 November/December 2000 | ||||
|
More Stories: Minnesota’s Sturgeon Resurgence Where have all the big pike gone? Where are Minnesota’s biggest bucks? Conservation plates net $2 million so far Slot limits measure up on Winnie
|
Antlerless-only permits:
It was 10 a.m. on the second day of Minnesota’s deer hunting season, and I hadn’t seen a single deer. The only movement had been a few gray squirrels and some chickadees. Then, out of the corner of my eye, I caught a movement. The shape materialized into a large 8-point buck, the largest I’d ever seen while hunting. I had an antlerless permit, but the thought never crossed my mind to pass up a shot at that magnificent animal. Its antlers now hang on my office wall, giving me a constant reminder of that wonderful hunt. The outcome of that hunt--and many others like it by hunters throughout the state--might have been considerably different if, as some propose, hunters holding antlerless deer permits should be restricted to taking only antlerless deer. This proposal has come out of recent and growing discussion of how to increase the number of older, larger antlered bucks in Minnesota’s deer population. The idea, which seems to be gaining acceptance among hunters, is to require antlerless deer permit holders to take only antlerless deer. They could not shoot bucks. On the surface, it sounds reasonable. We know that some permit holders now kill bucks, and, if they were restricted to antlerless deer, additional bucks would be available to nonpermit holders and, perhaps, more bucks would survive the hunting season. A regulation change such as this seems to be logical. My intent in writing this article is to examine both the pros and cons associated with such a regulation change. Seems like a good idea There is little question that if permit holders were restricted to only antlerless deer, the buck harvest would decrease. According to Minnesota hunter surveys conducted in the late 1980s, approximately 10 percent of antlerless permit holders killed bucks, and this proportion was constant in all four hunting zones. Assuming that the bucks “saved” by such a regulation weren’t shot by other hunters or lost to poaching, predation, or winter mortality, there likely would be additional older, larger-racked bucks the following year. There is little question that fewer hunters would apply for the antlerless-only permits, and, as a result, dedicated meat hunters would have an increased chance of getting a permit. This may not be important over much of southern and western Minnesota, where permit numbers often exceed the number of applicants. In northern Minnesota, however, there has always been a high demand for the limited number of antlerless permits and currently an applicant may receive a permit as infrequently as once every 3 or 4 years. These chances would improve markedly under an antlerless-only system. At first glance, the antlerless-only proposal sounds like a win-win situation: More bucks would survive to grow larger racks, and dedicated meat hunters would have a greater chance of receiving that coveted antlerless permit. Proposal would backfire However, it wouldn’t work out that way. In fact, it would actually backfire and produce either smaller-racked deer, fewer hunting opportunities, or both. Here’s why: Minnesota’s current antlerless permit system was initiated in the mid -1970s as a way to manage deer numbers in each of the 117 permit areas the state. This system allows us to manage all the deer in a given population and grow or shrink herd size when necessary. For example, when deer numbers in a permit area get above goal, antlerless permits are increased so that the reproductive portion of the population (does) is reduced. Fewer does produce fewer fawns, and the population declines. On the other hand, when deer numbers get too low, antlerless permits are decreased or eliminated so that more does survive to the next year to breed and increase the population. The current system, which manages the total deer population in an area works well. The most dramatic proof is in how it helped us quickly rebuild the deer herd in northern Minnesota following the severe winters of the mid 1990s. This distinction of the current system allowing us to manage total deer numbers is important. The proposed system of antlerless-only permits prevents us from managing all the deer in a population. Because we could still reduce antlerless permits to increase the deer population, it would be an effective management tool if deer populations were below goal. The problem would come when deer numbers became too high. Then it would be extremely difficult to get sufficient hunters in many permit areas to apply for enough antlerless-only permits to lower the population. Many hunters would not want an antlerless-only permit because it would mean they would have to pass up any antlered buck, such as that “once in a lifetime” buck on my wall. There's a good chance of this occurring. In 1999, roughly half of the permit areas in southern and western Minnesota had fewer applicants than permits. With antlerless-only permits, there would be even fewer applicants in the already undersubscribed areas, and an even higher proportion of permit areas would have unclaimed antlerless permits. Too many deer = smaller racks, less hunting Why do we care if an area has too many deer? Because with too many deer there’s an increase in crop depredations, deer-vehicle accidents, and a whole host of other deer-related problems. This in turn reduces people's tolerance for deer, forcing us to lower our population goals. In other words, too many deer ends up meaning, in the long run, fewer deer hunting opportunities for hunters. Another problem with having too many deer is that it can actually lead to smaller bucks. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that, as deer numbers approach and exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat, antler size decreases. The average buck killed may be older, but the rack size will be smaller. The threat of excessively high deer populations is real. In recent years, deer populations in portions of Wisconsin and Michigan have increased to the point where those states may not be able to lower their deer populations, despite almost unlimited numbers of antlerless permits. Depredation problems and deer-vehicle accidents are on the rise, and deer infected with bovine tuberculosis have become a major problem in parts of Michigan. If insufficient numbers of antlerless deer are harvested and the deer numbers continue to increase, new regulations may be required to reduce deer numbers. Some states require that hunters register an antlerless deer before they are allowed to harvest a buck, and others require a permit to hunt bucks in an effort to encourage the harvest of antlerless deer. Other options not realistic There are some other options for lowering deer populations, but they have a limited scope. For example, sometimes the DNR uses deer management permits and intensive management permits where deer numbers are too high and there aren’t enough applicants for antlerless permits. These permits allow hunters to take as many as four antlerless deer (in addition to the first deer) in areas overpopulated by deer. Unfortunately, these permits have never been as successful as we would like because relatively few hunters are willing to take home more than one or two deer. If most Minnesota hunters want to see older, bigger bucks, there are other ways to make that happen, but it would mean restricting the harvest of small-antlered bucks or shifting the timing of the hunting season. Over the next several years, the DNR will be discussing these options with Minnesota hunters to see what hunters want. In the meantime, I strongly encourage hunters to abandon the antlerless-only idea. It simply won’t do what hunters want it to and, in fact, may actually backfire. | |||
