Call to Action: It's Time For a National Whitetail Association

[B. Amish]

thought this article was interesting...

April 28, 2014

Call to Action: It's Time For a National Whitetail Association

by Andrew McKean

Quote:

Whitetail deer dominate hunting in America. A species whose population was estimated at less than a half million continent-wide in the 1930s now numbers about 30 million, and some days it can seem like every one of them is in your neighbor’s food plot.

The abundance and ubiquity of deer make them—by far—our favorite game to pursue. We see their popularity in the aisles of hunting stores, where we spent $18.1 billion on deer gear last year. We see whitetails dominate the pages of magazines like this one. And we certainly see it in hunting-license sales. Nearly 16 million Americans hunted deer last year, and some days it seems like every one of them is hunting the same public property as you.

Compare that to the 4 million turkey hunters. Or the 1.5 million of us who hunt ducks and geese. Or the 1 million U.S. elk hunters.

Popularity is a flimsy thing, though. Despite the number of deer hunters, and the passion and resources we devote to whitetails, we are lousy advocates for the resource. Here’s one way to measure that: Ducks Unlimited has nearly 600,000 adult members, meaning that nearly half of all waterfowl hunters in the U.S. belong to that single conservation organization. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation just topped 200,000 members. The Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA), the most active and credible whitetail organization on the continent, has around 50,000 members.

Instead of joining a wide community of enthusiasts, deer hunters are more likely to segregate themselves by subset. If you are a traditional bowhunter, you can find a group to join. If you are a trophy buck hunter, there’s an organization for you. If you are a left-handed, crossbow-shooting Southerner obsessed with non-typical antlers, you can probably find a club of deer hunters just like you.

But why isn’t there a single organization of millions that’s advocating for all deer hunters?

For starters, there hasn’t been the need. Those other species-specific groups were created to restore their namesake critter.

Plus, we deer hunters can’t agree on proposals to ban baiting or high-fence shooting operations, and we are divided by antler-point restrictions and CWD containment.

There’s a risk to all this balkanization. Farm Bureaus are keen to reduce deer populations. Sharpshooters are replacing hunters as the tool to remove nuisance deer in municipalities. And public acceptance of hunting—the only reason we get to hunt in America—could vanish without constant care and attention.

We need a national group with political influence derived from its millions of members, a gravitational pull that can direct resource-management decisions, and lead education and outreach efforts to promote and defend deer hunting.

I don’t care what it’s called—the Deer Association, Whitetails Forever, Flagtail Nation—but it’s high time we deer hunters, on a national basis, started working together instead of apart.

[mntatonka]

Isn't that what QDMA is?

National organizations work to an extent, but they tend to end up being dedicated to certain areas of the country, leaving other areas left out.

[Getanet]

Interesting, but in my opinion not necessary. The only real threat he points out is "Farm Bureaus are keen to reduce deer populations." While true, it's not like there aren't any advocates on hunters behalf - the retail industry for one has a strong lobby and a keen interesting in keeping hunting alive and well.

At least in MN, there are a lot of local organizations dedicated to "direct resource-management decisions, and lead education and outreach efforts to promote and defend deer hunting." Personally, if I'm going to join an organization I'd rather keep my contributions local.

And as the author points out, there are so many hot-button issues surrounding deer hunting it would be hard to form an organization with a large enough "tent" and broad enough mission to keep everyone happy.

[smsmith]

QDMA is definitely not such an organization. I agree with the author of the article...it is time.

Look across the nation, herds and kills are down due to DNRs handing out antlerless tags like crazy. I believe that the "wildlife professionals" who are now managing our deer herds have largely been educated in universities where deer are not seen as an asset, but rather as destructive vermin that need to be controlled. Who is heading up our deer program?...a gal who has zero prior experience with whitetails and who has never hunted them.

Without an organization (I'd like to see an "NRA of deer management" personally) that advocates for all deer hunters, I fear the future of deer hunting is not good.

