Ask Dr. Dave!
Bring On The Questions!
If you have questions for Dr. Dave, please feel free to post them using the link below. Due to the number of inquiries, I can't guarantee that all questions will be answered, but user questions and answers will be posted here regularly, so check back often! Names of those who send me questions are omitted to protect their privacy.
Thanks!
 Anti-hunters always talk about how inhumane bows are when it comes to harvest. They say that deer, for example, shot with arrows, do not die immediately, and eventually die slowly and painfully. Yet, from my personal experience, many mortally shot deer, do not react to the arrow at all. They simply walk off, lay down within 50 yards, and die. So, what is the truth?
 There is no data on pain and broadheads....and I don't know how one would get such data. However, I too have made the same observations you have on some bow shot deer. In fact, it is common for mortally wounded bow shot animals to not react to the shot. And, there is some really good data on wounding losses that show that most deer wounded by arrows, that are not recovered by the hunter, do NOT die, but heal and live. In other words, data shows that non-fatal bow shots do not lead to wounding losses. Wounding losses of this type are around 5%......with 13% being the maximum such losses can be. You can get a copy of a summary of a major bow wounding loss study by contacting the National Bowhunter Education Foundation (go to their web site that I've listed under my favorite sites). In my opinion, based on the data, arrows are the ultimate painless weapon for hunting.
I am currently writing a paper arguing why hunting is a good form of game management. I was wondering if you could send me some information as to why it is a good thing and why you think hunting is a good way to control certain animal populations.
Whoa......your request is too general. There is so much material on this topic. There are books written on this subject. And, in fact, my best recommendation is to get my book, KNOW HUNTING. It is sold out, but if you google it, you should find copies for sale at Ebay and elsewhere. I think one really good argument is from the financial position........wherein hunters give license monies and excise taxes on hunting equipment that brings in 100's of millions of dollars each year and it ALL goes toward wildlife mgt. That is one real value of hunting.......and in fact, many other countries wish they had our system of wildlife mgt. Good luck with your paper
I was reading an article that you wrote in Deer and Deer Hunting about Chronic Wasting Disease. In your article you stated that there was a hunter that harvested an infected mule deer near Alberta border and another in Nebraska. I am curious how the hunter was able to tell that the deer where infected with the CDW and would it have been harmful to have eaten the deer? I read where you stated that there are no links to human disease and was curious how we could be infected with this disease or if we could?
Hunters cannot tell whether any deer or elk has CWD. A brain test must be done, and results sent to hunters. Whether CWD-positive animals are safe to eat is an interesting question. Know that thousands of CWD-positive deer and elk have been eaten over the years, especially by hunters in Colorado and Wisconsin. Noone has ever gotten sick from doing so. Having said that, it is best to wear rubber gloves when gutting and butchering any animal. And you should bone out the meat and do not saw thru the spine and there should not be a problem.
I am 14 and was wondering how old you have to be to go bow hunting. and what I would have to do to be able to go my parents say its OK. What do I have to do to be able to go and how old do I have to be?
Fourteen is plenty old enough to bowhunt. Here is what I would do. Because you are from New York, to bowhunt you need to take the Bowhunter Education course. Find out when the next bowhunter education class is being taught by your state conservation agency. You can find out by calling the hunter education office in the conservation department in Albany, or ask your local conservation officer, or ask at the local sporting goods archery shop. Take that class, and if possible have one of your parents accompany you (not necessary), but it would show them that you are ready. Good luck.
I love to bowhunt, love the outdoors, want to do more bowhunting in the future, and want to be a wildlife biologist. How do I go about reaching that goal?
