Extending Muzzleloader Season: Comments from NCBA and the NCWRC

Following is NCBA's response to a letter and report received from Mr. Gordon Myers, Executive Director of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and Dr. David Cobb (Chief Biologist)on December 10, 2009. Mr. Myers' letter and report is also included in its entirety below our response.


Additional Comments on extending Muzzle Loader Season

Since our last NCBA magazine was published, I have received a number of comments on the President’s page, pro and con, including a letter and report from Gordon Myers, Executive Director of the NC WRC. I will take this opportunity to address some of the comments and concerns that were raised by Mr. Myers. (NOTE: Director Myers report can be read in its entirety on our webpage under “Quick Links-Latest Updates.”)

A number of reasons exist why NCBA, and approximately one-half of deer hunters in N.C. either favor or oppose the adoption of a second week of muzzle loader season statewide. “WRC human dimensions study of NC deer hunters indicates deer hunters were equally divided on this season change with 40% of hunters supporting and 40% opposing the change, and 20% were neutral or had no opinion regarding the issue.” (*1) Quoting a recent report I received from WRC Executive Director, Gordon Myers, “Fifty-three percent of the 2,398 comments we received on this proposal during the 2008-09 public comment period were in support of the proposal.” Given a normal margin of error in surveys of about 5-6 percent, we are still looking at approximately a 50 percent approval/disapproval rating for adding the additional week of muzzle loader hunting. “Fifty-three” percent approval in any survey, on any issue, is far from being a mandate to support a proposal as important and controversial as this one. It is our contention that making wildlife management policy decisions based primarily on opinions of a few individual constituents is not good policy. It is not good policy to make major changes that have implications on the resource based upon a split public opinion. Decisions that affect wildlife resources are not properly made by a democratic, political election whereby the option garnering a simple majority of the vote wins. We are dealing with a resource that must be managed in a manner that is best for the resource, and is fair to all constituents. Only then, within this biologically sustainable framework, should the wants and needs of the constituents be considered.

In the “President’s Message” of the last NCBA magazine, I stated, “a second week of ML season could result in an additional 10,000 antlered bucks being removed from the (deer) population, most being immature, yearling bucks.” I should have said “ALL” bucks instead of “antlered” bucks. According to WRC stats from 2008 harvest data, 9,575 bucks (antlered and button bucks) were taken during the one week ML season. This is actually 63% of all deer taken by ML hunters, not the “approximately” two-thirds (67%) I noted in my message. Also, 8,637 antlered bucks were harvested out of the total 15, 076 during the one week 2008 ML season. This is 57% of the total bucks harvested, not two-thirds, which is 67%. I hope these figures clarify the “approximate” totals and percentages I cited in my previous message.

There’s more to this than percentages though. Let’s look at the raw numbers too. Archery hunters harvested 4,895 antlered bucks out of total harvest of 12, 292 deer (39.8%). ML hunters took 8,637 antlered bucks out of a total one week harvest of 15, 076 deer (57.2%), and gun hunters took 71,519 antlered bucks out of 148, 929 total deer reported harvested (48%). This indicates that both archery and gun hunters may be less selective than ML hunters. That is, archery and gun hunters are less likely to shoot antlered bucks than ML hunters. In relation to “button bucks” harvested, archery hunters reported taking 649 button bucks; ML hunters reported 938 and gun hunters reported taking 11,772.

The WRC report states “it is impossible to estimate how an additional week of ML opportunity will affect overall antlered buck and doe harvest for the entire season.” We agree that while placing an exact number on the extra deer killed is not possible, I think it is safe to say that a lot more deer will be killed, and that the majority will be bucks, both antlered and button bucks. This can be illustrated by considering a scenario where the entire bow season is replaced with a gun season. It is obvious that a lot more deer will be killed, and most of them will be a combination of young antlered bucks and button bucks. If you substitute a more effective weapon (muzzle loader, or even a crossbow) for a less effective weapon (compound or traditional bow), and keep the hunting days the same, it is clear that more deer will be killed. Thus, the same number of hunters hunting for the same number of days using a ML instead of a bow during the week in question, it is clear that more deer will be harvested, and stats indicate most of them will be bucks. I believe we all can agree on this. The distinction between antlered and antlerless (button) bucks implies that immature bucks should be managed like does. We believe this is a poor practice and should be dealt with in a better manner.

