Read the full report. Click this image.

The report brought about plenty of criticism from within the state (See D&DH Editor Dan Schmidt’s thoughts HERE), but regardless it called for some major changes in deer management in the state.

The following is the DNR’s update on those changes.

Background
Fulfilling a campaign promise, Governor Scott Walker appointed an independent deer trustee in October 2011 to review DNR’s deer management and address hunter complaints. Trustee James Kroll – chair of forest wildlife at Stephen F. Austin State University in Texas and director of the Institute for White-tailed Deer Management and Research – was assisted by David Guynn, professor of forest resources at Clemson University, and Gary Alt, former head of Pennsylvania’s deer program.

After a 9-month review – involving hundreds of DNR documents and public comments, and meetings with DNR staff, citizen groups, hunters and other natural resource agencies – the trustee committee submitted a final report with 62 recommendations. It can be found at dnr.wi.gov by typing “deer trustee report” in the search box.

Notable recommendations
Develop a deer management assistance program (DMAP) working closely with landowners and hunters.
Reduce the number of Deer Management Units. Currently there are 130 DMUs.
Limit the use of numeric population goals and estimates. Instead, evaluate deer habitat and deer health.
Develop an electronic deer registration system (Telecheck).
Simplify regulations. Review deer populations and seasons every three to five years instead of annually.

Implementation
DNR has met with Stakeholder groups to get feedback on the report and started planning the needed steps for implementation.  Some of the recommendations will require administrative rule changes or legislation. These recommendations will likely impact the 2014 deer seasons.  Other simpler recommendations will be implemented sooner.  Some recommendations will require further discussion with the public on how best to implement them.

The department will use stakeholder advisory groups to help guide implementation and establish a website where implementation progress can be monitored.   This website should be up and running by mid-December.

The Timeline (as swift as possible)
The DNR will be working as swiftly as possible to implement the recommendations made in the report. Some that will occur in 2013 include initiating a pilot DMAP program in parts of the state, installing a Telecheck deer registration system, and improving outreach and public involvement at the local level.

Recommendations that require law changes will be targeted to the 2014 seasons. Improving land cover data and developing deer herd and habitat metrics will be done as resources and data become available.

Easy Way to Stay Updated
Individuals can subscribe for updates at: https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/WIDNR/subscriber/new

No more confusing maps or forgotten regulations booklets and wondering if that buck or duck coming into your spot is fair game.

It really is a great idea. In fact, I think every state ought to make similar apps available. But — and I guess maybe I’m just cantankerous — should we really have to pay for it? I know, I know. Ninety-nine cents isn’t much, but then, I guess that’s the point. Why charge a buck anyway?

I’m sure developing this app wasn’t cheap. I’m also sure the DNR can use every buck it pulls in (I subscribe to the idea of buying game stamps even if you don’t plan on hunting or fishing for that game that season), but I guess my point is that I think many of the folks who really could use this app will be resistant to buying it. If the DNR offered it for free, well, then it really might just be the best app idea I’ve seen in a while.

Here’s the release from the DNR

When to pull the trigger? Let the new DNR sunrise/sunset app be your guide

MADISON — It’s late in the day and a beautiful night is on the way. You’re in your tree stand and you realize you don’t have the hunting regulation pamphlet with you. You don’t know if it is still legal to shoot. Now what do you do?

It’s very simple. The answer is in your palm. 

Tested by Wisconsin conservation wardens, the app has been developed by the Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Law Enforcement to answer your needs.

Using a GPS system, the app tells you to the second the opening and closing time for various hunting seasons for your current location.

• No calculating is needed.
• No adding or subtracting of minutes is needed.
• What you see on the screen for an opening time or a closing time is when you can legally pull the trigger or when you should no longer shoot.

You also can use it to learn the opening and closing times for locations anywhere in the state or for future dates.

The app is really simple

Just turn on your phone’s GPS.

• Open the app and select the date you are going to hunt.
• Select the species you want to hunt.
• Set your location using the traditional state map areas (A-F) and the correct shooting opening and closing times will be displayed.

The app comes complete with a state time zone map tab, an informational tab and an email shortcut to notify the DNR about app needs and issues.

