Does Maine Have A Deer Management Problem?

I’m reminded of a cartoon clip taken from an old edition of an outdoor magazine that’s nailed firmly to the wall of hunting camp. In the cartoon, two crusty old timers, obviously both have spent their time in the outdoors and have bagged more than their share of game, are reminiscing. Plastered all over the walls of the hunting camp in the cartoon, are so many deer head mounts, you would be hard pressed to find room to put up a 3×5 postcard. One man is speaking to the other and says, “Just ain’t as many deer around here as there used to be!”

Managing herds of whitetail deer in Maine is a chore and that’s an understatement. Not only am I not qualified to do the job, I’m not sure I’d want it because I don’t think I have thick enough skin to take all the heat that comes from hunters, especially when there “just ain’t as many deer around as there used to be.”

It is no secret that Northern Maine has for a long time, perhaps since forever, struggled to keep up a healthy and sustainable whitetail deer herd. On the other extreme within the boundaries of Maine, parts of Southern Maine are experiencing too many deer. There are so many factors that play into this phenomenon, if you will, that I can’t possibly cover it in this one article.

I’ll back up a few years when I was contacted by a concerned hunter from Northern Maine who was concerned about what he called a non-existent deer herd in his part of the state. He was interested in starting a petition drive to see if he could generate enough interest to have the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife shut down the deer hunting season for as long as it took to bring back the deer herd.

I was of course, sympathetic to the concerns but wasn’t convince that was the answer to the problem. I should explain that as a hunter, I am willing to do whatever is necessary to protect and replenish the deer herd. I only require one thing. The science to back it up.

A couple weeks ago now, I caught wind of some grumblings that perhaps Maine had a more serious problem with the deer herd than just the severe winter of 2008-2009. I was sent two charts. One is a chart of the Maine Big Bucks Club, showing from the year 2000 until 2008 the number of big bucks (200-plus pounds) registered with the Club. The second chart is from the Maine Antler & Skull Trophy Club. This shows for the same duration of time the number of trophy antlers registered with MASTC. You can view both of these charts by clicking on the links provided.

Interestingly enough both the Big Buck and the Antler charts seem to be mirror images of one another, both showing a serious decline since 2002. In fairness, while this shows a real decline, none of us really know why. What is real is that we sure can make some speculations. The truth is, looking at these two charts should at least give us to concern.

I sent the two charts to a friend and someone I consider a very valuable resource - Dr. Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of the University of Calgary and a well respected researcher and wildlife expert. His response back confirmed my initial reactions.

There are no simple answers. The graphs you sent are fascinating as they say that as the frequency of heavy bucks drops so does the proportion of trophy bucks, typical or atypical. Right on! Unfortunately, we do not know if the AVERAGE body weight dropped. We cannot say that the bucks are getting smaller, and therefore fewer big fellows are shot. The data, unfortunately, remain mysterious although clearly something interesting is happening!

Hang on to this thought for a moment.

These two charts also fell into the hands of Lee Kantar, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife head deer and moose biologist. I contacted Lee to ask him if he had the charts and could he take some time and talk to me about it.

I will not attempt to cover every aspect of Kantar’s response in this article alone. What I will do is provide you with Kantar’s findings and how they might explain the missing parts that Dr. Geist said were needed.

Here’s what Kantar responded with as it relates to the information in the two charts.

The number of Big Bucks/MASTC bucks etc in the harvest will be a function of the relative size of the herd, the age structure, hunting pressure and annual changes in mortality…for starters. Al Wentworth, who keeps the MASTC data was good enough to provide me with his data back into the 30’s. This is good because he also had the data based on town ( so a lot of ways to begin looking at this).

This seems to be in agreement with Dr. Geist’s brief assessment that it is difficult to make a judgment without data that shows age structure and health of deer. I also emailed with Al Wentworth and even though we might have gotten off to a rocky start, after a couple shots back and forth, why gained a better understanding and more importantly we are both on the same page that his data is something that needs attention and that we need to get to the bottom of it.

Not to get off subject but it was mentioned above about data on deer harvest by town. The MDIFW website has that harvest information if you’re interested.

Kantar explained to me that he opted to review the data provide him by Al Wentworth and break it down by regions, which we all know is a better way to address wildlife management because of the many varying factors. He also looked at the data over the past 70-plus years mostly because of changes in management - Any Deer Permit implementation and deer population goals, etc. As Kantar said, over this length of time there have been an unbelievable number of changes in the state of Maine that have affected our deer herd.

He took the percentage of MASTC bucks harvested to the overall harvest by region. Here’s how he explained it.