The WRC report states that the Division of Wildlife Management’s Deer Committee is made up of 12 biologists from across the state. The purpose of this committee is to evaluate, and as requested, make recommendations to the division chief on deer management issues in our state. It goes on to state that the Deer Committee does not include all biologists in the agency, nor does it establish official positions of the “Division of Wildlife Management” or the Commission. The report agrees with our statement that “after their evaluations, the Deer Committee reached a consensus that such a regulation change was not desirable at that time.” The report goes on to state, “However, after considering all biological and sociological aspects of this issue, the position of the “Division of Wildlife Management” was to proceed with the proposal.” Officers of the NCBA, including myself, were fully aware of this procedure, and the fact that the Division chief(s) alone most likely made this final decision. That is the primary reason we contested and opposed the proposal. We are not completely clear as to what the “biological” aspects of this decision by the “Division of Wildlife Management” was based upon. We asked but never received a response to this question. What are the deer management objectives of the NC WRC? Do they include a plan to address quality deer management in the near future? How best can objectives be accomplished in a manner consistent with the needs and wants of the deer hunting constituency, who by the way supply a big share of the WRC’s annual revenue.

The WRC report, according to Dr. David Cobb, Chief of the Division of Wildlife Management, does address their current deer management goal. He states, “It is their goal to use science-based decision making and biologically-sound management principles to assure long-term viability of deer populations at desirable levels of health, condition and density; maintain and promote fair-chase deer hunting opportunities; and minimize human-deer conflicts.” He goes on to state, “neither The Division nor the agency has established any goals to manage the statewide deer population for specific antler or age characteristics. The current proposal to extend the ML firearms season for deer is consistent with our current goal. However, nothing in the current proposal prohibits private landowners from managing deer that use their property in ways that result in deer living longer and bucks developing larger antlers. Ultimately, that decision rests with each landowner and with each hunter when they decide whether to shoot a particular deer or let it walk.” We submit the following comments and criticism of this statement of their management goal. Deer do not usually stay on one persons land. In fact, there are many studies that show the range of bucks could cover several thousand acres. So, a landowner’s personal hunting policy is made mute without a larger statewide policy set by our Wildlife Resources Commission. In the central and western areas of the state, the nominal size of blocks of land are becoming smaller and smaller. We suggest that the WRC take the lead on establishing a good, quality deer management plan, and that it cannot be the sole responsibility of individual landowners, or hunters, since deer often travel over many people’s properties. We emphasize that deer are “public domain”, and not the property of the individual landowner or hunter until harvested. Thus, we feel the primary responsibility for managing deer, according to “specific antler or age characteristics”, also falls first and foremost on the WRC, then on the landowner and hunter, if they chose to do so. Other states (PA, VT, MO, AR, TX, FL, NY and others) have accepted this as an integral part of their deer management goals. North Carolina should do the same, and certainly, no less. I will also cite from the same “Biologist’s Comments” (*1) from the original proposal, which states, “Results of the human dimensions survey indicated that 80% of NC hunters felt the number of mature bucks in the population is too low, and 82% of deer hunters indicated that the lack of mature deer is a barrier to deer hunting.” When 80+ percent of your constituency is sending this message, this should be viewed as a mandate to listen, and seriously consider taking action to meet these needs.

I will make one additional comment that wasn’t addressed in the WRC report we received, and it pertains to the impact the new crossbow regulation will have on the deer population, and more specifically, what we’ve been talking about above, the buck population. I will cite criteria from the state of Ohio, where crossbows have been legal since 1984. In Ohio’s 2007-08 deer season, crossbow hunters, harvested 42,000 whitetails versus 36,347 by the compound/traditional bowhunters combined. And, their numbers (crossbow vs. all bowhunters) are now estimated to be about the same. In Pennsylvania, where crossbows were recently ruled legal during bow seasons, they worry about the “biological and social consequences of allowing them in archery season.” The agency says they will recruit more hunters, but opponents say that they will have basically the same number of hunters, and that gun hunters will simply shift seasons. They say that with the age demographics of their hunters it is possible that an additional 200,000 people could step into their archery season over the next few years. Ed Wentzler, legislative director for the United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania, says, “These are not new hunters, they are displaced gun hunters who already have a hunting license. And, if there’s an overharvest, our archery season, already one of the shortest in the nation, will be shortened even more.”