How to get it

Not only is it efficient, it’s cheap – that’s 99 cents cheap! Here are two surefire ways to get it:

• QR code above: If you have a QR code reader on your phone, fire it up and read the code shown above. It will take you right to the Play Store. After selecting the Plays Store [dnr.wi.gov/u/?q=16], you’ll be brought right to the app.
• Download the app at the Android Market. Search for Sunrise-Sunset by the WI DNR.

*Note, this app is not yet available in i-Tunes.

Hunt, Fish, Eat takes place at the Monroe County Fairgrounds and is free. The four-session course starts Sept. 20, offering hands-on learning in a safe environment.

Hunt, Fish, Eat is an opportunity for people ages 18 and older to improve their self-reliance skills and to learn to harvest a delicious source of fresh, local meat.

Curriculum will focus on laws and regulations, firearms and safety, locating a hunting spot, tracking and field dressing your harvest, and handling and preparing your venison for the table.

Each session will include an opportunity to sample venison recipes from instructors, as well as examine a variety of hunting gear and resources.

Participants should attend all sessions.

Each year, millions of hunters set foot in the woods and harvest millions of deer. We count these harvests as a way to manage the whitetail population and to attempt to quantify an area’s deer hunting opportunities. However, not all states determine their harvest totals using the same methods.

GET THE LATEST STATE-BY-STATE HARVEST NUMBERS HERE

Means of coming up with a total harvest include surveys, mandatory registrations, car checks and physical counts in the field. But they can be divided even further. Some surveys are done online, over the phone or through the mail; and some mandatory registrations require physical check points while some can be done over the phone or online.

Counting deer harvests is something state wildlife agencies have experimented with for many years. Most states have switched up their methods more than once, and most continue to do so in an attempt to get the most accurate and convenient method while maintaining a reasonable budget.

Having mandatory registrations with check stations is a very accurate way of reaching a total because, in theory, each whitetail harvested is accounted for. However, many hunters oppose this because of the inconvenience, and the costs of managing check stations and hiring personnel to collect and analyze the vast amount of data can add up quickly.

Despite the downfalls, mandatory registrations are still very popular. Twenty-five states and four Canadian provinces use some sort of mandatory registration practice.

Surveys are also a very popular option for estimating harvest totals. Fourteen states and four provinces use surveys as their main method of calculating harvests.

Post-hunt surveys often include information such as the number of deer harvested, sex, age and weight of each deer, where it was killed, and what harvest method was used. Some surveys will even ask for a buck’s antler measurements so accurate records can be kept.

Most agencies that use surveys generate a random sample from a list of hunting license holders. They will then request the selected hunters complete a survey online, through the mail or over the phone. The idea is that the data from the selected sample should be representative of the total population.

The downfall of surveys is it is sometimes difficult to get hunters to participate if it isn’t mandatory. For example, each year South Carolina chooses 25,000 hunters at random to participate in its survey in an attempt to get reports from 15 percent of licensed hunters.

In 2009, South Carolina’s Department of Natural Resources received 6,501 surveys back, which was about a 26 percent response rate. However, when considering the number of hunters in the state, the survey only measured about 4 percent of the total hunting activity.

Some states are getting creative with their reporting methods and are choosing to incorporate new technology into their calculations. Many states now allow hunters to report their harvests online, and Arkansas has even developed its own harvest-reporting app for the iPhone.

In 2010 Idaho attempted to go completely paperless with its reporting. Agencies taking advantage of new technology are saving money as well as making hunting preparation more convenient for hunters. In most states, hunters can now purchase their hunting licenses online, and many allow deer tags to be printed from their website, too.

Not all states have been able to improve their calculation methods though, even with the help of advancing technology. Harvest calculations cost money, and with a declining economy in the past few years, some states have had to cut back on funding for wildlife agencies.

Florida has had spotty estimates for harvest totals since 2004 because of staffing cuts at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Michigan had to eliminate some check stations in 2009 and 2010 because of budget cuts.

