My patience has been stretched to the breaking point as a result of the many recent television pieces and newspaper articles relating the horror stories involving deer-vehicle accidents, a significant number resulting in human fatalities; and rampant destruction of landscape plants, gardens, and forest regeneration. I now feel compelled to present the true picture of what has produced these nightmares. Do not be fooled by those who proclaim that it is simply a consequence of man invading the habitat of the deer. This is utter nonsense. Obviously, man is also an animal, and one who requires habitat. History has shown that the two can coexist very successfully.
The directive for resolving conflicts is obvious. Deer populations must be controlled and they must be kept wild. Well-designed firearm hunting seasons are essential, and presently they offer the only practical option. This is not a new revelation. For many years dedicated, objective wildlife biologists conducted, and continually refined, effective programs. Times, however, have changed. The once noble wildlife profession now chooses to, or is forced to, turn its back on the real problems relating to their legal responsibilities, and instead conjure up endangered and threatened species or subspecies, worship wetlands, put pet species where they do not belong, draft regulations, and shuffle papers, among other things. Unfortunately, their efforts often result in unjustified harassment of landowners and the denial of constitutionally-guaranteed property rights.
This is not to suggest that there no longer are any true wildlife professionals, but it has become apparent that their numbers are dwindling. Over the past thirty years many wildlife biologists have sold their souls to the radical environmental movement. Included are many of my old colleagues. When I look over the list of those I have known, I find only one individual besides myself who truly stood up against those determined to eliminate the science from environmental matters.
Just how did these deer problems develop and become increasingly critical? I would like to respond by presenting a synopsis of my 12 years as Big Game Unit Leader for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. I certainly learned a lot from my experiences and feel that my story will be helpful to those truly interested in understanding the current problems and playing a role in their resolution.
I was offered the Leader position in 1979. At first I was reluctant to assume such responsibilities, which entailed the planning, designing, implementation, and coordination of all deer and bear programs statewide. After all, although I had worked with white-tailed deer for 12 years in Maine, New York, and Vermont, most of my time was spent on habitat matters. The decision was made easier by knowing that there were two seasoned black bear experts on board.
After considerable debate, I decided that I could not resist the challenge. Fortunately, I had a few months to do research and talk to knowledgeable technicians. In the process I found a number of matters to be quite bothersome. These I was determined to rectify. I was aware that New York had the reputation for possessing one of the finest deer management programs in the nation. This I was determined to uphold and improve on.
No one warned me that a monster confronted us in the form of uncontrolled deer populations in much of the southern two-thirds of the State. That is where we had the legislative authority to issue Deer Management Permits. Such permits allowed the holder to harvest an additional deer of either sex and represented the required tool for achieving population control. A regular license entitled the holder to take one deer with antlers at least three inches in length. Harvesting only bucks distorts sex ratios, without affording control of population size. All this did not deter me; it merely made the challenge greater.
The need for greater discipline and to be more aggressive in effecting population control were addressed immediately. Over the next few years a deer population management handbook was prepared. The first effort was to establish and proclaim the program’s legitimacy. A thorough review of the Environmental Conservation Law was conducted. One section directs the State to conserve, improve, and protect its natural resources and environment in order to enhance the health, safety, and welfare of the people. Another entry refers to maintaining conditions under which man and nature can thrive in harmony with each other. Then there is the charge to develop and carry out programs and procedures which will promote natural propagation and maintenance of desirable species in ecological balance. It recognizes the need for compatibility of the production and harvesting of fish and wildlife with other necessary and desirable land uses. And Deer Management Permits are to be issued when additional harvests are necessary to properly manage the deer herd in balance with available deer range and natural food supply.
The responsibilities and mandates of the Department of Environmental Conservation and its Big Game Unit were, and still are, extremely clear. Advantage was taken of this clarity to successfully defend the Unit’s actions when confronted with challenges from the public and also Department employees. This had much to do with the subsequent success of the deer management program. A review of calculated legal deer take bears testimony to the increased effort to achieve adequate harvests. In 1978, the year before I took over the program, the total harvest of deer included 51,782 adult males and 19,921 adult females. At this point it should be noted that a harvest ratio of approximately 70 adult females to every 100 adult males is necessary just to stabilize populations. In 1982 the comparable harvest figures were 78,460 males and 62,338 females. Experiences such as this make one fully appreciate just how prolific white-tailed deer populations are and the need to keep the lead flying. Progress was being made, but more had to be done.
