Tucked in the far northeast corner of the United States, nestled beneath two Canadian provinces, lie the sweeping forests and coastline of Maine. The residents here have strong ties to the land, with many families having worked the same farms and woodlots for generations. So, as a wildlife ecologist and environmental communications researcher, I listen closely when they talk about their rising concern over ticks. Repeatedly, I hear that ticks weren’t a concern until the last few years. Now, everyone seems to know someone who has contracted Lyme disease, one of several tick-borne diseases rolling northward across the region as the climate warms.
By hunting deer’s predators to near extinction, humans have not only changed their numbers but also their behavior.
Similar stories are playing out in other parts of the country. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 300,000 Americans contract Lyme disease each year, mostly in the Northeast and Midwest. Some people are lucky and manage to receive treatment early, despite the confusing process for diagnosing the disease. Others are less fortunate and report battling a series of crippling symptoms for years.
There’s a relatively straightforward way to curtail the spread of Lyme disease. Research has shown that by appropriately managing the population of deer, the primary hosts of Lyme-carrying ticks, rates of Lyme disease in the northeastern U.S. could be reduced by as much as 80 percent. But due to an antiquated federal law, the state agencies tasked with managing wildlife populations have another, conflicting interest at heart: hunting. Not only does this law have the effect of prioritizing hunting concerns over ecological and public health concerns, but it has put the agencies themselves on the path to bankruptcy.
To be clear, the U.S.’s skyrocketing deer population is not solely to blame for the rise of tick-borne diseases. Other factors also play a role, including warmer winter temperatures and increasing relative humidity due to climate change. But the deer population is the primary culprit: The deer tick, responsible for transmitting the bacterium that causes Lyme disease, feeds primarily on the blood of deer during the adult stage of its life cycle, and several regional studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between deer population density and the prevalence of Lyme disease.
Colleagues of mine at the University of Maine recently showed that tick populations and the risk of Lyme disease can be cut substantially by maintaining the deer population below about 10 deer per square mile. When the population is below four deer per square mile, even the secondary effects of climate change become irrelevant to Lyme risk. Yet, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife continues to set deer population targets above these thresholds, at 10 to 15 deer per square mile in the northern part of the state and 15 to 20 deer per square mile in the southern part of the state. The reasons have little to do with wildlife conservation and everything to do with economics.
Like other state wildlife agencies in the U.S., the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife was established with the original purpose of regulating hunting and fishing. And like most wildlife agencies, it is funded largely via these activities — through license sales, through an 11 percent tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, and through a 10 percent tax on handguns, as prescribed by the 1937 Pittman-Robertson Act. The revenue is distributed to states based on their land area and their population of licensed hunters. Funding support for a state’s fish and wildlife agency is therefore closely tied to the number of licensed hunters in that state.
But those hunters constitute a slim demographic. Nationally, only about 4 percent of American adults hunt. Of those, roughly 97 percent are white and 90 percent are male. Due to their status as a primary source of funding for wildlife agencies, this small group exerts disproportionate influence over wildlife management planning. As a result, wildlife agencies have a strong incentive to maintain deer — a favored species for hunting — at numbers far larger than would naturally occur in a healthy ecosystem. Although the agencies often claim that their policy decisions are nevertheless based on science, research has shown that those claims do not always hold up to scrutiny.
The repercussions of this conflict of interest go beyond Lyme disease. Bloated deer populations come with a long list of concerns, including increased risks of vehicle collisions, higher rates of disease transmission among deer herds, and even decreases in songbird populations. Although the sight of a deer grazing in a backyard might be taken by many casual observers as a sign of a healthy ecosystem, wildlife ecologists recognize it as a disconcerting signal that the animals are becoming domesticated. By hunting deer’s predators to near extinction, humans have not only changed their numbers but also their behavior. We have disrupted what scientists refer to as the “ecology of fear.”