Other factors that affect harvest calculations are changes to the calculation method itself. Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho and Texas have all recently altered their methods for estimating whitetail harvests. Most changes are simply new rules for surveys that will alter new harvest calculations slightly. However, in 2009 Texas changed its formula for estimated white-tailed deer harvests, which ultimately changed its harvest statistics for the last 10 years and put its 2008 harvest as the new all-time single-season record.

Texas still sends out mail surveys similar to many other states, but it has adjusted the non-responding bias correction factor, which has in turn increased the yearly harvest by more than 100,000 deer. The state’s wildlife authorities reported the bias correction factor was changed because of information obtained in telephone follow-ups to the mail surveys sent out in the 2005 to 2007 seasons.

Although many hunters consider harvest calculations to be inconvenient or intrusive, gathering information about each statewide harvest serves many purposes in managing wildlife. State wildlife agencies can use the information from these counts to set bag limits, estimate deer population, and assess hunter approval.

Wildlife agencies use the number of deer harvested each season to estimate how many deer are in the area. This gives them an idea of how many deer the state’s hunters should aim to harvest the next season. If the harvest estimate is inaccurate because of lack of reporting by hunters, it could lead to a significant imbalance in the deer population in future seasons.

For example, one way wildlife agencies estimate the total deer population using harvest is through the SAK (Sex-Age-Kill) method, which is used in Wisconsin. According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, SAK is used when the hunting season is over and the total harvest is known. It uses the number of bucks harvested, the age structure of the harvested bucks and does, and the fawn to doe ratios that were observed during summer to estimate the number of deer in the state before the hunting season began. Then, to determine the post-hunt population, they multiply the total harvest by 1.15 (to factor in an estimated 15 percent non-recovered wounding and poaching mortality) and subtract from the pre-hunt population. This count is then used to set goals for the upcoming hunting season.

Because the surveys issued often include information beyond just the number of deer harvested, agencies can look at how satisfied hunters were with the season and make changes accordingly. Hunters who participate in surveys and follow mandatory registration rules ultimately help make hunting better for all who are involved.

Get The Latest State-By-State Harvest Facts

Looking for in-depth facts and tips about whitetail deer hunting? The 2013 Deer Hunters’ Almanac from the editors of Deer & Deer Hunting magazine is a reference book chock-full of tips, entertaining hunting stories and practical advice. The 2013 Almanac editions features a comprehensive state-by-state reference guide that includes harvest statistics for every state; strategies for archers and gun hunters; stories from real hunters; and a comprehensive reference section.

Order your 2012 Deer Hunters’ Almanac Today!

Deer & Deer Hunting’s

Teriyaki Meatballs
2 pounds ground venison
2 eggs
1/2 cup cornflake crumbs
1/2 cup milk
3 tablespoons grated onion
1 teaspoon salt
1/4 teaspoon pepper

Homemade Teriyaki Sauce
1/2 cup water
1 cup soy sauce
3/4 teaspoon garlic powder
2 cloves garlic
1 1/2 teaspoons sugar

Beat eggs and mix well with remaining ingredients. Shape into small balls. Put a single layer in a baking dish. Pour teriyaki sauce over meatballs and bake about 45 minutes at 300 degrees. Turn every 15 minutes.

Check out these deals on our CDs!
301 Venison Recipes CD: From $9.99 to $5
30 Years of D&DH on CD: From $99.99 to $29.99

QDMA’s release included this strong position statement from Kip Adams, the group’s Director of Education & Outreach (and a certified wildlife biologist):

“There are no benefits for deer hunters in the growth of the captive deer-breeding industry — only risks. It is QDMA’s mission to protect the future of white-tailed deer and our hunting heritage, and we oppose anything that puts those at risk.”

Read the full release here.

Warren immediately fired back on his website, Twitter and across national media platforms, comparing QDMA to the anti-hunting group HSUS.

“it’s clear from the recent statement from QDMA that this could be just as radical of an agenda as the folks with HSUS.” Warren wrote.

Later in the release (view it here), Warren states: “In my opinion the claim from QDMA that deer farming poses a threat to the future of hunting couldn’t be further from the truth.”

Deer & Deer Hunting readers: What do you think about the debate?

