Hunting focus hurts deer management
06-03-2005, 08:31 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location:
Posts: 576
Hunting focus hurts deer management
This ought to stir the pot some.
> Hunting focus hurts deer management
>
> By Gary Alt
>
> For those of us who drive, garden, own land or value nature, the recent action
of the Pennsylvania Game Commission is cause for concern.
> On April 26, the commission reduced the number of antlerless deer-hunting
licenses - the primary tool in controlling deer populations - by 160,000. The
most severe cuts were in those state wildlife management units where forest
health and regeneration are most threatened by deer overbrowsing.
> For more than 75 years, the Pennsylvania Game Commission has been hearing from
biologists, ecologists and foresters who say that deer need to be balanced with
their habitat at numbers the land can sustain without long-term damage from
overbrowsing. Without this, we see more clearly than ever that we cannot have
safe highways, sustainable agriculture, livable communities or healthy forests.
But, so long as the commission is funded primarily through hunters' license
fees, this will never happen.
> Pennsylvania has more deer hunters than any other state in the union. More
important, it has the greatest proportion of deer hunters to overall hunters (93
percent). Deer hunters know that when they want something from the commission -
in this case, fewer antlerless deer licenses to increase hunting opportunities
for those who are licensed - they usually get it.
> The commission's very name identifies its primary focus - game. In effect,
Pennsylvania does not have a wildlife conservation agency or even a wildlife
commission. Instead, conservation of our wild bird and mammal populations is
entrusted exclusively to the game commission, an organization designed to
promote recreational hunting (primarily for deer) and whose programs are funded
through recreational hunting fees.
> The result is that if you don't hunt, you're not a participant in funding
wildlife conservation in Pennsylvania and have no influence in how our wildlife
resources and their habitats are managed. This may explain why the state lacks a
comprehensive wildlife plan, a biodiversity conservation plan, an urban deer
management plan, or a plan for dealing with fragmentation, sprawl or invasive
exotic species and their impact on native wildlife. It may also explain why the
commission spends less than 5 percent of its budget on non-game and endangered
or threatened wildlife species. In contrast, Missouri includes all of its
citizens in the decision-making process and funding by committing 1/8 of 1
percent of its sales tax to fish, wildlife and forest conservation.
> I am a hunter, but I am also a wildlife ecologist, conservationist, and member
of a community. I value hunting as an important part of my life. However, I do
not believe that deer management should strive to maintain irresponsibly high
deer populations to facilitate hunters' enjoyment at the cost of habitat
quality, other wildlife species, or human health and safety. Hunters should
maintain deer at levels compatible with their habitat and the broader interests
of society. The future of hunting depends on our doing so. Nonetheless, we are
failing in this effort.
> Some hunters and agency personnel suggest we need to strive for compromise. We
have already compromised our ecology, economy, and even our safety by carrying
too many deer for too long. Pennsylvania drivers kill more deer by accident (a
minimum of 80,000 to 100,000 per year) than hunters in many states kill
intentionally during hunting seasons. We r> ank second in the nation for fatal
collisions with deer. We have the third-highest incidence of Lyme disease, and
deer are the breeding ground for the ticks that spread the disease. And a
growing number of homeowners have given up on gardens, ornamental plantings and
wildflowers due to deer. A recent report by a group of scientists and policy
specialists commissioned by Audubon Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Habitat
Alliance concluded, "The preponderance of scientific opinions attests that the
current high den> sities of white-tailed deer have seriously degraded the
ecological condition of forests in Pennsylvania. Moreover, until deer
populations are reduced and maintained at lower levels, it will not be possible
to restore key elements of forest health." Pennsylvania deserves wildlife
funding, administration and policy that reflect the participation of all its
citizens. This broader commitment - which ought to include taxpayer support in
some form - is necessary for our large and diverse state to meet the complex
natural resource challenges in the 21st century for the benefit of all our
society.
>
> Gary Alt worked for the Pennsylvania Game Commission for more than 27 years
and served as supervisor of its deer management section. He retired in December.
>
>
> By Gary Alt
>
> For those of us who drive, garden, own land or value nature, the recent action
of the Pennsylvania Game Commission is cause for concern.
