↓ Archives ↓

Category → Fruit of Contemplation

Tractor Supply Co. as model of “How Not to do Customer Relations”

All it takes is that little symbol of fouled customer relations to sour someone on a place, and <poof> the customer is gone.

Tractor Supply did that with style.

When I bought the steel pipe shackle months ago, I had a suspicion it was the wrong size. But being at the Tractor Supply Store here in Harrisburg, I purchased it along with the multitude of other stuff.

When it turned out to be the wrong size, I returned with receipt in hand, and brother, did I get a lesson in bad customer service.

The Tractor Supply store manager was rude, aggressive, angry. The cashier lady was lost in space, clueless, dreamy, unhelpful.

They would only issue an $8.00 refund if I gave them my credit card, my name, my address, etc. In other words, they wanted my data. No cash refund, and the receipt was no good without a credit card.

Did you know that Tractor Supply is not a Better Business Bureau member?

How many big retailers are not BBB accredited? Very very few. It is hard to take a retailer seriously unless they are BBB accredited, because it means that the retailer holds themselves to a standard of accountability that customers across America have come to expect.

Well, that is not Tractor Supply’s standard. My BBB complaint was processed and overtures to Tractor Supply by BBB went unheeded, with no response. No satisfaction.

So I called Tractor Supply’s main number in Tennessee, their “Customer Solutions Center,” 877-718-6750.

What a joke that is.  No one to speak with on any line or option, no customer service. Every option ends at “please visit our website,” or “please contact your credit card provider.” Tractor Supply provides zero opportunities to speak to any human being, much less a customer service representative.

Tractor Supply lost me as a customer. If they cannot belong to the BBB and guarantee their customers that they can expect professional and honest service, then they do not deserve my money.

If you go to Tractor Supply’s website, you will be treated to a long list of high values and ethics stuff they say they live by. Don’t believe it. It is there for show, as they showed me.

Thank you to wildlife’s friends, my friends

When I started writing for Eric Epstein’s Rock the Capitol about eight years ago, one of the first stories I related to readers was an experience two of my children and I had with two pitbulls let off their leashes.

The readership statistics on this one essay were off the charts. Very high volume, and lots of comments. When I asked why, Eric and his website manager, whose name I now forget, told me that news items and stories involving animals claim the biggest share of attention on the Internet.

Fascinating, right?

And we all kind of see this fact in the strange way people routinely show concern for an injured goat in the news by donating a million dollars so the goat can get its broken hoof fixed, and then a truly sad situation involving some news story about a poor unfortunate child whose abusive parents tormented her for years raises just five bucks to get her into a better home.

It is true that people care about animals, and that is a good thing. But this care seems to extend mostly, really overwhelmingly, to domesticated animals; animals that depend upon humans for care and shelter. A natural and healthy empathy is aroused when some unfortunate critter is seen hemmed in by wire or caging, unable to provide for itself and yet not being provided for by the humans around it.

The type of animals people have the least identity with is wildlife. Most Americans, being urban or suburban, simply mythologize wildlife.

From this more urban view, all bears are universally perceived as aggressively dangerous (they are not, though grizzlies are definitely more aggressive than black bears). Deer run out in front of our cars, eat our crops, spread ticks with Lyme Disease, and nibble our yard shrubs, dammit. Squirrels are nasty tree rats with fuzzy tails chewing on our yard furniture, eating the produce of our gardens and fruit trees, and diving our trash bins. And skunks, possums and raccoons are a bunch of rabies-ridden trashcan raiders. And so on.

Wildlife by and large is not greatly appreciated by the general public, unless it is a close-up photo of some baby raccoon or fox kit. And no, I am not talking about wildlife photographers or the insane Humane Society as representative of the general public. These two categories of people are far distant outliers of one sort or another, and no generality can be drawn from their presence among or about wildlife.

So thank God there are sportsmen out there; that is, hunters and trappers. These are the Americans who really do truly care for and about wildlife, and they prove it every damned day with their financial donations and back-breaking work on wildlife habitat projects.

There is no better advocacy group or aggregation of active people who love wild animals and the wild places they need to thrive than hunters and trappers. Time has proven this fact, though the foolish flatlander will claim, with a mouthful of gross stockyard beef in her mouth, that hunting and trapping are “cruel.”

Most of our public lands were first acquired by and for hunting and trapping, at the urging of hunters and trappers. They knew in the 1890s and 1920s that human encroachment into formerly wild areas was leaving no room for the most interesting animals on earth. Many of these animals are more interesting than most of the humans we will encounter in any given day, week, month, or lifetime.

This weekend I really enjoyed my time among a special group of people, the state-wide leadership of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen and Conservationists (PFSC), what until yesterday was known as the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs (PFSC). Most Americans no longer know that the word “sport” is about hunting, fishing, and trapping, nor do they know what a ‘sporting club’ is about. The lexicon has changed as the daily experience has changed. Meat is no longer acquired from a wild animal who knew it was hunted, but rather from a miserable creature tormented from its earliest days until its last moment alive and turned into a convenient styrofoam package.

The PFSC folks are the people who work every day for the benefit of wildlife, for wildlife habitat, for the defense and promotion of our state parks, state forests, and state game lands. These people do it humbly, quietly, generously, and usually all they get in return is some self-satisfaction from sitting back after a grouse hunt and, despite an empty game bag, intently watching a mysterious red Fall sunset streaked with white wispy trailing clouds sinking down behind shadowy trees shedding their colorful leaves. A deeply comforting stillness overtakes these people at these moments, alone or with companions, and when they go home that night, they know their decades of work fundraising for the latest land acquisition by the Wildlands Conservancy has paid off. It might be a relatively small nook in a big world, but it is a special nook nonetheless, where wildlife — wild animals unknown and unloved by most people — can call home until the next glacier comes through and re-orders the earth’s surface, as has already happened many times in the past.

Here is to you, a heartfelt thank you, my friends, my companions, my betters and my teachers among the outdoorsman fellowship. Thank you for your time and gift to me and to everyone and every living thing around me, whether they know or know not what you do for us.

How to render bear fat into usable grease

We take a break today from our more usual political commentary and slide easily over into rural culture. Specifically, how to render your luscious bear fat into a usable grease.

Why, you ask?

Because at one time, bear grease was considered a very close substitute for whale oil, which was such a cool product that literally every kind of food, medicine, and flame was made from it. As whales are rightly protected, and bears are bursting at the seams everywhere across America, making a bit o’ bear grease is a neat way to reach back in time.

Many people will use their bear grease for baking, and I have heard and read it is delicious for that purpose, provided it is rendered down carefully. My purpose was and is much more utilitarian: bear grease is going to be a new leather preservative and a lubricant for the patched round balls in my flintlock rifle. I am going to experiment with this unique grease as it was primarily used until the 1880s, when bears were in short supply from unsustainable market hunting, and more modern substitutes, mostly synthetic oils but also including whale oil, were more widely available.

Here are some photos of the simple process I did, using about five pounds of fresh and then immediately frozen fat from a young male bear.

The fat started out as mostly well trimmed, with only slight slices of meat on it. I left those on to see how those slices and the grease would turn out, and if the meat would impart a smell\flavor\aroma to the grease. What I have read is that any meat left on the fat will leave a meaty aroma and flavor to the grease after rendering. Based on the sniffing results of my snoot’s sharp capabilities, I think that is true. That is, meat left on the bear fat will definitely infuse a meaty smell into the grease.

If you intend to cook with the bear grease, then whether or not the meat is absolutely all removed is a question of what you intend to cook in the grease. If it is vegetables and other meats you will be frying in it, then my opinion is the aroma of the bear meat is pleasing and it will not ruin your cooking. If, however, you wish to bake pastries, pie crusts, and breads with your bear grease, then all of the meat ought to be removed. That means every scrap, shaving, and hint of meat should be sliced off the fat.

The fat should be clean, free of debris, leaves, twigs, pine needles, etc. Wash it well. You do not need to dry the fat when you go to render it, as a little water will only help you. It will not be a problem. Cut it with a knife into small chunks. The smaller the better. Some people process their bear fat in a meat grinder, breaking it down into a gooey mess that has no bonds linking the globules. Which makes the fat break down much faster. I think if I had ground up the bear fat, then it would have rendered out in the boiling water in a couple hours.

