I attended “Deer in the Woods,” a program about the synergy between the deer population and the forest in Windham County, sponsored by the Dummerston Conservation Committee.
The program began with opening statements from the four panelists: George Weir, a consulting forester; Nick Fortin, the lead deer biologist for Vermont Fish and Wildlife; Tim Morton, a Stewardship Forester with the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation; and David Deen, a long-time representative to the Vermont Legislature who chairs the House Committee on Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources. All together, these four represent well over a century of experience in the field.
They were also all well-spoken, and all spoke about the changes over time in Windham County’s forests and deer herd. The two are closely connected. And they all agree: deer overpopulation combined with a decline in hunting has had a deleterious effect on the forest.
Many hunters disagree, and it just may be because they have long memories – going back to the fifties, sixties and seventies, when the deer population exploded onto abandoned farms. By the 1970’s, the deer herd was in poor condition due to overpopulation. And even the hunters in the room last night agreed that Vermont’s deer are smaller than New Hampshire’s, although they probably don’t agree that Vermont’s herd is an overabundant one.
Vermont’s hunters are a passionate group, going right back to Vermont’s constitution, which guarantees Vermonters the right to hunt. But hunters are possibly more endangered than deer these days, which contributes to the herd being too big for the health of the forest.
The problem, put simply, is this: Deer graze on greenery and browse on twigs, and they eat a lot – about about ten to fifteen pounds of food a day. Once the grass and leaves die off in the fall, the deer turn toward browse, with a taste for oak, ash and sugar maple saplings.
Oak, ash and sugar maple are among Vermont’s most valuable trees, and they grow slowly. The deer have eaten them down to the ground in the southeastern part of the state, allowing opportunistic, faster-growing, less desirable, species to move in, including beech, black birch and invasive species, like glossy buckthorn. Several panelists and attendees attested to forests where the only oak standing were old oak; replacement generations have been eaten by deer.
Of course, the problem is not simple, and this is just one aspect of a complex ecosystem that includes changes in climate, human habitation and activity, and natural processes. What’s clear to me, however, is that trees, deer and humans are all part of the living landscape. And of these three, it’s the humans who are likeliest to protect the landscape – or degrade it.
One of the many, complex, reasons I’ve taken up hunting is to better understand the forested land on which I live.
to offer this WALKshop. L’NM is an international movement that bridges
walking and nature with mindfulness and personal leadership.
Both of us walk regularly – and sometimes far – to make pilgrimages to their truest selves. Photo courtesy of Leadership N Motion.
Time’s running out to join Kate & me for Women Walking and Writing toward Wisdom WALKshop on November 4 in southern Vermont. In this WALKshop you’ll learn how to turn the everyday activities of walking and writing into listening posts through which you can hear and heed your inner voice. Learn more.
Need to bring back the mountain lion/puma/catamount!
Hello– The statement that hunters are some kind of endangered sub-group that could not reduce the deer herd effectively is not true. There are plenty of deer hunters on the landscape and multiple seasons that are annually adjusted to allow for the killing of more deer if needed. Deer herd reductions occur every year and certainly could be increased. The social challenge will reach a tipping point if the hunters decide to not fill available doe tags in order to allow the herd to grow.
Another problem discussed at this meeting is posted land. The posted land that excludes hunters shelters deer which then return to the whole landscape as the hunting season pressure in the woods abates.
“Too many deer” or “too few” is a social judgement that impacts forest lands directly. The cultural memories of seeing 35 deer per day (mostly antlerless) back in 1968 are hard shake. As well, the contemporary TV hunting shows depicting fields of deer in Ohio or Georgia in agricultural lands give the impression to some Vermonters that we could have the same outcomes in the Northeast– if we just did… something. Getting to a proper balance so that hardwood regeneration can occur while satisfying the desire of hunters and non-hunters to see deer on the landscape is a challenge Vermonters will face long into the future.
Hi Kevin, Thanks for your comment. Posted land is certainly a problem, and one of the solutions brought up at the meeting on Tuesday night was a new posting sign: “Hunting Only by Written Permission of Landowner.” In fact, as a licensed Vermont hunter, I received a letter from Fish & Wildlife encouraging written permission at all times. I’m currently working towards finding landowners willing to let me hunt their land. From Tuesday’s meeting, my sense is that landowners are starting to see the value of herd reduction as a way to protect their forests.
Too many, too few or just the right deer density is the Goldilocks problem, and one’s answer is certainly determined to some degree on whether one is a hunter, landowner or animal-rights activist. There are no easy answers here.