Frustrations over the inability to adequately control numbers and maintain them at target levels encouraged the consideration of alternatives. Finally, in 1987 I single-handedly campaigned for a change in the law that would allow an individual to possess more than one Deer Management Permit in a given year. It was a lonely job, but I was determined. I could not believe how few had the dedication that I did. I prepared all sorts of charts and graphs showing that, without such a legislative change, it would be impossible to ever control populations. I gave two presentations at New York State Conservation Council (federation of sportmen’s club) meetings. In neither case did the Department include these as part of their agenda. After my presentation to the full council, I encouraged a vote to be taken among the 44 represented counties. They obliged with a final tally of 25 yeas, 18 no, and one abstention. The stage was set — it was almost automatic that if the Council supported a bill it would sail right through and be enacted. I drafted a final bill and guess what? My Department never introduced it. Although this was not the first time I noted chinks in the armor, I began to take the threats to my job security more seriously and get to wonder what in the devil is behind this. Obviously, there were others, either within the Department or outside, that had more influence. Was not the Leader in charge? There followed a series of events that convinced me, more and more, that I was a target, as was sound, scientific deer management. And yes, the more-than-one-permit fiasco was the first major shot in the back. God knows who was controlling the shots.
The second shot in the back I refer to as “The Westchester Retreat.” Historically, Westchester County has been a major deer mess, which has received much national media attention. The only hunting that the Department chose to sanction was with long bows. Archery hunting neither controls populations nor maintains wildness. The result is marauding, semi-tame animals that devastate landscape plants, gardens, and natural vegetation and pose very serious threats to motorists. In 1988 I decided that we had turned our backs on this horrendous problem far too long. A section of the Environmental Law allows the Department to declare special firearm deer seasons in Westchester, to be held during the month of January. This is the same section that permitted the successful hunts in Suffolk County on Long Island.
After weighing options, which included meetings with town supervisors and their boards, the Towns of North Salem, Bedford, and Lewisboro were chosen to be sites of special hunts in 1989. A number of open meetings were also held. It is interesting to note that at one the selfish archery hunters sided with environmentalists and anti-hunters assuming there might be a difference between the two. Look out, here comes shot number two in the back by my noble Department. No season for 1989, but definitely 1990. That was 15 years ago and I am still waiting for the first one.
My frustrations with Department inaction and the apparent influence of clandestine, outside interests led me to write a memorandum saying that I wanted to requisition a garbage compactor that had the capacity to take all the bureaucratic baloney and, due to a total lack of substance, compact it into a cube one inch on a side.
Knowing that I had crossed the Rubicon and sound management was on the way out, I decided to vent my spleen. I was probably quite obnoxious, but I was ready for a change. I continued to see more and more individuals, once dedicated to sound deer management falling by the wayside and beginning to babble about things like K carrying capacity which is a concoction of those high thinkers who either do not believe that deer populations should be held in balance with natural food supplies or do not want to take the grief that may result from promoting greater harvests. Yes, a definite cop out. I was well aware that I was witnessing the beginning of the end of a once great program. An example is a memorandum from a Regional Supervisor to the Bureau Chief saying that they believed deer populations in a particular unit were at or near carrying capacity on the right side of the productivity curve. Where the devil did they get this from? That unit had a long history of mismanagement.
And then there was the independent audit by two college professors from Stony Brook, who had no idea what they were doing. I could not bail them out, since it was to be independent. They subsequently tried to foist a high price tag contract on the State that would revolutionize the way we determine harvest quotas. I blew that out of the water, saving the Department a lot of money. I have no idea who prompted the audit and what the intention was.
The whole scenario is quite interesting, as long as one has a strong stomach. I was golden during the period from 1980 through 1988, being the Department’s spokesman for deer management statewide. Interestingly, a random survey of deer hunters had been conducted by Cornell University, which revealed that three out of four rated the deer program as good to excellent. Another survey showed only 15 percent dissatisfied. Two non-random surveys by the Legislature produced very comparable results. Little use was made of any of these. Why? What a metamorphosis; I became a big lead sinker. Some time in September of 1990 it became official that I was no longer Big Game Unit Leader. Interestingly, I was not even given the courtesy of receiving a copy of the memorandum announcing the move. Nothing was released to the news media, as I recall, possibly because I had developed a good relationship with a lot of those people. I was bestowed with the dignified title of Deer Specialist. The administrators claimed that the move was designed to take better advantage of my talents. It is possible that my demotion resulted from asking the Assistant Director if we still had a commitment to the deer population management program as written and accepted for years. Some people are too darned sensitive.
My job became quite meaningless and I started thinking about retirement. Nonetheless, I kept pounding away when I had the opportunity. At a Northeast Deer Group Meeting at Virginia Tech I unknowingly created an uproar by the combination of a presentation discussing the role of the public in deer management, which questioned the legality of establishing citizen advisory groups, especially when they are allowed to make technical decisions and a handout entitled “Let Us Not Legislate/Let the Legislature Not Execute.” The latter was a simple discussion of the separation of powers, but, for some reasons or other, it produced a high level of ire among all the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Directors. Hopefully, someone can figure that all out.