At first I steamed/ boiled the fat chunks in a second metal bowl immersed in a boiling cauldron over a propane burner. My goal was to be gentle, go slow, and not burn or even cook the fat. For cooks, burned or fried bear fat will definitely impart a certain taste or flavor to the grease. Depending upon your cooking goals, that “cooked” flavor might not be a bad thing. It is a savory smell, and will not go well with pies or sweet pastries.

After six hours on the water, the bear fat had barely begun to melt. So I turned up the heat. The higher the heat under the water, the faster the fat melted. But it was still taking way, way too long. So with about a third of the fat rendered, it was removed from the water and put directly on the lowest flame possible. A little water was added to keep the fat from immediately scalding. Some people put in a lot of water and render the fat on top of it, skimming it off. I did not try that, and it may work better than what I did. It would also be messier.

Direct flame under the pot definitely caused the fat to begin to cook down much faster, and it also began to fry a bit as time went on. The chunks and bits of bear fat began to turn a golden brown. For those interested in rural cuisine, these are called chittlins, much like various types of fried animal fats from Down South. And not just hog skins. Be a bit more creative in your imagining.

Think Larks’ tongues, Wrens’ livers, Chaffinch brains, Jaguars’ earlobes, Wolf nipple chips, Dromedary pretzels, Tuscany fried bats, Otters’ noses, Ocelot spleens, and a host of other fancy Roman cuisine listed in The Life of Brian.

Comparatively speaking, bear chittlins are right up there in that “unusual and fancy” category.

For me, the goal was to maximize the amount of bear grease rendered from the fat, and to minimize the cooking smell or odor imparted to it from the rendering process. This meant reaching a balancing or tipping point where the fat chunks were clearly cooking down substantially, but not completely. Because at completely rendered, the fat is really hot and it is cooking itself. As I wanted to avoid the grease having any kind of food smell, this meant I prematurely ended the whole process, before all the fat was completely cooked down, or even close, to avoid scorching the fat and making the grease smelly.

As you can see from the photo, about 36 ounces of bear grease was obtained from the several pounds of bear fat. Not a bad conversion ratio.

The first photo below shows double boiling; you can see some of the grease appearing. The second photo shows the grease after six hours. Clearly not much progress, even with higher heat. The last photo is after the pot was put directly on a very low flame, with a small amount of water added. Even after this care, the pot had some fat cooked (not burned) onto the bottom. This did give a faint food smell to it. The last photo shows the grease in a refrigerated wide mouth glass pickle jar. It is easy to access in the big jar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The McCain in my soup

What seems like a hundred years ago, in the summer of 2000 I served as a volunteer at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia.

Staying with my old Philly friends Mark and Bill in their back bedroom, I was able to easily access the convention center by foot.

Being a burly lad, I was put on “security,” which involved wearing a special yellow or red shirt, standing at certain choke points and doorways in the convention center, checking credentials before allowing people to pass to some next destination, and answering questions about the location of bathrooms.

Most of my security role was done at the entrance to the main stage, where speakers and media activists (“reporters”) entered and exited. From this doorway, the speakers walked out onto the stage to speak from the main podium, and the media things sauntered, pranced, sashayed their ways to nearby desks set up to look at the podium and speaker.

Cameras were set up to capture both the speaker and the media commenters looking at the speaker.  Sitting en banc like a panel of judges, the media personalities were represented as a real-time source of expert analysis and useful commentary. Of course, that is exactly the role the mainstream media plays at a Republican convention: Judge, jury, and executioner, heavy-duty criticism. At Democrat conventions the same media people are giddy cheerleaders.

Why anyone thinks that these celebrity personalities add anything useful or valuable to the experience is beyond reckoning, except that the mainstream media have done a very good job of arranging their own roles at these conventions. The political parties do not necessarily need them there. The Republicans would do well to not have them at their conventions.

Anyhow, three distinct memories of that 2000 Philadelphia convention stand out in my head, all of them from my unique VIP security role at the entrance on to the main stage.

The first memory was NPR activist Cokie Roberts. Like all the other VIPs at that stage entrance, my job was to walk from the stage entrance and get her at the far end of the tunnel where a temporary FBI office was located in a small room. Police officers and FBI agents populated this end of the tunnel, providing heavy protection for the VIPs. From there I would then accompany her back down the tunnel to the stage entrance. Once there, the protocol was to look around and make sure everything was clear, no unpermitted people around, and then point the VIP toward their destination: the main podium, or, with Cokie Roberts, the press desk ahead and slightly off to the left.

Sharing the same physical space as Cokie Roberts is unpleasant. Her smug self-importance sucks up all the energy in the immediate vicinity. Cokie was like a saucy queen, and the air was full of expectation. I felt diminished in her presence. Yet I stayed close to her, walked her to the doorway, pointed her to the media desk, and there she sat, lips pursed, looking feline, watching her prey through slitted eyes.

OK, that is one memory.

The second memory is of that same exact location and security role. I walked Bob Dole down the tunnel to the stage entrance, looked around, and sent him out to the podium. I had never been in Dole’s immediate space before, but true to form he was clutching a pen in his damaged hand. Dole took a bit extra direction, and I had to step out onto the stage apron and take him by the elbow so that he was fully oriented toward the podium.

Dole spoke, and began walking back toward the doorway. I took a step forward and extended my hand to help him feel comfortable, and out of the corner of my right eye I saw a strange looking man slowly and very carefully edging his way toward us. I have no idea how this guy previously evaded my view, or how he even got there, given how well secured the back stage was. I am a keen hunter and my eyes miss almost nothing around me.

And yet here was this white haired but not terribly older man suddenly materializing out of nowhere and now bearing down on a frail Bob Dole. Dole was now a couple steps into the tunnel and heading back up toward the FBI office, where he would get an armed police escort to his next stop.

Like out of a movie, the white haired guy’s arm shot out toward Dole and the guy was suddenly hurtling through the air in a complete and very athletic dive towards Dole that did not match his somewhat older appearance.

Well, the old wrestler automatically took over in me, and just as the guy’s hand was about to grab Dole’s arm, literally just a few inches away, I was all over the guy. He was strong, but I was stronger, and within a couple seconds I body slammed him flat onto the concrete floor, his outstretched arm locked painfully sideways by my left arm, my legs intertwined with his and his struggling body splayed out and largely immobilized in a classic wrestling move.

The FBI guys came flying down the hallway and covered me in what is now called a dog pile. I was immediately suffocated beneath a steaming pile of heavy bodies smelling of dry cleaned suits and shoe polish. Whatever people may think about FBI agents today as a result of the corruption by Comey, McCabe, and Stzrok, those agents were super physical and aggressive. I loved it and hated it all at the same time. Loved it because the bad guy was stopped dead, hated it because I could not breathe, and then again happy to know the weird son-of-a-bitch underneath me was being turned into a pretzel by all the hands reaching around me. Within about twenty seconds I was pulled off by three FBI guys, while a uniformed cop and two other agents were cuffing the weirdo hand and foot.

The white-haired weirdo guy was trussed like a hog and quickly carried up to the FBI office. I, too, was hustled up there, pushed from behind as a wall of guys swarmed the tunnel and then pushed the weirdo and I into the little FBI room.

Once in the room, the guy was cuffed to a chair and the questions started flying. Within a minute or so he was identified as a Polish national who had a long history of stalking Bob Dole and trying to assault him, all around the world. The guy was an obsessive kook and already known to law enforcement.

I was asked my version of events, congratulated on stopping the weird guy, with one of the big Irish cops giving me a big smile and saying how much he enjoyed watching me slam the guy down so hard. A couple of the FBI agents said they didn’t know anything was amiss until they heard the guy’s body smack the concrete so hard.

During the melee just a couple feet away, Dole had shrunk back against the tunnel wall, still clutching his pen, looking scared (why not) and two agents took him by the arms and hustled him back up the tunnel. That was the last I saw of Bob Dole.

From the little FBI room, I was accompanied back down to my spot at the stage entrance, patted on the back, and instructed to stay vigilant. Hey, I was never so important before or again!