> On April 26, the commission reduced the number of antlerless deer-hunting
licenses - the primary tool in controlling deer populations - by 160,000. The
most severe cuts were in those state wildlife management units where forest
health and regeneration are most threatened by deer overbrowsing.
> For more than 75 years, the Pennsylvania Game Commission has been hearing from
biologists, ecologists and foresters who say that deer need to be balanced with
their habitat at numbers the land can sustain without long-term damage from
overbrowsing. Without this, we see more clearly than ever that we cannot have
safe highways, sustainable agriculture, livable communities or healthy forests.
But, so long as the commission is funded primarily through hunters' license
fees, this will never happen.
> Pennsylvania has more deer hunters than any other state in the union. More
important, it has the greatest proportion of deer hunters to overall hunters (93
percent). Deer hunters know that when they want something from the commission -
in this case, fewer antlerless deer licenses to increase hunting opportunities
for those who are licensed - they usually get it.
> The commission's very name identifies its primary focus - game. In effect,
Pennsylvania does not have a wildlife conservation agency or even a wildlife
commission. Instead, conservation of our wild bird and mammal populations is
entrusted exclusively to the game commission, an organization designed to
promote recreational hunting (primarily for deer) and whose programs are funded
through recreational hunting fees.
> The result is that if you don't hunt, you're not a participant in funding
wildlife conservation in Pennsylvania and have no influence in how our wildlife
resources and their habitats are managed. This may explain why the state lacks a
comprehensive wildlife plan, a biodiversity conservation plan, an urban deer
management plan, or a plan for dealing with fragmentation, sprawl or invasive
exotic species and their impact on native wildlife. It may also explain why the
commission spends less than 5 percent of its budget on non-game and endangered
or threatened wildlife species. In contrast, Missouri includes all of its
citizens in the decision-making process and funding by committing 1/8 of 1
percent of its sales tax to fish, wildlife and forest conservation.
> I am a hunter, but I am also a wildlife ecologist, conservationist, and member
of a community. I value hunting as an important part of my life. However, I do
not believe that deer management should strive to maintain irresponsibly high
deer populations to facilitate hunters' enjoyment at the cost of habitat
quality, other wildlife species, or human health and safety. Hunters should
maintain deer at levels compatible with their habitat and the broader interests
of society. The future of hunting depends on our doing so. Nonetheless, we are
failing in this effort.
> Some hunters and agency personnel suggest we need to strive for compromise. We
have already compromised our ecology, economy, and even our safety by carrying
too many deer for too long. Pennsylvania drivers kill more deer by accident (a
minimum of 80,000 to 100,000 per year) than hunters in many states kill
intentionally during hunting seasons. We r> ank second in the nation for fatal
collisions with deer. We have the third-highest incidence of Lyme disease, and
deer are the breeding ground for the ticks that spread the disease. And a
growing number of homeowners have given up on gardens, ornamental plantings and
wildflowers due to deer. A recent report by a group of scientists and policy
specialists commissioned by Audubon Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Habitat
Alliance concluded, "The preponderance of scientific opinions attests that the
current high den> sities of white-tailed deer have seriously degraded the
ecological condition of forests in Pennsylvania. Moreover, until deer
populations are reduced and maintained at lower levels, it will not be possible
to restore key elements of forest health." Pennsylvania deserves wildlife
funding, administration and policy that reflect the participation of all its
citizens. This broader commitment - which ought to include taxpayer support in
some form - is necessary for our large and diverse state to meet the complex
natural resource challenges in the 21st century for the benefit of all our
society.
>
> Gary Alt worked for the Pennsylvania Game Commission for more than 27 years
and served as supervisor of its deer management section. He retired in December.
>
06-03-2005, 09:43 AM
#2
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Maine
Posts: 3,555
RE: Hunting focus hurts deer management
Very interesting. I personally (although I don't live or hunt PA) support Alt. I've read numerous publication of his (although mostly on bears) and find them all to be informative and based on sound scientific data.
Alt and his predecessor have a tough job. Trying to reduce the heard to numbers that reflect quality deer and not quantity of deer is suicide. It's the third rail of PA hunting politics.
