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!

Pennsylvania Record Bear Taken By Pistol

Hat tip to reader Jim!

A Pennsylvania man bags his first bear in 35 years during the recent state bear hunt. He took it with one shot from a .44 magnum Smith and Wesson pistol.

Tom Remington

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

Bear Hunting Seasons In Tennessee And Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania yesterday opened its annual 3-day bear hunting season and Tennessee is in the middle of their season that is a considerably more extended season than that of Pennsylvania. Both states believe they have an abundance of bears and if the weather holds favorable, record harvests could be reported.

To date, Tennessee has reported 246 bear taken with 17 days left in the season. The later part of the season into December allows dogs for bear hunting. Officials predict as many as 400 bears could be harvested if the weather doesn’t get too cold too quickly. That would be a record.

Meanwhile Pennsylvania officials are reporting a bumper crop of bears and they too think that if the weather holds for the next two days, as many as 3,500 bears could be taken. Last year 2,360 bears were taken and the weather was not good on opening day.

Tom Remington

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

Wildlife Counting. How Important Is It?

In management of wildlife, shouldn’t it be considered imperative to have accurate and reliable population counts? After all, many a lawsuit that involves millions of dollars and just as many people have been decided on data that includes herd counts, especially Endangered Species Act lawsuits.

“I’ve been in the woods for over a month now and I can tell you there are at least 100 does for every buck!” This is a comment I received one day when attempting to communicate with fellow hunters about buck to doe ratios and the management plans Maine has in monitoring and manipulating the whitetail deer populations.

Whether that statement is true or not is not really up to me to decide but when I contacted a wildlife expert, I was told that in Maine, having a buck to doe ratio of 1:100 was nearly biologically impossible unless it was intentionally skewed.

I’m sure most of you at one time or another participated in the old “count the jelly beans” contest. This is where someone fills a glass jug with jelly beans and then formulates a contest in which the one who can guess closest the number of beans in the jar wins a prize.

In this scenario, you can see the beans through the glass but because it is three dimensional and the beans are stacked from all sides, one has to envision how many groupings of a selected number exist in the jar and then do the math.

Have you ever attended a concert or any kind of large gathering of people and been asked to estimate how many people in attendance? You might apply the same principle as the jelly beans - determine the size of say 50 people and see how many chunks of 50 people there are and once again do the math.

I have friends who are wildlife biologists. Often they volunteer to go on bird counts in Mexico during migration. I’m no expert on bird counting but I recall one of them briefly describing the process. The birds are flying in mass in the same direction. At certain places, the birds enter areas where the air rises. The birds get into these rises until they reach a certain height and then fly away headed for their final migratory destination.

The biologists make a determination of how many birds can fill up this “elevator” of updrafts. Each counter picks out one bird as it enters the elevator, watches it until it reaches the top and exits. At this time the counter moves eyes back to the bottom of the elevator, picks another bird and counts “one”.

This entire process gives biologists a “count” of the number of that species of bird. I have no hard data but it might be plausible to guess the counting would be off by several thousand but when counting millions of birds, it is probably within tolerance.

In all of these cases I’ve mentioned, someone or group of people are attempting to count objects they can see, not necessarily individually but in groups, a lot of groups in some cases. So, how do we count species not in groups, not confined to small areas but spread out over huge areas of land and forests? Sometimes in the open, sometimes in dense forest?

There are several ways and not everyone uses the same methods and all produce varying degrees of accuracy. How accurate should it be?

If there are an estimated 1,000,000,000 sparrows, I’m not so sure that being real accurate on numbers is that important. On the other hand, if there is an estimated 100 of a particular “protected” species, it would seem imperative that we know exactly how many exist and where.

I can’t and won’t get into the exact methods used to count wildlife, but let me give a few examples to show the varying ways and degrees of effort put forth in determining herd counts in some states.

Let’s start first with whitetail deer in Maine. Maine has deer that live in areas throughout the entire state. Deer densities in southern Maine far exceed those in northern Maine. How do we know that? Biologists have formulated equations that by inputting data, comparing it to many years of previous data, they come up with an answer. Examples of data used would include: weather, habitat, predation, fawn survival rates, disease, hunter harvest and hunting pressure, open land, among others. The use of aerial surveys is also used but not on a regular, extensive basis. (For those interested in finding out more about how Maine manages and counts its deer herd, visit the website of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.)

Another state that is having a war over deer management is Pennsylvania. A few years back, biologists and state agencies announced that there were too many deer and as a result was destroying the habitat and creating a serious ecological imbalance. Pennsylvania began a program to reduce the deer population. Some don’t agree with the approach. The question for us today is how do they know how many deer they had and how many they have now?

The state of Pennsylvania Fish and Game offers a Deer Management Plan and an update to that that addresses the new plan of herd reduction.

From an examination of the Deer Management Plan and assuming it is being followed, we can see that Pennsylvania utilizes similar methods as Maine in counting their deer. Obviously, due to different geography and climate, certain methods are different.

I think Maine has an excellent system of data collection and utilization that gives most biologists a healthy degree of confidence in the outcome. The reality is it is still educated guessing but the key is increasing the level of confidence. When hunters discover that their biologists are producing accurate results, this level of confidence in the fish and game grows.

Gathering this information and determining how many deer live in states like Maine and Pennsylvania is good and serves not only to provide a professional means to manage the species but in so doing solves many social problems as well, i.e. keeping hunters and wildlife viewers satisfied, maintaining healthy forests, reducing human/deer encounters/accidents, etc.

But in both Maine and Pennsylvania, the whitetail deer is, for all intent and purposes, plentiful. Most people’s concerns about them involve avoiding running into them with their cars or being able to spot one occasionally in the field.

This is not the case for other species in other states. Let’s head west to Idaho. Idaho is home to mule deer, whitetail deer, elk and moose. It is also home to the gray wolf, an endangered and protected species that has created emotional conflict, to say the least.

The wolf was once native to Idaho and surrounding regions until it was nearly exterminated many years ago. The wolf had been found in northern areas of the state, having migrated down from Canada. But in 1993 and 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unloaded imported wolves into the forests of Idaho as an “experimental” population. Since that time, the wolf there has been relabeled endangered and is protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Last year the USFWS removed the wolf from protection of the ESA and immediately lawsuits were filed by no fewer than 11 environmental, animal rights and anti-hunting groups to stop the process. A judge in Montana agreed and ruled in favor of a temporary injunction to place the wolf back under federal protection.