The WRC report also states that NCBA has opposed any action that eliminates any days of archery-only deer hunting. It also states that while NCBA opposes this proposal to allow more opportunity for hunters using muzzle-loaders, the organization (NCBA) seeks every opportunity to expand hunting opportunities for archers. It is true that NCBA opposes the continued reduction in days of archery only seasons. This has been the trend of the WRC over the past 25 years to periodically expand the gun seasons by taking days away from the archery only seasons. We are a bowhunting organization and one of our primary goals is to work to preserve the bow only seasons, for very obvious reasons. As for seeking every opportunity to expand hunting opportunities for archers, I am aware of only one proposal that we have asked for, and that was to be able to bowhunt during the ML season. This was approved two years ago and went into effect in 2007 on private properties only. As stated in the WRC report, there was no biological evidence that the change would negatively impact deer populations, and it did provide additional hunting opportunities for bowhunters, who otherwise would have been forced to either hunt with a muzzle loader, or not hunt at all during that week, even on their own property. The only exceptions would have been to hunt “archery only” areas, which are not sufficient to handle the pressure of all bowhunters in the state, or to travel long distances to another area of the state where the “bowhunting only” season was still open. The fact is that NCBA has NEVER asked the WRC to convert any days of ML or firearms season to “archery only” season that I am aware of up to this point in time. But, every time any firearms season is expanded, it is always taken from the “archery only” seasons. Last year, when this proposal was first aired, we voiced our opposition and actually met and spoke with some commissioners and directors and pleaded with them not to go forward with this proposal for a variety of reasons that have been aired and discussed over and over. But, even with the opposition by the deer committee, they were overruled by the director and the chief biologist, and the proposal went forward with their recommendation to the commissioners to approve it.

Crossbows don’t simply force questions about redistribution of hunting “opportunity.” They also raise questions about whether technologically advanced hunting tools belong in seasons originally reserved for hunters with primitive weapons. Modern compound bows have already raised the stakes. Crossbows simply push the envelope a lot further. NCBA is not opposed to the current statutory law and WRC rule that allows handicap hunters to utilize crossbows during the bow only seasons. In fact, we support what appears to us to be statutory law that requires the WRC to provide for a special handicap permit allowing qualified hunters to use a crossbow during bow only seasons. (Refer to: General Statute § 113 296. Disabled Sportsman Program) We also stand by the widely accepted definition of what bow is, and that is that “Archery equipment are implements that are drawn by hand, held by hand and muscle power, and released by the motion of the hand in the presence of game.” That alone gives the crossbow shooter an unfair advantage over bow hunters and the game we pursue. It is not bowhunting as we have come to know and accept it.

NCBA has no objection to extending the primitive weapons season by a week or more. But this should be done at the end of the regular gun seasons statewide so it will not interfere with the current transition of seasons at the onset of the rut. This detracts from the quality of the hunting opportunity and overall experience for bowhunters and modern gun hunters alike, while enhancing this experience for ML hunters, who all agree, have already have the best week of the season to hunt whitetail deer in general, and quality bucks in particular. This is not the case for eastern hunters, as the ML and gun seasons there already open up a couple weeks or more prior to the onset of the pre-rut. For those gun hunters who do not hunt with a ML, I wonder if they’ve given any thought to the fact that ML hunters will now have two weeks to hunt before they (gun hunters) are allowed in the woods.

Officers of the NCBA, including myself are fully aware that relationships between not only NCBA, but other wildlife partners and individual wildlife constituents in general, were strained last year during the annual proposal and public hearing process. I want to personally express and emphasize that NCBA wants very much to restore and continue to maintain a good working relationship with the WRC. We support goals and proposals of the WRC that the majority of hunters support, consistent with sound management of the wildlife resource.

References:
(*1)- (Quoted from Biologist’s Comments; Proposed Regulation Change, 2008-2009; Title 15A NCAC 10B.0203.d)


******************************************************************************
Report from Gordon Myers, Executive Director/NCWRC (December 10, 2009)

Some of the information regarding the pending Wildlife Resources Commission proposal to expand Muzzleloading Deer Season which appears on the President's Page of the Fall, 2009 issue of the North Carolina Bowhunter Magazine is incorrect and/or misleading.

