Is the traditional role of state fish and wildlife agencies coming to an end? That is increasingly the question as some of the nation’s most important–and often controversial—issues are no longer being decided by wildlife professionals whose charter it is to manage natural resources for the greater good. Instead, animal welfare groups and others have staked a clear strategy to circumvent state agencies through the referendum process. That is, if you want to ban mountain lion hunting or introduce wolves to a state, you have only to collect signatures from a population generally easy to sway with emotional media campaigns and overwhelm your opponents on election day– poor outcomes for people and wildlife be damned.

Some 26 states across the country allow citizens to propose legislation through the referendum process, part of the signature reforms of the Progressive Era—a form of so-called direct democracy where the people, not special interests, are supposed to make governing decisions. Instead, referendums have become rife with special interest influence. The referendum process has been especially embraced in the West where some of the country’s most challenging wildlife issues reside—including battles over what to do about burgeoning mountain lion, grizzly, and wolf populations. Read more

Whether you want to learn about waterfowl hunting opportunities, enjoy excellent wildlife viewing or hear about the benefits of healthy wetlands, October is the perfect time to discover Michigan’s Wetland Wonders.

These are the premier managed waterfowl hunt areas in the state, created for exceptional waterfowl hunting opportunities and managed to provide waterfowl habitat for nesting and migration and for the benefit of other wetland wildlife. Since the start, the areas have been funded by hunting license fees and area use fees, but they are open for anyone to visit and enjoy most of the year.

Several of the Wetland Wonders will host open houses next month, giving visitors the chance to talk with local staff, tour the areas and see what each one offers for the upcoming waterfowl season. All open houses begin at 6 p.m. at the area’s headquarters:

• Oct. 3: Nayanquing Point (Bay County).
• Oct. 4: Fish Point (Tuscola County).
• Oct. 10: Shiawassee River (Saginaw County).
• Oct. 11: Harsens Island (St. Clair County).
• Oct. 12: Pointe Mouillee (Monroe and Wayne counties).

Open house information also is listed on the special events tab of each location’s webpage.

By Glen Wunderlich

Charter Member Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA)

A few days ago came an email from Chad Stewart, deer, elk and moose management specialist of Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources.  In the ominous preface to a detailed analysis of the over-population of the state’s deer herd, he arrives at a conclusion that might not sit well with some hunters:  More antlerless deer must be taken for the betterment of our deer herd.

If this bit of information comes at a surprise, you haven’t been paying attention.

After a bit of research into my personal archives, the DNR had strongly encouraged hunters to kill more antlerless deer with this language 14 years ago:  High numbers of antlerless permits are available again this year…  Hunters are encouraged to harvest antlerless deer, especially on private land in the Southern Lower Peninsula to bring populations closer to goals and to help address concerns of excessive crop damage and deer-vehicle collisions.

I wrote in 2009:  “What’s so funny about the statement is that hunters are encouraged to harvest antlerless deer after the fee to do so has been increased by 50 percent.  …it’s not likely that any noteworthy reduction in the problematic herd will be achieved through its counter-productive revenue enhancement strategy.”

Nonetheless, Mr. Stewart lays out his case with statistics that paint a bleak picture, if hunters don’t change their strategy.  He states that the typical Michigan hunting philosophy to date is to hold off on taking antlerless deer until later in the season.  Heck, that’s sure been my thinking.

Every other year since 2009, we’ve taken more antlered deer than antlerless deer.  A comparison with the states around us, such as Illinois, Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin, they all typically harvest between 8 percent to 25 percent more antlerless deer than they do antlered deer in a given year.  Although Mr. Stewart does not connect today’s over-population to the 2009 cost-doubling of antlerless tags, I believe it was another straw on the camel’s back.

Because of our lower hunter numbers and our continued unwillingness to shoot antlerless deer, we are shooting far fewer antlerless deer than we have historically.  This past year was probably a record year in terms of the number of damage complaints our department received from farmers, and associated crop damage.  The [the DNR] mitigates this damage by providing out-of-season permits so those landowners experiencing damage can help protect their crops and livelihood. Since very few hunters like the idea of deer being shot out of season, we hunters need to do better at controlling deer numbers in the hunting seasons.

In 2022 there were nearly 59,000 reported deer-vehicle collisions, the highest number since 2009. Nearly 20 percent of the recorded collisions in Michigan involved white-tailed deer.  So again, there’s the reference to the year 2009 when the cost to help our own cause doubled.

For decades, Michigan intentionally grew its deer herd and bragged that herd would grow to one million deer!  They were so excited back then as the freight train gained momentum.  The old-timers wouldn’t shoot a doe no matter what, and although the philosophy has changed somewhat today, that train is still destined to run off the tracks.

In summary, we have the supply but not the demand and no amount of pleading has helped.

My solution now, as it was back then, is to drastically lower the cost of antlerless permits to increase sales.  Increased volume could put us on a path to better herd management, and it wouldn’t take long to discover the truth now that hunters are required by law to submit kill data.  For cost-reduction to be enough is anyone’s guess, but one thing is certain:  What we are doing – and, have been doing – doesn’t work.