Reprinted from my Land Ethics column in the International Hunter Education Assoc Journal, Spring, 2007
In most states, Game Commissioners normally do not publicly clash with their game agency. However, in February, 2006 several members of the Michigan Natural Resources Commission questioned the DNR’s population estimates of deer in several counties. Hunters were already upset because higher doe harvests in previous years had lowered the number of deer they were seeing. The DNR provided an estimate of statewide deer numbers, but since hunters were seeing fewer deer than they were used to seeing, they "knew" that those estimates had to be wrong. When the Natural Resource Commissioners also questioned estimates, that simply added more fuel to a raging and growing fire.
In the past two years hunters in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin also questioned the state’s estimate of the deer herd. Thus, in three of our biggest deer hunting states politicians, a few commissioners and lots of hunters are saying that the game agency’s deer population estimate is too high. Why is this happening now?
Ten or so years ago, state wildlife agencies in some whitetail hunting states, started to become extremely concerned about habitat. Deer numbers were skyrocketing, and even though doe hunting was liberalized a bit, the herds still grew. Automobile/deer collisions increased. Citizen complaints about deer damage increased. Diseases, especially chronic wasting disease, increased, so lowering deer numbers was necessary.
Under these situations one would think that implementing higher doe harvests would not be a difficult selling job. But it has been. Pennsylvania took the most aggressive approach to high deer numbers. Their deer coordinator, Dr. Gary Alt, went all over the state giving hundreds of lectures on the need to harvest more does. His slide presentation clearly showed that deer were severely impacting the forests. When he finished many hunters and almost all hunting organizations supported his approach to aggressively lower doe numbers.
In 1999 around 190,000 does were harvested in Pennsylvania. In 2000 that jumped to 300,000, in 2002 it was 350,000, then 320,000 in 2003 and 285,000 in 2004. Hunter support began to fade in 2003, mushroomed in 2004 and today complaints are long and loud. What went wrong?
One can only surmise why hunters have reacted to lower deer numbers. Common sense tells us the following. Over the past twenty years, even the most casual hunter got used to seeing lots of deer every time they hit the woods. No longer were they struggling to see 5-10 deer a day as hunters did in the 70's and early 80's. In much of deer range, new hunters coming into the sport during the past 20 years didn’t struggle to see deer. They didn’t notice the deteriorating forests, and the state game agencies didn’t point it out. Nor did the state agencies do an adequate job of preparing hunters for the reality that what goes up, must eventually level out and come down. Even hunters who had been around prior to the explosion of the deer herd quickly forgot the old days and also got used to seeing high numbers of deer. Even though such high deer numbers were hammering habitat, hunters enjoyed the show.
There is no question that high deer numbers have seriously affected the ecology of our forests. Take Pennsylvania for example. How high is too high? Research shows that around 20 deer per square mile in forests, and 40 deer per square mile in mixed forests and agriculture habitat, are maximum for the habitat. We exceed that number in many areas throughout whitetail range and the results of this can be seen in some Pennsylvania deer exclosures. Within the exclosures one finds honeysuckle, cohosh, trilliums, Solomon’s seal, red elderberry, ladyslippers, partridge berry, asters, and various oak species. Few of these species are found outside the exclosures. On the Delaware State Forest, the supervisor found 52 species of plants 6 inches in height or higher inside the exclosure and 2 species outside. Indeed, ground cover within exclosures shows us what was once growing in that area, until deer numbers got too high.
Another example of the problem can be seen by examining the amount of money the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry spends to construct deer deterrent fencing so that tree seedlings can survive. In 1995 they fenced 512 acres at a cost of $78,379. In 2001 they fenced 5,811 at a cost of $1.83 million dollars.
The damage isn’t limited to Pennsylvania. In a New York state park, in a 1,200-acre "safety area" for recreation where no hunting is permitted, "there are no saplings, no underbrush for ground nesting birds. There will be no regeneration of the forest. In 40-50 years, as the current forest dies, there will be nothing to replace it."
What does the future hold? Educating large numbers of deer hunters about the ravages of deer browsing on our forests will be difficult. Dr. Alt used visual aids and had the majority of Pennsylvania hunters on the side of harvesting does until deer numbers declined significantly. With fewer deer sightings, support for harvesting does weakened.
Down the road we will continue to see hunter stimulated political intervention on deer management. This will lead to compromise where deer numbers rise, maybe not to the record levels seen in recent years, but higher than the forests can sustain without damage. Will this damage to our ecosystems be high enough to stimulate non hunter concern? Only time will tell.