This proposal would change the muzzleloading deer season so that it would open one week earlier. The season would then run for two weeks (as opposed to one week as it does now). During this two-week season, hunters using muzzleloading or archery equipment could hunt. It is important to know the true history of this proposal. The proposal, which was originally proposed from the public, was considered in both of the last two rule cycles. This proposal DID NOT originate from the Wildlife Resources Commission's Big Game Committee nor any commissioner. During the rule cycle in 2008, the Division of Wildlife Management position was to not recommend this change to executive staff or commissioners, but rather to refer it back to staff for additional evaluation of biological and sociological issues. After these additional evaluations in 2009, the proposal was approved within the Division of Wildlife Management and was recommended to the Commission to be taken to public hearings. It was taken to public hearings, received final approval by the Commission (as recommended by the Division of Wildlife Management), and was approved by the Rules Review Commission. However, more than 10 letters of opposition (including some letters from North Carolina Bowhunters Association (NCBA) members) were received by the Rules Review Commission so the proposal has not been implemented and is held for legislative consideration.

Regarding public opinions about this proposal, in a 2006 statewide survey of deer hunters, 40% of respondents supported allowing hunters using muzzleloaders to hunt an additional week before the current season. Fifty-three percent of the 2,398 comments we received on this proposal during the 2008-09 public comment period were in support of the proposal.

Relative to the author's comments, it is also important to understand the roles and responsibilities of various elements of the agency. Although assignments to the committee vary somewhat over time, the Division of Wildlife Management's Deer Committee is made up of 12 biologists from across the state. The purpose of this committee is to evaluate, and as requested, make recommendations to the division chief on deer management issues in our state. The Deer Committee does not include all biologists in our agency nor does it establish official positions of the Division of Wildlife Management or the Commission. The author correctly states that after their evaluations the Deer Committee reached a consensus that such a regulation change was not desirable at that time. However, after considering all biological and sociological aspects of this issue the position of the Division of Wildlife Management was to proceed with the proposal.

The author clearly indicates that the NCBA is opposed to this proposal and further states that "[i]t is our position that opening any firearms seasons earlier will be detrimental to the whitetail deer population in areas where additional harvesting is not warranted and that would result in undesired harvest of many immature bucks." As presented, this proposal would apply statewide, including many areas where increased kill of deer is desirable. If individual landowners (or groups of landowners) do not desire to have more deer killed on their land(s), or if they wish to see bucks live into older age classes, they could to do so under this proposal. Nothing in this proposal would mandate an increase in the number of deer killed collectively or the number killed by age class. On private lands those decisions rest with the landowner.

Many of the data used in the article are inaccurate. The author indicates that during the 2008 season, antlered bucks made up approximately 33% (4,000) of the overall harvest attributable to archery hunters (12,292 total). The reported harvest for antlered bucks during the 2008 archery season was actually 4,895. The value reported by the author understates the percentage of antlered bucks represented in the overall archery season harvest (33% reported by author vs. 40% in actual reported harvest).

The author also overstated the percentage of antlered bucks represented in the muzzleloader season harvest. While the author stated that approximately 67% (10,000) antlered bucks were reported during the 2008 muzzleloader season, the actual reported harvest during the muzzleloader season was 8,637 antlered bucks. The percentage of antlered bucks in the total muzzleloader harvest of 15,076 deer was actually 57%, not 67% as reported by the author.

Harvest numbers provided by the author indicate that during the 2008 hunting season, muzzle10ader hunters harvested 6,000 more antlered bucks than archery hunters. However, our agency's reported harvest indicated this difference was actually 3,742. The author's error overestimates the difference in antlered buck harvest during the 2008 muzzleloader season versus the 2008 archery season by 60%. In addition there is no consideration in the author's statements for the different timing and lengths of the archery-only and muzzleloading deer seasons across our state.

The author also states that adding a second week to the muzzle loader season "could result in an additional 10,000 bucks being removed from the population." The author makes this conclusion by assuming the number of antlered bucks harvested during an additional week of muzzleloader season would be equal to the number of antlered bucks harvested during the current one-week season. This is not a valid assumption. There are many variables that would determine the actual impact of this proposed change including timing of the season across the state, deer activity pattern, and behaviors of hunters.