Since that time the feds have withdrawn their original proposal to delist and are now in the process of putting forth a new delisting proposal in hopes of getting this done by the first of next year. Once again, most of the same pro wolf groups have filed suit to stop the process until the new administration (Obama’s) has taken over.

Within Idaho there are varying degrees of emotions - satisfaction, dissatisfaction, anger and happiness - over the wolf issue. Ranchers have lost livestock due to wolf predation and hunters, along with some non-hunters, are angry that the wolf is killing more elk, deer and moose. To what extent this “decimation” of elk and deer is taking place, we don’t really know or perhaps we don’t know who to believe or what is accurate.

So, we should then conclude with the amount of controversy over the wolf, the assumed destruction of elk and deer herds, the loss of ranchers’ livestock and the reduced production due to the presence of wolves, combined with the mere number of Idaho citizens directly and indirectly affected by the wolf, that Idaho must have one of the best systems in place in the country to monitor wolf, elk, deer, moose, sheep and every other kind of wildlife populations. We mustn’t forget the mere millions of dollars spent on wolf reintroduction, managing the animal once it was placed there and the countless lawsuits past, present and future. How can lawsuits be determined fairly unless Idaho’s population monitoring isn’t flawless? And how can we administer the Endangered Species Act with faulty information?

I figured then that I would see if I could find out about how Idaho Department of Fish and Game monitors its animals.

I sent an email to Brad Compton, Idaho’s big game manager, and asked him if he could explain or provide me with information that specifically explained the processes IDFG uses to count and monitor its mule deer, whitetail deer, moose, elk and wolves. This is the complete response I got.

Tom,

Idaho is currently using “Aerial Survey” to estimate mule deer, elk, moose, and bighorn sheep populations. Information on the technique is available at:

http://www.cnrhome.uidaho.edu/fishwild/Garton/tools

I couldn’t really find out anything from this link except to be able to get a download of the computer software I presume IDFG uses to tabulate the results of the endless data they must collect.

I began asking around from people in that area who have had experience with aerial surveys, wildlife management, etc. When I asked one gentleman about this response from Brad Compton, this is part of what was said.

His (Ed Garton) computer models were used to estimate deer and elk populations and harvests in the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery area in the 1993 Wolf Recovery EIS and his average overall estimate for the 20,000+ square miles exceeded known deer and elk populations in the three highest producing units in that area by more than 600%.

These were the figures presented to Congress and the general public to justify introducing Canadian wolves into Idaho.

You know what they say about computers and the programs designed to run on them? Garbage in, garbage out. If it was true that deer and elk populations were inflated by 600%, was this the fault of the computer program, the information used in the program or a combination of both?

It didn’t take long before I came to the conclusion that Idaho relies very heavily on aerial surveys to estimate game populations. I also began finding out that aerial surveys alone may not be very accurate and can lead to some serious problems involving game management.

Articles archived in the Lewiston Tribune from 1997 and 1998 offer a disturbing revelation. In the Clearwater Region it was feared that elk took a hard hit from the deep snows of 1996-97. The then regional manager said nothing they had found indicated anything out of the “normal” range.

“There’s no doubt we had some losses,” Crenshaw said, “but we haven’t seen anything to suggest it’s outside the normal range.”
About 5 to 10 percent of the elk herd dies off during the winter most years, Crenshaw said, adding this year’s losses might be pushing that upper end of the range.

He further went on to explain that he didn’t predict that there would be any changes to the number of elk permits to be issued for hunting in the coming fall. That was in May.

In December of that same year, 1997, hunters began complaining that the Clearwater Region didn’t have any elk in it. Also from the Lewiston Tribune:

Some Clearwater Region hunters have complained about finding fewer elk this fall, particularly in units around Dworshak Reservoir. Hunter success also was off in that region. Aerial and ground surveys of elk in northern units of the Clearwater Region last spring showed no signs of unusual winter kill.

Two months later in Feb. 2008, the Tribune reported that IDFG was reporting elk numbers in the Clearwater Region had dropped drastically since 1994 and blamed it on the severe winter of 1996-97. The total number of elk had been cut in half. These is the kinds of discrepancies that drive sportsmen nuts.

Aside from the computer software link Mr. Compton gave me, I found that Idaho Fish and Game website provides a Mule Deer Management Plan. Hoping to find more precise methods used to count deer and elk, I really only found a brief reference to something called, “sightability model”.

Because not all animals are observed during aerial surveys (Caughley 1974), IDFG developed a “sightability model” that corrects for those deer not observed (Unsworth et. al. 1994). Beginning in the mid-1990s, annual aerial surveys, using the “sightability model,” were conducted on 28 discrete winter ranges across southern Idaho. These winter range surveys provided reliable information on population composition, but were inadequate for determining overall abundance. Additionally, limiting monitoring to these winter ranges failed to detect potential changes occurring on the many smaller or peripheral winter ranges throughout Idaho.(I provided the hyperlink)

In theory, what this “sightability model” does is correct for what animals, and in this cited case, elk, are not seen in an aerial survey. This sightability model may not be accurate but will account to some degree on the number of elk counted. The model has to take into consideration as many factors that will effect the habits of the elk due to weather, ground conditions, time of year, terrain, habitat, etc. I would suppose one could say that the model is only as good as the data that gets dumped into it, provided of course that the basic model is sound.

I have communicated quite extensively with one man who has years of experience in aerial surveys and understands them well. He also shared thoughts with me about “sightability models”.

Instead of counting only under ideal conditions - or skipping the count that year if such conditions did not exist - IDFG Research Biologists spent years designing and re-designing this so-called “sightability” model in which the biologist enters a combination of data including precipitation, cloud cover, type of vegetation, snow cover, etc. to estimate the percentage of animals that exist versus those that were observed. In my experience almost every version of such a sightability model exaggerates the number of bucks and bulls or fawns and calves, and does nothing to improve the inability of a desk-bound biologist to spot and count wild animals - especially under less-than-ideal conditions. In my opinion, aerial counting under less than ideal conditions is a waste of time and sportsmen’s license money. Yet in many, but not all, areas it is possible to achieve up to 95% accuracy under the proper ideal count conditions. Accurate counts conducted every few years combined with accurate hunter harvest reports and other data provides far more accuracy than IDFG’s “sightability” surveys.