The third and last distinct memory I have of that convention also involved the VIP entrance, because it was from there that I got to watch Senator John McCain deliver an emotional speech about wanting the presidential nomination so badly, and yet being denied it.

McCain delivered an interesting and very personal speech. He had just been through hell, with the Bush team pulling a lot of dirty tricks to eventually stop McCain’s momentum late in that hard-fought primary race.

From my view at the edge of the stage, I could see in McCain’s adam’s apple a huge lump had appeared while he spoke. I actually watched it grow. I had never before seen such an enormous lump in someone’s adam’s apple. This moment was obviously much more emotional for McCain than I would have expected from such a battle-hardened candidate, and I doubt that the many TV cameras there captured it.

What that huge lump in his throat brought home to me was how heavily and personally invested McCain was in his pursuit of the presidency. As opposed to Senator Bob Dole, who had torpedoed the 1996 Republican challenge to Bill Clinton by insisting that it was “his turn” to run, despite his lack of emotion, lack of energy, lack of passion.

John McCain is now dead, and with him goes a large part of strange era in Republican politics.

Like a lot of American conservatives, I retain mixed feelings about McCain. He was good and bad. He was both patriot and sell-out, warrior against and enabler of our domestic enemies, and so on. I had supported him in 2000 and 2008, but in recent times I had really disliked the guy for his policy sell-outs. He was the fly in my policy soup.

But when I think back to that huge emotional lump in his throat at the 2000 Republican Convention, I think of a man passionate about America and his cause to protect and improve it. Whatever his reasons for taking such strangely contrarian, incongruent positions in the past couple years, McCain remains in my mind as a once-principled all-American who at one time had my strong support.

Rest in piece, Warrior McCain.

Celebrating Whiteness, with Antlers and Runes

As much as real, tangible racism was in free fall and thankfully a long way out of style throughout America and Europe, Liberals could not live without it, and so they brought it back and breathed life into it like a Frankenstein monster. Newly created by the past president, Black Lives Matter is “the Klan with a tan.”

Racism and race consciousness (they are the same) is a powerful accelerant for liberals’ ever-offended victimhood, and a driver of demands for coercive Marxist “social justice” wealth redistribution and forced equal outcomes (not equality via equal opportunity, which is meritocracy).

Put another way, racialism is a powerful drug. Take a racial supremacy pill and you are on top of the world, feeling good about yourself simply for existing inside your own skin color; but take a racially aggrieved pill along with the first pill and you are ready to lay waste to the world in the name and image of your skin color. You feel personally righteous and motivated. Witness the BLM and ANTIFA street violence, the murderous hate of Jeremiah Wright’s followers, neo-Nazi Storm Front. True jihad.

For every Yin there is a Yang.

For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

For every black supremacist Louis Farrakhan and BLM kook and tone deaf NAACP functionary, there is now or will end up being a Neo Nazi or sympathizer, just as equally filled with foolish hatred, racialist supremacy, and racial grievance as their mirror image.

I do not know what “white” skin is, and neither do the strongest proponents of “whiteness” nor its  enemies and modern creators, the black supremacists like Black Lives Matter, Louis Farrakhan, Democrat leader Keith Ellison, or celebrated jihadia Linda Sarsour, et al.

There is simply no quantifiable or operational definition for whiteness, or blackness. But racism’s artificiality does not stop people from using racist ideas for political gain or personal aggrandizement.

A recent vacation trip through several once-sovereign nations in Europe showed that, like America, most “whites” there have accepted the idea that racist/racialist discrimination is a bad thing. This is a repeated empirical observation where one meets a friendly young mixed race German couple: the She is milk chocolate brown, herself of racially mixed parentage, and the He is a supremely blonde and genuinely “white” Teuton, what we jokingly refer to as the ‘Hitler Jugen’ in our own family. Together they are happily affectionate and in love, oblivious to the artificial divide that Black Lives Matter demands of them.

Repeat this scene a thousand times, as we did across the three nations, and the takeaway lesson is that the “whites” got it; they got the memo on being racially accepting. It seems they are alone, however, as the pendulum is swinging the other way now, driven by BLM’s fake racial grievance industry, enabled by the establishment media, as well as South Africa’s latest non-news African anti-Caucasian genocide.

An interesting child born of the Left’s destructive efforts to artificially separate humans, break them out, and pit them against one another along skin color lines are those Caucasians returning to early Norse language, religion, and identity. Now this is really, honestly, truly Caucasian in every way, and if you had to point to something and say “Yeah, this is what we would call ‘white’,” this would be it.

It is an affirmation of historic roots.

It is not symbolic of Aryan supremacy. Yet.

Fascinatingly and in a way frighteningly, because it is so contrary to America’s Biblical idea of color-blindness, which I myself exalt (even in the face of BLM and NAACP racism), this is something quietly growing in the shade between the glaring extremes of BLM and Storm Front’s 21 marching members. It is this truly authentic “white” identity, increasingly celebrated in real song and historically accurate, authentic costume, rooted in Scandinavia, Dane-Land, Germania, the true home area of Caucasian “whites.”

These resurrected ancient symbols send a strong signal to modern lost souls; a chill up the spine tells them they are back home, after a long absence.

These are Caucasians working their way back to a proto-Caucasian, pre-Christian tribal identity, something organic with and naturally arising out of the Western European and Scandinavian landscape, even before Beowulf. It is very much a part of their DNA heritage. At least of what they know of it, or think they know of it. But that is enough for this new identity.

This nascent identity movement ironically started with the 1980s nativist Celtic music revival. But it is now its own thing, complete with a signature public face, a highly literate music style based on old Norse poetry and Viking history, Old High German and Old Danish literature and myths, the use of runes, and native music emitting from natural Iron Age objects, plants, and animal parts. And those totemic tattoos!

Call it “Viking Rock.” Their musical style is a big Viking tent, encompassing chants, to entirely primitive instruments, to electronic everything, and all of that together. One thing for sure, it is energetic, mostly aggressive, very much a product of the Norse beginnings. We know this from archaeology and history.

With this activity we are approaching a clearer and more honest “white” identity that is probably irrefutable, if also unnecessary in my happy, peaceful, color-blind American life. Shallow Storm Front, it ain’t.

We had thought the Vikings were all buried in the shallow inland sands of the North Sea and the barrows and dolmens of England, and now today seen only in documentaries, but in fact they walk among us once again. An entire genre of music, language, religion, exemplified simply by old Norse tattoos, are emerging from Europeans participating in their own natural, organic responses to artificial demands of racial identification.

Perhaps the most visually gripping band is the newest, Heilung (and photos and music videos below).

Early Caucasian people did and said and danced and wrote and sang these things playing out on stage, while today in America we barbecue outside and throw a baseball to relax, instead of beating war drums.

Where this goes is anyone’s guess. Neo-Nazis have already tried to claim some of this turf, now harkening to Odin for aid and comfort and decrying Christianity as a ‘Jewish plot’. But there is a tremendous amount of well-intentioned bleed-over into fascinated onlookers and others justifiably fed up with being told over and over that they are racist bad people simply because of their skin color, or lack of it. Other adherents are just fed up with modern materialism and consumerism, and are looking for what can only be called authenticity. This movement is going to take hold and sink roots in different places.

If we must view this ‘PaleoScando’ style as something purely racial, then one question that immediately comes to mind is this: Can the other “whites,” i.e. the Irish, Scottish, English, Welsh, Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Eastern Europeans also participate in this Viking celebration of whiteness? What if you are a typical American and you have a bunch of German, Austrian, and Irish DNA floating around in your veins? Under white racialism, these Celtic and Saxon strands are at war with one another. Do they cancel themselves out? Do you then cease to exist as a racial symbol? Should you be taken to a remote place and shot, or gassed, thereby removed from the gene pool? Or should you just shoot yourself?

A recent DNA-driven facial reconstruction of the 9,000-year-old “Cheddar Man” skeleton from southern England (near Stonehenge) gave him black skin and blue eyes, with a definitely unmistakable Irish mug. An Irishman with a deep tan. But wait, aren’t the Irish and English white?

Do any of these people above also qualify as ‘white’? Should they also be celebrating their whiteness with the modern Vikings? Or are they just onlookers, or cheerleaders, or cannon fodder and stepping stones?

