The latest recipient of the Black Bear Blog’s horse excrement award goes to Rep. John Quinn and Rep. David Pearce both of Minnesota. Quinn is the sponsor and Pearce the co-sponsor of HB2498, a bill that would pay anyone involved in an accident with a deer, the first $250 in damages. And, that money would come from the Department of Conservation. For those who might not quite understand what the Department of Conservation is, in your state it may be called the Department of Natural Resources or Department of Fish and Game, etc. Whatever it’s called, it appears these two guys want sportsmen to pay for deer accidents.

In 2004, there were 8,648 reported accidents with vehicles involving deer in Missouri. Simple math tells us that this would cost sportsmen $2,162,000 annually.

Fiscal year 2007, collected revenue(pdf) to the Department of Conservation was $171,676,521. $31 million of that came from license buyers. To pay for this added expense would call for either cuts, increases or a combination of both. Will this once again fall on the backs of Missouri’s outdoor sportsmen? Either way wildlife conservation will suffer and in fact this move could actually end up exacerbating the problem.

Let’s suppose for a minute if we can. If there were 8,648 REPORTED deer/vehicle accidents in 2004, how many are there today? And the bigger question would be how many would now get reported (wink, wink) knowing they could claim $250 for saying they got hit by a deer. Read what the text of the bill says.

252.042. The department of conservation shall pay the owner of any motor vehicle the first two hundred fifty dollars for repair of damages to any motor vehicle that collides with a deer that is not otherwise covered by insurance. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any damage caused to a motor vehicle that involved avoiding a deer where there is no contact with a deer. The owner shall prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that such damage was caused by a collision with a deer and that at the time of the collision the motor vehicle was legally operated.

So, the owner of the vehicle has to show “clear and convincing evidence”. Interesting! Will they have to bring the remains to the Department of Conservation? Or how about bring them to Mr. Quinn’s house and let him decide. Maybe we could have victims cut off four feet? We could require them to carry a hack saw around with them. Oh, but wait, what if they hit the deer causing damage and the deer runs away, living to get hit again? There better be hair on the grill. If you don’t have any deer hair to make it look convincing, I’ll be you can get your hands on some quite easily.

Another interesting note is that no compensation will be paid to anyone who wrecks their car trying to avoid hitting the deer. So if you see one, make sure you take careful aim. $250 “bucks” (sorry, I couldn’t help myself this time) would be quick and easy beer money wouldn’t it. Say you hit a deer and you got blood, guts and hair on the grill. Then get some body shop guy say it’s going to cost, oh, let’s round it off to about $250, collect the money, say sayonara to the body shop guy (or maybe slip him an easy $50), and head on over to the beer store.

The point to all this is the ridiculousness of the whole thing. How can this at all be regulated? Oh, geez! I hadn’t thought that would could place restrictions and requirements on the deer. But what’s even bigger is the domino effect of abuse and lawsuits that will follow.

By the Department of Conservation being forced to pay for damages incurred by deer, is saying that is the Department’s fault that there are deer and in particular the sponsor of this bill probably is one of those guys who thinks that hunters cause everything - too many deer, not enough deer, sick deer, healthy deer, Lyme disease, global warming, George Bush’s stuttering problem and that Al Gore gained 600 pounds riding around on icebergs looking for endangered polar bears.

If sportsmen are to blame, at least to some degree, for deer accidents, who else can the lawyers blame and the courts agree with? Let’s start with the landowner where the accident happened. I’m sure evidence can be found that might have caused a deer to cross the road where it did, when it did. Maybe it’s a fence or a tree blew over in a recent global warming enhanced thunderstorm that the landowner had yet to clean up.

Maybe the Department of Transportation didn’t have their “deer crossing” sign in the right place. We have all heard about the idiots who complain that the deer don’t cross in the crossing zones. That has to be the fault of the DOT by not putting the sign in the right place.