In the Idaho Mule Deer Management Plan, it states that in the future the department needs to develop a monitoring plan that uses less aerial surveys. This would seem to run contradictory to the statement made above by one experienced aerial surveyor.

I always hear from hunters disgruntled with the management efforts of fish and game biologists. The degree of distrust between hunter and biologist varies greatly from state to state and I believe this to be directly proportional to the trust factor or level of confidence I spoke of earlier. But we cannot disregard the evidence presented to us by those on the ground.

Many biologists that I have spoken with tell me that they put a lot of credibility in what the experienced hunters, guides, trappers, etc. are telling them they are seeing. After all, they are often the only eyes and ears on the ground in the woods and fields. To disregard this information would be foolhardy.

I also came across a person who has become part of a group of sportsmen who have decided to take a little game management into their own hands. About 12 years ago, a group of sportsmen and pilots began doing their own aerial surveys utilizing trained surveyors. This happened due to continued frustration on the part of the sportsmen that IDFG was attempting to do their own surveys with untrained personnel and coming up with data on herd populations that didn’t satisfy them from what they were observing on the ground. As one member of this group told me, “Around here we fly year around and spot what little game is left. You don’t just do it for a couple weeks in the year and then go back to your computer.”

The same gentleman told me that their frustration level grew when IDFG was reporting there were 5,000 elk in the zones they fly on a regular bases. This group had recorded their own count of 2,000 elk in two zones. They finally convinced IDFG to fly these two wildlife units and they counted 1,900 elk.

What was pointed out to me also was that with this effort of doing aerial surveys of their own, they have been able to convince IDFG to reduce elk tags in order to get the population of elk back up and they have since seen marked improvement. This is a direct result of accurate population monitoring and being able to adjust management tactics to meet known needs.

I digress to my original question about how important it is to have accurate information especially in regards to Idaho and their controversial problems with wolves and claims by sportsmen that the wolves are killing off all the deer and elk.

I have no way of really knowing exactly everything IDFG does to monitor their herds but I’ve presented some examples that certainly seem to prove that what is getting reported isn’t matching what’s on the ground.

Can we then have much confidence that data being presented is accurate? And if that confidence is low, how can a court rightfully pass judgment on the wolf and directly affect the lives of Idaho’s citizens based on guess work?

Wouldn’t it be historic if one of these judges, instead of overstepping their legal bounds and disregarding science in passing judgment, would go the other way and order the federal government and all those who filed the lawsuits to pony up the money and have a complete audit done of Idaho’s elk, deer, moose, sheep and wolf populations. Would we then not have answered the real questions and faced the issue head on?

Better yet, why not require the Department of Interior i.e. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in conjunction with anyone proposing a listing of any species, first spend the money to do a complete audit before any consideration can be given for listing?

Tom Remington

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

I Went On A Hunting Trip And……….

I went on a last minute whitetail deer hunting trip to Maine and didn’t see any deer! At least in the woods while I was hunting…….More details to follow!

But that didn’t stop at least one person in our hunting party! Of the eight of us at camp during the week, one deer was seen, total, and one deer was taken.

Dennis, pictured above with his deer, persisted in his tree stand until last legal light. He had placed a combination of scents around and near his spot and waited. Just before dark, this prize appeared with nose to the ground, determined in his quest to find the source of the compelling odors.

He was a 10-point, weighing in at 193 pounds.

So where were all the deer? Good question. We know that last winter’s deep snows created a “blood bath” in some locals, as was described to me by one game warden who flew over the region last winter where we hunt. Ironically, the same warden believes there are still ample deer although not like the past couple seasons.

As for me being sick most of the week, I managed only to see a gathering of wild turkeys one day and a ruffed grouse on another. Ironically as it may seem, our trip north and the return trip south provided moments of great entertainment spotting deer.

The most deer that we saw in broad daylight was about a 30-minute drive from downtown New York City. The second most deer we see were in Pennsylvania, where all I have heard for the past couple of years is that Pennsylvania’s deer have all been killed as the result of poor management by the PA. Game Commission.

To spend six days in the woods of Maine hunting for deer and seeing nothing and to spot perhaps hundreds of deer from a car in broad daylight in Pennsylvania, doesn’t conjure up a whole lot of sympathy to those Pennsylvania hunters who say it isn’t worth hunting anymore. Try spending $105.00 for a non-resident Maine big game hunting permit and seeing nothing.

I’m back and am sorting through my 60,000 plus emails. Depressed as I am over the results of the election, I’m putting my nose to the grindstone and will be back to posting information, stories and entertainment again.

Thanks for keeping the site active with your comments!

Tom Remington

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

The Rednecks Of Pennsylvania……Bitter, Clinging To Guns

It just doesn’t want to go away does it? As a reminder to readers, below is a photo once again of my bitter friends from Pennsylvania, all of whom are now labeled rednecks by one John Murtha.

And to add to this continuing saga of the non-tolerant left, Doug Giles of TownHall, shares “Pennsylvanian Voters: You Might Be a Redneck If . . .”

• If you bitterly love your guns, Jesus, apple pie, deer hunting, blonde-haired, blue-eyed girls, baseball, Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter, then you might be a redneck.

Giles offers a complete menu of “you might be a Pennsylvania redneck if…” scenarios. Don’t miss it!

Tom Remington

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

Hot Peppers To Keep Deer Away

A formula used by Barry Davis in Pennsylvania to keep deer away from his crops may have managed to keep more people away than deer. Some concoction he’s created using a combination of hot peppers, pepper spray and insecticide intended to keep the deer from eating his crops, managed to make some of the neighbors hurl their lunch and experience some breathing difficulties.

Davis said that deer have become so prevalent that where they once would eat a row of a crop they now can destroy an entire field.

This can’t be in Pennsylvania! I thought the Pennsylvania Game Commission had mismanaged the deer herd in that state so poorly that there were barely any deer left. Oh, wait! Is Montgomery County in the Southeastern part of the state that is overrun with deer? That must be it.

Tom Remington

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

I Don’t See Deer Everytime I Go Out Therefore There Are Not Enough Deer

I hear this all the time. I hear it in the middle of the deer management controversy in Pennsylvania and now I’m reading about it in a Vermont newspaper.

Where I once found it nearly impossible to spend a day in the woods of Vermont without seeing a deer, I now may go an entire deer season without seeing so much as the flicker of a whitetail.