The movement’s music and visuals are powerfully suggestive, and moving. If the Vikings and their incredibly creative, powerful, often merciless successful descendants were any indication, this movement will go somewhere. Hopefully it goes for good. God, I hope for good.

Some representative examples:

“Krigsgaldr” (“War-Magic,” a song or play about cruel Vikings getting some payback)

 

Fairy Forts: Being Truly Green, and Emerald

On a really neat hike around Howth, Ireland, guided by a really neat guy named Mark, I was introduced to the weird world of Irish politics two weeks ago.

Just two weeks before I had an even stranger introduction to Irish politics, when at the Yuengling beer plant tour in Pottsville, PA, a little Irishman with a big Brogue said to me “Yer nawt Oirish, becauz yew doon’t leev ‘n Ireland, and I’m nawt Oirish becauz ah leev ‘n Northr’n Ireland.”

The little master was quite assertive in his girly long shorts (thankfully these have not yet arrived in America) and me, for the first time in my life not knowing what to say and how to not say it, I simply said “Brother, you need another beer.”

And yes, he did drink another beer. Guess that meant he’s not really Irish…

So two weeks later on Howth, I described this encounter to our guide Mark, himself of Belfast like the non-Irish Irishman in the girly pants, but Catholic, and he responded like a PhD historian.

To wit: After 750 years of English occupation, colonization, violence, repression, uprisings, death, mayhem, chaos, cultural suppression, etc., the Irish are still sorting a few things out now that the English are mostly out.

The idea that an Irishman from Belfast is not really an Irishman is to me, like, I don’t know, let me think of something incongruous, well, it is like finding out something so incredibly outlandish that your whole world view goes topsy turvy for a week. That was the effect.

But Mark said matter of factly “Oh yeah, that is the mentality and attitude up there [Belfast], and that is why I left to come down here [Dublin].”

You would probably have to live there over a few lifetimes to figure it all out, because just as I was starting to comprehend the political and cultural dynamic of Northern Ireland, Mark then went on to describe Irish MP Danny Healy-Rae in the way someone from some deep urban ghetto cloister in New York City or Los Angeles would describe a rural NRA member farmer in flyover country.

It was not pretty, but hey, who am I to judge, and I just sat and nodded along. Mark was an excellent guide and passionate about his homeland and his happy life there. I can relate, and so like I said, I just nodded along.

Danny Healy-Rae is probably all alone in his singular rural style of political representation the world-over. Despite having a lot of rural areas and a lot of fired-up rural people, I do not think America has anyone like him in politics. Danny Healy-Rae is both principled and colorful, with a straight face.

The incredible irony of Danny Boy’s place on the political spectrum was totally lost on Mark, who only moments before was explaining Irish politics very cogently, and advocating for new roads in the deepest rural areas as “progress.”

See, Danny Boy objects to new roads being built through really rural areas, especially those places that have “fairy forts.”

Yes, fairy forts. Wonder if you will, laugh if you must, but the man is indeed worried about how new roads will destroy or impact ancient fairy forts. Setting aside the rural traditions and folklore about fairies and fairy forts (and I do tend to side with both Native American Indians and Native Irish on their spiritual sensitivities to real things in the natural world that city folk aka Town Mice completely miss), fairy forts are real.

A week after Mark had explained Irish politics so clearly to me, we visited Stonehenge.

Have you gone there? Stonehenge is literally surrounded by fairy forts. Lots of hill forts and burial mounds and mystery places clearly built by the ancients for mysterious purposes that were really important to them and unattainable to us desensitized moderns. I was not expecting this side of Stonehenge, and it turns out it’s the presence of all those hill forts and mounds that make the big Stonehenge rocks so important.

After seeing this unexpected oddity in person, I looked up “fairy forts” and read most carefully this one (of several) reference. Naturally the Irish ones came to mind first, because of the footage of Danny Boy talking about Fairy Forts in Ireland’s parliament.

Archaeologically a “fairy fort” is a fascinating historic remain, and it’s evident why the ‘hick’ locals in all these places both revere and fear them. The English seemed to have plowed theirs extensively, which is very bad from the view of the historian, archaeologist, or Druid.

Turns out that Danny Boy is not only concerned about new roads destroying Fairy Forts, but he is also publicly concerned about the explosion of rhododendron in rural Ireland.

Now as much as Mark mocked Danny Boy’s unpersuaded opinions about man-made “climate change” (like Danny Boy, I too am unpersuaded by the heavily politicized, faked data behind the mere statistical models purported to be and shouted to be irrefutable “science”), Mark admitted he did not know the flora and fauna subjects along our beautiful walk on Howth. Nonetheless, he mocked Danny Boy over the rhododendron thing, too.

That flora issue includes the tidal wave of invasive plants moving in on the beautiful Irish countryside. That would also include rhododendron, and you will not find a bigger faunal representation of imperial Victorian England (something Mark is very much opposed to) than the various copses of rhododendron planted and quickly spreading from one end of the Empire to the other.

In other words, Danny Boy is objecting to invasive rhododendron for environmental and cultural reasons, things that his detractors say they care about, and his supposedly proud Irish compatriots are mocking him about it. They mock him simply because he comes across as a hick, not because they actually know better than he or care more for the environment than he.

I think this hillbilly Irishman MP, Danny Healy-Rae, should get a lot more credit from his fellow countrymen than he has thus far received. At first I thought he was just an aggressive environmentalist trying to keep roads and invasive plants out of undeveloped Paradise. Now I think he’s also a keen historian!

We will return to Ireland. Several other friends and friendly couple friends of ours were simultaneously touring Ireland when we were there, and between us all we all pretty much covered the whole country by car, bike, kayak, and foot. The collective photos we all took showed Ireland in all its splendor. What a beautiful, unspoiled, undeveloped, magical place is Ireland.

Turns out that Ireland, the whole entire place, is one big beautiful, magical  fairy fort!

We are coming back, and we hope that Danny Boy has succeeded in diverting the roads, protecting the fairy forts, and uprooting the rhododendron. Mark, you will have to come with us, because I think you should see Ireland through our eyes. It might help you better appreciate the incredible natural beauty you have.

And this next trip might help us all better figure out Irish politics, because as we can see with Danny Boy vs. the liberal Irish, Irish politics are a complete mess where up is down and left is right. When you have liberals advocating for environmental destruction and keeping the symbols of imperial England, and the conservatives opposing them are the greens, things are just not yet sorted out.

That’s the best way to put Ireland. It just isn’t yet sorted out. But it is beautiful, thanks to the fairy forts.

Howth and the “Eye of Ireland”:

Do I own my things, or do they own me?

A recent correspondence with a man about a possible mutual exchange of what The Boss Lady here calls “rusty old junk” made me think, hard, about the things we surround ourselves with. These are things that, on their surface, bring us pleasure.

History is important to a successful civilization, and for most people collecting the detritus and symbols of history is a meaningful touchstone to the past. It is deeply satisfying to own and admire authentic representations of human history.

Collecting can be as simple as little cast iron figurines and cornstalk dolls, from a simpler and more humble time, and representative nonetheless. These are fairly inexpensive and fun to display in the living room, and still carry an intriguing punch for the Saturday lunch visitor.

The other end of the spectrum has items so valuable that they must remain under lock and key for all but the most pressing times. These are more investments than for joy.

One guy I know has probably the largest private American battle flag collection extant. It is so large in number, and the flags so large in size, that he must loan them out to various museums around America, despite the capacious capacity of his own home. In museums, these powerful bullet-ridden symbols of American freedom and sacrifice are on public display for any and all comers to see. My friend gets  a sense of satisfaction from both owning and sharing these flags. Not a bad way to collect. The flags are insured and in pretty secure environments. He can recall them at any time should be desire to sell or trade one.

I could go down the line of friends and acquaintances who own and collect expensive horses, automobiles, memorabilia, clothing, machinery, and so on. There is even the guy who at great expense built a majorly off-road pickup truck that he refuses to allow mud on, even when he is in conditions where he must.