The following year I shocked the participants of the Northeast Deer Technical Committee meeting in Lenox, Massachusetts. I chastised the deer project leaders of Massachusetts and Connecticut for referring to their domains as urban states. I noted that one had only to look at their Rand McNally to know this is not the case and, by suggesting such, they give aid and comfort to those out to destroy deer management programs and hunting itself. I then proceeded to give what should have been an eye-opening presentation entitled “Deer Populations, Human Densities, and Huntability.” It noted that a more precise identification of causes for hunting restrictions is essential, and referred to an analysis of human densities and realized deer harvests in southern New York, I had completed. Involved were 160 firearm hunting towns with human densities similar to those of northern Westchester County, where conclusions are drawn that firearm hunting is unsafe. Mean total harvests were near the five per square mile mark. These figures made it quite apparent that high harvests can safely be realized in towns most consider unhuntable, other than by bow. Revelations like this should have been welcomed by deer managers dedicated to sound management. Apparently I generated little interest. What had happened to all these people who I had known for many years and with whom I spent many hours afield? Somebody or something had come over them. Had they sold their souls?
I had not totally given up yet. I was on the program at the 1992 joint Northeast and Southeast Deer Group Meeting in Annapolis, Maryland. I gave a presentation entitled “Simplified Deer Management.” It outlined a simple, logical management program that requires a minimum of types of data, all of which are readily obtainable, and can be easily explained. It was well received by those interested in sound, scientific management of wildlife resources. But there were others in attendance. A paper written by H. Brian Underwood and William F. Porter, entitled “Values and Science: White-tailed Deer Management in Eastern Parks” was presented by a National Park employee. My first experience with Brian involved his plagiarizing a paper of mine at a conference in Texas. Syracuse University promised that he would be disciplined. This never seemed to come to pass. I discussed the matter with Brian. He showed no remorse and said that he would do anything to make a name for himself. I locked horns with William any time I had to review the deer projects he was leading under contract with us. I referred to them as liabilities since I had to spend time on something we were getting nothing out of.
The Values and Science paper discussed the varying carrying capacities that could be expected to emit from the combination of a National Park Service employee and a college professor. Of course, there is an economic one and an ecological one. Everyone knows what happens when one tries to put more than a gallon of water into a gallon jug. The phony carrying capacities of Underwood and Porter are designed to allow them to turn their backs on the welfare of deer populations and the critical portions of their ranges. They have no place in scientific writing. Their main reference is the noted Graeme Caughley of Australia. I had the opportunity to deal with Graeme a short while before he died. I challenged some of his statements and he admitted to sometimes saying things just for spite.
A presentation entitled “The Ultimate Tinker Or the Venerable Scientist” at the Northeast Deer Technical Committee meeting in Pittsburg, New Hampshire in 1994 terminated my association with the once noble wildlife profession. I concluded by saying that, as time goes by, the tinker becomes more prevalent.
After my demotion I had two opportunities to speak with the Director, Division of Fish and Wildlife, regarding my plight. The first was at his office. I had requested that we get together so that he could explain just why I was thrown out of my Big Game Unit Leader position. The meeting was cordial and covered a lot of ground, but he never offered any explanation. Shortly thereafter, I spent a day in the field in the Catskills to view the devastation of natural vegetation. Again, we talked over many things, but he never offered an explanation as to why I was thrown out. The last time I saw him was after he retired. It was in a bookstore, and it was very obvious that he did not really want to talk with me. I confronted him. He looked at me and said something to the effect, I should have stood up against the environmentalists. Then he left.
The above might provide clues, but the story is obviously very incomplete. Since I was the target, I was not privy to the details of what had all the earmarks of a clandestine operation. Could there be any connection with the Nature Conservancy and its Natural Heritage program which allowed for the infiltration of many fish and game agencies? This program, incidentally, was to be under contract for two years. Lo and behold, they are still there. Someday, possibly the whole affair will be revealed. The time is long overdue for the stranglehold that the various well-heeled, ultraradical environmental groups — who play on people’s emotions, practice deception, and employ bad science — be thoroughly exposed and neutralized.
It is interesting to note that, although I was temporarily replaced, New York presently has no Big Game Unit, and thus no Big Game Unit Leader, and possibly no effective program. What a sad commentary. Anyone wonder why New York, and many other states, have horrendous deer problems?
Anyone who has had the patience to endure through this long-winded presentation is to be applauded. As you may have noticed, I have a lot on my mind. I am deeply concerned by some of the directions of our great country, including the management of its valuable natural resources. The general public and their representatives at all levels must demand common-sensical, scientifically sound approaches. There unfortunately are many highly influential individuals and groups among us, who have ulterior motives.
Nate Dickinson
January 6, 2005
| Back to: | ||
|
|
|
