Text size:

Are there enough deer for all the licenses sold?

Christian Berg | Outdoors

August 12, 2008

Every August, I watch in amazement as the Pennsylvania Game Commission begins accepting antlerless deer license applications and hundreds of thousands of hunters scramble to submit their paperwork.

The agency started processing applications from resident hunters Aug. 4, and as of Friday afternoon, it had sold 239,057 of the 849,000 licenses available. Wildlife Management Unit 2G is already sold out, and you can expect several more of the state's 22 units to exhaust their allocations before the commission starts accepting nonresident applications Aug. 18.

On the surface, the brisk sales aren't much of a surprise. There are about 925,000 licensed hunters in Pennsylvania, and virtually all of them pursue deer. But taken in the context of the ongoing controversy over the commission's deer-management program, the demand for antlerless licenses is very interesting indeed.

The most vocal opponents of the commission's deer policies, led by the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania, contend the agency is responsible for decimating the state's whitetail herd -- largely through what they call the reckless issuance of too many antlerless licenses. In many areas, critics say, so few deer remain it isn't even worth hunting anymore.

Christian Berg Bio | E-mail | Recent columns

Many of the same critics also say their views are shared by a vast majority of the state's deer hunters and believe this widespread dissatisfaction is the main reason hunting license sales have fallen almost 12 percent since 2001.

Yet, if there really are no deer to be had and most hunters are fed up, just who is buying all these ''doe tags'' every summer?

I'm not saying the arguments made by Unified and its supporters are completely without merit, and it certainly will be interesting to monitor the progress of its deer-management lawsuit against the commission.

That said, the huge annual demand for antlerless licenses also seems to indicate plenty of sportsmen are reasonably satisfied with the existing deer plan or, at the very least, believe there is a decent chance of seeing a deer in the woods.

Regular updates on the numbers of antlerless licenses available for each of the state's 22 Wildlife Management Units can be found on the Game Commission's Web site at http://www.pgc.state.pa.us . From the home page, cluck on ''Doe License Update'' under the Quick Clicks menu on the right-hand side of the page.

A legislative proposal that would increase penalties for wildlife crimes in Pennsylvania for the first time in more than 20 years has gotten bogged down in controversy.

House Bill 2205, introduced by Rep. Edward G. Staback, D-Lackawanna, would dramatically increase poaching penalties and provide for the forfeiture of firearms, vehicles, boats and other property used in committing wildlife crimes.

Under the bill, violators who kill three or more big-game animals in a single incident -- or get caught three or more times over 10 years -- would face felony charges carrying up to three years in prison and a fine of up to $15,000.

Currently, most wildlife violations are summary offenses -- on par with littering and running a stop sign -- and Pennsylvania poachers face the possibility of jail only in cases involving threatened or endangered species.

Although Staback's proposal has received strong support from both hunting and animal rights organizations, it appears the forfeiture portion of the bill is on life support after gun rights organizations raised concerns about giving the Game Commission authority to take away firearms.

Last month, Staback told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette the forfeiture language in his bill has become very controversial and will likely be removed to give the measure a chance at adoption.

As a law-abiding gun owner, I couldn't care less if a guy who shoots a couple trophy bucks out of season loses his precious rifle.

However, politics is the art of compromise, and if all other provisions of this beefed-up poaching penalty package can be adopted in exchange for removal of the forfeiture language, I am willing to live with it.

As Staback said, a separate bill dealing with forfeiture can be introduced later and debated on its own merits. In the meantime, there's no sense in keeping Pennsylvania stuck in the Dark Ages when it comes to the price poachers pay for abusing wildlife.