Is this what we hunters have come to expect? And is this the way it should be? It’s a difficult walk to make. Most states mandate that fish and game manage game to provide hunting opportunities for its license holders. That same law doesn’t express how many deer we are supposed to see in a day or a season.

In Pennsylvania, authorities say there have been so many deer they are destroying the ecosystem and therefore the numbers must be reduced. This has angered hunters who say this is not true and Pennsylvania fish and game are caving in to the foresters and other special interest.

From the perspective of the game managers, it looks like a losing proposition no matter what they do. If they are using the best available science in the creation and implementation of a deer management plan which then calls for a reduction in deer numbers, some hunters cry foul. If they allow numbers to grow, landowners, foresters and automobile owners get worked up as well.

It appears that as each state has opted to manage wildlife, especially game, for everyone not just hunters, there has ensued controversy. States created fish and game departments for the purpose of regulating the hunting, fishing and trapping industry. Unregulated hunting was putting the animals being hunted in danger of extinction in some cases. But now, politics and money rule the day and wildlife management doesn’t very much resemble what it once did.

Fish and game manages its game for hunters and wildlife gawkers, yet the hunter is asked to pay for it. Wildlife watchers demand to see animals and some get angry because hunters kill them. Fish and game has to find ways to fund the great demand being put on them which often forces them to sell more licenses, up the cost of licenses or become creative in finding more ways to dupe the would-be hunter out of more fees for more licenses.

I have said this many times before. Our management of game species is heading in the wrong direction. Maine is even considering a move to integrate the fish and wildlife department in with other departments in order to save money. This will resemble other state’s larger, less efficient and less caring toward game management, natural resources departments.

People cry asking that we find ways to charge those who reap the benefits of the money and efforts of outdoor sportsmen. I say move the fish and game back to its original focus of managing game for the purpose of providing hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities. If others want to build wildlife viewing platforms and place demands on the state to provide them their opportunities, then find other ways of funding it other than on the backs of sportsmen.

There is seldom a lot of love between the hunter and fish and game. One of the biggest reasons I think is that all too often, the hunter believes he/she knows better than the game expert. In the case referred to above and much of what I have heard in Pennsylvania, hunters demand to see deer on nearly, if not every, trip to the forest to hunt. Is this demand reasonable?

Deer densities vary in every state and within those state’s regions. Ideally biologists want to manage numbers at what is called carrying capacity - that is the amount of deer that can live in an area that can be sustained by the habitat they are in. This amount can vary between 8 as a low and perhaps as high as 25 or 30 per square mile.

I have hunted my whole life in areas where deer density probably runs around 10-12 per square mile on average. I am not a sitter but a stocker or still hunter. Seldom do I see deer every trip out, although I would like to for the excitement. Seldom am I successful in bagging a deer as well in those areas. Should I then demand that the state do more to provide me the opportunity to see more deer and shoot more deer? Some would say yes.

There is one thing for sure. There will never be complete satisfaction between the hunter and those who have been given the authority and are paid by the fees hunters pay, to provide the opportunities.

We, the sportsmen, need to continue to learn and gain a better understanding of the complexities of wildlife management, especially in dealing with the politics, yet at the same time question the actions of our managers and biologists to make sure they are looking out for our best interest. After all, it is our investment and we need to protect it.

Tom Remington

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

Unified Sportsmen Of Pennsylvania Suing PGC Again

Not successful in their first attempt to sue the Pennsylvania Game Commission to stop their implementation of the deer management plan, the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania got the go ahead from a state court to sue the PGC. PGC now has 30 days to reply to the charges.

In essence, USP claims that PGC did not use scientific evidence in the issuing of antlerless deer permits resulting in drastic reductions in deer numbers. They want this to stop until such time that PGC can prove they are following the law in issuing the permits.

Game Commission Executive Director Carl Roe says he welcomes the opportunity to explain the procedures they use.

‘We look forward to Â…the opportunity to have our many expert witnesses expound on the scientific basis and soundness of our management plan,” Roe said. ”At the end of the trial, we are confident that this debate over the scientific validity will be resolved once and for all.”

The deer management plan PGC has implemented has been a controversy since day one with no real end in sight. Some see the plan as a good thing while others complain of too few deer. With the onset of another lawsuit, others are complaining that USP are just wasting the PGC’s money, which is mostly collected from license fees, fearing it will result in increased fees.

It will probably be months before the case will actually make it to the courts.

Tom Remington

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

Reducing Deer Populations For Healthy Forests And People

I’ve talked some about his subject from a couple different perspectives. In Pennsylvania, the state is in the middle of a major deer population reduction in order to regrow the forests. According to reports from studies and officials, there are areas where too many deer have destroyed the natural under story of the forest allowing for growth of invasive plant species.

In Connecticut, some areas are battling Lyme disease brought on by too many deer that carry the tick that causes the disease. In both these cases, the solution seems to be to reduce the deer population in order to accomplish one or both, of two tasks.

Dr. Emile DeVito, a conservation ecologist and Manager of Science and Stewardship for the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, has an article in the New York Times about similar forest destruction problems in New York and New Jersey by deer. He offers solutions to the problem, one of which being a drastic reduction of the deer population and utilizing the efforts of hunters.

DeVito says that there are too many deer to count and nothing left of plants to survey, so any money to study and count would be a waste. He calls for population numbers to be dropped to around 5 deer per square mile, claiming this number is necessary in order to allow for the forests to regenerate.

These are very low numbers when you begin presenting them to deer biologists, depending on region and carrying capacities, and you’re sure to get some heated responses from deer hunters, as we have witnessed in Pennsylvania.

Last week I wrote an article about how it appeared that Pennsylvania was tearing down its deer herd in order to build it back up again. In that article, I asked the following question.

I don’t have all the details obviously but if the 10-year effort was to reduce the deer population to 15 per square mile, a number that many wildlife biologists would consider reasonable, in order to regrow the forest and sustain a healthier deer population, why are they looking to rebuild it?

Reader Willard responded to my question about why the state would first advocate for knocking deer population numbers down to around 15 per square mile, only to bump them back up to 20 per square mile once the forests have regenerated.

…..he means that once the habitat has recovered from the severe over browsing that it should then be capable of supporting a larger number of deer than 15 per square mile.

According to DeVito’s article, it sounds as though reader Willard is exactly right.