An intensive study in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan titled “Role of predators, winter weather and habitat on white-tailed deer fawn survival” has revealed that for the third straight year, coyotes killed more adult deer and more fawns than wolves, bobcats or bears.

Conducted just north of the Wisconsin-Michigan border and lead by the Carnivore Ecology Laboratory at Mississippi State University, the study uses radio collars on fawns and adult deer to log their movements, choice of habitats and causes of mortality.

GPS collars are also used to track the area’s top predators, including coyotes, bobcats, bears and wolves in the study area.

For the third straight year, coyotes killed more adult deer and more fawns than wolves, bobcats or bears. Three years of records show coyotes have preyed on seven adult deer in the study, wolves on three and bear and bobcat one each. Coyotes have also killed 22 fawns. Bobcats took 12 fawns. Bears and wolves each killed four. (Researchers also documented one fawn killed by a bald eagle.)

The study isn’t complete, but the trend is increasing awareness that coyotes might be a more significant predator than any other species besides us.

Hat tip to Paul Smith at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Even more alarming is the suggestion in the third to last paragraph that many more breeders might be putting profits above the regulations that protect the safety of Texas’ wild whitetails.

NEW SUMMERFIELD, Texas — Texas’ hunting season for white-tailed deer has now ended. Normally, Billy Powell would be counting his profit from catering to “hornographers,” hunters who will pay as much as $100,000 to bag a monster buck with impressive headgear.

Instead, the 78-year-old deer breeder is under house arrest and wearing an ankle monitor.

Meanwhile, hundreds of his deer, part of a herd that had included two big bucks named Hit Man and Barry, have been put down in a scandal that has rocked Texas’ $2.8 billion deer-hunting and -breeding industry, the largest in the nation.

Powell is one of 1,236 registered Texas breeders. Some have paid up to $1 million for first-rate bucks they mate with captive does. Their progeny, 103,155 registered this year, are raised in pens and released on high-fenced ranches for hunting.

But Hit Man and Barry were smuggled into Texas from Northern states where two deer diseases are found.

After a four-year federal investigation, Powell paid $1.5 million in fines and restitution and pleaded guilty to charges of smuggling more than three dozen white-tailed deer worth more than $800,000 from Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Mitch Lockwood, big-game director for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, said Powell put the state’s 4 million wild deer “and the entire Texas deer-breeding industry at risk.”

Powell and other breeders say regulators have become overzealous, out for hefty fines that become their agency’s cut of the burgeoning deer-farming business.

“Parks and Wildlife don’t like deer breeders, and they’ll do anything to get you,” Powell said. “ I did wrong, but they did more wrong.”

Hunters rate trophy bucks according to a scoring system developed by Theodore Roosevelt’s Boone and Crockett Club in 1887. The score includes antler length and circumference, with the best Texas white-tails traditionally scoring 150 to 160.

Today, thanks to breeding, mammoth deerzillas are scoring 200 or more.

Texas outlawed importing out-of-state deer to prevent the introduction of bovine tuberculosis and chronic wasting disease, a neurological disorder similar to mad cow disease.

Still, some breeders have ignored the ban.

Barry was among the bucks Powell had smuggled from Pennsylvania, where he was known as Fat Boy. Hit Man was actually Silver Storm, from Indiana.

Barry and Hit Man died of natural causes before authorities brought charges against Powell last year, but they helped establish the government’s case. Powell pleaded guilty in June to smuggling 37 deer.

In the following release, DIFW takes a somewhat subdued position against supplemental  feeding. Rather than banning the practice altogether, DIFW is trying to educate the public about problems that arise due to feeding.

A Position Statement of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife:The Practice of Supplemental Feeding

Supplemental feeding of deer is gaining popularity in Maine. Practiced primarily during late autumn, winter, and early spring, deer feeding involves placing grains, apples, hay, and other feeds where deer will find and consume them.

A diverse array of people feed deer. Many are suburbanites who feed a few deer; others provide supplemental food to literally hundreds of deer within deer wintering areas. Deer feeding sites are sometimes maintained by municipalities, which commit a portion of their tax revenues to deer feeding, or by businesses that fund deer feeding operations as a cost of doing business.