The manufacturer of the vehicle has to now assume a certain amount of responsibility too. Couldn’t something have been done in the design of the vehicle to make it more “deer proof”?

Let’s not forget the family Griswolds’ who moved to the suburbs to “get away from it all” and decided it’s really fun to feed the deer. They have to be blamed. Maybe each neighborhood should be required to pay into a fund specifically for deer related accidents. After all, that deer probably wouldn’t have gotten hit if the Griswolds hadn’t of built their house there.

What’s nuts about this is that a percentage, how much I don’t know, of these accidents happen in areas where hunters aren’t allowed to hunt to reduce the numbers. If the number of deer wasn’t so high, there wouldn’t be some many accidents. If I’m going to be blamed for deer/vehicle accidents and have to pay for them, then I want to have some say in how many deer there are in the woods to run over.

Is this all just ridiculous? Of course it is. Is there no sense and sensibility left in this country? Give me a break!

Maybe it’s all good for the Motherland, comrades!

Tom Remington

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

It seems everyday I learn of another bunch of unhappy deer hunters griping and complaining about them not getting the same “fair” opportunity as the next guy. Will it ever end? Nah! I don’t think it is something human nature can rise above, at least not on a regular basis.

Remember back to the days of Little League baseball? Having spent many of my earlier years coaching, organizing the local leagues and even a stint as county Little League baseball commissioner, dealing with the kids was a cake walk. The same could not be said for the parents. Sometimes I think the authorities at each state’s fish and game department wake up some mornings and think to themselves, “Ah, Geez! I got to go to work today and listen to another unhappy deer hunter who knows more about how to put all this information together and come up with a deer hunting season that keeps everyone happy - including the deer.”

Figuring out who gets to hunt, for how long, of which sex, by which instrument and dates to pull it all off is a monumental task. Never fear, the game commission has all the help they need.

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m a hunter too and I have offered up a suggestion or two of my own that I thought would make things better. The fish and game departments are far from perfect and in some cases I think they are completely corrupt in some aspects. We as hunters need to keep these people on their toes, after all they are working for us.

So when was the last time a group of hunters actually reached consensus on issues dealing with hunting? Many times satisfaction follows success rates. In other words if I hunt this year and bag a trophy buck, what have I got to complain about? On the same token if this is the fifth year in a row that I have not even seen a buck in the woods, don’t I have plenty to complain about?

But it goes beyond anything so simple. To begin with, for whatever the reasons, and there would be no consensus on this topic either, hunters as a whole have a pretty low opinion of their fish and game departments. In an article I was reading this morning in the Joplin Globe (Missouri) the writer revealed sentiments I have heard more than I care to.

It seems the Missouri Department of Conservation is considering “revamping” the deer hunting season. As part of the process, public meetings are going to take place. Here’s what the writer had to say about this process.

I have a suspicion that what changes will be made are already being planned and that the “public meetings” are being done to win support from hunters for their willingness to listen.

That’s a great attitude. Did this come as the result of past history when it comes to such events or is this just an angry dissatisfied deer hunter sharing frustrations?

Read also what the writer says about what he believes to be the priorities of his own fish and game department.

I have watched the Missouri Department of Conservation become a real bureaucracy over the years. I have seen a great deal of mis-spending and downright corruption, and a trend toward making as much money as possible and putting less and less of it back into true game and fish management.

One thing I know will come of this attempt to revamp the deer season. Nothing will be put in place which does not provide the possibility of the same or greater number of deer tags being sold, and more revenue for the department.

This guy isn’t alone in his thoughts about fish and game. I hear this same lament everyday from both hunters and non-hunters. They believe the only objective of fish and game is to make money - more than they need to manage game animals. I know of very few hunters who think our license fees are being spent wisely. (It’s that Little League parent mentality.)

It is a shame that so many hunters feel this way toward their fish and game departments. It certainly contributes to an atmosphere conducive to disagreement.