All nonprofit environmental groups, government agencies, sportsman clubs, farmers, professional foresters and community groups need to work together to reduce the regional deer population to a biodiversity-based carrying capacity, which must initially be significantly lower than 10 deer per square mile, but could be boosted to about 20 per square mile when the forest is once again filled with tree seedlings and saplings, a dense shrub layer, and a forest floor carpeted with wildflowers!

This sounds as though it could be a great opportunity for hunters and hunting clubs, to work more closely with farmers, landowners, community and state governments to provide more hunting opportunities now and into the future to help restore damaged forests and to help stop the spread of diseases such as Lyme.

But here’s the million dollar question. Mr. DeVito advocates for the use of hunting in places where feasible to achieve the reduction of the deer population. Being that he is a member of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, which basically buys up land to preserve and limits it to mostly hiking and bird watching, would the NJCF advocate for the use of hunting on their “preserves” when certain game species become too abundant?

Tom Remington

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

Tearing Down Pennsylvania’s Deer Population So It Can Be Rebuilt?

I read an article this morning in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review about an area of Pennsylvania, Raystown Lake Recreation Area, that has been working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reduce an overblown whitetail deer population of about 60-80 per square mile down to something considered normal - perhaps 15ish per square mile.

If you are at all familiar with Pennsylvania deer hunting, you know a controversy has been brewing there for some time over the fish and wildlife’s efforts to reduce deer herds statewide. This in turn, has angered some hunters who have complained that now there aren’t enough deer left to hunt. Others are pleased with the results so far saying the deer they are seeing are bigger and healthier.

As we have heard time and again during the debate over the deer management system being employed, too many deer has resulted in a basic deforestation of the land, much of this the very necessary food needed to sustain deer populations. Landowners have complained that too many deer are destroying their forests.

This evidently is the same problem taking place in the Raystown Lake Recreation Area, so with the assistance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, they went to work to reduce the deer numbers. It now appears that after about 10 years of work, the deer density in the area is around 15 per square mile. Jeff Krause, a wildlife biologist with the Corps, says that even though there are fewer deer, hunters are still taking a lot of deer.

I don’t have a problem with this and it sounds as if the forest is regenerating and the remaining deer are quite healthy. What puzzles me though are comments made about what the future looks like after the reduction.

The management plan for Raystown calls for sustaining the deer population at current levels - about 15 per square mile. Pennsylvania Game Commissioner Russ Schleiden of Centre County, told Jeff Krause at a meeting recently that with the regenerated habitat, it would mean it can support more deer in the future.

“I think what you’re saying is that once we get the herd to where it needs to be, and the habitat starts to recover, the deer herd will rebound, too. That’s something your data shows, and it’s something commissioners have been saying all along,”

Does anybody else find this statement a bit confusing? I don’t have all the details obviously but if the 10-year effort was to reduce the deer population to 15 per square mile, a number that many wildlife biologists would consider reasonable, in order to regrow the forest and sustain a healthier deer population, why are they looking to rebuild it?

Schleiden says that the Corps’ data supports the theory that reducing the herd allows the forest to regrow, which in turn provides better habitat for the deer. Now that the population density is reduced to 15 per square mile, the Corp is saying they will work to maintain that level yet, Schleiden is indicating the Commission should let the deer numbers increase again.

Not knowing Schleiden’s position on the current Pennsylvania deer management program, I could assume that what he is saying is that the program will not work because reducing numbers allows the forest to regenerate which in turn allows the population to flourish which brings us back to the same problem the state faced prior to implementation of the deer management plan.

If that’s true, isn’t that a bit like the same theory that animal rights groups use against the use of hunting as a management tool, one that reduces deer populations? They say that killing off deer causes them to reproduce more and therefore hunting is counterproductive.

I just find Schleiden’s comments confusing and I don’t understand the real point he is trying to make. Perhaps he’s referring to a very general “rebound” of the deer population statewide, which in turn will provide more hunting opportunities for hunters.

Tom Remington

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

New Jersey Black Bear Management

I received a copy of a letter sent to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection written by Greg Ziolkowski Sr. The letter is in regards to the management of black bears in New Jersey and efforts to restore the black bear hunting season as part of a scientific and viable means of management. Here is that letter.

DEP Black Bear Management Comments 2007 Page 1 of 2

N.J. Department of Environmental Protection

PO Box 400

Trenton N.J. 08625-0400

Black Bears Too Close For Comfort

I am writing in response to: NJ Hunters want the black bear season restored.

I am very concerned that political and personal views from non-sportsmen/women are attempting to influence a decision “showing complete disregard for public safety and F&W biologist who all work so hard to come up with proven, effective management plans.”

I will use an unconventional and non-typical approach to explain my opinion which is based on years of experience and a national view from so many trips across the U.S. including Canada and Alaska it would be impossible to count them, from wilderness experience to how people live and think in America outside of N.J. I fully understand not all people are interested in hunting or don’t even understand much about it but they should not infringe the Rights and Freedoms in this country of those who do, especially when the facts prove this is clearly a logical solution. I’m not going to spend much time covering public safety which should not only be a priority but common sense and self explanatory.

I personally think most people in N.J. (also know nationwide as the garbage state) have become too domesticated and dependent with their local grocery store convenience, fine restaurants and fancy food in a fast paced, casino, night club, video game, computer, cell phone, shop-to-drop rat race life style that they have drifted away from reality forgetting their daily meals come from farms, slaughter houses, butcher shops and commercial fishing boats that kill thousands of tons of living animals per day. They aren’t doing anything wrong, actually they are consuming the vital necessities to life that God put on earth for their very existence, whether domestic or wild game.

Hunting is not about killing….hunting is about wildlife management and preservation.