Those who hunt with antique firearms face a true dilemma, because sporting guns are by their nature thrust into the most rugged and potentially destructive and damaging environs. Carrying your sleek 1912 Purdey double rifle on a bear hunt in northcentral Pennsylvania’s Allegheny Mountains is a risky proposition no matter how slow you go. But go you may feel compelled anyhow.  I would.

Using the rifle’s open sights, you might kill a bear under true fair-chase conditions with the classiest gun in the entire state. Such would be a lifetime achievement. On the other hand, you might drop the rifle, fall on it, bang it, or scratch it in those rugged hills, thereby incurring an expensive trip to gunsmith Abe Chaber in Connecticut, or a ship-and-wait to gunsmith Mike Rowe down south. The incredible satisfaction of both owning and successfully hunting with such a fine firearm is measurably balanced by the risk to the rare gun. And no, money is not the issue with such a gun; the issue is its rarity, impossibility of replacement, and one’s absolute duty to protect it in its original condition, as much as practicable.

So when this fellow and I got into horse-trading mode, and he demonstrated a tangibly possessive and prideful feeling about his own “rusty junk,” it jarred me, got me thinking. Do I own my things, or do they own me?

To own a piece of history and be buoyed by it, informed by it, inspired by it, is one thing. But to be a slave to those things, to turn them almost into graven idols of worshipfulness, is nearly blasphemous. It is dangerous, because it causes us to lose perspective. These are, after all, only material things, by design made by men and destined to return to the earth from whence they came. The most important things in life are not things; they are our family members, our friends, our community, and so on.

So it got me wondering, that’s all.

Do I own my things, or do they own me…

The real NFL stats

The other day a political website overflowing with the typical hatred for the current president published a supposedly carefully analyzed essay that boasted the NFL is doing just fine, despite the NFL’s politicization and the current president’s subsequent criticisms of that politicization.

Though supposed to be a careful numbers analysis, the essay was full of personal invective against the president. It is a hint that the numbers argument is not strong enough to stand on its own.

This essay stated that current NFL advertising payments demonstrate the NFL is in full financial health; that there is no measurable financial result from the NFL’s politicization or the public disputes and discourteous behavior many of its employees have shown toward average Americans and the US president.

In short, the NFL is doing fine with the American people and President Trump has no traction.

It was the kind of article that I had to read three times over to ensure that the writer really meant what he wrote. And in fact, he did mean it, and yet it is just another example of how just about everything has been politicized, and how anything that can be politicized to score a point will be  so used. Even if it is so obviously factually wrong.

Never mind that this week’s New Yorker magazine has a front cover showing a dead, bleeding Donald Trump at the bottom of an escalator. That is obvious bias and unhinged crazy (imagine if it had been the past president so portrayed). What is more intriguing is when someone reaches into a random numbers hat and tries to make a coherent argument, as the subject essay did, and pass it off as careful logic.

The problem with arguing that the NFL is doing great! fantastic! so there! based on current advertising payments is that those payments are not directly connected to actual league performance. Those ad numbers are heavily indexed and fixed long ago to past data and calculations of expected market performance. Long before Colin Kaepernick started his anti-America kneeling thing. Long before the NFL was politicized.

The cited NFL numbers are heavily lagged, meaning they reflect past, not present or even close to present performance. Also, these ad numbers are relative to other markers/ variables that are either unrelated to NFL performance or are fixed. This means they either cannot or likely will not change due to NFL performance for a long time. This means the market-driven financial fallout from the politicized NFL’s self-inflicted damage is yet to be tallied or measured by the sectors being cited by the essay (unless you are looking at short-term sales of NFL merchandise, which has been yo-yo-ing for the past two years, or half-empty NFL stadiums and unbelievably low game ticket sales, as one would expect as a result of the NFL’s politicization and purposeful alienation of at least half of America).

Using the advertising measures in that political essay in a logical way, an actual analysis in five years would be appropriate. That would catch the standard market-based reevaluation of the NFL’s actual performance. And that probably won’t be a happy situation; certainly nothing for political writers to crow about. I am willing to bet that the NFL will be in real trouble in five years, as a result of openly disrespecting their audience and market.

I conclude this by looking at the most telling, most relevant statistics: Low ticket sales, half-filled stadiums, NFL merchandise sales way down, measurable TV-broadcast NFL game viewership down.

But by then the essay in question will be long forgotten, because almost all such essays are done for their immediate effect. That is, they are trying to create an appearance, a narrative, with the simple goal of damaging and reducing the president’s current polling numbers among his supporters. Accuracy, facts, numbers do not matter. And no one else in the legacy media will call them out on their inaccuracy, anyhow.

Essays based on numbers written by politicos who are ignorant about numbers and markets are not really, truly, meant to persuade people that the numbers are meaningful. Rather, high-churn essays like this are simply meant to score temporary political points. Just like the vast majority of the US establishment legacy media. It is just another angle, that’s all.

Return of the Jedi: Hardcore Scientific Critique of John Eveland’s Fake Deer Management Ideas, His Jihad Against Wildlife Science, and His Epic Whining

June 30, 2018

Rebuttal by David S. deCalesta, Ph.D. to the Report by John Eveland titled:

The Pennsylvania Game Commission’s Collapse of the Deer Herd, Mismanagement of Habitat and Wildlife Resources, Resulting Impacts to Rural Communities and the Commonwealth, and Violations of Title 34 State Law and The Pennsylvania Constitution”

Executive Summary

The Pennsylvania Game Commission’s management of deer and other wildlife species has been wrongly characterized by John Eveland as mismanagement of habitat and wildlife resources, responsible for the collapse of the deer herd, and in violation of Pennsylvania state law and the Pennsylvania Constitution. The report makes assertions concerning deer and other wildlife resources that are not supported by documentation or established fact, misstates the intent and purpose of Title 34 of Pennsylvania State Law and portions of the Pennsylvania Constitution, incorrectly states that deer management for Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) is beneficial to deer and other wildlife resources, and makes statements about forest certification and deer management that are false and misleading. The recommendations he made in his report, if implemented, would revert Pennsylvania deer management to the period 100 years ago when deer were managed to satisfy the desires of deer hunters and ignored the advice and experience of deer professionals who predicted the dramatic collapse of the deer herd if it were not controlled. The gold standard for responsible management of natural resources is operating from a science-based model where methodologies proven by peer reviewed publications are implemented and improved upon with adaptive management. The alternative is managing based upon culture and tradition to appease the requests of a chosen and limited number of stakeholders irrespective of the wishes of, or impacts upon, other stakeholders who form a vast majority of Commonwealth citizens.  The Pennsylvania Game Commissioners must choose between promoting and implementing deer management that is either: 1) based on science for the benefit of all stakeholders affected by deer abundance; or, 2) based on culture and values of a minority of Pennsylvania’s citizens and which results in harm to the environment including wildlife habitat and wildlife species.

Preliminary Comments

The Pennsylvania Game Commission administrators face a momentous choice in deer management, by either: 1) incorporating the science of deer management as advocated by professional deer managers and regulating deer harvest, density, and impact for sustainability of all forest resources on the behalf of all Pennsylvania stakeholders; or, 2) regulating deer harvest to satisfy the demands of those deer hunters who want management to produce the maximum number of deer for hunting. With the exception of its system of Gamelands (less than 10% of Pennsylvania forestlands), the Pennsylvania Game Commission does not manage deer – it regulates deer harvest in ways to affect management on forestlands where private and public managers actually manage habitats for deer and other wildlife and plant species. Regardless of which stakeholders the Pennsylvania commissioners and administrators favor, harvest regulations adopted by the Pennsylvania Game Commission affect deer density and impact on forestlands of others. These “others” (private forest landowners and stewards/managers of public forests such as state and federal forests) manage for a variety of forest resources, produce food and cover for deer, create and maintain access to their forests that hunters use, and absorb the costs of browsing by deer on their forest resources. Hunters reap the benefits of the efforts of landowners to maintain habitat and access without sharing the affiliated costs borne by forest landowners and stewards.

The words of Aldo Leopold1, the “father of wildlife management in America” written in 1943 chronicle what occurred beginning 100 years ago in Pennsylvania when the desires of hunters for more deer took precedence over the warnings and advice of professional deer managers.