Private land owners who are able/willing to manage their lands and get other nearby private land owners on the same page will be able to have decent hunting...but the days of good public land hunting will be numbered. Heck, Marrett Grund told me that to improve my hunting I should manage my own land (already do...duh) and get my neighbors to form some type of "co-op". When high ranking DNR folks are dispensing advice like that..it makes me a bit nervous.

[SpecialK]

Join your local MDHA chapter. They can use your support.

[Bureaucrat]

I gave up on Big Advocacy when:

NRA endorsed McCain over Hayworth

MDHA refused to help with MDDI

QDMA also refused to help with MDDI

Republicans tried running the republicans out of the party

Catholic church started advocating socialism from the pulpit

Out there on my own now.

The only reason I support MDDI is because it has been formed up precisely because of what I mentioned above. It's a bunch of guys with forks and muskets that are fed up with the King and have one clear grievance to settle.

'merica!

[vister]

Yeah, good luck getting people on board with joining something like that. Waaayyyy too many posts in these forums with people bickering about earn a buck, point restrictions, bla bla bla. These people obviously have little regard to the whitetail herd as a whole, since they just want to be able to shoot what ever they feel like

[leech~~]

Waaaa, I want a big rack and I shouldn't have to go out in some deep dark icky scary swamp and have to "Hunt" for one!

[PurpleFloyd]

DNR's handed out tags for does because certain groups pushed the mentality that you needed to take a doe instead of a younger buck and because at the time the herd was at an all time high in many areas. Numbers are down now and suddenly certain groups are understanding that the notion of taking a doe only works in an area where the density of deer is too high and they need to reduce the population and that it is in no way tool to entice hunters to pass on younger bucks.

[Bureaucrat]

Yeah, good luck getting people on board with joining something like that. Waaayyyy too many posts in these forums with people bickering about earn a buck, point restrictions, bla bla bla. These people obviously have little regard to the whitetail herd as a whole, since they just want to be able to shoot what ever they feel like

True stuff. I've got finite time and energy. I'm gonna spend it getting something done in my little corner of the world. If that means I make my little 40 a little better and get three or four people that hunt around me to practice some trigger control, then I'll consider it a win.

I'll help with MDDI, but beyond that, I'm focusing on my sphere of influence and letting my feet and dollars do the talking from there.

[slimngrizzly]

Ya I agree with hes saying... but I can see where they'd get 1 million members and at the 1st annual meeting, there'd be 1 million man cage match! Its too bad.

[smsmith]

The consensus appears to me to be that deer hunters are our own worst enemy...pretty sad

[TylerS]

The consensus appears to me to be that deer hunters are our own worst enemy...pretty sad

Fixed that for you.

Seriously though, the hunting crowd is no different than the political crowd: Although we all claim to be acting for the greater good, we secretly all have our own agendas.

I'd take this a step further. ALL hunters need to unite on common ground. Things of "ethical" or "moral" nature should not be part of the equation (leave baiting, HF hunting, and explosive-tipped arrows to other groups to fight).

What are the single greatest threats to hunting today? I'll tell you: Loss of habitat, threats to firearms, places to hunt, and recruitment of new hunters. Bottom line, end of story. If there was a group that sailed a flag with those four quadrants as their call to arms, I'd be a life member in a heartbeat.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Seriously though, the hunting crowd is no different than the political crowd: Although we all claim to be acting for the greater good, we secretly all have our own agendas.

I'd take this a step further. ALL hunters need to unite on common ground. Things of "ethical" or "moral" nature should not be part of the equation (leave baiting, HF hunting, and explosive-tipped arrows to other groups to fight).

What are the single greatest threats to hunting today? I'll tell you: Loss of habitat, threats to firearms, places to hunt, and recruitment of new hunters. Bottom line, end of story. If there was a group that sailed a flag with those four quadrants as their call to arms, I'd be a life member in a heartbeat.

Best post regarding this nonsense EVER!

[smsmith]

[TylerS]

Those are very important indeed, but I'd have to add that one of the largest threats to deer hunters is the widespread ideology within many DNRs that deer are viewed as an animal that must be controlled, not as valuable economic, aesthetic, nutritional, and recreational assets.

