The September 17 Deer Conference at WCCC was not well attended, even though the focus was on suburban deer problems. This was the fourth deer conference that I have attended in the past two years. I went to this one because it was free, wondering if I'd hear anything new. I was surprised. The previous three conferences were geared to convincing everyone we have a serious deer problem using the statistics of increased Lyme Disease (Pennsylvania has moved into rank # 1), high insurance rates due to auto deer collisions, agricultural and horticultural crop damage, severe deterioration of our forests and consequent loss of biodiversity. This conference, although it reiterated some of the problems, focused on solutions and called for political action.
Every speaker came to the same conclusion, that management of the current deer herd will require a much broader funding base than what now exists. Deer management in Pennsylvania today is supported almost entirely by hunter license fees. That gives deer hunters a powerful voice in how the deer should be managed and many sportsmen's groups are still demanding more deer. Despite the massive education effort of the past two years, too many sportsmen apparently didn't get the message that you can't have more deer until the degraded over-browsed habitat recovers. To allow the habitat to recover requires reducing the herd to well below the carrying capacity. Unfortunately, when some progress toward that end was being made, the Game Commission last April once again bowed to sportsmen's demands against the advice of their own biologists by reducing the anterless deer licenses for the coming season by 160,000. This is the primary tool in keeping deer populations in check. The most reductions came where forest health and regeneration are most threatened by deer over browsing. It is in these areas that just a few deer are all that it takes to keep the forest in the depleted non-regenerative state. More deer should be harvested there, not less, but it doesn't make sense to sportsmen when you tell them that in order to get more deer, you have to harvest more does.
This all results in a Game Commission that will make unscientific decisions to please the sportsmen who foot the bill for deer management. Perhaps it is time to make radical changes and adopt a fresh approach to managing our wildlife resources. Before listing the proposed solutions, however, it is only fair to say that the Game Commission has a real problem if they follow their biologist's advice. By lowering the deer population to below the carrying capacity the average Pennsylvania hunter will not be motivated to buy the hunting license. Today's hunters like to see lots of deer as they have in the past. Since the habitat recovery program proposed by the biologists will make a drastic change in the number of deer hunters see, license sales, the main funding source of the Game Commission, may take a precipitous drop, another reason for a wider funding base.
In fairness to the hunters, I think most of them lack the botanical knowledge to recognize degraded habitat. Plants the deer don't like to eat are all that's left growing in the understory. Hunters that have seen the woods I own don't see any evidence of over- browsing, when in fact, there's hardly anything there the deer like to eat until forced by starvation. They have long ago browsed out the most nutritious plants. I have mature oaks trees, for example, but try and find an oak seedling in my woods. There's no regeneration. What's left (the unbrowsed plants) aren't really good for the deer. The deer will eventually eat spicebush, witch hazel, laurel, etc., when there isn't any choice, but many of these plants are bad for the deer's digestive system. Does forced to live on these foods may absorb the fetus to stay alive themselves. It isn't a healthy situation for the deer or the forest.
It isn't fair to everyone concerned for sportsmen to foot the entire bill for game management. Other states have different systems. The state of Missouri, for example, commits a small percentage of its sales tax to fish, wildlife and forest conservation, and includes all of its citizens in the decision making process. In Pennsylvania, if you don't hunt, you have little or no influence on how our wildlife resources are managed. Since we all have to pay the sales tax anyway, would anyone object if a set percentage of it is used for conservation purposes?
The speakers therefore urge the public, who want to see the size of the deer herd reduced, to write letters, not to the Game Commission, but to Governor Rendel and their elected representatives. Here are some of the proposed solutions you might mention in your letter that came out of the conference:
FOR SUBURBAN DEER CONTROL:
1. Allow hunters to hunt over bait. Although not sporting and not traditional, it allows for safety. In a congested suburban area, it will give the hunter some control over where he can safely hunt the deer, the deer's approach to his stand and the angle of his shot. We are talking deer management and safety for the general public here, not sport hunting.
2. Fund wildlife contraceptive research. Right now for an animal contraceptive to work, the deer must be captured periodically and injected. The drug PZP (porcine zona pellucida) comes from pig eggs and will prevent pregnancy, but only for one season. Biologists are experimenting with a new drug called Spay-Vac, which also must be injected, but it will prevent pregnancy for the deer's lifetime. The drawback is the cost -$110 per injection. That's the price of five hunting licenses. Sportsmen should not bear that cost alone. It is possible that we may someday see oral contraceptives for deer available in a salt block, but we are a long way from that. Research for such an oral contraceptive is very expensive and another reason why deer management requires funding from sources other than hunter license money.
3. Allow communities more freedom to control their own suburban deer herd. Anterless permits, for example, could be issued directly to park managers or whoever is in charge of suburban deer management.
4. Consider nocturnal hunting, but restrict it to professionals. It is being used in some parts of the country by hired wildlife control agencies with crossbows and silencers. The carcasses are removed before daybreak and the venison is donated to charity.
5. Investigate other means of funding wildlife management besides hunter license money.
FOR RURAL DEER CONTROL:
1. Reduce the hunting restrictions. Currently, if you have two anterless licenses, and see two does, you can shoot one, but not the second until you have removed the entrails and tagged the first deer. This protective restriction should be removed.
2. Make hunting seasons longer. A hunter in the work force, who is not an archer or muzzleloader type, has only two weekends to hunt deer during the regular firearms license season, usually the first two weeks in December. That gives him just two Saturdays a year to hunt. He needs more time. The speakers were not suggesting Sunday hunting which most oppose. Archers and muzzleloaders like to have their own season, but there are still plenty of weeks in the year to expand the firearms season without tramping on the archers and muzzleloaders.
3. Reduce the cost of out-of-state hunting licenses. Non-resident hunting licenses are quadruple the resident cost. Pennsylvania hunters are getting old. They expect a 50% reduction in the number of Pennsylvania hunters in the next 25 years. We're talking close to 500,000 hunters. Since hunting is the principle management tool, we're going to need those non-resident hunters. Sportsmen are working to get the youth of our country to enjoy outdoor sports, but even with the success they are having, it is not enough to adequately replace the number of hunters who will disappear in the next two decades. I rank among those who will be gone.
4. Ask for a broader conservation funding system. It could be from private conservation organizations or one similar to Missouri where a set percentage of the sales tax goes for wildlife management projects. Right now hunters are the primary ones financing wildlife conservation in Pennsylvania, but what we are getting is deer management based on hunter whining rather than science. Since deer management is affecting the quality of life of non-hunters as well as hunters, more people in the population should provide the monetary resources and have a voice in the issues.
There were several messages on the bird listserv on the Internet this past week concerning other types of funding. Several birders said they would be willing to pay an annual fee of 10-$20 for a license to bird on state game lands. One birder said he stands on the backs of the hunters because he's never had to buy a birding license. I doubt that birding licenses would add much to the Game Commission's coffers, but it is an indication that non-hunters are willing to contribute.
In closing, we need more forums to discuss ideas with the hunting and non-hunting public in attendance. There are solutions to the over abundance of deer, but they will require discussion and compromise from all parties. We must reverse the current deterioration of our forests. It can be done while still providing sport hunting. It would be great if hunters could once again hunt deer in a healthy forest that is regenerating. Currently, there is no place in Pennsylvania where that dream can be realized.
