Thoughts on your states wildlife management?

[Eric Krewson]

No one has mentioned Alabama, DNR is both very good and problematical, some bad decisions, some quirky laws.

The state has a forever wild program where they use royalties from off shore oil wells to buy public hunting land, this has been a tremendous success for hunters. I can now hunt 50K acres within 45 minutes of my house.

You can kill two does a day in Bama from the start of bow season on Oct 15 until the gun season closes on Jan 31. In some parts of the state this is OK, others a bit too generous.

The state needs money for wildlife management, I think they should sell doe tags for $5 a pop to generate revenue.

The state wants to institute a tagging system to know what is harvested, their attempt, at first mandatory, was shot down by all the states Bubbas who cried foul. Reporting kills is now optional.

Alabama has a few laws that don't make sense. Pigs are spreading like a disease, the DNR wants them gone but won't let you shoot them with anything but a field point, 22 rifle or a shotgun with #2 shot or smaller unless deer season is open. Their thinking is if you have a broadhead on your arrow and a deer happens by, you won't be able to stop yourself from shooting the deer out of season, DUH!

They just passed a law allowing silencers on hunting rifles, another DUH!

Overall the states wildlife biologists/wardens are doing a great job, hard working, dedicated and an asset to the overall picture.

[snag]

Born and raised in Oregon. Sorry to say we have one of the worst, if not the worst, managed DOW in the west. Partly due to the voting power of the veggie-head, treehugger, yuppies who don't know anything outside of a Starbucks in the concrete jungle. I could go on and on...

[Wallydog]

I think southern Illinois is a world apart from the northern in more ways than one SheltonCreeker. I was born in the south and moved up here as my daddy was a preacher and that's where they put us. The north being way more populated puts huge pressure on the DNR to reduce deer/auto collisions from insurance companies. The insurance co's actually fund the killing. They have decimated the herd up here by sharpshooting over bait and anybody who hunts up this way would agree. In the south there is less political pressure on the DNR in my opinion.

[DIAMONDBACK]

I will make this short and sweet.New Hampshire,D-

[ChuckC]

At risk of being stoned.  It has been very popular to bash your respective DNR lately.  

Of course they have gone to get degrees and spend time researching, but they don't know anything, right.  

Although there are issues and rapidly changing herds, they are being pulled a lot of ways by special interests and they just cannot appease all.

Reminds me of a story I read somewhere, maybe even here. . . about the man who called his DNR and demanded that they do something, stating that he has been deer hunting for 50 years and has a really good handle on the issues at hand.  

The young lady that was taking the call asked what he did for a living and he proudly told her that he ran a water treatment facility for a large city.  

She went on to say she always wanted to do that and asked of her chances at getting such a job.  He responded that such a job requires years of study and experience and that someone can't just walk in and do it.  

Her response was that she has been drinking water for all her life, and surely that counts her as somewhat of an expert in the field.

We as hunters, especially dedicated bowhunters, spend a lot of actual time in the woods and the states really could do well in incorporating what we see into their discussions and decisions.  But there is so much behind the scenes that we are not (and never will be) aware of.

ChuckC

[Kevin Dill]

Great post Chuck!

I've heard it mentioned many times here in Ohio that only a few groups are unhappy with our statewide deer management. Those groups include The Ohio Farm Bureau, various state insurance associations, PETA Ohio, some Ohio deer hunters, and a number of local garden clubs.      

There were 5 concurrent 'deer summits' held around Ohio by the ODNR on January 24, 2015. A total of 160 people statewide (average less than 2 people per county) were interested enough to attend these summits. Obviously the degree of dissatisfaction wasn't enough to warrant an organized turnout by deer hunters...or there is just too much apathy amongst deer hunters to speak up on the topic.

[Mint]

Chuck,
I think the people that work for the DNR know plenty but when the head of the Dept is a political appointee there will be problems.

Case in point NY DEC commissioner is politically appointed. I can just imagine him going to those fancy parties with the other political elites and being told how cruel hunters are and that NY should be making more lands for the "enlightened" people and not those crude Neanderthals that hunt.

 I work in NYC and very rarely do you find someone that is at least tolerable to hunters. That I think is what is happening all across the country to a limited extent.