Now that Alt has moved on I hope he decides to settle a bit farther North. I would welcome him as part of fish and game in either of the states I hunt in. I think he was doing right in PA and chastized by the good old boys who will stand for nothing less then a deer behind every tree.
Alt and his predecessor have a tough job. Trying to reduce the heard to numbers that reflect quality deer and not quantity of deer is suicide. It's the third rail of PA hunting politics.
Now that Alt has moved on I hope he decides to settle a bit farther North. I would welcome him as part of fish and game in either of the states I hunt in. I think he was doing right in PA and chastized by the good old boys who will stand for nothing less then a deer behind every tree.
06-03-2005, 10:04 AM
#3
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 232
RE: Hunting focus hurts deer management
What I find anmazing is that the hunters of PA did exactly what they were ask to do. They produced the five highest anterless harvests ever recorded in PA and abided by the new AR regs. But, at the same time the PGC insisted the herd was still increasing so some hunters started to doubt the credibility of the PGC staff.
When Alt resigned he blame the hunters and the commissioners for not supporting his plan and claimed that he had become ineffective even though nothing in his plan ws changed. But, since he didn't get the Executive Directors job he wanted ,he is now a disgruntled state employee and he wasted little time stabbing the hunters in the back and undermining the PGC.
When Alt resigned he blame the hunters and the commissioners for not supporting his plan and claimed that he had become ineffective even though nothing in his plan ws changed. But, since he didn't get the Executive Directors job he wanted ,he is now a disgruntled state employee and he wasted little time stabbing the hunters in the back and undermining the PGC.
06-03-2005, 12:15 PM
#4
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Maine
Posts: 3,555
RE: Hunting focus hurts deer management
When Alt resigned he blame the hunters and the commissioners for not supporting his plan and claimed that he had become ineffective even though nothing in his plan ws changed. But, since he didn't get the Executive Directors job he wanted ,he is now a disgruntled state employee and he wasted little time stabbing the hunters in the back and undermining the PGC.
His qualification as a wildlife biologist are IMO undisputed. I didn't get a whole lot of the story (being in ME) about his diaparture. My understanding was it was over heat from his WMP and not because he failed to get promoted. I'd still like to see him serve my state with my tax dollars.
06-03-2005, 01:39 PM
#6
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 232
RE: Hunting focus hurts deer management
My understanding was it was over heat from his WMP and not because he failed to get promoted.
06-03-2005, 01:54 PM
#7
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY: NYC to Watertown
Posts: 897
RE: Hunting focus hurts deer management
statement has me confused,
few tags increases hunting in the long term? or short term?
think in many places along the northeast has reduced number of deer tags simply because of a harsh winter which has reduced the population,
while reduced tags increases hunting oppurtunities in the long run,
it does not increase hunting oppurtunities in the short term.
few tags increases hunting in the long term? or short term?
think in many places along the northeast has reduced number of deer tags simply because of a harsh winter which has reduced the population,
while reduced tags increases hunting oppurtunities in the long run,
it does not increase hunting oppurtunities in the short term.
06-03-2005, 02:36 PM
#9
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
RE: Hunting focus hurts deer management
But, since he didn't get the Executive Directors job he wanted ,he is now a disgruntled state employee and he wasted little time stabbing the hunters in the back and undermining the PGC.
06-03-2005, 02:58 PM
#10
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Jim Thorpe, PA
Posts: 536
RE: Hunting focus hurts deer management
Some hunters and agency personnel suggest we need to strive for compromise. We
have already compromised our ecology, economy, and even our safety by carrying
too many deer for too long. Pennsylvania drivers kill more deer by accident (a
minimum of 80,000 to 100,000 per year) than hunters in many states kill
intentionally during hunting seasons. We r> ank second in the nation for fatal
collisions with deer.
have already compromised our ecology, economy, and even our safety by carrying
too many deer for too long. Pennsylvania drivers kill more deer by accident (a
minimum of 80,000 to 100,000 per year) than hunters in many states kill
intentionally during hunting seasons. We r> ank second in the nation for fatal
collisions with deer.