It is reasonable to assume that replacing a week of archery-only opportunity with an additional week of muzzleloader opportunity (in which archery hunting is also allowed) will result in an increase in both antlered buck and doe harvest for that particular week. However, it is impossible to estimate how an additional week of muzzleloader opportunity will affect overall antlered buck and/or doe harvest for the entire deer season. Some of the antlered bucks harvested during the proposed additional week of muzzleloader season would have been harvested by archery hunters anyway had the muzzleloader season not been expanded. Likewise, some of the antlered bucks harvested during the additional week of muzzleloader opportunity also would have otherwise been harvested during gun season had the muzzleloader season not been expanded. According to Evin Stanford, Deer Biologist in the Division of Wildlife Management, "it is virtually impossible to predict with a high level of confidence how hunters would utilize an extra week of muzzleloader season, and to what extent any potential increase in antlered buck harvest during the muzzleloader season would compensate for antlered bucks that would have otherwise been harvested during the current archery and/or gun season frameworks."

The author also implies that an expansion of the muzzleloader season and resulting increase in antlered buck harvest would result in an overall loss of hunter interest and hunter numbers in our state. The author supports this claim by referencing how South Carolina's liberal season framework has resulted in those trends occurring there. Division of Wildlife Management staff have consulted with South Carolina Department of Natural Resources staff on this issue. According to South Carolina DNR staff, South Carolina has had long, liberal deer seasons that have been relatively stable for "nearly a generation." There is no antlered buck bag limit for most of South Carolina (4 of 6 Game Zones), and the bag limit is liberally set at 5 for the 2 remaining northern Game Zones. Although support is building among hunters in South Carolina for their General Assembly to shorten the length of the deer season and restrict antlered buck harvest, South Carolina DNR staff have indicated that the author's claims related to decreases in deer hunter numbers and "interest" in South Carolina are unsubstantiated. Hunter) numbers and effort (i.e., annual man-days hunted each year) do not appear to have dramatically declined over the past 8-10 years in South Carolina for either resident or non-resident hunter groups. The South Carolina DNR has no evidence they are losing hunters "because 'quality' of their deer herd is significantly inferior to other states" (as quoted by the author), or that South Carolina hunters are choosing to hunt in North Carolina and/or other states instead of hunting in their home state.

For many years, the NCBA has opposed any action that eliminates any days of archery only deer hunting. While the NCBA opposes this proposal to allow more opportunity for hunters using muzzleloaders, the organization seeks every opportunity to expand hunting opportunities for archers. Since the 2007 deer season, archers have been allowed to hunt during the muzzleloading firearms season on private lands. This change was initiated at the request of the NCBA and was supported by the Division of Wildlife Management, Commission, and the hunting public. During evaluations of this proposal before it was implemented there was no biological evidence that the change would negatively impact deer populations and it provided additional hunting opportunity. Similarly, there is no biological evidence that the currently proposed change would actually result in negative impacts to deer populations, but it would increase opportunities for hunters who use muzzleloading firearms. But in this case, the NCBA opposes the change.

According to Dr. David Cobb, Chief of the Division of Wildlife Management, "our current deer management goal is to use science-based decision making and biologically sound management principles to assure long-term viability of deer populations at desirable levels of health condition, and density; maintain and promote fair-chase deer hunting opportunities; and minimize human-deer conflicts. Neither the Division nor the agency has established any goals to manage the statewide deer population for specific antler or age characteristics. The current proposal to extend the muzzleloading firearms season for deer is consistent with our current goal. However, nothing in the current proposal prohibits private landowners from managing deer that use their property in ways that result in deer living longer and bucks developing larger antlers. Ultimately, that decision rests with each landowner, and with each hunter when they decide whether to shoot a particular deer or let it walk."

The Wildlife Resources Commission encourages all constituent groups and individual citizens to voice their opinion on regulation changes we propose. This public comment process is a vital element of the rule making process. However, we also encourage all citizens to seek out and use up-to-date and accurate information in forming your opinions. Considering the NCBA's position on the proposal to expand opportunities for deer hunters using muzzleloading equipment, this approach has not been followed, as evidenced by the misleading and inaccurate information in this article.