Revamping Deer Hunting Seasons Or Catering To Special Interests

It seems everyday I learn of another bunch of unhappy deer hunters griping and complaining about them not getting the same “fair” opportunity as the next guy. Will it ever end? Nah! I don’t think it is something human nature can rise above, at least not on a regular basis.

Remember back to the days of Little League baseball? Having spent many of my earlier years coaching, organizing the local leagues and even a stint as county Little League baseball commissioner, dealing with the kids was a cake walk. The same could not be said for the parents. Sometimes I think the authorities at each state’s fish and game department wake up some mornings and think to themselves, “Ah, Geez! I got to go to work today and listen to another unhappy deer hunter who knows more about how to put all this information together and come up with a deer hunting season that keeps everyone happy – including the deer.”

Figuring out who gets to hunt, for how long, of which sex, by which instrument and dates to pull it all off is a monumental task. Never fear, the game commission has all the help they need.

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m a hunter too and I have offered up a suggestion or two of my own that I thought would make things better. The fish and game departments are far from perfect and in some cases I think they are completely corrupt in some aspects. We as hunters need to keep these people on their toes, after all they are working for us.

So when was the last time a group of hunters actually reached consensus on issues dealing with hunting? Many times satisfaction follows success rates. In other words if I hunt this year and bag a trophy buck, what have I got to complain about? On the same token if this is the fifth year in a row that I have not even seen a buck in the woods, don’t I have plenty to complain about?

But it goes beyond anything so simple. To begin with, for whatever the reasons, and there would be no consensus on this topic either, hunters as a whole have a pretty low opinion of their fish and game departments. In an article I was reading this morning in the Joplin Globe (Missouri) the writer revealed sentiments I have heard more than I care to.

It seems the Missouri Department of Conservation is considering “revamping” the deer hunting season. As part of the process, public meetings are going to take place. Here’s what the writer had to say about this process.

I have a suspicion that what changes will be made are already being planned and that the “public meetings” are being done to win support from hunters for their willingness to listen.

That’s a great attitude. Did this come as the result of past history when it comes to such events or is this just an angry dissatisfied deer hunter sharing frustrations?

Read also what the writer says about what he believes to be the priorities of his own fish and game department.

I have watched the Missouri Department of Conservation become a real bureaucracy over the years. I have seen a great deal of mis-spending and downright corruption, and a trend toward making as much money as possible and putting less and less of it back into true game and fish management.

One thing I know will come of this attempt to revamp the deer season. Nothing will be put in place which does not provide the possibility of the same or greater number of deer tags being sold, and more revenue for the department.

This guy isn’t alone in his thoughts about fish and game. I hear this same lament everyday from both hunters and non-hunters. They believe the only objective of fish and game is to make money – more than they need to manage game animals. I know of very few hunters who think our license fees are being spent wisely. (It’s that Little League parent mentality.)

It is a shame that so many hunters feel this way toward their fish and game departments. It certainly contributes to an atmosphere conducive to disagreement.

But the writer goes on to offer suggestions he thinks will make the deer hunting in Missouri better. I so doing, we begin to see another growing problem that in some states is festering to a point where we are near gang warfare over it – special interests.

We all have our preferred methods and means in which we take to the woods but is it getting a bit out of hand? It’s one thing to have differences in how we hunt, like still-hunting, driving, tree stand, ground blinds, using dogs, baiting, preserve hunting, quality deer management and the list goes on. We have all had discussions about these methods for decades and I don’t foresee it changing anytime soon. But now the battle lines are being drawn between groups and individuals out to get their way when it comes to the weapon of choice to hunt with.

Forgive me as I know I will miss some weapons but let’s take a look a minute. Once upon a time there was a deer hunting season where in reality you killed a deer during that time with whatever you could put together to accomplish such. Of course some of those weapons have been disqualified from the list of eligible weapons.

But then we needed to make things “fair” – there’s that four-letter word I so despise. So we set aside an archery season for those hunters because they needed undisturbed woods and deer that hadn’t been chased all over the countryside by rifle hunters. This, of course, increased their “opportunities” (another overused term). What’s good for the goose I guess is good for the gander and over time each weapon methodology began requesting special privileges once again to make things “fair” and increase “opportunities”.

Now we have in the archery class, longbows, compounds, crossbows, atlatl (a primitive weapon thrown by hand) and I’m sure I’ve missed one somewhere. Switching over to guns, we have rifles, shotguns and muzzleloaders and the battle rages on about the unending list of kinds of muzzleloaders that are all different and each seeking their own hunting seasons. In some states we now have handgun deer hunting season and of course with that we have primitive handgun seasons.

I think it is wonderful that so many hunters are finding ways in which they can enhance their deer hunting experience. Let’s face it. In some states hunters have taken up different methods or choice of weapons for deer hunting in order to be able to take more deer and that is fine providing that the increased harvesting of those deer isn’t putting the deer herd in jeopardy.

The problems we face come when these individual disciplines begin demanding special privileges at the expense of others or by taking “opportunities” away from others. As I said, I’m all for hunters expanding their horizons. I’m not for them taking away my “opportunities” in order to un”fair”ly increase theirs.

Even the words “special interest” these days carry a negative connotation, usually because the demands being made by special interests are only in consideration of themselves even if it is at the expense of others. When this happens, once again we have contributed to the atmosphere of disagreements.

One of the biggest outcries I hear these days comes within the ranks of muzzleloaders. Some are demanding that certain kinds of muzzleloaders be banned for use during so-called “muzzleloader” deer hunting seasons. After all, there are primitive flintlock weapons, the not so primitive black powder that utilizes a firing cap instead of flint, inline muzzleloaders, etc., etc.

Arguments abound over whether optics should be allowed on “primitive” weapons, including bows.

With increased technology driven by demand from hunters for new gimmicks and gadgets, the disagreements will continue. Along with each new invention will more than likely come the increased demand for more “opportunities”. But at what expense?

When you combine the attitudes of more hunters with more special interests with those that perceive the fish and game departments as only caring about how much money they can make, it all sounds like there’s not much hope for a promising future. I think that if we can find a way to enjoy our new-found hunting method without demanding more attention by taking it away from others, it would go a long way to increase better relations between hunters. With that, more energy and effort can be put toward better game management from our fish and game.

Tom Remington