So I looked at the percent of MASTC bucks in the harvest each year as a percent of the total buck harvest, then I pooled this information by Regions and by decade, i.e., 80’s, 90’s, 2000’s. OK. To the point. The % of MASTC bucks reported increased in Regions A and B from the 1980’s to today and the % of MASTC bucks reported decreased in Regions F and G from 1980 to today. Downeast was moderate in the 80’s, dropped in the 90’s and came back up in the 2000’s. Moosehead Region was slightly up in 90’s and back down in 2000’s. And western Mts went up in the 90’s and stayed.

The key here is that Kantar is saying that the percentage of MASTC bucks taken compared to the harvest data is a true reflection. In other words, if harvest drops let’s say 10%, the number of MASTC bucks drops 10%…….in theory.

What Kantar is trying to find out is whether or not the deer population is healthy. The charts seem to want to tell us that deer body weight is dropping as well as antler size or it could be telling us that there is a healthy deer herd, there are just simply not enough deer available to harvest, as has been indicated with Kantar’s data research.

Over this time period buck mortality has increased by all causes in each Region, but the hunting mortality part of this probably has not. One thing is clear that as expected with decreased deer populations in the north country from the 80’s to present that means less deer available to harvest.

It seems here that Lee is trying to tell us that his data shows fewer deer to harvest. Does this reduced harvest fall in line with the charts we have that show fewer big bucks and trophy antlers?

If the buck age structures have not shifted dramatically then you have relatively the same buck age structure available for harvest, but less bucks (or for that matter does) available. And with overall lower pop’ns of deer in these regions buck hunting success decreases as well. If you take the 7 regions and chart their changes in overall population from the 80’s to present you will have a mirror image of the changes in big bucks.

It appears that to answer this part of the equation correctly, you have to examine the harvest data, which he says he has, and says that the reduced harvest matches the charts provide by Al Wentworth. I’m not totally convinced it is an exact mirror image of the two but I haven’t examined the data nor am I sure I am qualified to draw any conclusions from doing so.

Now the question becomes, is our deer herd healthy? If the drop in harvest numbers matches the charts and can be supported with Lee Kantar’s data that there are fewer deer to harvest, then we understand at least part of the problem.

If the deer herd is healthy, just small, then we need to work to recover those populations. If the herd is unhealthy, I think it safe to say we got bigger problems than bad winters and too many predators.

In Part II of this report, I’ll take a look at Kantar’s thoughts on herd health, his conclusions and what if anything we can expect on predator control.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

PA Deer Harvest Up 4%. Why? Open Discussion

Confused? The Pennsylvania Game Commission announced that this year’s dear harvest was up 4% from last season. Here’s a look at the past 11 years total deer harvest numbers.

2008-2009 = 335,850
2007-2008 = 323,070
2006-2007 = 361,560
2005-2006 = 354,390
2004-2005 = 409,320
2003-2004 = 464,890
2002-2003 = 517,529
2001-2002 = 486,014
2000-2001 = 504,600
1999-2000 = 378,592
1998-1999 = 377,000

This calculates out to an 11-year harvest average of 410,256. I should also note that the 517,529 deer taken in the 2002-2003 season was a record.

It’s been roughly over the past ten years that Pennsylvania has implemented a new deer management program to reduce the number of deer. Many have complained that there just aren’t any deer left in Pennsylvania anymore.

We know that weather and hunter participation play as big a role as any in fluctuating deer harvest numbers. Do the figures shown above actually reflect that there are no deer left in Pennsylvania to hunt?

Use this forum to discuss what you think the numbers mean. Please keep it rational.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Maine’s Deer Harvest Dismal. Harsh Winter To Blame But What About Predation?

