This topic got started in another thread, but it's an issue that I've wanted to address for a while.

I was raised in a time when wildlife was at a low ebb. When I was a kid deer were almost non-existent in Ohio. Last year we killed 250,000, through hunting alone.

But, when I was coming up, wildlife was scarce. No turkeys, no coyotes, no beaver, and if anybody would have ever said we'd have otters back in Ohio, you'd have thought they were crazy. Game was valuable. Game was not to be wasted. Poachers were despised. And this lesson was ingrained in all of us who considered ourselves "sportsmen".

This lack of wildlife stemmed from over harvest. But underlying this was the public perception that wild animals were basically valueless. And in the days of our agrarian society, wild animals were considered to be a pest, a nuisance to be disposed of and supplanted with domesticated animals. Depredation by wild animals was a very real concern, when your primary occupation is subsistence farming. To this end, most of the wildlife was extirpated from the settled areas by the early 1900's.

It was during this time that the sportsmen came to the forefront. We came into the time of wildlife management, as opposed to extirpation. If nothing else, we established harvest seasons at least to protect the animals when they are breeding. From there, we worked our way up to restoration programs, which brings us to where we are today.

And maybe we've done too good of a job. Some of these critters have become a nuisance.

I again reference the "conservation" ethic that was ingrained in all of us back in the 50's and 60's, because for a long time, it bothered me to see critters, and especially furbearers, killed out of season. To this day, I couldn't make much of a full time nuisance trapper because I just don't much like killing furbearers in the summer.

However I recognize the need for it.

It helps when your own ox gets gored. Coons have reached pestilence proportions in a lot of places. It got to the point that coons were invading my garden and decimating my sweet corn patch about three days before it was ripe on an annual basis. If you've never witnessed this, you'll have to take my word that a coon can pretty much ruin a 10' by 15' patch of sweet corn in two nights. That's two weeks worth of sweet corn for me and my family.

Now I set traps at the first sign of coons even investigating the patch. I catch those coons, and I kill them. Fact is, that's the law. You catch a nuisance coon in Ohio you have three choices, kill it, release it on the spot or quarantine it for 60 days to make sure it's not diseased, at which point you can release it into the wild. So, if you want to play "catch and release" coon trapping in Ohio, it's going to cost you feed and housing for those coons for 60 days. I should also note that Ohio liberalized the law a few years ago to allow landowners to take coon any time they are creating a nuisance, no permit, no license required.

And if that weren't bad enough, I now have deer browsing off my garden. My garden is barely 50 yards from my house. I planted greens for a fall crop last year, went out to pick a mess of them, and found that the deer had walked right down the row and grazed them off. Then they came back and grazed off my strawberry patch.

Now I have a very good feeling for what the early settlers went through, and why they didn't give a hoot if all the wild animals got killed. At least I don't have to rely on those crops to keep from starving to death.

I am straying from the point, but not entirely.

I am beginning to wonder if our human/wildlife relationship may be coming full cycle. By that I mean, will the general public again start viewing wildlife as a pest rather than a resource? I know people are getting tired of coons in their attic, and they're getting tired of hitting deer with their cars. (Miz hit two, I hit one, and Miz did $1,000 worth of damage to her car when she hit a coyote.)

I don't know exactly what we can do about this.

We addressed this problem several years ago at the Ohio State Trappers Association when the DOW was trying to decide what to do about nuisance coons. One proposal was to just take the season off them. However, this would have placed them in the category of "pests" like rats and starlings. Instead, we opted for liberalized taking of nuisance coon, while still maintaining a regulated season for utilizing them as a natural resource.

Which leads me to the gist of this discussion. I believe if we want to maintain the status of our wildlife as a valuable natural resource, we must make our definition of "conservation" more broad. Conservation means "wise use", we were taught. Maybe it's time we took this from another angle. In other words, let's not do things that are "unwise".

