Home Heading

A BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF WHERE WE ARE WITH THE DEER HERD AND DEER HUNTING

Dr. Michael Zagata – President of the Conservation Alliance of New York and Commissioner Emeritus – NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Dr. Jack Ward Thomas – Boone and Crockett Professor of Conservation, Univ. of Montana and Chief Emeritus- US Forest Service

The average age of deer hunters in New York, and probably in most of the northeast, is about 50. That means that the average-aged hunter started hunting around 1970. If we had looked at the habitat conditions that existed in the dairy-farm region, especially in and around the Catskills, from1955 through 1970 we would have found them to be ideal for deer. Much of the land had been cleared for agriculture in the late 19 th century, and farming was still economically viable in the 60s. However, things were changing. Farms were beginning to go out of business and, as a result the early successional stages or areas occupied by grasses, forbs (non-woody plants) and “brush” were beginning to be dominated by young trees. By the year 2000 it is estimated that about 10 million acres of New York’s farmland have reverted from the early stages of plant succession, the stage most productive for deer due to the presence of food plants, to the pole-timber or mid-successional stage. That stage is often referred to as one of the least productive stages in terms of providing quality deer habitat because the lack of sunlight reaching the forest floor reduces the low-growing plants that deer use for food.

What does that large-scale change in habitat type and quality mean to deer and deer hunters? During the 50s, when those of use still hunting today were younger and more “fit”, it was considered “normal” for a hunter to see 30 to 40 deer a day. In the spring it was not unusual to see 50 or more deer grazing on a south-facing slope. Such would be a rarity today. Thus we are faced with a classic “wicked problem”, i.e.

The result is likely to be a lose-lose scenario: declining or static habitat conditions; declining deer numbers; declining trophy quality; declining hunter numbers; declining resources for the managing agency; declining influence of “scientific management”; and increasing reliance on localized “quick-fixes” that have little effect at high cost and divert attention away from more ecologically sound solutions.

Why are we where we are? What has changed? Why is there such mistrust of the managing agency? How do we break out of the “wicked problem” or “vicious circle”? This article is intended to shed some light on those questions and to deliver the message that the first order of business is to come face to face with the reality of the problem as it relates to habitat. As Pogo says, “we have met the enemy and he is us”. The discussion of the impact of Chronic Wasting Disease is left to another day.

The habitat conditions that existed in the 1960s have changed dramatically. Places where one could sit on the edge of a field and look out across a brushy field interspersed with small openings have gone from common to rare. Instead of hunting with a 30-30 “brush gun” many hunters have, due to the lack of brush and the park-like nature of the forests, switched to calibers suitable for long-range shooting and nearly all rifles are equipped with scopes. Today, unless those old fields and brushy “edges” have been kept open by agriculture or logging, they are now covered with trees creating a “park-like” appearance with little edible vegetation low enough for deer to reach. These trees provide shade that keeps plants that could provide food for deer from growing. One has only to drive along Route I-88 from Cobleskill to Oneonta during winter to observe the change. You can look through the forest canopy on the north and south-facing slopes and see bare ground. There is very little there for a deer to eat, and this condition exists on tens of thousands of acres.

Deer are affected by their habitat, and they, in turn, affect their habitat. Consider what happens when the early successional stages, characterized by grasses, forbs, and woody species of “brush”, begin to change into the “pole-timber” stage of plant succession. The nutrients from the soil are stored in the “bole” of the tree, and are unavailable to feed deer. The grasses, forbs, and brush do not prosper in the shade of the tree canopy. This occurs over a period of 5 to 20 year or so and so slowly as not to be glaringly obvious. Those who have hunted the same spot, year after year, may fail to see the change. However, those who hunt a spot, leave, and then return years later are struck by that change.

As the ability of the habitat to support deer decreases over time, the deer continue to put “pressure” on the remaining habitat by feeding on the most preferred species. This “pressure” by deer may actually cause those species to be locally eliminated from the forest, sometimes to be replaced by less nutricious or otherwise beneficial species. This pressure on certain plants, coupled with the emerging dominance of non-edible tree species caused by succession, will lead to a lowering of the ability of the newly emerging habitat conditions to support deer in high numbers. However, white-tailed deer are very adaptable and have a high reproductive rate – which in such circumstances operates to their own detriment. They put pressure on their habitat by eating, or over-eating, the plants they need to survive. You can see the effect in many areas of the Catskills by kneeling down and looking “underneath” or “through” the forest. The forest will appear open or “park-like” and there will be little edible vegetation low enough for a deer to reach. That height of vegetation appears as a line through the forest and is called a “browse line”. When you can see a “browse line”, the habitat is supporting more deer than it can sustain over the longer run. That condition may persist for years, and each year that it persists, the ability of the habitat to support a given number of deer is reduced. When, however, a severe winter occurs, the number of deer may be dramatically reduced due to starvation. Following that, the number of deer may rebound, but not to the numbers that existed prior to the die-off because of the diminished ability of the habitat to support deer. That is where we are today.

Thus, based on ecological principles alone, we should not expect to see the numbers of deer that we saw in the 50s. That fact has little relationship with the various management strategies employed by the state wildlife management agency. Because, in truth, such agencies had little to do with creating the habitat conditions that favored deer. The creation of the temporary habitat conditions that led to a high deer population was a function of the land management decisions related to loss of economic viability of farming operations. Without active management on those reverting farmlands to keep them in the early successional stages that favor deer, they have become maturing forests. That change, coupled with existing high population levels of deer, has led to the current less favorable habitat conditions and reduced deer numbers.