“The Pennsylvania deer dwindled steadily from Revolutionary times until about 1905, when it was nearing extinction. In that year the first refuge was established. In 1907 a buck law was passed. By 1922, 30 refuges were in operation, and the annual kill of deer had increased in fifteen years from 200 to 6115. The herd in 1922 stood at about 400,000.

Joseph Kalbfus predicted as early as 1917 that the deer herd would someday get out of hand. He recommended a doe season every fifth year, but his advice went unheeded. In 1923 the Commissioned opened a limited local doe season, but sportsmen killed it by “boycott.” Their slogan was “Don’t be yellow and kill a doe.”

Local doe seasons were tried out in 1925 and 1926. In 1927, by which time the herd stood at 1,000,000, a statewide doe season was proclaimed by the Commission, but the sportsmen “marched on Harrisburg” and forced a rescinding order. In 1928 an antlerless season was finally put into effect. That this action was too long delayed is indicated by the wholesale starvation of fawns during the two ensuing winters.

In 1931, the Pennsylvania herd was estimated at 800,000 and the carrying capacity of the range at 250,000. In other words, even after the Pennsylvania herd had been reduced 20 percent, the range was still 220 percent overstocked.

Between 1931 and 1941 five antlerless deer seasons disposed of 448,000 does and fawns, but large-scale starvation, including adult deer, was still prevalent in 1938, when the herd had shrunk to 500,000. “Runting” by malnutrition was still widely prevalent. Equilibrium between the shrinking herd and its food plants was finally reached in 1940.

Deer damage to crops in Pennsylvania has been prevalent since 1915, and to forests and plantations since 1922. In 1938 “excess deer (had) in many regions resulted in the completed overthrow of natural forest regeneration, and made forest planting practically impossible.  Due to scarcity of food in the forests, wild deer were encroaching in hordes upon neighboring farms. Fencing one farm merely crowded the animals onto the neighbors’ farms. A special survey made in 1938 showed that half the deer range was producing less than fifty pounds per acre, which was virtual depletion.

The Pennsylvania herd now stands at about 500,000 or half the 1927 peak level. The reduction is the combined result of doe-removal, starvation, and range deterioration.

It is an open question whether the Pennsylvania history is not an example of “too little and too late.” A splendid success in deer management has been partially cancelled out by delayed public acquiescence in herd reduction.”

Today, the Pennsylvania Game Commission faces the same pressures as 100 years ago from hunters who want more deer, and all other stakeholders in Pennsylvania who want deer abundance to be in balance with nature and not causing them economic harm and creating health and safety issues.

The report by John Eveland represents a return to deer management of 100 years ago: ignoring or denigrating science in favor of a vocal segment of deer hunters who want to maximize deer abundance for hunting regardless of the negative impact on other Pennsylvanians.

As a professionally trained, experienced, and recognized deer researcher, manager, and consultant, I am compelled to speak out for science and the majority of Pennsylvanians who deserve better and informed deer management than that espoused by Mr. Eveland for the benefit of a minority of Pennsylvanians.

I also feel compelled to point out major discrepancies in the current philosophy of deer management—1) that public and private forest landowners/stewards who bear the costs of deer impact on forest resources, and who provide hunters with access to their lands and absorb the costs of providing and maintaining road access have little say in deer management on their lands, and, 2) that hunting regulations designed to optimize deer abundance take precedence over the impacts on these same public and private forestlands. It is true the Pennsylvania Game Commission designed and implemented a Deer Management Assistance Program to allow public and private landowners to attempt to [control] deer abundance and impact on forest resources under their care by issuing antlerless deer permits to reduce herd density, but it is also true that demands by hunters who want more deer to harvest have resulted in reductions in the DMAP program and concurrent buck/doe seasons designed to reduce deer abundance on the lands of those providing hunting opportunities and access for hunters.

It seems only fair that if the Pennsylvania Game Commissioners and administrators decide to regulate deer harvest to produce higher deer abundance in response to hunter demands, they should do so on lands the Commission actually manages – the system of state Gamelands.   Landowners and stewards of public and private forestlands, for which hunters and the Pennsylvania game Commission provide no financial assistance in deer management, and where sustainability and health of all forest products is a goal, should be permitted to control deer abundance with continued and enhanced programs like the Deer Management Assistance Program.

Regarding my rebuttal of John Eveland’s report:

First, my credibility as a rebutter is based on my career experiences and recognized expertise with deer research and management as presented at the end of this rebuttal. Secondly, I offer below the established model for determining truth and reliability of statements regarding management of natural resources based on science-established facts rather than on hearsay or personal perception (bias).

The science/research model for establishing truth and reliability of comments on deer management and the difference between these absolutes and culture and beliefs.

Management of physical factors, such as curing disease in medicine, sending a rocket to the moon, building an automobile, and providing clean and safe water to drink, is based on hard science as established by a strict system for conducting research. An hypothesis is formed, scientific studies are designed, data are collected and analyzed, and answers are determined by established criteria for testing hypothesis with statistics. There is no place for perceptions based on culture or values which cannot be tested for truth. When people are sick, they seek the services of doctors trained in science-based medicine. Astronauts only climb aboard space ships when they know the paths of these ships are established and controlled by physics. People only buy and drive cars they know have been developed and tested by engineers using science as their guides. People trust the purity of water out of taps in America because they know engineers and water purity experts have established through science how to purify water and keep it free of harmful chemicals. Management of deer should come under no less strict adherence to established science. If you wouldn’t trust your plumber to take out your appendix, or perform a root canal, why would you trust a person who yes, has been deer hunting for many years, but bases deer management on how many deer he sees in the woods and has no education or experience in deer management as a part of overall forest management? I may have watched years of episodes of ER but that doesn’t qualify me to make medical decisions on person’s lives.

The Rebuttal

My rebuttal is based on: 1) Mr. Eveland’s disregard for established science regarding deer density and impact and replacing science and facts with perceptions and beliefs of persons not trained in deer or forest ecology; 2) lack of facts, science or scientific publications presented to support his assertions; 3) inaccurate and misleading assertions about the Pennsylvania Game Commission violating state laws and the constitution regarding hunting and natural resource management; 4) favoring a single, minority stakeholder group (disgruntled hunters who want higher deer density) over the needs and desires of a majority of Pennsylvania citizens (including deer hunters who prefer quality to quantity in deer management) who are negatively affected by high deer density; and, 5) unsupported, conspiracy-theory type statements that denigrate, without proof, professional biologists from the Pennsylvania Game Commission, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry, and outside professional agencies such as the Wildlife Management.

Disregard for Established Science

  1. Eveland stated that, “For decades prior to 2000, the Pennsylvania Game Commission had used a ‘maximum-sustained-yield’ (MSY) method of game management to manage the state’s deer herd. According to this MSY method, herd size is maintained through a balance of art and science to provide the maximum number of deer on an annual basis for sport hunting while assuring the continued health of the forest ecosystem.”  He further claimed that, “(This) change in (deer management) philosophy began in 1998 at the request of DCNR by eliminating the traditional, scientific maximum sustained yield (MSY) method of deer management (that had made Pennsylvania one of the top two deer hunting states in the nation), and replacing it with a new, value-laden style called ecosystem management (that favored nongame species of birds and mammals, wildflowers, and native shrubs). Mr. Eveland incorrectly states that MSY assures the health of the forest ecosystem. Actually, scientists have demonstrated that managing a deer herd for MSY does exactly the opposite – the overabundant deer herd simplifies the structure and species composition of understory vegetation, negatively impacting wildlife habitat, herbaceous vegetation, and seedlings required to reforest a site after timber harvest2.  The MSY philosophy (the concept of maximum sustained yield is a philosophy and not a management system) for deer management is based on the concept that at some optimum deer density the greatest number of fawns can be recruited by maintaining a maximum number of doe deer to produce a maximum harvest based on replacing the number of deer recruited annually by reproduction. However, such densities of deer are not sustainable nor are they good for understory vegetation and dependent wildlife species because deer at MSY severely and negatively impact forest resources2,4. It is true that a new model of deer management based on ecosystem management which emphasizes sustained yield of all forest resources, including non-deer game and nongame species of birds and mammals, wildflowers, and native shrubs and trees is favored by Pennsylvania Game Commission and Bureau of Forestry. This new paradigm in forest/deer management (for sustainability of all forest resources) is desired by other stakeholder groups to whom the Pennsylvania Game Commission is just as accountable as it is to deer hunters who want maximum deer density.
  2. Eveland states that, “ … in 2002 less than 4% of state forest stands were early-stage stands 0-15 years old, and by 2140 projections this percentage of early-stage forests remains the same. These young forests are vital for healthy wildlife populations including deer, grouse, about 150 species of other wildlife, and pollinators such as at-risk honey bees, bumble bees, and Monarch butterflies. DCNR’s old-growth policy will create increasingly devastating impacts to wildlife and the forest ecosystem as forests grow over the decades and centuries.” Mr. Eveland speaks out of ignorance, or disregard for established science that identifies old growth forests as providing key habitats for plant and animal communities, such as multi-canopied overstories, large snags as nesting sites, and high volumes of large fallen logs as critical wildlife and plant species habitat. Also, he disregards the fact that maturing forest stands cannot be harvested for timber (and creating early successional habitat) without first insuring that there is a diversity and minimum abundance of seedlings of a diverse group of trees present. Many forests in Pennsylvania, including BOF forests, have been so heavily overbrowsed by deer for so long that the only plants growing in the understory are ferns, grasses, exotic shrubs not browsed by deer, and a limited number of tree species (including beech an striped maple) that deer avoid browsing on. Harvesting trees from these sites guarantees that the resulting vegetation will be ferns and dense thickets of tree species of little value to deer or other wildlife species, not to mention being of zero future economic value as harvestable timber of desired species.