The Pittman-Robertson Act has often been used by the gun lobby as leverage to win policy debates and evade regulation. One example is the continued use of poisonous lead ammunition, which threatens the health of wildlife and can contaminate soil and drinking water. The ammunition is especially harmful to vultures, coyotes, and other scavengers — members of nature’s “clean-up crew” that help to limit the spread of diseases like rabies. Ecologists and public health advocates have pushed to eliminate the use and sale of lead ammunition, but their efforts have consistently been met with strong opposition from the gun lobby and hunting community. To win public support, pro-gun lobbyists have proclaimed that every sale of a lead bullet supports wildlife conservation efforts through the Pittman-Robertson Act, when in reality, every sale does direct harm to natural ecosystems and indirect harm to public health.
The Pittman-Robertson Act isn’t merely outdated environmental policy; it is also fiscally unsustainable. A nationwide survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the number of hunters declined by more than 18 percent between 1991 and 2016. There are roughly half as many hunters today as there were 50 years ago. This number is expected to continue to dwindle, and as it does, so will revenue streams for state wildlife agencies. Already, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has been forced to address a roughly $4 million per year funding gap by reducing staffing levels, hampering their efforts at habitat conservation and invasive species control.
Increasingly, Americans are taking to the outdoors not to hunt but to enjoy other forms of recreation. More than a third of all Americans now participate in activities like bird watching, wildlife photography, or visiting parks for the purpose of observing animals. These recreationalists reported spending nearly $76 billion on related expenses — including binoculars, tents, and lodging — in 2016. Those numbers will come as little surprise to anyone who has noticed the crowds in our National Parks or the increased demand for hiking permits on trails like the Pacific Crest Trail.
This cultural shift in the way that we value the outdoors presents an opportunity to simultaneously shore up state wildlife agencies’ financial outlook and better align their interests with those of science and health. A tax on non-hunting outdoor gear could not only replace the revenue currently collected under the Pittman-Robertson Act but surpass it — and continue to grow. And, importantly, it would foster a more inclusive approach to wildlife conservation by removing the disproportionate influence of the hunting community.
Good governance requires accepting cultural shifts and continuously finding ways to update outdated policies to match a society’s changing needs. For the sake of our ecosystem and our public health, it’s time we abandon the Pittman-Robertson model and broaden our wildlife conservation priorities from regulating game species to protecting the full range of biodiversity.
Elyse DeFranco is a wildlife ecologist and environmental communications researcher. She is currently based in Maine.
This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.
Photo: Clyde He
This post has a decidedly anti-gun anti-hunter spin. The reality is that the hunters in my home state would love the opportunity to take more deer. Here in Kansas we have massive deer populations, but I am limited to 1 buck and 1 antlerless deer per year.
Anti hunting sentiment is somewhat to blame here too. PETA, and similar organizations, have declared hunting immoral. There are many hunters that have given up hunting simply to avoid conflict with friends and family over the “ethical” debate of hunting.
I totally agree that Lyme disease is an issue, but let’s not solely blame hunters and gun organizations.
It’s an opinion piece, after all. Simply food for thought.
I’m a gun owner for hunting as well as self defense but I don’t think the author wasn’t anti gun or anti hunter. It just simply points out how a select few (hunter and gun owners) steer the course of public policy in a disproportionate manner.
I get to hunt, mountain bike, and fish in the George Washington National Forest but I would want my recreation to effect how disease effect locals.
Very disappointed in this piece. The author identifies herself as a “wildlife ecologist and environmental communications researcher” and alludes to colleagues at the University of Maine. No mention of where she has worked or degrees/ academic standing, etc.
Then she launches into a thinly veiled attack on hunting using Lyme disease. She is dismissive of hunting ( claiming only 4% of the population hunts) without citing where her statistics come from, or what demographics are involved. The percentage of people in New York City who hunt is not germane to the conversation among the residents of Northern Maine, my home state of Colorado, or any other rural population.
I don’t mind a spirited debate about the ethics of hunting, eating meat or any other topic. But be honest and state what bone you really want to pick.
