Public Trust Resources

It is my understanding that wildlife along with air and water are among natural resources that are held in “public trust.” That is, they are held in common by the citizenry and are not property owned by individuals or corporations. This idea was codified by ancient Romans and came to America via the Magna Carta. Ownership is vested in the people and the custodians are Congress and State Legislatures who are charged with managing the Public Trust for the benefit of all citizens. Thus, the allocation of benefits and the conservation of the Public Trust are regulated by law rather than by royalty or estate holders as may be the case today in parts of Europe.

As human and industrial use of natural resources increased, it became clear that environmental matters were becoming increasingly complicated. Remember, “Better living through chemistry?” That DuPont slogan is an example of the good, perils, and complexity that progress can bring. Pollution, contamination, new chemistry were early harbingers that managing and conserving the Public Trust was a complicated responsibility. It was soon evident that elected representatives could not, themselves, effectively administer the Public Trust. 

Politicians wisely delegated, with oversight, much of this responsibility at the national level to departments like Interior and Agriculture who went on to form agencies like the Fish & Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service. State legislatures did similarly by allowing departments of environmental conservation to administer the Public Trust with their oversight.

Civil Service protections for government employees were enacted as a personnel benefit but also to protect them from political meddling and to ensure some level of program consistency when administrations changed.

Birth of Deer Managers

Agencies went about hiring specialists to address the complex issues. Without addressing all the expertise represented by these agencies, let us get back to deer management. The science of wildlife management in America is less than 100 years old. Aldo Leopold’s seminal book, Game Management, was published in 1933 and Leopold became the first wildlife professor at the University of Wisconsin.

Professional wildlife management really bloomed after World War II. Veterans, especially, took advantage of VA benefits and went to school for wildlife training and were happy to enter State and federal service. Many wildlife professionals today have graduate degrees meaning they have 6 or more years of college preparation. Some of my colleagues included specialists with doctoral degrees. 

And it is not as though they walk out of school and into a job as an “unelected bureaucrat”. There is a rigorous competitive process to vet candidates including a review of their academic record and experience followed by written exam and interviews.

I want to digress a moment. None of the folks that I worked with in the Great Lakes Deer Group, Northeast Deer Study Group, Southeast Deer Study Group, or Midwest Deer & Wild Turkey Group seemed to have chosen their profession based on money. Many came from a family tradition of deer hunting. All had a deep reverence of natural resources. Rather than being a vocation by default, it was for them a holy calling.

Nuances of Deer Management

I won’t go into all the technical aspects of why we need deer biologists, but I will give some examples. First, determining the deer population level goes much farther than, “How many deer did you see?” Deer population dynamics are complicated, and States hire scientists with quantitative skills to best monitor population status. Deer herds have density dependent responses to population size that are often counterintuitive to popular opinion. For example, “more deer” does not always lead to greater sustained harvests. It can be the opposite.

Second, there are also weather influences that affect rates of herd increase or decrease. Carrying capacity for deer can change every year depending on weather. Examining sex and age structure of the herd and antler condition can enable interpretation of what is going on with the herd, even sorting out any significant influence of predation. A history of herd performance over years will permit accurate predictions of the next autumn herd status based on using some earlier experience when similar conditions existed.

Third, another issue that is not well understood by most of the hunting public has to do with ecological imperatives. A major consideration for the welfare of deer and other wildlife is to seek to maintain healthy composition, structure, and function of the forest or woodland. Yes, habitat! Deer and beavers are two examples of wildlife that can profoundly degrade their own living spaces. We must maintain responsible herd densities relative to carrying capacity.

Fourth, there is a manageability consideration. There are habitats that are so productive of deer that they can outproduce the willingness and ability of hunters to control the population. This is most likely to occur in wood-lotted farm country. Carrying capacity is very high as the deer are living in a huge food plot. Experience in Wisconsin suggests management must resort to non-traditional forms of hunting to control farmland herds whenever overwinter densities exceed about 30 deer/sq.mi of permanent cover (e.g., woodlands and wetlands). But non-traditional hunts tend to upset hunters.

Finally, there is the matter of balancing the interests of all stakeholders in the deer herd. Deer hunters are the best organized and most vocal of all stakeholders and tend always to want “more and bigger” deer irrespective of herd status. But there are other stakeholders. Motorists have safety concerns. Forest industry and orchardists have silvicultural concerns. There are agricultural considerations, tribal, tourism, and the list goes on. Balancing these interests is a major responsibility of the regulatory agency. Hunters are the means for providing this social service of responsible herd control. Take pride in that. It also justifies our hunting.

Public Input

Until some years after World War II, it was common for conservation departments to enlist citizen advisory committees as a major source of guidance for deer management decisions. As a kid, I recall winter deer yard tours to show starvation with the hope of inspiring support for herd reduction. Often the opposite occurred as hunter concern was that too many deer were already dying of malnutrition to allow liberal harvests.

As the wildlife profession grew, input reliance gradually shifted. And there seemed to be a certain amount of resentment that increasingly the “college boys and girls” were having greater influence. I sense that there is still a fair amount of that today even though at my age I am no longer thought of as a “college boy.” Most recently the pejorative was that I was simply a balding computer jockey.

I’ve thought that one of the curses of government was that it was expected/mandated to subject most issues to public hearings. Public hearing attendance is voluntary, self-selected, and seems to especially attract folks that have an ax to grind. Rarely during a deer hearing process is there a fair representation of the opinion of all 600,000+ hunters in Wisconsin. Usually there is little or no representation from the non-hunting stakeholders in the deer herd.

States have attempted to form multi-constituency task forces but have had little success as non-hunting stakeholders are still underrepresented. Hunters who are best organized may say, “That’s tough!” But the State still has a responsibility to the others as they also have a legitimate stake in the Public Trust. 

Recently Wisconsin was mandated to adopt Citizen Deer Advisory Councils at the county level. There are usually 6 or more well-meaning citizen volunteers on each Council. Each person is to represent a constituency (hunting, farming, forestry, motorists, etc.). Each CDAC also does have a local advisor on wildlife, forestry, and law enforcement. But the last I knew, 95% of the citizen participants statewide were deer hunters. You might ask, “How is that working out?”

A recent meeting that I attended, the CDAC had received a hundred or more responses on local herd status after a public request for input. These responses were voluntary, somewhat negative, and quite unlikely to represent the over 15,000 deer hunters that use the county. Did the low response rate mean that most hunters were satisfied? That was not the CDAC conclusion.

Depending on the circumstances and issues, I would much prefer to have scientifically designed questionnaire surveys with follow-up for non-response bias. Of course, questionnaires alone would not provide opportunity for folks to blow off steam which may be a beneficial byproduct of requiring public hearings!

Bottom Line

Public hearings and input are not going away. Everyone should have an opportunity to review and comment on public issues. And there are times that even the “experts” can overlook something. But the public should not be surprised if many voiced concerns and opinions are not implemented. Scientific data with explanation should trump most personal opinions. 

You may call me biased, but I was among those that did have the advantage of seeing and analyzing the annual results of all Wisconsin deer hunters. One cannot duplicate the data-gathering power of 600,000+ fellow hunters. Their success provides a rather complete story.

In this world of “fake news, junk science,” and conspiracy theories, you should be confident that your State wildlife professionals are doing their very best to provide responsible recommendations for deer management. What personal gain would there be for doing otherwise? It would simply be embarrassing for them. Most biologist’ satisfaction derives from doing their job well. I would not have continued to work with and be inspired by them for 57 years at our DNR if that were not so.