If it wasn’t for President Theodore Roosevelt, an avid hunter, visionary and outdoorsman who founded the Boone & Crockett Club, black bears would be on the endangered list instead of striving in record numbers. This legendary President helped establish some of America’s first hunting regulations and conservation programs to preserve/save elk, deer, moose, bear, cougar and other wildlife (except the wolf) for future generations to enjoy, appreciate and experience. Later introducing the Pittman-Robertson Act– an excise tax on firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies to finance wildlife, wildlife habitat, conservation, management, promoting safety and educational programs. The sportsmen/women have been responsible for preserving wildlife & wildlife habitat for ALL people to enjoy for over 100 years bearing the brunt of the cost and efforts. Sportsmen/women contribute $4.7 million dollars every day, adding up to $1.7 billion every year for conservation generating more than 1 million jobs in the United States protecting our natural environment, fish & wildlife. The $2.4 billion dollars in annual federal income-tax money generated by hunter’s spending could cover the annual paychecks of 100,000 U.S. Army Troops. Hunters and fisherman provide more than 75% of the annual income of the 50 state conservation agencies. Sportsmen/women are clearly the largest contributors to conservation-paying for programs that benefit ALL Wildlife. Last year alone there was 30% increase in women hunters in America now totaling 3 million plus a 70% increase in women shooters. Hunting and shooting are a historical tradition in this nations rich heritage. Anti-hunters claim that black bear are only hunted as a trophy animal. NOTHING can be further from the truth. Wild game is sought and procured for it’s healthy, organic, low cholesterol, high protein delicious value. BBQ Black Bear Ribs, Sausage, Roast and Cappicola are enjoyed by many Americans. To harvest and properly care for your own organic wild game meal is rewarding and hard earned. I have personally watched black bear chase deer on open land, stalk, prey and pounce into the bedding area of deer attempting to fulfill their voracious appetite entering into fall. Idaho offers a reduced (price) bear tag to elk hunters to help manage over-population. Black bears, like wolves, will congregate around calving elk, killing and consuming the young, leaving the adult cow elk to die. The impact is decimating to the elk herds due to such a low survival calf rate. N.J. having an abundance of whitetail deer may also experience this natural predatory instinct in residential areas in the future. Pennsylvania is now struggling with bear issues since N.J. fails to properly manage the bear problem. A N.J. Girl Scout had a close encounter with a black bear that tried to pull her out of her tent at a campground in the Poconos.

Unlike other states in America, fly-fishermen/women, hikers, campers (with their children) and other law-abiding citizens in N.J. are prohibited from carrying a legal firearm and bear spray for self defense. Restoring the black bear hunt is the most logical, natural and beneficial way to manage the over population of black bears.

The Hunters for the Hungry program donates over 250 million healthy meals of wild game to homeless shelters and soup kitchens in America every year at the full expense and consideration from ethical hunters.

Young hunters have an unlimited ability to learn stewardship, patience, awareness, responsibility, appreciation, good ethics, safety and conservation in the outdoors away from their every day city life while experiencing an enjoyable environment watching fascinating wildlife in it’s natural habitat. I personally believe children who spend more recreational time in the outdoors tend to be more polite, well mannered and get in less trouble. You can see it in their personality and hear it in their voice. Anti-hunters selfishly prevented an excellent documentary from being broadcasted on PBS in N.J. titled: Bears Too Close For Comfort. The producer (a non-hunter) said the hunters are very knowledgeable and passionate towards wildlife while the anti-hunters are narrow-minded seeing only 1 side of the matter, failing to admit the truth. This unfortunately poor decision only deprived our young children from being able to watch and learn from a very educational and informative program. How can people justify protesting a program that would help educate people to understand a dangerous and growing problem in their state….while allowing their children to watch all the trashy and detrimental programming that is on TV these days? The lack of common sense and logic is unbelievable….I guess this can’t be taught in college.

Why are comments pertaining to black bear management being directed to;

The N.J. Department of Environmental Protection

Instead of the professional biologist employed by N.J. Division of Fish & Wildlife?

N.J. anti-gun/anti-hunting laws/politics are not only anti-American but embarrassing to our nation.

Greg Ziolkowski Sr

PO Box 4616 August 5, 2007

Metuchen N.J. 08840-4616

Posted by Tom Remington

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

Pennsylvania Hunters May Get Their Deer Management Audit

Some Pennsylvania deer hunters have yelled a lot ever since the Pennsylvania Game Commission began its current deer management program. This program calls for the reduction in deer populations throughout the state, mostly based on what has been deemed a destruction of forest habitat by too many foraging deer. Some hunters don’t like the reduction. They say now there aren’t enough deer and the program is not working. Perhaps their yelling has paid off.

Rep. David Levdansky of Allegheny is proposing House Resolution 642, which calls for an audit to be done of the deer management program by outside sources. According to the Morning Call, the audit requests specific tasks be accomplished.

To that end, Levdansky’s resolution includes a litany of specific topics the audit will address, including deer population trends for the past 12 years; a current deer population estimate for the entire state and each Wildlife Management Unit; a scientific review of the agency’s modeling techniques for deer harvests, deer health and forest health; the potential impact of acid rain in relation to deer on forest regeneration; a comparison of Pennsylvania’s deer management techniques to other states; and an evaluation of the current size of existing Wildlife Management Units.

The cost of the audit will run an estimated $100,000 to $200,000 and then that will put an end to all the yelling, fighting, back stabbing, bickering and lawsuits, right? Well, probably not exactly and in reality, it probably won’t change much of anything.

At least some hope that the audit will give hunters and the PGC a more accurate estimate of the existing deer population. One of the tasks of the auditing people will be to make recommendations as well as deliver hard facts. At issue also is the size and number of Wildlife Management Units. Some say the units are laid out wrong and/or too small or too big. Perhaps the auditors will make recommendations in that way.

But to quiet the masses, I don’t think that will ever happen. There’s some hope that it may help ease the dissatisfaction but in my opinion the majority of those unhappy will more than likely always remain unhappy for a host of reasons. Off the top of my head, I can think of one reason. There just is bad blood between some sportsmen and the government agencies who make the decisions. Some of that bad blood is a result of dissatisfaction over the new deer management plan and some if it has always been there and probably always will be.

If approved, which would only take the approval of the House vote, as per a resolution not a bill, once signed would have to be completed within one year.

I hope the audit proves to be a good thing for the Pennsylvania hunters, landowners and game personnel.

Tom Remington

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

Is Government Two-Faced When It Comes To Domestic Elk Industry?

Fascism takes on many forms some of which are difficult to spot. I see far too many groups and individuals attempting to force ideals onto others. When this happens an assortment of tactics are employed in order to manipulate the system and sway public opinion to achieve an end result.

Take for example the state of Idaho. Idaho is home to one of the best run domestic elk industries in the United States, in my opinion. It is well run, clean, disease free and brings a substantial economic contribution to the people of that state as well. Some people don’t like to see elk trapped behind fences even though elk have been domesticated world wide for centuries.