For example, I believe it is "unwise" to allow critters to expand their populations to the point that they cause problems, especially for non-consumptive users. And I believe the solutions will involve lethal control outside the traditional harvest seasons.

But first, let's start with our own participation here. For a long time, our "wise use" code demanded that we market virtually every furbearer we caught. I'm afraid I can't subscribe to that any longer. Some critters, like small and damaged coons, have no market value. All they do is depress an already depressed marked. And it would be "unwise" to turn these animals loose in areas where they are already overpopulated. Again, we don't want them to become pests. Kill them and dispose of them properly. And don't feel bad about throwing a bad one away. You're actually doing good.

The same can be said for some other animals as well. Don't market bad coyotes, you've already made your contribution by killing it. If you have a badly damaged beaver, throw it out. North America has plenty of beaver.

While this isn't trapping related, deer fall under the same category. Freakin' deer are everywhere!!! And I don't know how many "deer hunters" I talk to and hear: "All I saw were some does and small bucks. I'm just looking to shoot a big buck." And we're supposed to make people believe that sportsmen play the major role in controlling the population of wild animals? For cryin' out loud, shoot some of those does. Do your part. Give them away if you have to.

And for you people that are killing deer... I'll relate by example. Back when we didn't have so many deer, I'd dress a deer right down to the meat between the ribs -- "wise use", you know. But when we have more deer than we need, that practice has become foolish. These days I just muscle out a deer. I don't take any of those sinewy parts on the lower leg, and I don't even open up the chest cavity. The only reason we even gut a deer today is if we have to drag it very far. Otherwise, we don't bloody our hands digging around in the guts. The whole carcass, minus the muscles and back straps, goes on the gut pile. It's just plain unwise to whittle little scraps of meat off a single deer, when the "conservation" effort would be better served if you go kill another one.

In Ohio, you can only kill one buck a year, but in about half the state, you can kill six does. If I had my way, it would be mandatory to kill at least one doe before you could kill a buck. (I'm just kidding, but not by much.)

Where I trap down south, the deer are terribly overpopulated. In one county the limit is three does -- per day! One of the landowners had deer devastating his crops. He got a depredation permit to kill 30 does. He did. The hunting club next door to him had a fit. Well, the devil take 'em! If they had killed their quota of does through the season, maybe the landowner wouldn't have needed that permit.

And this brings me to the crux of the matter. I believe it is "unwise" for sportsmen (and I include trappers) to actively protest these wildlife control measures. I also believe it is unwise to suggest extraordinary, or uneconomical means for dealing with nuisance animals. Relocating nuisance animals is by and large a fool's errand. Animals have to be taken several miles from their capture site to be released. And if the animals have already reached nuisance proportions in that area, then it is likely they will have to be taken horribly long distances. Who's gonna pay for this? In some instances, states have wised up and releasing nuisance animals is no longer a viable option.

Also, in this vein it is important to remember than no animals are sacred when it comes to reaching nuisance proportions. The previous discussion started over a problem with nuisance otters. We like to think of otters as "special", because they were largely extirpated from the landscape years ago, and they're a little bit "exotic" so to speak. But that's one of our success stories, that's becoming too successful. In some places, they've become a nuisance. Given the fact that most otter populations are thriving, there is really not much call for relocating otters. Lethal control is the most viable and most economical means for dealing with nuisance otter. (And, as I stated in another post, with the low price on otter, this problem is bound to get much worse over the next few years.)

So, that's my take on the current state of Wildlife Management. I'm afraid that some of our conservation "ethics", while laudable in their time, have become outmoded. We've spent the last hundred years trying to increase the population of wild animals. Now we may have too many. If we don't endorse measures to keep wild animals from becoming a public nuisance, then we risk a return to having these animals managed as pests rather than resources. We need to look at this as a new day, in order to keep from returning to an old one.

Your comments are welcome.

Hal

I was surprised to hear you were kidding about killing a doe before shooting a buck. That makes sense. In fact, in Wisconsin, that is the law. Other than that, I couldn't agree with your post more; well said.