In my mind there are really several questions here. If you want to bowhunt a ton, then you probably don't want to be a wildlife biologist. Two reasons. First, wildlife biologists don't make much money, so it is harder, financially, for them to travel to various parts of the country to bowhunt. Second, biologists are very busy in the fall, when you will want to be bowhunting. If you really want to bowhunt a lot, for many different species, then take up a profession that pays good. Become a businessman, self employed (i.e. run your own business, make good money, and set your own schedule). Or become a doctor, etc., where the money is better. Having said that, there are some pluses to being a wildlife biologist who likes to bowhunt. One is that you meet biologists who bowhunt from other states, and can bowhunt with them. This can be a real advantage because biologists have a pretty good idea of the best places to bowhunt in their state. And they often an get permission to hunt private lands not open to others. Now to the real question.......How do I get a job in the wildlife field? This is a common question and I cover it (i.e. Wildlife Careers) in Chapter 5 of my Know Hunting book. It is out of print, but Google Know Hunting and you will find copies for sale on the Internet. The wildlife field is diverse and there are a number of types of employment that include; biology, management, policy, communications, computers, law enforcement, and other areas. There are a few positions where a bachelors degree in wildlife is sufficient (law enforcement is one example), however, for many wildlife jobs you need a masters degree in wildlife. The most important factors to getting into graduate school and earning a masters degree, is having very good grades and taking courses that give you the background for a masters degree. Those courses are best found in undergraduate wildlife degree programs.
I'm going to hunt in Newfoundland, and the guides there indicate that I can pay a extra and hunt for two species, woodland caribou and moose, on one hunt. Should I do that?
First, understand that woodlanc caribou numbers have plummeted in Newfoundland in recent years. So, I'd be very careful and make lots of calls to hunters before booking a woodland caribou hunt. But, even so, I'd advice against booking for two species. If you will be happy with average caribou and average-sized moose, then you may be able to get a male of both species on one hunt. Both species are found in Newfoundland, and in some areas there are good numbers of both species. But if your goal is to get a quality example of each species (i.e. a Pope and Young woodland caribou or moose) then I would definitely NOT try for both species. Hunt for one or the other, but not both on the same hunt. Getting a quality bull woodland caribou is a bit iffy right now, but the caribou population will return as soon as the province lowers coyote numbers (at least that is what I feel is the major problem right now). Getting a large 50 inch moose in Newfoundland is also very difficult. But they have good moose numbers and smaller bulls are very possible. I'd suggest you focus on one species on one hunt, then return the next year for the other species. I've hunted Newfoundland three times. It is one of the most beautiful countries in the world, and has very friendly guides and citizens. It is a great place for a hunting adventure.
What is the major problem with many bear camps, and what questions should I ask to make sure I'm going to a bear camp where there is a good chance at a quality black bear?
I've hunted bears for over 40 years, and gone to a number of different camps in Canada. I want to hunt big bears, so my first question when I consider booking at a camp is, what percentage of the bears taken are Pope and Young bears. When I get answers that are over 25 %, then I consider going to that camp. Other questions are how many hunters will they take in the whole season, how many baits are run, how far apart are the baits, and how many are actively being hit? The problem with some camps is that they do a good job and have a high success rate. This means they book full year after year. But it also means that they get a mixture of gun and bowhunters, and that lots of bears are taken. In my experience, gun hunters are much less picky on bear size, and they are happy shooting smaller bears. When a lot of small bears are taken, then your chance to get a large bear in that area diminishes. That's especially true if the area is rather small and the number of active baits are small. Just makes common sense. So, a high success rate may not mean that you are in an area with big bears. Could be the opposite. So, what do you look for? - Guides that don't take many hunters per week....3-4 is good and 20 per year is good.
- Guides that have a big area to hunt, and they hunt some baits each year in parts of their area that haven't been hunted in five or more years. It takes 4-5 years to create a really nice record-book bear. So, if the guides area is big enough that he can move around, then you have a better chance.
- New guides that get new areas.
- A guide who runs at least thirty baits for five hunters. If there are eight hunters per week, then I want to see 40-50 baits being run.
- Baits being hit at eighty percent. In other words, if there are 40 baits out there, I want at least 80 % of them (that's 32) to be actively hit almost every nite.
- Baits that are at least 5 miles apart. Any closer and you get overlap of bears hitting different baits. This can vary depend on position of lakes, terrain, etc., but you don't want to hunt in camps where the baits are only 2 miles apart.
How does one respond to the comments that hunting was something we did in the past, but not something that should be done today in modern society?