The author is wrong about the root of the problem. The problem is not hunting but politics at the local and federal level. Ban hunting and you have too many deer. Buy land with sportsman dollars then make the land units accessible or stop human uses via single species management because of the Endangered Species Act. Closing areas to hunting, raising the cost of hunting, using tax laws to stop hunting is not moving people closer to the land but closer to the TV and packaged food.
As a Hunter, Fisherman, Backpacker, Climber, Mtn. Biker, and general lover of all things outdoors, I 100% support a land use fee for our National and State Forests.
I have to buy a $53 yearly license here in NC to Hunt and Fish on federal lands which includes a State Game Lands fee. O rarely see folks hunting in my local Nat’l Forest but the number of day hikers, campers, bike riders, etc has easily increase 3 fold over the last 10-15 years. Every trail head is packed, every campsite taken, its super crowded.
I pay for the privilege to hunt/fish… but I don’t pay anything to backpack, mtn. bike, or climb in the exact same forests. Yes I am extracting resources when I hunt but we all impact the forest when we visit it…
I would support a land use permit similar to a hunting license to use the forest. Even if its $5/year. We all have an investment in our public lands and need to take steps to keep them healthy… even if it hurts a little more at the cash register…
Or there needs to be increased taxation, similar to how firearms and ammunition is taxed, for Backpacks, mountain bikes, climbing gear etc. that goes back into a fund to support research on forest health and environmental education.
Yes and yes. This is not the first time AJ has promoted this discussion, and many have expressed support of a “Backpack Tax”. Beneficiaries of a service should be willing to pay for it.
However, the government is holding our public lands in trust for all people, regardless of use, and that the benefits of conservation extend far beyond the boundaries of the individual parcels. Public funding could justly be spread out even beyond users.
To sum this up: Its time for you, the non-hunting outdoor industry to stop complaining and pull its own weight. Its your obligation. Keep in mind that hunters created their own tax to help the ecological system from stoping species extinction and habitat loss. This is what they actually pay to conserve all wildlife and support your precious agencies.
719 million/yr from tags/licenses
440 million/yr game based non-profit donations
371 million/yr Pitman Robertson(self imposed tax) not including Dingell-Johnson
Industry of 38billion annually that contributes 1.6 billion instead of the 76 billion(rec) industry that does not contribute.
Women hunters up 25% since 2006-2011 now deemed as 20% of total hunters in 2017(NSSF)
So, while #’s of hunters are declining, and demographic is mostly white men(aprox 75%), they are still funding the majority of biologist, ecologist and land management research jobs along with habitat restoration.
Maybe the solution is to INCLUDE a recreation tax rather than abolishing the two acts that allowed you to have this resource to begin with.
Long way of saying we need a backpack tax to supplement Pittman-Robertson. Fully agree.
Good article overall. I pulled two ticks off during a late season hunt in NY this past fall – not a good feeling knowing the prevalence of Lyme disease. In the NE, tags are plentiful, so the problem goes well beyond opening up more opportunity to hunters.
Predator reintroduction needs to continue to be part of this conversation as well.
I’m for a non-hunting goods tax. But how would this excise tax change modeled population numbers and objectives set by the public?
Herd management plans take into account both the biological and social carrying capacity of a herd i.e. herd health, road strikes, wildlife viewing opportunities, etc. It’s not just hunting for quality or quantity. This article also doesn’t take into account changes in land management, refuge, etc.
It’s a bummer how overly broad her conclusions are.
It doesn’t seem fair to even loosely blame the hunting community and state agencies on the surge of tick-borne illnesses. It’s way more complicated than that and damaging to suppose otherwise.
The irony and likely intentional oversight of this piece is that you won’t maintain a lower deer population unless you dramatically increase the hunting harvest. Deer have a very high productivity and survival rate, and their aren’t sufficient remaining predators to suppress the population (except human hunters, who have been taking deer for thousands of years). In Minnesota, where we have wolves, bears, coyotes, bobcats and even cougars, deer populations can double in as little as 2-3 years under good conditions. Humans are the primary limiting factor. Reduce hunting and the deer population increases. Adding to the challenge, at low deer populations, hunter interest declines, reducing harvest and increasing deer survival. The issue is much more complex and challenging than the author describes, and it has almost nothing to do with federal law, the Pittman-Robertson Act or gun rights. It’s the biology, students!