Below is the press release sent out from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife pertaining to the results of this year’s deer harvest figures. At the end of the release, I’ll talk more about what some in Maine are saying about the dismal deer population as it relates to coyote predation.

~~~~~~~~~

2008 Deer Harvest Brought Down by Winter

AUGUSTA, Maine – The winter of 2008 was one of the worst winters for Maine’s deer population across the state. Preliminary harvest numbers of 21,062 deer represent a 27% decrease in harvest from 2007 and the lowest deer harvest since the beginning of the any-deer permit system in 1986.

The long winter, with record-setting snow packs, created extremely difficult conditions for deer, with deer yarded up on average for over 140 days statewide compared to the normal 84 days, according to Lee Kantar, deer and moose biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. During those additional 56 days resulted in extremely low overwinter survival rates for fawns, and left adult does in poor condition prior to fawning season. The poor condition of the adult does likely resulted in a high rate of mortality for the fawns born in 2008. This was evident in the dramatic decline in the fawn harvest (45%) as part of the total antlerless harvest. Fawns were just not available during the fall hunting season.

The deer harvest by season showed an overall drop in success rates across most methods.

· Youth hunters harvested 510 deer, down 52% from 1,065 in 2007 (the second best youth harvest day ever);

· October archers harvested 834 deer and expanded archers harvested 921. Last year’s archery total was 2,236. October archery was up 18% despite new restrictions on October archers in bucks-only Wildlife Management Districts.

· Blackpowder enthusiasts harvested 1,137 deer – a 42% decrease from a record-setting harvest of 1,964 deer in 2007.

· Modern firearms users harvested 17,652, down 25% from 23,537 in 2007.

More deer (2,340) were harvested in Penobscot County again this year than any other county. Other counties with more than 2,000 deer harvested were Kennebec (2,062), York (2,108) and Cumberland (2,000).

Maine residents accounted for 91% of the total statewide deer harvest with Piscataquis County having the highest harvest by non-residents (26%) of all counties. Most counties (10 out of 16) had a deer harvest by residents greater than 90%.

Hunters killed 13,566 adult bucks and 7,496 antlerless deer. The adult buck kill was a 16% decrease over the previous year while the antlerless kill was down 41% from 2007. Yearlings were more scarce than normal in 2008. This is because as fawns in 2007 they suffered high losses over the 2007-08 winter. Yearlings normally make up a higher percentage of the buck kill. In 2007, the statewide yearling harvest of bucks comprised 49% of the yearling and older buck harvest, while in 2008 it represented only 37%.

“The harsh winter of 2007-08 and its effects on Maine’s deer herd will be felt for a long time,” according to Kantar. “The current winter of 2008-09 so far looks very similar to last year and will exert additional pressure on the state’s deer herd. If this winter results in conditions similar to last year, we will need to brace ourselves for a further decrease in any-deer permits as well as a reduced harvest in 2009. A reduction in any-deer permits is needed in order to compensate for an expected high rate of winter mortality.”

IF&W wildlife biologists will be meeting in the next few weeks to determine the preliminary number of any deer permits that will be available for next year.

~~~~~~~

No one will argue that last winter was severe and took its toll on the whitetail deer herd. But is winter the only thing to blame? Northern and Eastern Maine have deer populations that have reached the point of no return. Some places in these two regions hunters are hard pressed to find one or two deer per square mile. But we can’t just keep blaming the winter. We’ve always had harsh winters and when they hit, we make necessary adjustments in harvest tactics and with any luck from Mother Nature, in a few years the herd recovers. So why have we allowed the deer herds in these areas to reach non sustainable levels?

That’s not a simple question to answer but we know there are issues - habitat and predation. We know that as long as we live in a state that has black bears, lynx, bobcat, coyotes and possibly mountain lions and wolves, we will have to deal with the predators’ destruction of the whitetail deer. But are we dealing effectively with it?

Hunters have groaned and moaned to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for a long time to do something about the dwindling deer population in Northern and Eastern Maine. There was some hope when the state formulated the Deer Task Force, made up of a diverse group (perhaps containing some who shouldn’t have sat on this board) whose job it was to make recommendations on what to do. This was enhanced by the fact that the state Legislature enacted a bill to deal with coyote predation. Some now are saying that nothing was done and nothing will be done.

Gerry Lavigne used to be the head deer guy at MDIFW. He’s retired now and some have told me that Lavigne was forced to “retire” because he was bucking the system, that he stood up to some at MDIFW and told them we needed to do something about coyote predation on whitetail deer. Recently he had this to say about the Maine deer herd.

“Early fawn survival in eastern and northern Maine is low enough to prevent population recovery, even after moderate winters. Predation, primarily by coyote and bears during the early fawning period seems to be the main cause of low fawn recruitment in eastern and northern Maine.”

Read for a minute what Levigne is saying. First he is saying that the deer population in Northern and Eastern Maine is beyond recovery. That means it can no longer sustain on its own. The numbers are too low. If this is true, how can any responsible fish and game department have allowed this to happen?

Lavigne is also saying that it is the predation of coyote and bears that’s destroying the deer. This statement seems to run contrary to what is being fed the public from MDIFW. There is little talk of predation and all the focus seems to be on the harsh winters.