Lack of Factual Support for Assertions

  1. On page one of his comments, Mr. Eveland cites a dramatic and permanent reduction of the statewide deer herd, a [purportedly resulting] devastating loss of hunters, and a multi-billion-dollar economic impact to rural communities, the outdoor industry, and the Commonwealth, but he provides zero numbers in support of his claim. It is true that the deer herd declined after the introduction of the three point antler requirement, concurrent buck and doe seasons, and DMAP program but Mr. Eveland provides no data in support of his claims. Furthermore, he provides no data to support his claim that the decline in deer abundance is permanent.
  2. Eveland states that the “Pennsylvania Game Commission has ignored the creation of adequate habitat for deer, grouse, and an estimated 150 species of wildlife – placing Pennsylvania’s State Mammal, State Bird, and wildlife resources at risk – a violation of The Pennsylvania Constitution, Article I, Section 27.” Again there are no data provided to support this claim. Actually, science has shown that deer density exceeding 15 deer per square mile has a significant and negative impact on wildlife habitat, including herbaceous plants they utilize as forage, and on wildlife species (including deer)5,6,7,8
  3. Eveland makes the broad claim, “For decades, the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s conduct has represented a mix of hubris, incompetence, mismanagement, malfeasance, and outright violation of multiple state laws. The agency’s actions have been made with total disregard for its legislated mission and without regard for the egregious biological, social, and economic impacts that it has caused to the Commonwealth.”  However, he provides no supportive reference material, relegating his comments to the level of rant rather than reason.
  4. Eveland states that, “The Pennsylvania Game Commission has taken the meaning of an autonomous agency way beyond its intended purpose and has corrupted its legislated mission by, instead, choosing to serve two special interests at the expense of wildlife resources and sport hunting.” He does not identify the two special interests, but he himself favors the deer hunter stakeholder group that wants higher deer density over the other stakeholder groups negatively impacted by overabundant deer (farmers, foresters, homeowners and their devastated landscaping, motorists and deer/vehicle collisions, hikers and other forest goers exposed to Lyme disease fostered by overabundant deer herds, birdwatchers seeking birds dependent on understory habitat devastated by deer, and hunters of other game species, such as grouse and turkeys whose understory habitat is decimated by overabundant deer).
  5. Eveland asserts that, “the Pennsylvania game Commission has been accustomed to little oversight and accountability, which has fostered a culture of mismanagement and deceit. Except for law enforcement, the agency has arguably become more of a liability to the competent management of wildlife resources and sport hunting than a responsible steward of Pennsylvania’s natural resources.” Again, these comments are rant that he does not support with facts or reason. Actually, the Pennsylvania deer management program was reviewed positively in 2010 by wildlife professionals from the Wildlife Management Institute9.
  6. In the Executive Summary Mr. Eveland states that, “…a few state employees have changed the mission of the Pennsylvania Game Commission to fit their personal agenda…” and that “…three men redesigned the deer management program at their personal discretion to serve the interests of foresters and environmentalists instead of serving the interests of sportsmen for recreational hunting…” but nowhere does he provide quotations or written documentation of his claims. Hearsay has no place in scientific management of natural resources.
  7. Information presented by Mr. Eveland on deer harvest and deer densities is not referenced, so the reader has no idea if the data are true or made-up.
  8. Eveland’s claim that the reduction in the deer herd provided, “Virtually no benefits for science, tree seedling regeneration, the forest ecosystem, for commercial forestry, for biodiversity, for deer health or for society and the commonwealth’s economy is false on all counts: Scientific articles produced in Pennsylvania have shown that the reduction in the deer herd has been associated with a decrease in deer impact levels on commercially valuable tree seedlings10, with a reduced need for, or elimination of, the need for expensive fencing to protect tree seedling regeneration from deer browsing11, with an increase in the health and reproductive status of wildflowers shrubs12, and with an increase in deer health, as measured by antler characteristics and body weight of harvested deer13.
  9. Eveland produced no data to support his claim that society and the commonwealth’s economy received no benefits as a result of reduction in deer numbers, nor did he cite references to support his claim that sportsmen and recreational hunting also received no benefits as a result of reduced deer abundance. The fact that deer quality improved after reduction in deer abundance13 rebuts his claim about hunters not realizing any benefits. The fact that knowledgeable and skillful (alpha) hunters who harvested deer on a large study area maintained a satisfaction level of 7 out of 10 where a score of 10 is highly satisfied13 rebuts his claim about sportsmen and recreational hunting not realizing benefits from reduction in deer abundance.
  10. Eveland claims that, “The negative impacts to the natural ecosystem, society, and economy are severe, unjustified, and increasing yearly” without mentioning or documenting just what those negative impacts are. He further claims that,“The deer herd has been reduced to nearly unhuntable numbers in some areas” without offering documentation. He provides no documentation of his claim that, “Upwards of 200,000-300,000 sportsmen have stopped hunting as a result of deer reduction, and the rate of youth-hunter recruitment is declining and unable to replace the loss of adults.”  Ditto for the claim that, “Since 2001, upwards of $10 billion has been lost in Commonwealth economic activity due to deer reduction which is increasing at the rate of $500 million to $1.16 billion each year with $92 million in annual tax revenue losses.”  Mr. Eveland stated that, “Deer reduction has become a crisis that likely represents the greatest conservation mistake in the over-100-year history of the Pennsylvania Game Commission.” I would contend that bringing the Pennsylvania deer herd down to densities identified with the herd being in balance with other natural resources represents the greatest conservation achievement of the PA Game Commission.
  11. Eveland states that “Pennsylvania Game Commission has ignored the creation of adequate habitat for deer, grouse, and an estimated 150 species of wildlife – placing Pennsylvania’s State Mammal, State Bird, and wildlife resources at risk.” Actually, science has shown that deer density exceeding 15 deer per square mile has a significant and negative impact on wildlife habitat, including herbaceous plants they utilize as forage, and on wildlife species (including deer)14,15,16.
  12. Eveland incorrectly asserted that as a result of changes in deer management, “Upwards of 200,000-300,000 sportsmen have stopped hunting as a result of deer reduction.” This statement is false, as in 2012 the PA DCNR17 stated, based on PGC data, that the number of general hunting licenses sold by the PGC declined from 1.05 million in 2001 to about 933,000 in 2011, representing a loss of approximately 117,000 hunters.
  13. Eveland’s description of the FSC Certification of the PA Bureau of Forestry is similarly deceptive and flat-out wrong. He stated that, “In 1998, DCNR had entered into an agreement with the Forest Stewardship Council – a German-based environmental organization that was partnered with the International Rainforest Alliance – in which DCNR would pay FSC an annual fee, and in return FSC would grant DCNR an annual Green Certification Award.” It is true that the DCNR pays an annual fee to the FSC, but that fee has been used exclusively to determine whether the DCNR was making progress on deficiencies noted the initial review by the certification team. Paying a fee does not, contrary to what Mr. Eveland contents, guarantee annual renewal of a certificate signifying compliance with sustainability standards.  Mr. Eveland also asserted that, “…FSC’s regional representative, DCNR’s chief of forestry, and Pennsylvania Game Commission’s chief of wildlife management conspired to use this opportunity (certification) to permanently reduce the deer herd. The trio arbitrarily included a provision in the DCNR/FSC Green Certification agreement that the Game Commission would need to comply with herd reduction in order for DCNR to be granted the annual award.” I know this assertion is false because I was the ecologist on the Scientific Certification System 18 team that performed the certification assessment of the PA Bureau of Forestry and it was a recommendation of the team, rather than the three men identified by Mr. Eveland, that the DCNR should take action to reduce the deer herd as a condition of continued certification.