For all intents and purposes, that is exactly what deer are. Despite what we may think, hunters are and always will be a minority. Complaints and concerns from landowners, farmers, tree nurseries, insurance companies (both farm and auto) and Old Miss Olson sick of her prized petunias getting mulches will always outweigh our wants and needs. Until a lot more people see deer as an asset and not another bent fender or another trip to the greenhouse for more vegetable plants, we're on our own.

Which brings me back to our point: If we can't convince outsiders of such things, we need to focus on the BIG PICTURE -- habitat, guns, hunting land, and hunter recruitment. Without those four things, it doesn't matter what the DNR or common folk think of deer, because there won't be any means to hunt them, or anyplace to hunt them, or anyone to hunt, or maybe even any to hunt.

[smsmith]

For all intents and purposes, that is exactly what deer are.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. No, they are not pests to be controlled. They are a $1.5 billion + economic factor in MN alone. They provide countless hours of recreational viewing for hunters and non-hunting wildlife lovers. They provide millions of pounds of healthy, low cholesterol, lean protein to the people of MN every year. Deer are assets, not liabilities.

When hunters state that deer are pests to be controlled...we've already lost.

[Getanet]

They are not pests, but if you distill it down to it's core, the reason we are allowed to hunt deer is population control.

[smsmith]

Here I thought hunting was a constitutionally protected right in MN

I don't think the tradition of deer hunting revolves around controlling their populations. Perhaps that is what the MN DNR has been successful at making the deer hunters of this state think....but it isn't accurate IMHO.

Yes, we help to keep deer numbers under "control" via hunting....but that is not the REASON we are "allowed" to hunt them.

[Getanet]

What is the REASON?

[smsmith]

What is the REASON?

The reason we're allowed to hunt deer? IMHO because its a God given right. That right is based on a tradition of doing so, that tradition is based on two things (again...IMHO) the acquisition of food and the camaraderie of hunters.

Population control of deer is a relatively new concept. DNRs "use" hunters as a management tool (and a highly cost effective tool at that), but the idea that the State "allows" me to hunt only to control their population is offensive to me.

Not trying to rub you or anyone else the wrong way, but the gooberment "allowing" me to do things is a concept that doesn't fit into my paradigm of "how things work"

[norm25]

What about Whitetails Unlimited they are a national organization?

[Getanet]

I would respectfully disagree. If it was right the way you described - such as the right to free speech, the right to vote, etc. - you wouldn't need to purchase a license to do it.

Along those same lines, you may not think of it in these terms but the government only grants you permission to hunt after you've paid for the privilege. Anyone who gets caught hunting without a license quickly finds out if they're "allowed" to hunt or not.

[smsmith]

I would respectfully disagree. If it was right the way you described - such as the right to free speech, the right to vote, etc. - you wouldn't need to purchase a license to do it.

Along those same lines, you may not think of it in these terms but the government only grants you permission to hunt after you've paid for the privilege. Anyone who gets caught hunting without a license quickly finds out if they're "allowed" to hunt or not.

And I can deal with that disagreement. The right to hunt is however a constitutionally guaranteed right in this state. Yes, we have to pay to do so (for most game animals in most situations)and I for one would be happy to pay more for that license if in return I had a better experience.

If the belief that the government allows deer hunters to take a deer for the sole reason of controlling their population is a common belief here...I have a better understanding of why so few deer hunters here get involved with the decision making process regarding the management of deer.

[PurpleFloyd]

That right is based on a tradition of doing so, that tradition is based on two things (again...IMHO) the acquisition of food and the camaraderie of hunters.

I agree 100%. Yet there is a group of deer hunters who care more about the number of points on the head than the meat they get from the animal and they are proposing rules that would inhibit other hunters ability to do just that and there is also a contingent that is going after the camaraderie by lobbying to ban party hunting.

Funny how the things that I have been chastised for supporting on this forum and the very two you use as an example of our constitutional rights.