It is not a popular topic when discussions surround the need to slaughter overgrown populations of coyote or any other predator that’s destroying an ecosystem. Look at the controversy that has surrounded Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin with their predator control program. So far Alaska has fought successfully against the animal rights groups because they believe in the necessity of what they are doing.

Popular or not, it is the responsibility of fish and game to take care of this problem. Many are angry and asking why hasn’t something been done? Is it too late as Lavigne suggests?

V. Paul Reynolds, editor of the Northwoods Sporting Journal, says we, the Maine sportsmen, have been “hoodwinked again”.

That’s right, Maine sportsmen - apparently an easily beguiled group - have been let down once again by the agency that collects and expends our hunting and fishing license fees. We now know that all this talk about coyote control was just that - talk and no action. Did the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife ever really have any intention of establishing a coyote management program? It would appear not. So we must conclude that assembling all of these deer task forces and predator control working groups was merely a political ploy to divert attention, turn down the heat, and buy some time.

Evidently the licensed hunters in the state of Maine don’t scare MDIFW as much as the animal rights groups and environmentalists. It is our license dollars that pay their wages and allows for them to “manage” wildlife. I thought IFW got the message loud and clear when Governor Baldacci ordered, after a lot of complaining, the formulation of the Deer Task Force. Then many of us felt encouraged when the Maine Legislature ordered the MDIFW to come up with a Coyote Management Plan. After all this, MDIFW makes a recommendation to formulate another working group to study the problem.

How much more will the hunters in Maine take? Nearly every licensed hunter I know has told me they would gladly pay a reasonable fee increase if they knew the money was being spent the right way and most of all to continue to provide hunting opportunities. I agree with Reynolds. We’ve been had! We are tired of our money supporting animal rights agendas!

Trappers that I have spoken with have made no bones about the fact that they can no longer effectively trap coyote once the animal rights groups were successful in banning the snare trap. Trappers used to set snares all around winter deer yarding areas where the coyote prey on the weakened and young deer. No longer. Under the lie of protecting a lynx population, the snare was outlawed.

Nearly every action against Maine brought by animal rights has only resulted in Maine making endless concessions and where has this left our deer herd? If MDIFW believes in the science they use in wildlife management, then it is time that they stand up in support of their own methods. But it appears they are scared. Maybe there are too many animal rights wildlife biologists who have infiltrated the MDIFW. This is happening all across America. I see it everyday.

I’m not sure how much it will take to really anger the hunting community. Maybe this isn’t enough. Maybe they don’t care any longer. If so, the anti-hunters, animal rights activists and environmentalists are winning the battle against us.

What are licensed hunters supposed to think when they continue to spend millions and millions of dollars for wildlife conservation and what we are now seeing is the result spending that money catering to the nonpaying population making all the demands against hunting and trapping. We now have a whitetail deer population in peril because of it.

I suppose it is now time to declare the whitetail deer in Northern and Eastern Maine endangered. If this was a native brook trout population in one of Maine’s famous trout ponds, efforts would be put forth to slaughter every invasive fish there that was destroying the brook trout. If Maine can slaughter hundreds of thousands of fish from a body of water to “reclaim” it, why can’t they justify fighting for the means to allow for the killing of coyotes that are destroying our deer?

Isn’t that what needs to be done now? It would be a start!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Maine’s Moose Hunt Up, Deer Hunt Down

The February 3, 2009 edition of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife “Insider” is available for your reading pleasure. Follow this link. This report covers a wide variety of hunting, fishing and Maine outdoor news. Below highlights two reports on the Maine moose and deer hunts of 2008 as reported by Lee Kantar, head deer and moose biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

Kantar reports that even though not all the needed data has been entered yet, preliminary numbers indicate that due to favorable weather conditions, most of the Wildlife Management Districts show a slightly higher success rate among hunters for moose. This was not the case for the newly expanded southern zones that seem to indicate very low success rates. Kantar is cautioning that until all the information is collected, we should not speculate on why. Here’s his moose report.

Overall the September and October moose seasons were fortunate to have very good hunting conditions during a majority of the season. In other words, cool, fall weather prevailed with crisp mornings and precipitation overall was scarce.

Moose season is typified by very high participation rates and therefore changes in hunting conditions may be demonstrated by an increase in success rate. For the September-October season, the success rate increased 5 percent over 2007. From 2007 to 2008, there were increased success rates in 8 of 19 WMDs or 42 percent of the districts.

The total harvest was ~2,202 of 2,880 permits. (Note that not all the moose data has been entered in the database.) The 2007 moose harvest was 2,052 so the 2008 season represents an increase harvest of 150 moose, not counting November moose and any September/October registrations that have not been yet accounted for.

