The Truth Behind the Deer-Reduction Program

Introduction. For over a decade, the Pennsylvania Game Commission has been systematically reducing the Commonwealth's deer herd.  Although sportsmen were told that the reduction was in their best interest and would be temporary and limited, to date the herd has been decimated by 50-90% and more in some areas – rendering it nearly unhuntable in some parts of the state.  The social and economic impacts have been incalculable: the ranks of hunters have been slashed by 40-50%, the interest by youth is in a precipitous decline (a threat to the future of hunting), hunting camps stand empty and "for sale" across northern-tier counties, many outdoor-related family businesses have gone bankrupt, and hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost by the outdoor and sport-hunting industry.

Green Certification. Documents indicate that the deer-reduction plan began in 1996 as a means to generate money for state foresters, as well as to achieve an environmental agenda that promotes biodiversity (nongame animals, songbirds, and wildflowers) at the expense of the deer herd, the interests of sportsmen, and recreational hunting.  In 1997, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) "purchased" its first German-based Green Certification award toward increasing the sales of timber from state forest lands throughout U.S., European, and Asian markets.  There was a stipulation, however.  DCNR would not receive this annual award unless the deer herd was dramatically and permanently reduced.  Although DCNR did not have the legal jurisdiction to reduce the deer herd, by 1998 the Game Commission agreed to comply with DCNR's request. 

Biodiversity. In addition, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) of Germany and Audubon imposed a new "ecosystem management" philosophy on DCNR and the PGC, which also required permanent reduction of the statewide deer herd in order to achieve their biodiversity agenda.  Therefore, for over a decade the PGC has been eliminating deer in order to achieve this new ecosystem management agenda for a greater diversity of nongame mammals, songbirds, wildflowers, and native shrubs.

DCNR also provided $50,000 to a Penn State professor to develop a system of measuring the populations of three wildflowers as monitors of biodiversity and forest health.  Accordingly, the deer herd would continue to be reduced until the densities of Indian cucumber root, Canada mayflower, and trillium begin to increase within Pennsylvania's forests.  However, a 10-year study has indicated that after a decade of herd reduction, the condition of these wildflowers has remained unchanged.

Forest Health.  In 2006, a DCNR statewide browsing study on over 47,000 survey sites indicated that nearly 90% of forest regeneration experienced "none to light" browsing by deer, and only 4% was categorized as "heavily" or "severely" browsed.  Nevertheless, foresters from DCNR and the private timber industry continue an aggressive lobbying campaign of the PGC's Board of Commissioners – pleading to maintain herd reduction and even increase the rate of herd decline until red oak seedlings increase throughout the forest.  However, after a decade of herd decimation, no substantive improvement of red oak seedlings or other tree-species regeneration has occurred.  A long term Penn State study has indicated that any lack of seedling regeneration is not due to deer, but is caused by highly acidic soils from acid rain.

Deer Health and Deer Impacts. Although the PGC continues to claim that additional goals (toward improving deer health and decreasing impacts that are caused by deer) justify continued herd reduction, two PGC studies have indicated that deer were never in poor health, and remain in good health throughout every one of the PGC's 22  Wildlife Management Units.  Regarding PGC's goal to reduce deer toward eliminating impacts that are caused by deer, according to state law (Title 34, The Game Code), there is no reference to "reducing impacts" as being part of the Game Commission's mission, nor is serving the interests of foresters.  Instead, Title 34 specifically defines the duty of the PGC as "serving the interest of sportsmen for recreational hunting."  As such, the PGC staff is in gross and deliberate violation of state game law, and could be prosecuted for the great and lasting effects that they have wrought on the Commonwealth when, and if, state legislators decide to enforce the law.

The Chesapeake Farms Connection. All three of the PGC's deer biologists were hand-picked from the same college, where they were trained on a small five-square-mile Chesapeake Farms agricultural sanctuary on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. There they viewed deer as a negative element of natural ecosystems instead of in the traditional game management philosophy that views deer as a vital part of the forest and sport hunting.  They were trained in a so-called "quality deer management" approach that is designed to eliminate impacts by eliminating deer, and they were specifically hired to expand this five-square-mile template to a statewide level.  They have accomplished their purpose.

Money and Agenda instead of Science and the Law. The findings of this independent investigation indicate that the deer-reduction program was not begun, nor has it continued, based on science.  Instead, the program was conceived toward increasing the sales of lumber in U.S. and foreign markets for DCNR and private timber companies, and to replace the PGC's traditional deer management philosophy with a new biodiversity goal of Audubon and DCNR that favors nongame animals, song birds, and wildflowers over the interest of sportsmen and recreational hunting.

• According to Commissioner Tom Boop, "We now have an almost completely subjective program that is not based on science and I will forever cringe when I hear the term "sound science" as applied to the current deer management program of this agency.  I, for one, do not believe that the ability to sell timber from certified forests or having some trillium on the ground comes even remotely close to compensating for what we have lost."

•  According to PGC's retired Chief Forester, Bill Shaffer, "I am concerned AND angered by the mismanagement of the deer herd in PA under the guise of biodiversity.  A feigned lack of forest regeneration caused by the deer was a pretext used to correlate and establish such a fact, which, in fact, never existed." 

• According to Gary Alt in a recent interview, "I did the best with the knowledge I have.  But making doe season two weeks, that's another issue.  It's not based on science; it's based on politics."

Conclusion. Title 34, Section 322 (c)(13) specifically states that it is the duty of the Commission to serve the interest of sportsmen for recreational hunting.  Nowhere in Title 34 is there a directive for the Game Commission to serve the interests of either state or private foresters, to reduce impacts, or to encourage the propagation of wildflowers over the interests of sportsmen and recreational hunting.  Although there are some within the Game Commission who have been intentionally manipulating the mission of Title 34 to suit their personal views, they do not have the authority to redesign The Game Code at their discretion and to circumvent state law.  In this regard, it is the duty of the Attorney General, the Office of the Governor, the State Legislature, and the PGC's own Board of Commissioners to address this serious violation of the law.