Managing Deer Getting More Difficult

Even though hunters have longer seasons and bigger bag limits, there is a deer management problem looming down the road. In fact, in some states, the problem is already there.

The National Deer Association’s annual report showed that in 2020, bowhunters in seven Northeast and Midwest states were responsible for 40% of the deer harvested in those states. Guns still dominate the way we manage deer, but the fact is that arrows are gaining ground on bullets.

Consider my home state of West Virginia. In 2018, archers there took 24% of the total deer harvest, and in 2020 crossbows and bows took 30%. In 2020, New Jersey’s bow and crossbow harvests comprised 64% of the total harvest. In Connecticut, bows and crossbows took more deer than guns (58%), followed by Massachusetts (50%) and Ohio (48%).

This rise is often attributed to the increase in crossbows, but there are other factors at play here — like urbanization — through which bowhunters will continue to shine as management tools. But while urban hunts continue to grow, so does another management problem — the reluctance to shoot does.

In West Virginia, and in a growing number of states, there is more interest in harvesting bucks than does. Numerous states are now reporting more bowkilled bucks than does — a disappointing fact, relative to herd management.

So, we have a situation where there are more deer (particularly in urban areas), are fewer hunters overall, and now fewer hunters willing to shoot does. Ohio reduced the cost of doe tags to combat this issue, and initially their approach worked. But when reintroduced in 2020, it failed — Buckeye State hunters just didn’t want to shoot a doe for their second deer.

Is there an answer to this problem? Maybe, but the options won’t appeal to hunters, deer managers, and others.

Forever Chemicals

A recent newspaper headline read, “Forever chemicals in deer, fish challenge hunters, tourism.” That caught my eye, so I read on. It noted that authorities have detected high levels of PFAS (polyfluoroalkyl substances) in deer in several states, including Michigan and Maine. The article further stated that “legions of hunters seek to bag a buck every fall.” Let me add that there are a number of these PFAS chemicals and one of those, PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate), is often mentioned. Both PFAS and PFOS are potential problems. Apparently, once in the environment, these chemicals are very difficult to remove, hence the name “forever chemicals.”

The newspaper headline gave readers the impression that deer hunters are headed for a big problem in Maine and Michigan. But are they?

---

I quickly dug up the studies done in Maine and Michigan. But first some background on these “forever chemicals.” PFAS are manmade chemicals that can be deadly to their creators. They’ve been around for many years, mostly used in various industrial applications and consumer products like fire foam, carpeting, waterproof clothing, food wrappings, metal plating, personal-care products, etc.

Once in the environment, they may end up in sewage solids. If these solids were used to fertilize farm fields, then said fields would be contaminated. Deer consuming plants growing in those fields would subsequently absorb PFAS, especially in their livers. But does that mean those deer are unsafe for human consumption?

Michigan was the first state to look at PFAS in deer. In fact, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services now recommends that people do not eat the organs from any deer, fish, or other wild game statewide because PFAS accumulate in these organs. But the concern for deer meat is far less.

Clark’s Marsh in Michigan has PFAS, so deer in that area were sampled. One deer out of 20 tested in that area had high levels of PFAS. Muscle samples from the other 19 deer showed no PFAS, or very low levels. Even so, the state issued a statement that recommended not consuming venison from deer taken within three miles of the Marsh. A subsequent sample of 22 deer in 2019 found nothing. The liver and muscle of another 44 deer killed near the Marsh in 2020 showed that some had detectable levels of PFAS in their livers. The closer to the Marsh, the higher the levels. So, PFAS are only a concern in one three-mile area of Michigan, and only if you eat the liver.

PFOS were found in fish collected from Kent Lake in Maine. Because of that, in 2019, 20 deer were sampled in that area for PFAS (muscle, liver, kidney, heart), and no PFAS were found in muscle or heart samples. Thus, no deer-consumption guidelines were issued. However, five of eight deer taken close to an area where sewage was placed on agriculture fields had PFOS in meat, which caused the state to issue a warning to eat “less than two to three meals per year of deer from that area.” As in Michigan, PFAS are not an issue in Maine deer, except for one small area where sewage was placed on agricultural fields.

In 2020, Wisconsin issued a “Do Not Eat Liver” warning from deer harvested within five miles of a Fire Technology Center contaminated with PFAS. Thirty-two liver samples from 32 different counties were then tested, and one had detectable but safe levels of PFAS.

So, the bottom line is that PFAS are bad actors for humans, and in very localized areas they may get into deer. If hunters are concerned, then don’t eat deer liver. What about that newspaper article headline? Totally overblown.