Deer and Deer Hunting Magazine Editorial

Here is the article

LET'S STOP ALL THE FUSSIN' AND THE FIGHTIN'
By Daniel E. Schmidt

A 50-year-old man walks into the doctor’s office. He’s there to learn the results of his cancer screening. When the doctor arrives, the man immediately notice’s a serious tone in the physician’s demeanor.

“Well, Jack, you have some polyps,” the doctor reports. “So, we’re going to need to schedule a full colonoscopy so we can remove them.”

“Are they cancerous?” Jack asks.

“Probably not,” the doctor replies. “But if we don’t remove them, the situation will certainly get worse and could turn into cancer.”

Before leaving the clinic, Jack stops by the appointment desk to schedule his colonoscopy. He didn’t have to think twice, because, after all, the situation is pretty cut-and-dried: Get treated or suffer the eventual consequences. With a history of colon cancer in his family, it’s not really a matter of if Jack will get cancer, it’s when.

When talking about white-tailed deer management, I’ve used that cancer scenario more times than I can remember in recent years. My summary is always the same: If you have a scientific problem, hire a scientist — or in this case, a doctor — to solve it, or at the very least, prescribe a treatment.

In the case of many states’ overpopulated deer herds, my advice has always been: State agencies hire professional biologists to manage wildlife, so let them do their jobs. In other words, don’t let barstool biology dictate how deer are managed in your area.
As D&DH has documented many times over the years, deer populations can be managed scientifically. More than 42 states have proven that over the past century by taking a nearly extirpated species and rebuilding it into the equivalent of modern-day rat colonies. Today’s problem, however, isn’t so much deer management — it’s people management.

The problems arise when hunting’s melting pot becomes infiltrated by greed, selfishness and partisan politics. In many ways, it seems we’ve transformed into Me Nation at a speed that surely has kept Aldo Leopold awake on his cloud.

Contrary to what some people believe, state agencies are not in cahoots with timber companies, environmental groups or the auto insurance industry to “kill off all the deer.” As far-fetched as that sounds, you wouldn’t believe how many times I’ve heard people spout such ill logic. Think about it for a minute: Without deer, these guys wouldn’t have jobs. Trust me, no one wants to kill off all the deer. At the very least, they want to produce quality deer and deer hunting experiences.

State-by-state bickering has been loudest, however, amongst ourselves. It seems that no state agency can do its job these days — actually manage deer in the best interests of the habitat — without offending one or more of hunting’s fraternities.

Holier-than-thou bow-hunters don’t want to share the woods with “lowly” gun-hunters. Antler-crazed gun-hunters don’t want to be told they have to earn their “horns” by shooting does. And, in some Northern states, hypocritical snowmobilers don’t want to share the woods with deer hunters out of fear they might get shot (a fear that’s obviously embraced without any review of their own safety statistics).

Round and round it goes. And it never stops. Ever.

Over the years, anyone who has thrown down their toys and screamed has won something in this contest. There have been few losers. Well, unless you count the deer, the habitat and deer hunting’s future.

As convoluted as this whole mess has become, there’s an easy answer: We hunters need to quit bickering, simply go hunting, and let the biologists do their jobs. If we did, we’d all have a lot more fun in the woods.

Wouldn’t that be nice?

EXCELLENT ARTICLE!!

Deer and Deer Hunting is by far my favorite "hunting" magazine.

Deer & Deer Hunting is one of my favorite magazines too, and it`s very timely that you all are discussing it. I just yesterday received an e-mail from Dan Schmidt, telling me that they want to publish the article I sent for them to review.

They have their articles planned out so far in advance, Dan tells me that my piece won`t run until at least mid-2007, but I`m signing a publishing contract with them as soon as it arrives in the mail. This will be my very first article published.

The problems arise when hunting’s melting pot becomes infiltrated by greed, selfishness and partisan politics. In many ways, it seems we’ve transformed into Me Nation at a speed that surely has kept Aldo Leopold awake on his cloud.


Gotta LOVE It!!!!!!!!

Congratulations hunter480, and be sure to remind us to look for it when it comes out!





That is easily the least understood and most difficult part of a state biologists job. Not having to worry about the people management aspect is a huge advantage for private biologists.

You can read that article from either side of the coin and skew it how anyone wants. Nothing like a vague editorial to raise eyebrows and get people arguing, while not pointing the finger at anyone. Sounds like a politician to me.

I've never understood why people question the experts they retain to answer their questions when the subject is one dear to them , but thats human nature , I guess . Personally , I tend to trust people who have the quals to verify that they know more about a particular subject than I do , and I've rarely been disappointed with their assessment , even when their assessment was contrary to my own desires . I know bupkus about deer compared to someone who studies them for a living , and I'm perfectly willing to take the opinion of someone like an IDNR deer biologist at face value and plan my season around that , so I can't relate to someone who doesn't . I'm just a recreational hunter , what the hell do I know ?

480 , I've spoken with Dr. Mitchell and several other IDNR officials on several occasions , and they've always impressed me as knowing what they're speaking of , so why would I question their assessments ? My impression so far has been that they've more or less confirmed my own assessments , so I'm reluctant to challenge them . To be honest , I'm extremely reluctant to go to the the extreme that the hunters in Pennsylvania have gone to , so why should I condone any effort to legally question what our own DNR has done up until now ? After all , we do pay them to make the choices , should they not have some level of carte blanche ?

Good article.

Most of our limit laws are purely social in nature.