Really. That is the law in Wisconsin? I wasn't aware of that. Maybe I'll be less jocular about that proposal in the future.

Hal

Hal here in missouri you can apply for a special tag in wildlife areas. I did so a few years back and was chosen for the squaw creek wildlife area, however you must shoot 2 does before you are allowed to take a buck. I think its a great idea, and management tool to use. (as a side note, I was involved with a group in college that did the surveys that determined the amount of tags that were given out for these hunts. We went with US fish and wildlife biologists at night and did spotlight surveys. Was a very interesting activity and I learned a great deal that goes into these management plans.)

Wisconsin seems to be adopting more modern principles as it pertains to wildlife management. I knew of the state's law because I hunted up there with a gentleman I work with who is from Wisconsin. I just googled their DNR and it looks like they have some good ideas. Their model could be a good guide for other DNRs to follow.

If anyone is interested here is their website:

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/

One only needs to look at the Greater Canada goose reintroduction in the Midwest. Golf courses, parks and every small pond are crawling with them. I think the idea was a good one, but maybe the Game and Parks were a little behind in setting seasons to control them. In Nebraska we can hunt them during a special season in September, but for one who wants to hunt when it is 75 degrees and two the limits are small. If they want them controlled I believe they need to run the September season straight into the traditional November opener and open up the bag limits. Right now we can only shoot 2 per day with a possesion limit of 4. When we field hunt it is alot of work for just 2 birds. Some mornings we are done by 8 am. I do believe the Game and Parks are doing a good thing but maybe not seeing far enough down the road to enact measures to control them without having to go to extreme measures. That's just my opinion.

That's the "sportcentric" view. Maximum bag limits and maximum harvest. And I don't disagree with that. But some of these things can't be handled through sporting channels. Like I said, on one part of my trapline the deer limit is three-does-per-day. And they still have too many deer. Same with beaver. There are many areas that have already relegated beaver too the pest heap already, and have no closed season on them. And still the population grows.

Sometimes, extreme and unsportsmanlike measures are called for.

Hal

I want to talk about my ox being gored...over and over again! Basically, I'm agreeing with your fine comments Hal. But, I'm on the 'front-line' so to speak. I farm soybeans and corn, I know what wildlife damage is. Beaver, 'coon' dozens of deer have destroyed my crops year after year. Last year soybeans went to $15.00@bu., an average of thirty to forty deer browsed our soybean fields every day, they cost me thousands of dollars. We cannot grow corn anymore near a waterway or woods, 'coon, beaver and deer tramp and eat it down. Politics enters greatly as far as deer are concerned. One tract of our farmland borders several thousand acres of USDA held'Wetlands'joining also another thousand -plus acres of MDC owned lands; a good bit of that,'wetland area',is posted, no hunting or 'special use' areas.. Then, there's the business factor, our taxidermists, archery shop fellows, hunting sports businesses, they don't want the deer thinned at all,[out of season] for obvious reasons. They carry the big hammer in the,'conservation hearings'held around the State. Deer season is big money here; I'd be foolish to be a one-man deer killer before the season. Otter, then, do not carry a very big stick anymore. Some commissioners want to keep their trout and smallmouth streams productive. All politics here. Strange paradox, but can't kill cottonmouths, copperheads, or rattlers, or any other snake legally, here in Missouri.

Jackson I agree with you somewhat, however being involved in agriculture greatly myself I will have to bring up the point about your views of politics. You say that politics is geared towards these other business ventures with taxidermy, hunting clubs, etc, and ignore you as a farmer. The last time I checked the american farmer recieves the most money in the form of subsidies from the government than any other institution. These I AGREE WITH, because without them crop insurance wouldn't be available, and the stability of the nations food supply would be at stake. However, these critters are a nuisance, but in your last posts you were for relocation not extermination, don't take your problem and make it someone elses.

That's enough! You two fellows screwed up the last thread. If Ric were here, you probably wouldn't be.

-- Hal