As to the claim about hunters: maybe one’s perception about number of hunters is similar to one’s perception as to deer population. But the data in both instances suggests that the deer herd is changing the hardwood forest in southeast Vermont as evidenced by consulting and state foresters and the state biologist. And fewer hunting licenses are purchased every year. This last has serious financial implications for habitat conservation and preservation, as income from license fees decline. Women and people from non-hunting backgrounds are a growing sector of hunters. I’m from both those demographics. And let me tell you: it’s not easy to acquire the skills and knowledge of hunting without growing up in the tradition, but it is possible. I’m determined to succeed – which means getting out there. Maybe someday, I’ll even get a deer. All best.
posted land is a big issue and has been in this area , the other issue i here all the time with hunters as well as landowners is they say or think that over population or not enough deer is state wide, this is far from the truth , there are so many different areas with different weather, habitat, hunting pressures, posted land , developments and many more things that make Vermont so diverse , what i think would be a good thing is to manage more on a regional scale then we do now, and have smaller management areas as well, even possibly having a select board for these areas made up of hunters, foresters and outdoors people that spend lots of time in the field that will meet once a month and possibly every quarter have the biologist meet with them to see what there findings have been as well as what they suggest, feet on the ground i feel is very important and we have things now like trail cams that we can get some good data from .
i would love to work with some of these properties and help balance the deer population by hunting there, doing habitat maintenance that would make other things or areas more attractive to eat then the trees that are the issue here if possible as well as test out a higher antler restriction protecting a younger age class of bucks, like a 3 point to 4 point antler restriction this would create the need to take out even more doe off the landscape to compensate for more buck you put on the land, i also am a big supporter of taking the doe that we need to take before the rut starts, this would help with the deer eating trees because you would remove them and it would give the deer left more feed .
Hi Dennis – hope this finds you well.
I like your idea for smaller management units and hope you will bring this up to the Wildlife Board, which is beginning its planning for its next ten-year plan (2020-30). As I wrote in my reply to Kevin, there is a new sign landowners can post: Hunting Only with Written Permission of Landowner – which allows landowners to invite known, ethical, hunters into their forests. I’m exploring this option.
The doe/buck ratio is another hot topic. At Tuesday’s meeting I learned that Vermont is the only state that doesn’t permit taking doe during rifle season. Evidently, New Hampshire allows hunters to take any deer during the first three days of the season before imposing an antler restriction. Last year (my first out in the field) I saw only doe. . . Thanks for your comments.
my offer still stands if you would like someone to give you some advice or help getting deer, i gave you my number in brattleboro at last years meeting
Yes. I’m starting to figure out my hunting season and will be in touch. Thanks!
we have been down this road of taking doe during rifle season before and it wasn’t good, posted land is the biggest problem here , it protects deer when deer are pressured from adjoining properties , because they will all go onto posted land where they can be left alone , which creates over populations and then when the season is over all those deer move back off posted land and some stay on it and this is why you see over browsing , another piece of this problem is that because this happens hunters in the surrounding areas don’t see many deer and will deliberately buy and not fill doe tags because they feel the deer population is low , posted land gives false data and does not allow for good management, deer hunting really is the same as farming pretty much, meaning a farmer doesn’t allow his livestock to get bigger then what his crops and land can feed , when we take man out of the picture we will see negative results and mother nature takes over and she can not do it without man without bad results, to many deer will cause a chain reaction which will effect small game, birds, insects and all plant life and habitat , i have seen this first hand and it is not good .
from my data i have collected over the years the best thing for the herd and to bring more hunters to Vermont is to bring up the quality of deer and deer hunting and to make the experience a great ones, i know that if we were to have a early doe season in beginning of October ,allow archery season to go from oct 1 to the friday before rifle season , to allow only one buck per hunter a year , to have a 3 point to a side antler restriction in the high hunter density areas where 85% of the deer are 2 yrs and under that are killed, and promote to not post land or to post but allow hunting with permission as well as promote and show landowners programs that will pay for habitat improvements, as well as set up a program where hunters can connect with said landowners to help or do the habitat work, if we do these things we will fix many of these issues and see hunters come back , see less habitat destruction and watch other forms of life flourish and do much better .
Hi Dennis, I especially like your comment, “deer hunting is pretty much the same as farming.” And I agree with your arguments about posted land. As a result of the meeting I went to and wrote about, several landowners with posted property granted me permission to hunt their land. So educating landowners about how deer can be detrimental to the forest is a good thing. Thanks for being in touch.