[Zbone]

Its a broad question, but Ohio DOW is both good and bad... Will put it this way, non deer species they do a great job such as restoring wild turkeys, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, river otters, bobcats, etc. Would like to see them do a little more in bobwhite quail recovery, but when it comes to whitetail deer they SUCK... There is no way there should be deer firearm seasons in October or before rut for that matter, or even before Thanksgiving, then again after New Years when they can blast them with muzzleloader during a most stressful time in mid January..  Gunseasons need to be kept between Thanksgiving and Christmas... I could go on and on, but don't have the time to write it all...8^)

[snag]

Our problem in Oregon is that they allowed a ballot measure to go before the voters. The mass majority of these voters have no idea of what goes on past their doorstep. The measure banned hunting cougars with dogs and baiting bears. So along with wolves establishing themselves here the other predators are reducing game animals...to the point that the Ore. Fish and Wildlife has to hire "professional" hunters to reduce the numbers of cougars in quite a few areas. We also have too many open roads throughout deer and elk habitat. They don't have as much escapement opportunities as they should.

[goobersan]

I did not deer hunt wisconsin at all last season. only missed being out in the woods, I can do that anytime without buying a permit. too little too late for me with the current changes being made. my 3 children are no longer hunters. way to go wi dnr

[Hud]

The WDFW has managed to increase fees and licenses beyond what the market will bear.  Hunting opportunities have declined, as they have in neighboring states. Game populations are down in the Yakima area and south central part of the state due to disease in the Mule deer. Game populations do go through a cycle. Hard winters hurt all wildlife.

Poor timber management has left North Central susceptible to forest fires. A terrible waste of resources occurs from beetle infestation, dying stands of timber and overcrowding usually is the cause of huge wildfires. Although there is an economic loss, a fire usually helps to restore browse for wildlife in a 3-5 yrs.

The number of hunters has declined for most species. Poaching is a problem, like everywhere. The State has not adopted a program to manage their blossoming Wolf packs, maybe when they migrate to Olympia and Seattle, they will do something. They continue to rely on the input from the non-paying public.

On a positive side, they have made a number of large land purchases critical to wildlife, in conjunction with the help of conservation organizations and the public. Wintering areas are important for migrating Mule deer and Elk herds.

Unfortunately, the long term prospects will depend on factors like weather, drought, fire and predators (bears, lions, and wolves).

While some in the Government continue to cite global climate change as the greatest threat, they continue to ignore the facts.  http://www.spaceandscience.net/

Congratulations to OR for hiring an experienced wildlife person to head their Dept.

[Huntingnut]

Originally posted by Zbone:
Its a broad question, but Ohio DOW is both good and bad... Will put it this way, non deer species they do a great job such as restoring wild turkeys, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, river otters, bobcats, etc. Would like to see then do a little more in bobwhite recovery, but went it comes to whitetail deer they SUCK... There is no way there should be deer firearm seasons in October or before rut for that matter, or even before Thanksgiving, then again after New Years when they can blast them with muzzleloader during a most stressful time in mid January..  Gunseasons need to be kept between Thanksgiving and Christmas... I could go on and on, but don't have the time to write it all...8^)

I don't think Ohio manages any game species well. Especially deer. But when I was younger there were pheasnt, grouse, rabbits etc. everywhere. Now? Not so much. What they have done to the deer population is abominable, and the early gun season's (youth or ML) drive me nuts.

[longbow fanatic 1]

Originally posted by SheltonCreeker:
Well I have skimmed thru this and it seems like I have experienced something different than what others have in Illinois. Illinois has in the last 2 years reduced the number of gun tags by eliminating the late gun season in certain counties. We have been hit hard by EHD state wide 2 times within a 5 year span. One of the largest problems with that was the biologists within the state didn't get the info they needed to come up with good deer herd numbers. That's where the state dropped the ball. John Q Public didn't have a place to report EHD deer. Our CPO's are busy trying to uphold the law it adds greatly to there work load to have the public calling them to report deer they have found dead on there property. Most people didn't report these deaths at all. So I believe that put the IDNR at a great disadvantage when trying to come up with realistic numbers. Now having sat in a meeting with former IDNR director Dr. Marc Miller I believe while he was at the helm he tried to do things from a biological stand point which IMHO is what all agencies should be doing. But as stated before lobbyist are greatly involved. So hunters aren't the only group the IDNR hear from, insurance companies, ATV users, Ag industry etc. I do think there are some huge contradictions within our state. I know of at least 3 farmers from within my community who receive "nuisance" tags each year. They are allowed to shoot non antlered deer during the fawning months killing the doe and unborn, or leaving the fawn to die shortly there after. This has happened consistently over the last five years when I know deer numbers have been down. With all that being said I think the IDNR does a decent job. I like the IDNR model as far as the finances. Hunters support the IDNR. Therefore I believe that gives us a voice and a seat at the table. I don't agree with everything they do and absolutely despise certain things. But overall having talked and hunted with people from other states it could be worse. We do have a new governor and as always politics will play a huge role in the IDNR future. The future scares me much more than the past.