However, early deer introductions did expedite the increase of the deer population as the introduced deer behaved much the same way an exotic responds to a vacant habitat – the deer population, reacting to a favorable food supply with no competitors and a lack of predators, “exploded”. Since that explosion, the agency reacted by striving to harvest, via hunting, that number that could be harvested each year without decreasing the ability of the herd to sustain itself. However, their ability to accurately predict several of the variables, including the decline in the “carrying capacity” of the habitat, the severity of one or more winters in succession, hunter and landowner reluctance to harvest adequate numbers of deer, and the loss of easy access by hunters to hunting grounds, failed to hold deer numbers in check and affected their credibility.

In the face of their frustration caused by declining deer numbers and trophy quality of buck deer, many hunters have turned to supplemental feeding of deer and the employment of consultants that offered quick-fixes with miracle foods. Although these techniques seem to offer a solution, they may actually exacerbate the problem because they are short-term and “local”, and are effective only so long as they are sustained. Feeding and food plots hold and attract deer into the area where food exists. However, more deer may be attracted than the “artificial” source of food can sustain. When that happens, the deer attracted into the area put even more pressure on the “local” habitat – habitat that may well already be over-utilized. As a result, the area’s ability to support deer without artificial feeding via corn or food plots may be even further reduced - an effect that becomes stunningly obvious when the supplements are reduced or become inadequate to support increased numbers.

Normally food plots are planted with the expectation that they will increase the land-owner’s, or his friend’s or client’s, chances of harvesting a large buck. In reality, due to the fact that many land parcels are smaller than a deer’s normal home range (the area the deer travels on a routine basis in search of food, water and shelter) that large buck may well be harvested on the lands of a neighbor.

Those who seek to place the blame for the lack of hunting success or even the loss of enjoyment from seeing deer may want to consider that the habitat isn’t the only thing that has changed. As the average age of active hunters increases, there are more hunters with diminished hearing and eyesight and stamina. It was “easier” to be successful when deer numbers were more abundant and the average hunter was, simply, a better fit and attuned “hunting machine.” The “average hunter”, at age 50, is simply not what he/she once was.

As the average age of hunters has increased it seems that there has been a concomitant interest in the “quality” of the hunt. Several jurisdictions have tried or are considering some form of “Quality Deer Management”. Simply put, that means increasing antler size of bucks harvested and undertaking management actions, like increased doe harvest to reduce deer numbers, to achieve that desired end. But, what has to be done to make that a reality? If we agree that much of the deer habitat is in mid-successional forest condition, that that stage ranks low in habitat quality, and that deer numbers are taxing that habitat, how are we going to grow bucks with larger antlers in spite of that reality? Having deer grow larger antlers without a change in habitat conditions will require that more food or “nutrition” be available for those bucks and that the trophy class animals have the chance to live longer.

We can increase the life span of a buck deer by putting a restriction on the number of points they must have in order to be legal for harvest. However, increasing the amount of food, i.e., the nutritional level available, requires a further reduction in the overall number of deer (primarily females) so that the available habitat or food is divided among fewer deer. Hunters are already complaining about the reduction in deer sightings or, really a decline in overall deer numbers. Are we ready, politically, to accept an even further reduction in deer numbers, and sightings, to enhance the opportunity to harvest a “trophy” buck? With or without “Quality Deer Management” the number of deer observed during a day afield is likely to continue to dwindle – unless there is a major effort, induced by economic pressures, to reverse succession back to the “early” stages via logging, reversion to agriculture or application of stand replacement by fire, or until mother-nature offers a remedy on a very large scale via wind-damage or wild-fire.

During the 2005 deer meetings held by the DEC, sportsmen were adamant that DMPs (deer management or doe permits), nuisance permits issued to farmers that allow for the year-round harvest of deer, and DMAPs (deer management assistance permits that allow a farmer to harvest “extra” deer during the open season) be cut back to zero in order to allow the herd to rebuild. That demonstrates an unwillingness, or lack of the necessary understanding, to carry out the herd reductions necessary to implement the part of a quality deer management program that requires that numbers be further reduced. It also shows a lack of understanding on the part of hunters regarding the changes that have occurred in the habitat’s ability to support the “traditional” numbers of deer.

The State simply does not have the resources, or the political will, necessary to manage habitat on the scale required to reverse both the decline in habitat quality and concomitant decline in deer numbers. The decline in deer numbers appears to be contributing to the decline in license sales. If that trend continues, and without man’s intervention there is little doubt that it won’t, the natural resources component of the DEC, including staff, suffer further reduction in funding. That reduction will further increase in the gap between what is needed to implement a sound deer management (indeed hunting in general) program and what is funded. As the gap between what is known to be needed and what is actually being done gets wider, the sportsmen’s’ level of frustration will continue to grow. That frustration will lead to further erosion of their confidence in the DEC’s ability to manage the deer herd. It will also have an adverse economic impact on those up-state communities that rely on “tourism” dollars provided by sportsmen and women.

The message is that there is no long-term solution that does not require breaking out of the “wicked problem” syndrome. To do that will require a significant effort in education relative to the changed habitat conditions, deer populations in excess of the existing habitat’s carrying capacity, over-shooting of bucks (i.e. age of harvested animals), and full recognition of the “wicked problem”.

The problem is, now, more political than biological. The current political/social climate must change, and it will take an educated sportsmen’s community to bring about that change, before the biological problems can be rationally addressed. That will require a change from the current climate of protracted conflict – both within the sportsmen’s community and between sportsmen and groups opposed to the harvest of wildlife.

It is time to forget about our short-term self-interest and come together, the general public, sportsmen and other conservationists, and the DEC, and craft an ecologically, politically, and economically defensible plan for the future of deer and deer hunting in New York.