The November Moose season, which took place for the first time in WMDs 15, 16, 23 and 26, had mixed results. With a total of 135 permits offered and the registered kill not yet entered into the database, the preliminary numbers appear very low, especially in WMD 26, where as little as 3 out of 45 permits were filled. The November season must be carefully assessed once all the data is in to balance the population objectives for these WMDs as well as ensuring that prospective hunters understand the nature of this hunt, i.e., low success rates, small landownerships, access issues and less moose habitat than in more northern and eastern WMDs.

As was predicted before the deer hunting season began, deer harvest numbers seem to follow what was expected in the harvest of far fewer deer due to the high mortality rate on deer from last year’s record breaking winter. Kantar also reminds hunters that he also predicted before this season began that biologically we can expect another season next year of reduced success rates for deer hunters. Here’s Kantar’s preliminary deer report for the 2008 season in which he explains why.

With deer season over I thought it may be of interest to put this season in context with other jurisdictions. Recall that during the spring permit allocation meeting we figured a fall harvest of ~24,200 deer. This, of course, is based on the deer management system and all the data we use to assess current conditions and ultimately project buck harvest, determine the appropriate harvest prescription, calculate adult doe quotas and expansion factors. After reviewing and gleaning the deer biological data I calculated the predicted fall harvest based on a regression formula using annual biological data collection and the annual registered harvest. This year, using the biological data collection, the predicted harvest looks to be about ~24,100 statewide.

One important point is that this decreased harvest is not unexpected — a drop of 5,000 deer or 17 percent from 2007, if the prediction holds out — and Maine is not alone! If we review adjacent jurisdictions — Quebec, New Brunswick and New Hampshire — and take a quick look at their 2008 harvest, we will see some striking changes across the board in decreased deer harvests: Quebec Zones 2-4, that are adjacent to Maine WMDs 1, 4, 7 and 8 were down 41, 46 and 22 percent respectively; Coos County, NH (the most northern county) is estimated to be down 19 percent, and Carroll County, just south of Coos and adjacent to Maine WMDs 12, 15, and 20, is down 48 percent. New Brunswick harvest, I believe, is down ~20-25%.

The widespread decrease in deer harvest on a generalized scale reflects the harsh winter conditions and lengthy yarding period experienced across the northeast throughout the 2007-08 winter.

As typical for the various deer hunting seasons spanning across the months of September through December, hunter conditions were highly variable including during the November firearms season. Tracking snow conditions were available in many parts of the state during both the firearms and muzzleloader season, which typically translates in increased hunter participation and potential harvest. However, in a large part of the state influenced by a long winter, deer numbers were down.

Each year a large portion of the harvest is comprised of yearlings. For hunting season 2008, that would be the fawns from 2007. It is widely recognized that during severe winters, fawns are most susceptible to winter mortality and hence the following year, yearling deer show a decline in representation in the harvest. Preliminary numbers in Maine would support this decrease and mortality influence. Actual numbers should be available in the next month or two.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Peasant Wars

(Republished by permission)

Opinion by George Dovel

George Dovel is Editor and Publisher of The Outdoorsman.

In 2003, North America’s foremost wildlife scientist, Dr. Valerius Geist, made the following observations:

“The miracle of North American conservation is that it is basically a blue-collar system, grounded in the political and financial support and the active participation of large numbers of middle-class citizens who bring their basic honesty and decency to bear on important issues. This is just the opposite of the elitist system that has existed throughout Europe for centuries and is spreading like cancer around the world today, even right here at home.

“Because of the democratic nature of American hunting and wildlife management, and the demands for accountability it implies, our system has worked miracles in returning wildlife to a continent that, just a hundred years ago, saw the near-extinction of most big game animals and other wildlife. In my mind, this represents the world’s greatest environmental achievement of the last century.”

In 2006, representatives of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) adopted and agreed to fund the “Public Trust Doctrine in Fish and Wildlife Conservation.” This was essentially a doctrine reaffirming that wildlife is the property of the people, held in trust and managed for them and by them, and that hunting shall remain a democratic process available to all of the citizens who own the wildlife – not just the wealthy.

Yet WAFWA and the state wildlife agencies are exploiting the wildlife by selling it to the wealthiest hunters and excluding less affluent families from equal opportunity to harvest the wildlife they jointly own. The so-called “North American Model of Wildlife Conservation” is ignored in their rush to promote wolves and agendas that destroy the wild game sportsmen spent more than half a century restoring.