Opinion article, no facts. I’d love to talk to this person face to face. Then see what she has to say.
Yes, it is labeled “opinion” right there at the top.
The spin in this piece conflates many different issues. Yes, a “boot tax” or backpackers’ tax is necessary to support our conservation needs, and it is the outdoor sporting companies that have been lobbying against it. None of that, however, solves the problem of deer overpopulation in the northeast or our need for hunting as a management tool overall. The author – without supports – attributes the deer overpopulation to hunting predators to the point of extinction. Actually, in a meetings that I had with the Forest Service, studies show that deer population numbers were kept down by human hunting — Native Americans, not predators. When the colonists first arrived here, the numbers were about 10 per square mile. When there were more hunters during the early and mid 19th century, there were about 30 per square mile. Now, there are as many as 90 per square mile. They are destroying habitat for other species and the forest understory. The problem is not with wildlife agencies skewing policy to keep hunted species abundant (though it happens that is a benefit of sports hunting around the world), the problem is with animal rights groups and communities that will not support deer hunts at the levels that need to be undertaken. For instance, many communities need a doe hunt. This article is a ripe example of taking a number of truths and combining it in such a way that you come out with an untruth. That’s what having an agenda achieves. I am not a hunter; I have spent 30 years working on conservation issues as a writer for a descendant of Ted Roosevelt.
So just increase the harvest to 3 deers per hunter.
Problem solved.
Hunters are happy (for at least one season)
Outdoor rec people are happy (less ticks)
State troopers are happy (less deer collisions on highways)
Curious, I didn’t take it as an anti hunting piece, more, a we need to look at how our system is working in this particular situation, and perhaps tweak it so it works better in our modern age, piece.
How about displaying some creative thought on the subject, at the state/federal level?
In our area of upstate NY, there’s a program where hunters with more tags/deer than they want or can use, can hunt, and donate their kill to local food pantries.
Sadly, some recipients pushed back at the idea of not getting “free beef” rather than venison, but I’d argue, they’d likely complain if they didn’t get a back rub as part of their trip to the food pantry too. =: /
Perhaps conservation agencies could organize “commercial hunts” where all the game was utilized to feed the poor.
Local park agency did a bait and shoot program a bunch of years ago, but had to stop it due to all the pushback from PETA types. I guess they’d rather have deer starving or getting run over by vehicles, rather than dropping mid chew, while enjoying their favorite sheltered location.
Additionally, open up regulations on wild game (with commensurate grading, testing, etc) to allow the trending locavore restaurants to start using venison on their tables as well.
I don’t know the answer, or the challenges well, but it seems like we have a lot of mouths seeking food in this country, and a lot of meat on the hoof that we’d rather not have getting smacked on the highways, or eating our orchards, farms and gardens to oblivion.
Loosening up how the meat can be used, and how it gets harvested, might be a really useful approach….
Fully agreed. Pittman-Robertson and Dingle-Johnson (P-R’s fishing-specific partner and the best named bill Congress has ever passed) are absolutely crucial to providing broad wildlife management funding, but their effectiveness is waning with changing outdoor recreation demographics. Expanding the funding base to include non-hook&bullet taxes would drastically improve funding efforts available for non-game species, as well as more broadly to help address infrastructure and management needs on our public lands. Nowhere does the author attack hunting/fishing, propose rescinding or altering P-R/D-J, as they are established funding that hunters/fishers are typically willing to contribute. Instead, I agree with the message that, as we increasingly care about managing non-game species for both ecological and recreational ends, we should consider extending the funding base for wildlife management so we can provide more resources to manage non-game species without stretching an already-thin funding source even tighter.
Well stated.