Antler Points

Later as Poacher Questions (Whitetail Times, submitted June, 1999)

In a Louisiana wildlife area on bucks-only days, M.K. Johnson found that hunters seemed to have the atrocious behavior of "shoot-first then look" He found that almost half of the hunters on the public area (48%) were probably taking antlerless deer illegally. His study was in 1982 but the results still suggest the need for change.

As deer populations increase and hunters decrease, the strong tendency to take the first deer seen -- any deer -- will decrease. Hunters of all types and attitudes need to control themselves and talk-down illegal takes. The "shoot first, look later" tendency is part of the problem with hunter casualties and deaths. We need much more caution. By carefully selecting deer and by sophisticated management, more deer can be taken by more hunters because the "right" deer are taken. The anti-hunting public can (and should) use these statistics, not those about the illegal and unsafe shooters.

Deer hunters need to engage in a conscientious, concerted effort to clean up these behaviors --those that are bad for people, deer, the resource, and for hunting itself. There are amazingly few studies of illegal activity such as done by Johnson. What is amazing is that so much money is spent by wildlife agencies on law enforcement and on efforts to control illegal activity and then so few dollars are spent on defining the problem and measuring the effectiveness of the efforts spent. Call it "research" or simply "good business." The studies are difficult to devise and to carry out but difficulty is no reason to hold back on thought and action. With students I've worked on the psychology of the poacher, estimates of the number of out-of-season poachers (in Idaho), the objectives of the agency and the agents, enforcement costs, citizen understanding of wildlife laws, cost effective placement of agents or officers in different seasons, and the characteristics of deer spotlighters. The list, pretty short for such an important topic, just proves that studies can be done.

In one study (in Idaho years ago) we tried to get caught with a deer out-of-season. We were trying to estimate times for poaching, probability of detection, etc., as part of one study. We drove north to south in Idaho over 600 miles with a deer strapped to the top of a car, stopping at gas stations, etc. and were never reported. In many states reporting violators has been made much easier than in the past. In another part of the study, the graduate student was on private land in hiding waiting for a shot at an elk (out of season). The noise behind him turned out to be the landowner. After a brief conversation that did not reveal the study underway, the landowner merely said, "Be sure to shut the gate." One person said that violating the game laws is like "stealing bases" in baseball.

We do not even know how to express estimates of the amount of poaching! The deer hunter might be asked, "What percent is lost to poachers?" The estimates of the impact of poachers will differ if the person answering is trying (1) to estimate the percentage of hunters who are poachers, (2) the percentage of all citizens (hunters or not) who poach, (3) by what percentage the annual kill needs to be inflated to represent the total kill, or (4) what percentage of the total population (two answers, before and after the hunting season) is removed by poachers. Clarifying questions such as one about the proper estimate is one of the key roles of the rational hunter and citizen concerned about the deer resource. Depending on the answers to the improved questions, law enforcement as well as management action can be shifted to provide better predictions and better use of hunters' dollars.

This Web site is maintained by R. H. Giles, Jr.
Last revision January 17, 2000.