People are motivated to feed deer for a variety of reasons. They may believe deer cannot survive winter without supplemental food, or they believe that feeding deer in winter will result in a larger, huntable population the next year. Suburban landowners may believe supplemental foods will divert deer away from expensive shrubbery, hence reducing landscaping costs. Others simply enjoy seeing deer at close range. Some business owners know that attracting deer also attracts customers.

The Department acknowledges that most individuals who feed deer are well-intentioned. As the state agency responsible for the stewardship of Maine’s wildlife resources, we are compelled to alert Maine people to the many problems that winter feeding may exert upon deer and their habitat.

Some Disadvantages of Supplemental Feeding

Feeding deer in late fall may disrupt deer migration to natural wintering areas.
In early winter, deer normally migrate to preferred wintering habitat, in some cases more than 20 miles from summer range. Deer “short-stopped” by supplemental feeding operations are often more vulnerable to malnutrition, because they do not have access to the right type and amount of foods found in traditional wintering habitat. Also, without the protection of wintering habitat, deer are particularly vulnerable to severe winter weather and predation.

Supplemental feeding may not reduce deer losses during winter.
Predation, not starvation, is the major cause of winter mortality among deer in Maine. Although predators, such as coyotes and bobcats, will selectively kill winter-weakened deer, they are also able to prey upon healthy, vigorous deer. Winter severity (deep snow, intense cold, glare ice on lakes) and the quality of wintering habitat are the real determinants of deer survival in winter. Supplementally-fed deer are still vulnerable to predation, if wintering conditions are severe, particularly where deer are being fed in marginal habitat.

Supplemental feeding may actually increase predation.
Providing a supplemental food source crowds deer into a smaller area than when deer range widely to find food. Concentrated deer maintain a limited network of escape trails, since they often bed near feeders. Deer require extensive trails to elude predators. It is not unusual to observe predation on deer within sight of supplemental feeders.

Deer feeding sites near homes also place deer at greater risk of death from free-roaming dogs.
Family pets that are allowed to roam pose a serious threat to deer, particularly when snow is deep and crusted. Winter feeding operations that concentrate deer in residential areas increase the likelihood that deer will be run and killed by neighborhood dogs.

Deer feeding sites may increase deer/vehicle collisions.
Most deer feeding is conducted near homes, which places deer in close proximity to well-traveled highways. Collisions with motor vehicles near supplemental feeding sites can result in significant losses to a local deer population. For example, at a large feeding site near a well-traveled highway in Maine, 60 to 70 deer are lost to motor vehicle collisions each winter. This loss may exceed the amount of natural losses one would expect, if supplemental feeding were not being practiced in that wintering area. Locating deer feeding sites 1/2 mile or more from plowed roads can minimize road-kill losses.

Deer May Starve When Fed Supplemental Foods During Winter

Deer require one or two weeks to adjust to new foods.
Waiting until deer are starving before offering supplemental foods actually hastens starvation. Stress (related to diet change) is minimized if deer are introduced to supplemental foods early in the winter, when they are still healthy.

Some foods are not easily digested by deer during winter.
Hay of any kind, kitchen scraps, or cabbage and lettuce trimmings do not provide adequate nutrition for deer. Feeding these foods to deer can lead to starvation. Deer usually do well when apples, oats, or acorns are given as diet supplements. However, the best supplemental food is a complete horse, dairy, or deer formulation in pellet form. It contains about 14% protein and provides sufficient energy and fiber to promote normal digestive function in most deer.

Deer compete aggressively for scarce, high-quality foods.
When crowded together, only the strongest, most dominant individuals in the deer population gain access to the food. Frequently, those deer most vulnerable to starvation in winter (usually fawns) are denied access to supplemental feed by more aggressive deer. Distributing supplemental feed in many locations reduces competition among deer.

Deer reject grains or pelleted foods that have become spoiled or moldy.
It is difficult to keep grains dry outdoors. Special feeders, which protect feed from rain and snow, may help, but none are foolproof. Hence, much feed is typically wasted. There are some molds deer may not detect; consequently, they may ingest toxins that can be fatal.

Supplementally-fed deer may die from eating too much feed at one time.
Losses of this nature have been observed at winter deer feeding sites in Maine. Mature bucks seem to be most prone to overeating high-energy supplemental foods.