These people who have the problem, in some cases have organized and attempts have been made within the Idaho Legislature to shut down the domestic elk industry. Threats of running a campaign for a ballot initiative looms over the family’s heads who own elk ranches.

One of the tactics used, mostly to scare people, is the threat of disease. Elk can contract several diseases one of which seems to get the most attention, is chronic wasting disease. CWD is similar to mad cow disease but has never been found to be of the same threat to humans. In Idaho, the sale or importation of elk is strictly regulated. Animals are well cared for and tested for disease. Currently there is no live animal test for chronic wasting disease so every elk that is killed on a ranch must be tested for disease. No chronic wasting disease has ever been detected in any elk on any ranches in that state.

In North Dakota, a group calling themselves sportsmen, are in the process of gathering signatures for a citizen’s initiative to end all cervidae ranching in that state. Once again those wanting to shut down the industry spend a substantial amount of time trying to convince the public that disease from these ranches will infect the wild populations.

There is currently legislation being considered in Colorado that would create similar restrictions and a handful of other states have already passed legislation banning the industry in part or in whole.

Truth be known, no one is certain where the disease originated. Some studies suggest the disease is a “natural” occurrence that has been around perhaps since day one and goes through cycles. Some believe it originates on these ranches. Studies have indicated that the disease more easily is spread when animals, such as deer and elk, are congregated in large numbers. It is believed the disease is passed from animal to animal via bodily fluids but recent studies show that may not be the only way. Prions, which carry the disease, has been found in the soil and in some cases it is believed that it has been there a long time. Studies on the disease continue.

What some people don’t quite understand is that nobody seems to know which came first - the disease from inside out or from outside in. Because most all animals trapped behind fences are tested regularly for disease and testing of wild ungulates is spotty at best in some locations, wouldn’t it make sense that the disease would be discovered first on a ranch or a laboratory?

In states like Idaho, the fish and game there are dead set against the elk industry and would like to see it shut down. They too espouse the notion that the domestic elk industry poses a threat to the wild deer, elk and moose populations through the spread of disease.

What if the table is turned? What if the government agencies became the ranchers? What if local, state or federal governments owned elk or deer ranches? Would they then be as concerned about their own animals infecting wild animals on the outside of their fences? Or would their focus turn to protecting their animals inside the fences?

Oregon is another state where groups are trying to put an end to the elk ranching industry. These groups along with state officials lament over the idea that these ranches, like in Idaho and North Dakota, will spread disease. No cases of chronic wasting disease have been discovered in Oregon or Idaho for that matter, whether on a ranch or in the wild.

So, here we have a state claiming that fencing in elk will cause disease and that it can be spread to animals outside the fences. The thought process behind this is that animals can touch nose to nose through the fence or that in some cases, deer will be able to jump fences and get in.

Yet, in Eastern Oregon, near La Grande, the government runs a substantial elk ranch there. What is there concern? Disease getting in or disease getting out? Perhaps they don’t really have any concern at all about disease.

Thanks to reader Mark, he sent me an article he found in the Express-Times out of Pennsylvania. I chuckled when I read the first two paragraphs.

The elk herd at Trexler Game Preserve will get a higher fence meant to keep out company under a proposal that was expected to gain Lehigh County Commissioners’ approval Wednesday night.

Specifically unwanted are white-tailed deer that can transmit the fatal chronic-wasting disease to elk at the county-owned preserve.

The Trexler Game Preserve is owned and operated by the county. Their concerns are that deer FROM THE OUTSIDE, will jump the fence and get in threatening their herd of elk with chronic wasting and other diseases. How bizarre! Yet intelligent enough to consider protection one’s investment.

Are we to conclude that the government can run disease-free preserves and a private rancher can’t while under the regulations of the same governmental agency?

When I spoke with elk ranchers in Idaho about this same scenario, I discovered that many ranchers were quite concerned about their investment in elk being threatened by disease contracted from outside their fences. As I said before, Idaho has no known cases of CWD in the wild or on ranches. Should CWD show up in wild deer, elk and moose, this certainly will raise the fear factor considerably with the elk ranchers.

At the Trexler Game Preserve in Pennsylvania, officials there are putting funds together to raise the fence around the elk herd to 10 feet at an estimated cost of nearly $50,000. This will prevent the deer from jumping the fence but does very little in terms of keeping the animals from touching through the fence - an event that little is known as to how often if any it actually takes place and how real a threat it is.

So, now I have to wonder. In what direction would officials be focusing their concerns about disease if this involved a private game preserve? Would their concerns be about disease getting out or disease getting in?

Tom Remington

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

Top Ten Outdoor Stories For 2007

On today’s Open Air with Tom Remington broadcast on Skinny Moose Radio I talk in detail about what I believed to be the top ten stories that most affected our hunting, fishing and outdoor lives. These stories may not have been the most written or talked about but they deal with issues that I think has or has the potential to have the most effect on our lives. I thought I would list out the top ten with a brief comment.

10. Pennsylvania Deer Management Problems - There are nearly one million licensed hunters in Pennsylvania and that is reason enough to list this issue as one that has broad consequences. If you will recall, Pennsylvania decided a few years ago to change the whitetail deer management program in order to reduce the deer herd to save the ecosystem and restore the forests. Not all hunters have liked the idea - enough so that one organization sued the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The debate rages on and the success or failure of this deer management plan could have sweeping affects on many other states that are watching.

9. Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease - EHD or blue tongue is a virus carried by small biting insects that can kill deer, sometimes in large numbers. This year’s outbreak was larger than normal and hit states in northern climes not accustomed to the disease. Thousands of deer nationwide were wiped out covering more than a dozen states. Drought and dry conditions were blamed for the increase. In some locales, dead and decaying deer carcasses were feared to be contaminating water supplies.

8. Increased Bear Attacks in the West and Bear Spray - A prolonged and severe drought and hot temperatures resulted in a substantial reduction in natural food supplies for black and brown bears. The result was more human/bear conflicts. Of course this had to become a political issue when groups tried to blame elk ranchers for causing the increased bear encounters because of improperly caring for their animals. In one instance, the USFWS was considering a suit against a photographer who regularly feeds wildlife in order to get pictures.

To go along with this increased activity, officials in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming began telling people that using bear spray was a more effective way of dealing with attacking bears than a gun. This set off a controversy particularly among hunters who vowed they would not put down their gun and pick up a can of spray should they be attacked by a bear.