But the writer goes on to offer suggestions he thinks will make the deer hunting in Missouri better. I so doing, we begin to see another growing problem that in some states is festering to a point where we are near gang warfare over it - special interests.

We all have our preferred methods and means in which we take to the woods but is it getting a bit out of hand? It’s one thing to have differences in how we hunt, like still-hunting, driving, tree stand, ground blinds, using dogs, baiting, preserve hunting, quality deer management and the list goes on. We have all had discussions about these methods for decades and I don’t foresee it changing anytime soon. But now the battle lines are being drawn between groups and individuals out to get their way when it comes to the weapon of choice to hunt with.

Forgive me as I know I will miss some weapons but let’s take a look a minute. Once upon a time there was a deer hunting season where in reality you killed a deer during that time with whatever you could put together to accomplish such. Of course some of those weapons have been disqualified from the list of eligible weapons.

But then we needed to make things “fair” - there’s that four-letter word I so despise. So we set aside an archery season for those hunters because they needed undisturbed woods and deer that hadn’t been chased all over the countryside by rifle hunters. This, of course, increased their “opportunities” (another overused term). What’s good for the goose I guess is good for the gander and over time each weapon methodology began requesting special privileges once again to make things “fair” and increase “opportunities”.

Now we have in the archery class, longbows, compounds, crossbows, atlatl (a primitive weapon thrown by hand) and I’m sure I’ve missed one somewhere. Switching over to guns, we have rifles, shotguns and muzzleloaders and the battle rages on about the unending list of kinds of muzzleloaders that are all different and each seeking their own hunting seasons. In some states we now have handgun deer hunting season and of course with that we have primitive handgun seasons.

I think it is wonderful that so many hunters are finding ways in which they can enhance their deer hunting experience. Let’s face it. In some states hunters have taken up different methods or choice of weapons for deer hunting in order to be able to take more deer and that is fine providing that the increased harvesting of those deer isn’t putting the deer herd in jeopardy.

The problems we face come when these individual disciplines begin demanding special privileges at the expense of others or by taking “opportunities” away from others. As I said, I’m all for hunters expanding their horizons. I’m not for them taking away my “opportunities” in order to un”fair”ly increase theirs.

Even the words “special interest” these days carry a negative connotation, usually because the demands being made by special interests are only in consideration of themselves even if it is at the expense of others. When this happens, once again we have contributed to the atmosphere of disagreements.

One of the biggest outcries I hear these days comes within the ranks of muzzleloaders. Some are demanding that certain kinds of muzzleloaders be banned for use during so-called “muzzleloader” deer hunting seasons. After all, there are primitive flintlock weapons, the not so primitive black powder that utilizes a firing cap instead of flint, inline muzzleloaders, etc., etc.

Arguments abound over whether optics should be allowed on “primitive” weapons, including bows.

With increased technology driven by demand from hunters for new gimmicks and gadgets, the disagreements will continue. Along with each new invention will more than likely come the increased demand for more “opportunities”. But at what expense?

When you combine the attitudes of more hunters with more special interests with those that perceive the fish and game departments as only caring about how much money they can make, it all sounds like there’s not much hope for a promising future. I think that if we can find a way to enjoy our new-found hunting method without demanding more attention by taking it away from others, it would go a long way to increase better relations between hunters. With that, more energy and effort can be put toward better game management from our fish and game.

Tom Remington

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

On Monday of this week I reported that eight states (Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri and Ohio) were going to request grant monies available through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, also known as Pittman-Robertson, in order to conduct studies on tree stand safety. The article I wrote generated some discussion and comments, one coming from reader MadJack.

Yes the P/R Act was to improve hunting & wildlife habitat, NOT to WASTE in an attempt to control hunters & how they hunt! I believe this would be a direct violation of the Pitman Robertson Act as well as very unlawful.

More Government waste!