A week or so ago, in an exchange of emails between scientists and other concerned outdoorsmen like me, Dr. Geist wrote the following observation:

“I may be permitted to take this opportunity to comment on another matter, namely the futility – in the long term – of narrow conservation efforts such as those of the Wolf Recovery Foundation.

“My point of departure is the exceedingly brutal history of wildlife management in our occidental society, which, unfortunately, is all but unknown to North Americans. It inevitably begins with wildlife held as resource in common, accessible to citizen for their use and training in arms.

“It winds up as the de facto private property of the elite, which disarms citizens, and protects its privilege position of owning wildlife by force of arms (against the citizen). This is one substantial reason among others for armed rebellions by the deprived, most notably such bloody rebellions as the peasant wars of the 1520’s and the French revolution.

“Take away wildlife or make it irrelevant to the citizen, and wildlife winds up as private property, jealously defended. There is good reason for this as wildlife is a creator of wealth and privilege and thus very valuable.
Currently, simple-minded efforts to spread and multiply wolves lead to a depletion of wildlife – severe enough to lose the hunting public and with that the passion for wildlife. And with that it moves very surely into private ownership.

“And when wolves, grizzly bears and cougars are private property, the public has no say over their fate. I need not emphasize that even in North America the de facto grasp for wildlife by large land owners has led to the defense of that wildlife against the public with force of arms.

“Currently on Vancouver Island the following developed. With the return of wolves in the 1970’s deer populations dropped precipitously. The hunter kill went from about 25,000 deer annually to less than 3,000 in recent years.

“Deer hunters go to the mainland to hunt deer now. Still, it’s a loss to the island economy of about 50-75 million dollars.

“The large forest companies began to close and cut off roads that were previously kept open by public pressure. There is little protest as the voices are now so few for keeping the back country open.

“Deer are very scarce in the backcountry, not worth the effort to get there and hunt.

“The latest we hear now is of chalets being planned in the now – roadless – back country were wealthy clients can go to recreate by helicopter in a wilderness setting. The good fishing in the backcountry lakes, the hunting of giant elk, the wilderness, etc will thus be reserved for the elite.”

Best regards
Val Geist

Whether you are a hunter or fisherman, a natural resource manager, or just a citizen who is concerned about the ongoing depletion of our valuable wildlife resource and our way of life, I urge you to contact your State legislators and express your concerns to them. Write letters to the editor, call in on talk radio, and do whatever you can to energize your fellow citizens.

Remember English philosopher Edmund Burke’s warning, “The only thing necessary for the triumph (of evil) is for good men to do nothing.”

And when your efforts are criticized I urge you to remember this:

“He who fears criticism is hopeless. Only those who do things are criticized. To hesitate for fear of criticism is cowardly. If our course is right, be not afraid of criticism; advocate it, expound it, and if need be, fight for it. Critics always have been and always will be, but to the strong-minded, they are a help rather than a hindrance. Take your part in life’s stage and play your part to the end.” Thomas Jefferson

Posted by Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

QDMA’s 2009 Whitetail Report Now Available

On January 15 at the SHOT Show in Orlando, Florida, the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) unveiled the Whitetail Report, a detailed look at the status of whitetail populations and deer hunting in North America. Intended as a reference for the outdoor media, the Whitetail Report focuses on emerging issues and current challenges facing the whitetail. The document includes useful facts, statistics and science compiled by QDMA that will provide outdoor communicators with article ideas, valuable reference material, and quotes to use throughout the coming year.

To download the Whitetail Report, visit http://www.qdma.com/media/

Among many topics in the 68-page report, you will find:

• Trends in yearling-buck harvest rates and antlerless harvest, including state-by-state statistics.

• A look at the top states in harvest of mature bucks (3 1/2 years old or older).

• Trends in youth hunter recruitment and other deer-hunter demographics.

• The economic impact of deer hunting compared to other forms of hunting.

• The latest on the impacts of hemorrhagic disease (HD) and chronic wasting disease (CWD).

• Deer-vehicle collision data, and other suburban deer management issues.

Plus, many other current issues, as well as supplemental information on Quality Deer Management techniques, whitetail biology and the latest in deer research.

The white-tailed deer is the foundation of the entire hunting industry. Of active North American hunters, 78 percent hunt whitetails, more than the combined percentages for wild turkey, pheasant, quail, waterfowl, grouse, elk, mule deer and coyotes (survey by Responsive Management and the NSSF, 2008). QDMA created the Whitetail Report to provide outdoor writers, editors and communicators with a yearly health report for whitetails and – by extension – the hunting industry.