Vic Workman, a member of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission, made enemies within his ranks when he went public after being attacked by a grizzly saying that if he had tried to put his gun down and take out his spray, he more than likely would be dead.

7. Wolf Delisting - The announcement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that it plans to remove federal protection of the gray wolf via the Endangered Species Act, will have broad consequences on millions of people. Most people believe that when the feds make the official announcement, animal rights groups, environmentalists and anti-hunting groups will file lawsuits tying the process up for years. It has been reported that as many as 27 groups are already prepared to bring suit against the USFWS.

However the outcome falls, this entire process will end up costing taxpayers millions, maybe billions of dollars, in fighting lawsuits and implementing management plans that will continue to include some kind of private property compensation to ranchers and livestock owners. This process will continue to test the structure and viability of the Endangered Species Act as it becomes clearer that the Act needs help. It is being abused and manipulated in order to achieve personal agendas.

6. Sunday Hunting - A topic that just will never go away, has worked to divide the people. It has been shown in debates recently over Sunday Hunting in North Carolina that it is a divisive issue for various reasons. From religious convictions to the demands for equality under the law, hunters and non-hunters aggressively continue this debate and it isn’t going to end.

Pennsylvania is once again attempting to get a bill passed in the Legislature that would give the Game Commission the authority to permit Sunday hunting. Once again that debate is dividing the people of the Keystone state.

It’s an interesting debate that affects a lot of people but in a strange way. There are only 11 states that don’t allow Sunday hunting. In the other states that do allow it, there is no debate to end it nor are there any significant outcries about Sunday hunting. As a matter of fact, Sunday hunting goes about its business quite nicely with very little fanfare, yet in these states that don’t allow it, the outcry is very loud on both sides.

This is sure to continue to be an issue that affects many people.

5. New Jersey Bear Hunt - Probably until New Jersey ever sees fit to elect an new governor who is not dead set against hunting, there will not be any bear hunting the the Garden State. Corzine and his puppets have successfully managed to convince enough people not directly effected by the overgrown black bear population to support his anti-hunting agenda.

Shortly after Corzine took office, his newly appointed head of the Department of Environmental Protection, Liza Jackson, took the court-approved Black Bear Management Plan and tossed it in the garbage. Corzine having the backing of the courts managed to get rulings in his favor and instead of a hunt that would generate revenue for New Jersey, they opted for millions more in tax dollars in order to continue wasting it on non-lethal bear management practices that don’t work.

The antis have a very strong foothold in the state of New Jersey. I’m sure they will continue their “end all hunting” campaign there and try to put an end to other species of hunting.

4. Supreme Court To Hear District of Columbia vs. Heller - In a move that is sure to have perhaps the most affect on the citizenry of this country in decades, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear the appealed case of District of Columbia versus Heller, more commonly known as the Washington, D.C. gun ban case.

Earlier last year a District Court ruled that Washington, D.C.’s ban on guns was unconstitutional, setting the stage for a debate within the land’s highest court. How the court will rule remains only speculative but it is believed they will take up the case in the spring or early summer.

This ruling will, one way or another, effect every person living or visiting within the boundaries of this nation. The ruling should come right smack dab in the middle of the presidential race for the White House and could actually determine who becomes the next president.

Yes, this is big - bigger than most people are thinking.

3. Scent Lok Clothing Lawsuit - A class action lawsuit was filed this year against the makers of Scent-Lok clothing charging that the company knew the product didn’t work and continued its advertising campaign claiming it as being 100% effective. The suit also claims that Scent-Lok conspired with major companies that sell the products to cover up their knowledge about the failures of the product in order to deceive consumers.

This lawsuit will be tied up in the courts for sometime and could lay the ground work for how other companies will be allowed to advertise their products.

2. Jim Zumbo - The Jim Zumbo fiasco showed us several things, two of which I would like to touch on. The first is that it showed all of us the speed and power of the Internet. A tool that Jim used to communicate to his readers was also the razor-sharp weapon that pierced his femoral artery causing near instant death of a career.

Zumbo posted a blog condemning the use of “military-style” weapons for hunting and within hours he was crucified. Outdoor Life refused to stand behind him as was followed by his sponsors and other companies. The actions by those using the Internet to condemn Zumbo’s words were quick and powerful.

The second issue that surfaced from this debate was one that addressed freedom of speech. Many were outraged because Zumbo spoke his mind and was fired because of it failing to comprehend that his responsibility was to those who signed his check.

The bottom line here was that within a flash, millions of Americans were wrapped up in a debate over Second and First Amendment issues.

1. Rex Rammell and the Chief Joseph Elk Ranch - Clearly for me, this was the most written about issue for 2007 and one that I feel mushroomed into a cloud much bigger than a few escaped elk. What began as elk getting out of the confines of an elk ranch in southeastern Idaho has not found an ending yet.

What many of us thought was a simple event of a rancher needing to go find his livestock turned out to be a political and social quagmire. Politics got ugly when then Gov. Jim Risch ordered his people to go to the areas around the Chief Joseph Ranch and shoot to kill any elk that belonged to owner, veterinarian Rex Rammell of Rexburg, Idaho. Standing on the unfounded fears of inferior genes and disease, Risch justified his actions. A lawsuit brought by Rammell over the loss of his elk is still pending.

This set off a firestorm of events with politicians and members of some animal rights and hunting groups mounting campaigns against the Idaho domestic elk industry trying to strong arm them out of business. What began some time ago to shut down the elk industry almost overnight now had just the tool they were looking for to scare the public into believing that raising elk on ranches is a public health issue.

This debate is not over as it is expected that many of the same players will launch a citizen’s initiative to put an end to elk ranching once and for all. How far these groups and individuals are prepared to go remains to be seen. In an event last spring, an anonymous source witnessed leaders of well-known Idaho conservation groups discussing the prospects of creating a public health scare in order to promote their private agendas.

Ranch hunting has raised the level of debate several levels and has moved from Montana through Idaho and on to Oregon and North Dakota. Groups in Oregon are waging a campaign to shut down the cervidae industry and another group in North Dakota is seeking signatures as I write in order to place an initiative on the November ballot to stop elk and deer farming.

A simple elk escape has spread to states where some are seeking to legislate ethics and others are contemplating overstepping their own bounds of ethical behavior to create public health scares to promote agendas. This debate is far from over and will prove to be more of a dividing block for the hunting community than anything constructive.

Tom Remington

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

Next Page »