[Bowwild]

I'm a wildlife biologist, retired (IN, KS, MO, and KY)

With that said I can tell you if the head of the agency has no or low political skill or is reluctant to engage politicians, your agency and its wildlife management Mission will be much weaker.

For an agency  head I would much rather have a skilled politician who will listen to his scientists (and his hunter/angler customers) than a biologist who thinks people management is unimportant. Of course you don't want simply a "yes" man of for the political powers that be.

Hunters and anglers outnumber almost any special interest group in every state. If these sportsmen and women work effectively with their agency (and vice-versa) they can accomplish amazing things and fight off ridiculous, harmful policies and regulations.  

As an example: On a few important issues the KY Dept. assigned each of its employees to take free, colorful post cards to every sportsman group in the state -- every county. These cards stated positions that both the agency and hunters supported. The club members sent these cards in by the thousands to their state representatives. On more than one occasion the politicians begged the agency head to "call off the dogs". The agency and its sportsman supporters won.

While difficult and time consuming it is very hard (Kevin pointed out above) to get these greatest of wildlife conservationists (hunters and anglers) engaged.

Finally, I have to add, during my career I heard as many unworkable ideas from hunters as I heard from politicians. But at least I knew the hunter's heart was likely in the right place.

[Fritz]

Laughable come to mind! Just my opinion.

[Wild Bill MCP 808]

Maryland - very different state in regard to wildlife management. The state is broken up into two regions. Region A in western part of the state has dismal deer numbers. Long seasons, liberal bag limits, predation kill, poaching, the list goes on and on. Result deer numbers are way down in this part of the state. Our DNR is ok with this. Hunters are getting fed up and now going to other states to hunt. Complaints fall on deaf ears. DNR is very serious about the black bear populations much time energy and resources goes into this management. Region B the rest of the state has deer but much of the land is private which don't allow hunting. "Getting permission is tough. So there are deer in region B if you can find a piece of land to hunt. Like other states Maryland is very political so there decisions reflect that. There are many private clubs trying to do management to better their herd. Most hunters would like to see DNR do more to enhance the deer herd. Budget and manpower always comes into play when engaging the DNR. Hunters would like to see more deer. As others have stated it is hard to bring young people into the sport when you take them and they see nothing. They lose interest very quickly.

[RickE]

Great insightful post Bowwild!  Rick.

[Doug_K]

I think Wisconsin is starting on the right path. Granted, I mostly hunt private property, but I do spend some time in national forest every year, and despite what I often hear of it, I always see deer during archery season.

I would like to see 0 doe tags issued state wide (including crop damage) for say 5 years, and would love to see more fish stocking programs, but I doubt the former will happen because weekend hunters will be less likely to buy a tag (no offense to weekend hunters intended), and the latter.. Well, it's just too logical.

[ChuckC]

Doug,  we don't need zero doe tags statewide, but we do need them , for now, in certain areas. A big issue we do have is the wide disparity between populations in different areas.  This can be seen quite well by those that walk the trails.

We need a balance. .  not too many, not too few.


This winter I have seen more deer in my particular (public) area than I ever have before.  I see a ton of deer whenever I drive thru certain mid state counties at one hour before dark.

We need to include the eyes of some of the folks that actually spend a bunch of time out of doors in our deer population models.
ChuckC

[STICKBENDER98]

This has been a very interesting post, and it looks like for the most part it's a catch 22, no matter how good or how bad any state's DNR is they will never make everyone happy.  It make for great debate, I just hope my kids, their kids, and their kids...(you get the idea) can all enjoy our wildlife, and ways of life we have been able too, as we pass them on.