Supplemental feeding is expensive.
Grains and pelleted foods are sold at a premium price in winter. A deer will consume 2 to 3 lbs of grain each day. Deer seem to be able to communicate the location of “free food” among themselves. Consequently, people who feed a few deer in December often find they are buying food for considerably more deer by February. Some large-scale Feeding operators spend $300 or more per week on grain for wild deer.

Once a feeding program is begun, it should not be terminated until spring greenery emerges. Ending a feeding operation prematurely, or providing inadequate amounts of feed, will lead to nutritional problems for deer that have become dependent on supplemental feed. Attracting deer to feeding sites, while failing to provide adequate amounts of supplemental foods can actually cause malnutrition in normally healthy deer populations.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), is sometimes requested to fund, support, or implement supplemental feeding programs for deer during winter. While emotionally appealing to those concerned for the welfare of deer, emergency feeding programs seldom succeed in reducing deer losses during severe winters, and the cost of procuring and distributing feed to several thousand deer wintering areas across Maine would be prohibitive.

Deer concentrations at feeding sites may increase the vulnerability of deer to diseases.
MDIFW has documented deer concentrations equivalent to 350 deer per square mile at some feeding sites. This level of crowding produces ideal conditions for outbreaks of infectious diseases. One such outbreak occurred in 1994 among supplementally-fed deer in Michigan. The highly infectious disease, “Bovine tuberculosis,” is currently infecting deer and cattle within 4 counties in Michigan. This disease outbreak poses a serious threat to deer populations and livestock in the affected area.
In Maine, we have documented an outbreak of demodectic mange among deer using a winter feeding site. Demodectic mange is specific to white-tailed deer and is caused by tiny mites living on the hair. Severely infested deer lose their protective winter pelage and are covered with skin lesions. Mange mites are transmitted among deer by close contact, as at crowded feeding sites.

Supplemental feeding may have long-term impacts on the behavior of both deer and the people who feed them.
Deer tend to lose their wariness after prolonged contact with people at feeders.
This loss of wildness in deer diminishes their appeal to many people. Moreover, lack of fear of humans may result in intensified conflicts with people, whether from browsing damage or risk of collisions with motor vehicles.

People’s attitudes toward deer change after initiation of supplemental feeding projects.
Those who feed deer often become protective of “their” deer. They tend to lose sight of the fact that deer are wild animals managed in trust for all of Maine’s citizens. Concentrating deer at winter feeding sites treats deer more like livestock than wildlife. It is not unusual for overly-protective landowners to quit hunting deer and to actively discourage others from hunting. The desire to protect deer from perceived harm occurs even when hunting seasons precede the time deer are being supplementally fed. As such, the practice of supplementally feeding deer during winter can lead to increased land posting, which in turn, can thwart MDIFW’s efforts to maintain deer populations at desirable levels.

Supplemental feeding may increase browsing of landscape plants and gardens.
Even when provided with optimal supplemental foods, deer will continue to browse on shrubbery, tree buds, garden plantings, and seedlings in the adjacent forest. At many feeding sites, deer may occur at densities that are 3 to 5 times higher than “normal” wintering density. When highly concentrated, deer can literally kill all vegetation within their reach in the vicinity (one to several hundred acres) of deer feeding sites. Attracting deer to supplemental feeders in residential neighborhoods may result in deer damage to neighbors’ property, because deer usually feed while en route to and from feeding sites.

Supplemental feeding within a deer wintering area can reduce the forest’s ability to shelter deer.
Heavy browsing caused by deer concentrated near feeding stations can affect forest regeneration and growth.

Over-browsing of cedar, hemlock, spruce, and balsam fir can destroy or significantly retard the development of critical future winter shelter. Hungry deer can eliminate young hardwood trees, removing important natural winter food. Deer crowded into the areas near feeding sites can eliminate fifteen years of young forest growth in one winter. Few landowners can afford such losses in the productivity of their forest.
Some landowners cut northern white-cedar trees to provide food for deer in winter. Although this provides highly palatable forage in the short run, cutting cedar trees to feed deer may reduce the carrying capacity of that woodlot for future generations of deer. Cedar does not regenerate following cutting, if deer are abundant. Young cedar seedlings cannot withstand heavy browsing by deer. Over time, the practice of cutting cedar to feed deer in wintering areas will gradually eliminate white-cedar from the forest. Cedars are long-lived, easily attaining 200 years of age if left uncut.