Good question. Aldo Leopold wrote that "the trophy-hunter is the caveman reborn." Today we hear the media and movie stars tell society that hunting is genetically a misfit in modern society. Hmmm. Fifty years ago many rural Americans (and fifty years ago most of us were rural Americans) hunted. And now we are to believe that if there was a basis for it then, it has "disappeared" in a short time? That is doubtful. There is much scientific literature showing that man evolved as a hunting animal. In fact, for much of early society, hunting was a part of culture, a part of survival (food), and a part of ceremony. For many, it was a spiritual experience, and still is today. It is very easy to say that hunting is no longer relevant to modern life, but for those who practice hunting, we see it as answers to a troubled society. Getting into the woods indeed is spiritually uplifting and healthy for the mind and body. (Chapters 3 and 4 of "Know Hunting" discuss this in much detail).
Is the anti-hunting phenomenon really a problem for wildlife, and if so, why?
Consider the fact that 48 % of all non-hunting Michigan residents oppose hunting rabbits with beagle dogs and you realize that indeed, society has changed, is changing, and this change impacts the future of wildlife management. Forty years ago, most rural boys had beagle dogs, and they were accepted as "part of the family." Beagles, kids, and rabbit hunting was something that all rural boys, and some girls, did. No questions asked. Obviously, from the above statistic, things have changed. One major reason this change is so important is because of where the money comes from to manage wildlife. Each year federal excise taxes on hunting equipment, and the sale of hunting licenses brings in more than $600 million dollars and this is used by states to manage all wildlife for all citizens. Lose hunting, and we lose these revenues. A bit scary, but lose these revenues and all state wildlife agencies would have to close shop.
How important is hunting from an economic perspective?
Hunting is a huge activity, as is fishing. In fact, if hunting and fishing were a corporation it would rank 10th on the Fortune 500 list. Based on participation, hunting is almost as large as tennis. And more people hunt than downhill ski, by a large margin.
What are the trends in hunting today and does society support hunting?
Right now the number of hunters is around 13 million. Even though there has been some drop in recent years, there are more hunters today then there was in 1955. However, the hunting population is aging, and this means that unless there are more younger hunters recruited into the hunting ranks, hunting will eventually go extinct. That's the bad news. But the good news is that the many programs today to recruit new hunters appear to be working. . Consider the huge growth in hunting by woman. A short fifteen years ago, very few women hunted. But today, 9% of all hunters are women and that number continues to grow. Although the animal rights movement is strong, and urban based, most of society still understands the value of hunting and it's role in wildlife management. Consider that from 1972 to 1992 the % of New Jersey citizens who support deer hunting has increased (to 65 %) even though that state has highest density of humans per square mile in the USA. Also consider that 73% of Americans approve of hunting today; 81 % believe it should remain legal; and 85 % believe Americans should have the freedom to choose to hunt if they wish.
Yes, but hunting isn't really safe, is it?
Actually hunting is very safe. Hunting has fewer injuries per 100,000 participants than volleyball, golf, or ping pong. In fact, more people die playing golf every year than by hunting. In recent years bowhunting has been used in urban areas to reduce deer numbers. When such requests are made for bowhunting, some citizens immediately question safety issues. For bowhunting, safety is also a non-issue. Bowhunting leads to around one human death per year, while bees kill 40 and dogs 20. And no non-hunters are involved in bow accidents.........none.
I've heard that wild game is healthy food. Is that right?
In fact, wild game is very healthy. Chapter 4 of "Know Hunting" goes into some detail on this subject. A diet of wild game, fruits and vegetables gives you more than twice the fiber, one-fourth the sodium, and high amounts of omega-3 fatty acids that significantly reduce heart disease. There are heart specialists that advertize for hunters to donate wild game to their heart patients.
And sharing wild game is the oldest tradition in the world. Some believe that people have shared wild game with family and friends for 1 million years. This important part of culture was good for the family and the evolving community. Sharing wild game is very important in hunting families today. Hunters today share beyond family and friends. Literally hundreds of thousands of pounds of deer meat are donated to soup kitchens and the needy. Healthy food and from a natural resource that reproduces itself every year.
Yes, but what about hunting and guns and teen violence?
Those of us that hunt, never believed what the media perpetuated, i.e. that guns were the cause of teen violence today. In fact, we feel that activities, such as hunting and others, that get teens into the woods, and into nature, would reduce teen violence. Dr. Randall Eaton is the expert here. He cites many scientific studies that show that hunting is not linked to juvenile crime. In fact, West Virginia has the lowest crime rate in the country (for 24 straight years), and there are hunters living in over 50 % of all West Virginia homes.
A huge Alberta black bear, 1990.
|