About QDMA
The Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) is a nonprofit conservation organization that works to educate and encourage hunters and landowners to practice biologically sound deer and habitat management techniques. Founded in 1988, QDMA has more than 53,000 members in 50 states, Canada and abroad. For more information, visit www.QDMA.com or call (800) 209-3337.

Posted by Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Doug Giles: God Loves Hunting And Hunters

Up to his usual, Doug Giles, TownHall.com, blasts away at the PETA anti-hunting crowd with passages from the Holy Scriptures that show Jesus approved of hunting and fishing.

Also pitching his upcoming book, “A Theology of Hunting: Why God Loves Hunting & Hunters”, Giles tells us that even Christians are acting “goofy” about hunting and fishing.

Therefore, seeing that a sizable chunk of the Church is getting goofy and are buying into the Disney-fueled misinformation machine and that PETA pariahs are now parsing biblical passages for propagandistic purposes, I figure it is high time to check out the holy Bible and lay out exactly what it does say about hunting and hunters. Being the capitalist pig that I am, I will do it in a new book that I am pitching for 2009 titled: A Theology of Hunting: Why God Loves Hunting & Hunters. For now here’s a little hors d’oeuvre about the Holy One and hunting.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Fred Goodwin And His Silver Ridge Buck

Fred Goodwin, famous to hunters for bagging The Silver Ridge Buck on the edge of the Silver Ridge Bog, Maine in 1949, celebrated his 100th birthday. Below are some pictures that were sent to me by reader Richard who attended the event.

There is also a feature in the North American Whitetail magazine, January 2009 edition.

The first picture is of Fred on the day he took the Silver Ridge Buck.

Below are the scoring statistics.

A picture of Fred and his Silver Ridge Buck when Fred was in his 80s.

Fred on the left, pictured with Oscar Cronk at Fred’s 100th birthday party.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Wildlife Watching Lie Exposed

*Scroll for Updates*

I came across some very disturbing information while reading the latest edition of The Outdoorsman (Oct.-Dec. 2008 Edition, Bulletin Number 31, page 6). As part of a larger article by George Dovel called, “Lack of Integrity in State Wildlife Management”, if found this frightening bit of information.

The Wildlife Watching Lie Exposed
The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Survey claim that Wildlife Watchers outnumber hunters and fishermen and spend $billions on that activity was based on applying virtually all of the expenses from every trip by tourists or other travelers to “Wildlife Watching.” The fact that seeing wildlife was only an infrequent incidental activity on almost all of those trips was conveniently ignored.

Yet that false information was used to implement the multi-billion-dollar nationwide “Watchable Wildlife” program in state and federal agencies. Now the “USDA Forest Service Visitor Use Monitoring Results for FY 2007,” dated October 28, 2008, provides further proof that the wildlife watching claims are simply a myth promoted by a small minority of bird watchers who want hunters and other taxpayers to fund their private recreation.

Although more than a third of the visitors said they enjoyed seeing natural wonders, relaxing, hiking and seeing wildlife on their visit, only 2.3%* reported viewing wildlife as a primary activity! But even more revealing, despite millions of dollars reportedly spent by the agencies to develop birding trails and wildlife viewing sites over the past few years, National Forest visitor use declined dramatically from FY2004 through FY2007!

(* The tiny 2.3% viewing wildlife compares to 16.5% hiking or walking; 15.0% hunting or fishing; 14.8% downhill skiing; and 13.4% viewing natural features)

The “National Visitor Use Monitoring Results” can be found by following the link provided.

Considering that the results of the study proclaim the following, then the results may need to be discarded as well.

Scope and purpose of the National Visitor Use Monitoring program

The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program provides reliable information about recreation
visitors to national forest system managed lands at the national, regional, and forest level. Information
about the quantity and quality of recreation visits is required for national forest plans, Executive Order
12862 (Setting Customer Service Standards), and implementation of the National Recreation Agenda. To
improve public service, the agency’s Strategic and Annual Performance Plans require measuring trends in
user satisfaction and use levels. NVUM information assists Congress, Forest Service leaders, and
program managers in making sound decisions that best serve the public and protect valuable natural
resources by providing science based, reliable information about the type, quantity, quality and location
of recreation use on public lands. The information collected is also important to external customers
including state agencies and private industry. NVUM methodology and analysis is explained in detail in
the research paper entitled: Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method
Documentation; English, Kocis, Zarnoch, and Arnold; Southern Research Station; May 2002
(http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum).