Each winter, cedar trees drop some of their green leaves when dislodged by snow, wind, ice storms, and squirrel and porcupine feeding. Deer rely heavily on this, and other sources of litterfall, for a substantial portion of their daily browse requirements. Cedar trees are too valuable to the long-term viability of deer wintering habitat to be felled solely as a short-term forage boost. A living cedar tree may provide food and shelter for deer for 100 years — a felled cedar feeds 10 deer for 1 day.

Preferred Alternatives to Supplemental Feeding of Deer

There are better approaches than supplemental feeding to ensure the health and survival of deer during winter.

The key is to maintain sufficient amounts of high-quality wintering habitat. Rather than expending limited Department resources on quick fixes, such as emergency feeding programs,we will achieve better long-term benefits by ensuring that deer have access to high-quality wintering habitat. This, in the long run, will minimize the effects of severe winters, reduce deer losses during normal winters, and provide for a more sustainable population of deer to be enjoyed by all of Maine’s people.

Because deer in Maine exist near the northern limit of the species’ range, abnormally severe winters will inevitably cause periodic declines in deer abundance.

In nearly all parts of Maine, deer populations are normally kept well below the capacity of the habitat to support deer. This ensures that deer remain productive, that they have access to high quality forages, and that they achieve near-optimum body size and condition prior to winter. Body fat provides almost 1/3 of a deer’s energy needs while yarded in winter. Fat deer can withstand more severe wintering conditions than lean deer.Healthy, naturally-fed deer do not require a handout to thrive in Maine.

The Citizens of Maine can best help Maine’s winter deer herds by:

Taking an active role in managing their lands to improve deer habitat naturally.

MDIFW encourages landowners to develop a management plan for their lands to provide optimal winter and summer habitat for deer. Many wood harvesting practices are good for deer, while also providing income from timber production. Some practices, such as weeding, thinning, crop tree selection, and firewood cutting can provide immediate benefits for deer, and simultaneously enhance the value of future timber sales. Timing one’s forest management activities to occur during winter also provides deer with a large amount of natural browse, when they can best use it.

Many other practices improve year-round habitat for deer and other wildlife.

Apple trees can be released from competition to encourage better production of fall foods. Small fields can be planted in cool season forages for deer. Hardwood stands can be managed to favor acorn and/or beechnut production. Wetlands can be improved to diversify forages for deer.

There are a number of agencies that assist landowners who are interested in improving wildlife habitat.

Some agencies offer cost-sharing programs, others provide educational materials and technical advice.

Supporting MDIFW programs that protect and enhance deer wintering habitat. This includes:

* MDIFW’s efforts to manage land-use and timber harvesting in the zoned deer wintering areas in Maine’s unorganized townships;

* MDIFW’s initiatives to negotiate cooperative agreements with large landowners for the long-term management of deer wintering areas for sustainable supplies of timber and deer; and

* MDIFW’s efforts to ensure that town governments adequately address the protection of special habitats, such as deer wintering areas, via town-level comprehensive planning.

Working cooperatively with MDIFW to control deer populations in residential areas.

Often, suburban deer are overabundant and pose a nuisance. Providing supplemental foods to overabundant deer populations will not reduce conflicts with people. In developed areas, the usual method of keeping deer numbers in check (recreational hunting with firearms) may not be practical, so landowners are urged to support MDIFW’s efforts to implement innovative hunting seasons to reduce deer populations safely and discreetly. This requires homeowners, town governments, and MDIFW to work cooperatively to devise safe and effective ways of maintaining deer populations at tolerable levels.

Allowing deer hunters access to their huntable lands.

This is the most effective means of ensuring that deer populations remain in balance with available habitat, and at levels that minimize negative impacts on deer habitat, farmers, forest landowners, rural residents, and motorists.