While I tend to agree with MadJack, I wasn’t aware that revenues generated through PR were used via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fund programs for hunter safety and education. According to PR Act Title 16, Chapter 5B, section 669h, $8 million will be apportioned back to each state for certain hunter safety programs.

Of the revenues covered into the fund, $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and each fiscal year thereafter, shall be apportioned among the States in the manner specified in section 669c(c) \1\ of this title by the Secretary of the Interior and used to make grants to the States to be used for–

(A) in the case of a State that has not used all of the funds apportioned to the State under section 669c(c) \1\ of this title for the fiscal year in the manner described in section 669g(b) of this title–
(i) the enhancement of hunter education programs, hunter and sporting firearm safety programs, and hunter development programs;
(ii) the enhancement of interstate coordination and development of hunter education and shooting range programs;
(iii) the enhancement of bow hunter and archery education, safety, and development programs; and
(iv) the enhancement of construction or development of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges, and the updating of safety features of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges; and

(B) in the case of a State that has used all of the funds apportioned to the State under section 669c(c) \1\ of this title for the fiscal year in the manner described in section 669g(b) of this title, any use authorized by this chapter (including hunter safety programs and the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges).

An act that was originally designed for the protection of wildlife and habitat, it has been amended many times in order that these funds can be used for other programs not directly related to it original purpose. As I understand the Act, monies are apportioned back to each state for the specific purposes described concerning hunter safety and education programs. If that money has been used up, USFWS grants additional monies collected via PR for further hunter education and safety programs.

Tom Remington

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

While Missouri hunters fell short of setting any records of number of deer harvested this November, they did set an all-time record of it being the safest. Only 3 accidents were reported and none were fatal. When you consider the number of hunters taking to the woods for the 11 days of the November hunt, this is a remarkable accomplishment.

Hunters took 214,494 deer, which is down from last year’s record season of 235,409. Congratulations to Missouri deer hunters for making this a record safe hunting season.

Tom Remington

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

Read a few light stories about dogs that like to hunt snakes, along with other dog tales and snake tales.

Tom Remington

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

Rep. Terry Young introduced a bill to the Missouri legislature that would provide for hunters to track wounded deer with dogs.

Read more about it here at the Belleville News Democrat.

Tom Remington

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

Missouri has a wild hog problem and asking help from hunters isn’t doing anything to cure the problem, said Denise Brown, assistant director of the conservation department.

“They are so prolific,” said Denise Brown, assistant director of the state conservation department. “Asking the hunters to help us just isn’t getting it done.”

With an estimated 5,000-10,000 hogs littering the landscape destroying anything and everything in their path, the state is considering some pretty drastic measurements.

Among the options under consideration by the Missouri Conservation Commission: tracking dogs, live traps and aerial gunning from helicopters.

The department also wants to outfit trapped hogs with tracking devices that would allow hunters to find clusters of animals once those hogs are released to reunite with their herds.

This should be a hog hunters dream. Tracking devices to make it easier to locate herds of hogs should help.

Calling all Missouri hog hunters. Hogs on the loose.

Tom Remington

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

Any women hunters in or near Missouri who would like to learn more about turkey hunting, click this link.

Tom Remington

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

Many states have had successful deer hunting season. Some have set new records, others pushing the envelope, while others have had good solid seasons. In Missouri, officials are claiming they have set a new record for number of deer killed - 280,856 and in Ohio, with the new expanded “extra weekend” hunt, when all is said and done, they may break a record.

Missouri’s bow hunting season runs until January 15. Final totals won’t be available until after that but they have already exceeded the previous record by over 5,000 deer.

Ohio’s bow season runs until February 4 as well as a primitive weapon hunt still to go at the end of the month. The totals from all this may set a new record for Ohio. Currently, harvest numbers stand at 191,924.

Tom Remington

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

If I hadn’t read it, I wouldn’t have believed it!

