's on, did so when deer numbers were very high. They "learned" to expect to see lots of deer every day, and when doe numbers went down, they complained. Still further, hunting when deer numbers are high, may lead too less than the best hunting skills and effort when it comes to harvest.
The state wildlife agencies and hunter conservation groups continue to be leaders in purchasing land for hunting, and management of existing land for hunting. This entire situation places new demands on the hunting instructor. Hunters need to be more aware of the changes in deer numbers and their impact on habitat. Hunters also need to fully understand their role in controlling deer and the need for more effort to take the deer that are out there. Sitting in a blind close to a road just may not get the job done.
For many years we’ve told the general public that we will manage deer for the good of society. Living up to that promise is more difficult today, but it is more important than ever that we honor our obligations.