Exposing this lie is a kick in the groin to hunters, fishermen and trappers who have contributed faithfully through license fees doing so under the premise that the overseers of that money was being spent legally and in good faith. We now discover that studies were manipulated to achieve desired results in order to justify the spending of license dollars for wildlife watching activities. This is shameful and should rile the dander of every hunter, fisherman and trapper in America.

*Update* Dec. 26, 2008, 1:56 p.m. - You can access the entire issue of The Outdoorsman by following this link.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Wisconsin Deer Harvest Numbers Down. Who Or What To Blame?

Preliminary data indicate that the whitetail deer gun hunting season is showing a harvest that’s 20% lower than last year and the blame finger is being pointed all around.

According to Channel3000.com News, Tom Hauge, of wildlife management with the DNR, says the DNR’s estimate of the deer populations was probably off “because they used the wrong reproduction or “multiplier” figure against last year’s total harvest.”

“The earlier indications are suggesting that our projections were probably high and that there weren’t as many deer out there as we were projecting,” Hauge said.

That assessment might not agree with others in the Wisconsin DNR. WQOW-TV reports that hunters are calling the DNR office complaining that wolves have ruined their hunt.

The phone lines are red-hot at DNR offices around the state. Many of those callers who say the grey wolf has impacted their hunting experience. But DNR officials say there is a lot more to the story, a story that tracks all the way to Washington D.C.

DNR says with the 550 wolves in the state, the impact on deer populations is minimal. Ed Culhane, a DNR communications specialist, says the reason fewer deer are being harvested is because hunting has changed.

“We are seeing changes in land use, in the way people hunt. If you were to drive around rural Wisconsin 10 or 15 years ago, you would have seen large groups of hunters gathering at various farms. Now you drive around, and you simply don’t see that kind of hunting effort anymore,”

So what is it? Did DNR mess up the estimated deer population or are hunters too lazy to go into the woods and track down a deer? Maybe the 550 estimation of how many wolves are in Wisconsin is as accurate as the screwed up estimation on deer numbers.

Things have changed but I can’t see where making excuses for it is going to get the job done. Unless the state has a viable reason, and one everyone can agree on, as to why the deer harvest was off 20%, maybe they should call in their media personal until they figure it out. All they are managing to do is instill less confidence in the DNR forcing hunters to believe that they can’t do their jobs.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Black Friday Buck

This photo and caption was sent to me by reader Brian.

Thought I’d send along a couple pics of a 10 pointer I shot (shotgun) on Black Friday in Durham, NH. Came along just before dark w/ it’s nose to the ground and in somewhat of a hurry. Seems like the rut is still on up here!

Posted by Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Deer In The Field And “A Little Help From My Friends”

Reader Wanda sent me this picture today. She took it yesterday in Maine in the pouring rain. She doesn’t have an “Any-Deer Permit” so she watch this gal and her darling little friends for an hour hoping a “mate” might appear with horns. Didn’t happen!

She called in a friend who she knew had a permit. By then the deer had moved over the knoll but the hunters managed to bring her down.

Thanks for sharing the photo, Wanda!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

In Northern Maine, Deer Harvest Down About 50%

Last winter was a killer on whitetail deer in many spots across the state of Maine. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife estimated significant kills in winter deer yards and took steps to adjust the population of deer in several areas in Northern and Western Maine.

In Northern Maine as well as portions of Western Maine, the Department opted to not issue any “Any-Deer” permits this season. An “Any-Deer” permit allows a hunter with one to harvest either a buck or a doe. “Any-Deer” permits are the key tool used by the Department to manipulate deer populations within each of the many Wildlife Management Districts.

With a combination of no “Any-Deer” permits, fewer deer and in some cases reduced hunter participation, harvest numbers to this point are running about 50% below what one would expect this time of year, according to Kevin Miller’s article found in the Kennebec Journal this morning.

We are now entering into the time of the deer season when it should be peak rutting (mating) season, which gets the bucks on the move in search of does, increasing the hunters chances of encountering a deer. Thanksgiving week is traditionally one of the busier hunting periods in Maine.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Maine Hunting Today Contributing Writer Bags Buck

This is so hot off the press you could fry backstraps on it!

Maine Guide and contributing writer for Maine Hunting Today and U.S. Hunting Today, Robert Lane bagged this beauty just yesterday. Notice the drop tine on the left antler, right as you face the picture.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Maine Man Bags Opening Day Buck

The following pictures and captions were sent to me by reader Richard, who says that hunting in the Bingham, Maine area has been, “something less than spectacular.”

OOOOOPS! Richard may have been running ahead of himself a little bit by claiming it happened opening day 2009.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Next Page »