We have all seen highway safety signs up and down the roads of America - “Slow Curve”, “Caution”, “Fallen Rock Zone”, “No Passing”, along with many others. But do we all know what these signs mean? Here’s an example. If you are traveling down a street of roadway and you see a sign that reads, “Pedestrian Crossing”, do you know what it is telling you? Usually this sign is erected to let drivers know that a marked crossing for humans is ahead.

Now if you saw a sign that read, “Deer Crossing”, would you assume the same thing only pertaining to deer? According to an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, people believe that a “Deer Crossing” sign designates a legal crossing for deer.

Becky Allmeroth, a traffic operations engineer with the Missouri Department of Transportation, says the agency frequently receives calls from people asking: “Why do you put them up? Deer can’t read.”

Some people believe herds of deer move across the road at the crossing signs as if they were schoolchildren in a crosswalk. They don’t. The sign may not even mark a spot where any deer ever has crossed the road.

But the real laugh comes from this one woman whose legend has lived on.

The herd-crossing belief may have been at the bottom of a request a deer lover once made of Allmeroth. Allmeroth says a woman who is a public official, whom she will not identify, wanted the crossing sign moved to give the deer a safer place to cross. The request has become an urban legend among those who deal with traffic or deer.

WOW!!

Tom Remington

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

The Missouri deer hunt concluded on November 21 resulting in the most deer taken in a season - 235,054. The previous single season record came in 2004 having had 222,329 deer taken. What caught authorities a bit off guard was the fact that deer harvest numbers were down after the opening weekend. Things started slow but picked up after that.

Read more here.

Tom Remington

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

There’s a story coming out of Missouri that claims a hunter named Howard Becker has shot and killed a 28-point doe. It was supposedly taken near his home and Missouri Department of Conservation personel are saying that would be a rare occurrence.

I’ll appeal to readers to supply any information or a photo. You can email me the photo and I’ll put it up if you can find one. Please try to provide anything to help authentic the story and photo. Thanks.

Tom Remington

*Update 11/28/2006*

Hat tip goes out to Lee Vermeiren for sending a link to the story complete with photos and video.

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

The Missouri Conservation Commission has finalized dates for fall deer and turkey season.

The firearms deer hunting season is comprised of five portions; Urban season is Oct. 6-9 in open counties. Youth season is Oct. 28-29 statewide.

November season is Nov. 11-21 statewide. Muzzleloader is Nov. 24-Dec. 3 statewide. Anterless is Dec. 9- 17 in 73 counties.

The fall firearms turkey season is Oct. 1-31.

Archery deer and turkey season is Sept. 15-Nov. 10 and Nov. 22-Jan. 15 statewide.

Hunters are being reminded to make sure you have your permits before heading into the woods. Also, all hunters must report their harvesting either by computer or telephone (800-314-6828.

Tom Remington

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

Missouri controlled hunt applications will be available until August 15, 2006. Controlled hunts are held in areas across the state where access is limited and game species run high. The hunts are conducted as a means of reducing or maintaining game populations. These hunts have to be strictly regulated for a number of reasons - human population, small land masses, etc. Hunters interested must choose one area to apply. More information here.

Tom Remington

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

Today begins the regular spring turkey hunt in Missouri but you got to make sure you have all the right permits and permissions.

The season opens today and runs through May 14, 2006. Hunters need a valid Missouri hunting permit, including a resident or non-resident turkey permit, a landowner resident or non-resident turkey permit or youth deer and turkey hunting permit.

Make sure you are certified with a hunter education class. Bag limits are as follows:

Two male turkeys or turkeys with visible beard may be taken during the season, with the following restrictions:
You may only take one turkey during the first week from April 24-30.
If you do not take one during the first week, then you may take two during the second or third week from May 1-14, but you may not take them both on the same day.

A resident turkey hunting permit is $17.00 as well as a youth deer and turkey permit. Non-resident turkey permit is $145.00 and non-resident landowner turkey permit is $75.00.

Gobble, gobble and good luck!

Tom Remington

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