  14. Eveland claimed that “The Legislative Budget and Finance Committee determined that as of 2011 the resulting annual DCNR gain in revenue was about $1.2 million, while the cost to Commonwealth economic activity – primarily to family businesses and rural communities – was a minimum of $501.6 million per year. The LB&FC further calculated that a minimum of $40 million in annual tax revenue was being lost as a result of the deer-reduction program — $25 million in lost annual state tax revenue and $15 million in local taxes. By 2017, these annual impacts had increased to $1.16 billion in losses to our economy and $92.5 million in lost tax revenue. In fact, the only report issued by the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee including 2011 was a report issued the succeeding year 24 (2012) that dealt with costs and benefits of FSC Certification of DCNR Forests and the report indicated positive economic benefits accruing to the PA BOF from the certification. The numbers quoted above by Mr. Eveland do not appear in any Legislative Budget and Finance Committee reports that I was able to find searching the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee website for published reports. Either Mr. Eveland made up those data, or derived them from a source not identified as a report by the Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee. If such reports exist, he should have documented them properly so his claims could be verified.
  15. The claim by Mr. Eveland that, “…The need to increase forest tree-seedling regeneration was a principal reason Pennsylvania Game Commission used to justify permanent reduction of the herd.  However, after independent scientific assessment, the forest regeneration theory has proven to be a myth – false science is a blatant untruth for which he provided no evidence.”  In fact, just the opposite is true. Established science has proven that forest tree seedling regeneration improves dramatically and significantly after reduction in deer density20.
  16. The claim by Mr. Eveland that, the Pennsylvania Game Commission has “…declined to create adequate habitat because cutting trees would have generated tens-of-millions-of-dollars for the Pennsylvania game Commission and eliminated the agency’s justification for a license-fee increase – a deception and violation of The Pennsylvania Constitution, Article I, Section 27” is another example of unsubstantiated and untrue statements he makes regarding wildlife management by the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Harvesting trees may produce valuable wildlife habitat, if the basis for such (an abundant and diverse amount of tree seedlings, shrubs, and herbs) exists prior to tree harvest. In fact, whether trees may be harvested is determined, as any forester worth their salt knows, by the diversity and abundance of seedlings of commercially valuable seedlings present prior to timber harvest. The trained foresters on the Pennsylvania Game Commission staff cannot and will not commence harvesting trees until and unless adequate amounts and diversity of tree seedling species are present prior to tree harvest. They will not proceed with tree harvest when the understory is comprised of ferns, grasses and seedlings of undesirable tree species, such as beech and striped maple, as these plants would form the succeeding forest which would have no commercial value and would be depauperate regarding diversity of understory vegetation and wildlife habitat. This condition perfectly describes forest understory as affected by overabundant deer herds21 which existed prior to reduction of deer abundance.
  17. The Executive Summary on page 5 of the unpaged document is not an executive summary at all. Such summaries provide a succinct summary of the gist of the document and usually consist of one paragraph of no more than one page in length. The Summary that Mr. Eveland provided is a 4-page rant rather than a concise summary of the contents of his document. However, I rebut below portions of his executive summary:
    1. Eveland asserted that management for MSY of the deer herd “… served the recreational interests of the many millions of wildlife enthusiasts and outdoor-loving citizens of the Commonwealth.” The truth is, managing for MSY of the deer herd, while creating an abundant deer herd, basically simplified and modified wildlife habitat and understory vegetation to the point where songbird populations and diversity declined, as did herbaceous vegetation and tree seedling regeneration2. This severe alteration of the diversity and abundance of other wildlife species and understory vegetation did not “serve the recreational interests of many millions of wildlife enthusiasts and out-door loving citizens of the Commonwealth” as Mr. Eveland asserted. Rather, it served the interests of only one group, those hunters who wanted a deer herd at maximum density for hunting.
    2. Eveland stated without reference that, “A 2009 study that was funded by the Pinchot Institute discovered that every state in the nation used the MSY method of game management in one form or another except one state — Pennsylvania.” I could not find a report of this study, and the Pinchot Institute manager of publications, Will Price, was not aware of such a publication. However, I did find a 2012 publication by the Pinchot Institute titled. “Pennsylvania’s Forests, How They are Changing and Why We Should Care.”22. Excerpts from this publication include, “Deer have made a magnificent recovery during the second half of the 20th century, to the point of overabundance. Deer now crowd backyards, roadways, and forests. In many of these places, they are free from pressures that once kept herds in check. Even in the large forests of the central state, there are fewer pressures than in the past, as hunting is in decline. Experts estimate that there should be no more than 15 to 20 deer per square mile, but many places in Pennsylvania host more than 50 deer per square mile. In heavily settled areas, where hunting pressure is light or non-existent, it is not unusual to have more than 75 deer per square mile. The hunger of an oversized deer population exacts a heavy toll on delicate seedlings, shrubs, and flowering plants. The result is a forest missing a future generation of trees and a forest floor stripped of much of its diversity. In the early 1900s, one western Pennsylvania forest hosted 41 species of plants; by the mid-1990s, almost half had disappeared. The rarest of Pennsylvania wildflowers remain only in sanctuaries inaccessible to deer. A 10-year study by the US Forest Service determined that more than 20 deer per square mile lead to a complete loss of cerulean warblers, yellow-billed cuckoos, indigo buntings, and other migratory birds.” The Pinchot report promoted “…cooperative deer management because deer roam, breed, and browse across multiple ownerships and, in general, are too much for one landowner (public or private) to handle. Managing deer typically involves putting up fences to keep deer out of some areas. This practice is expensive and the budget for fencing state lands runs into the millions. Most individual landowners cannot afford to underwrite these costs and so the forests suffer.” The report offered the Kinzua Quality Deer Cooperative (KQDC) as a solution to deer overpopulation and impacts on forest resources to confront this dilemma. “…Deer permits offered by KQDC landowners (through the Game Commission’s Deer Management Assistance program) sparked more hunting and more deer harvested. Over successive years, deer declined from almost 30 per square mile to 12 per square mile. As deer numbers declined individual deer grew bigger each year. The KQDC reaffirmed the notion that, without hunting, deer would overrun the forests, fields, yards, and roads—declining in size and health as their forage became scarce. In this respect, hunters are critical to sustaining ecosystems.”
    3. Eveland makes a number of undocumented statements, including a false claim that the deer herd was reduced from 1,500,000 deer statewide to 600,000 (a 60% reduction) from 2000 to 2004 and by 90% in some unspecified “other” regions, a claim that the Pennsylvania game Commission president wanted to reduce deer density to 5-6 deer per square mile, and an undocumented claim that there were only 1-2 deer per square mile throughout large regions of Pennsylvania. Mr. Eveland provides no evidence to support these claims of vast reductions in the deer herd. In point of fact, Pennsylvania Game Commission deer biologists with a PennState University wildlife professor published a peer-reviewed article23 in a prestigious wildlife publication where they state, based on data collected from the PA deer herd, that the deer herd was reduced from 1,490,000 deer in 2000 to 1,140,000 deer by 2005, a 23% reduction rather than the 60% reduction claimed by Mr. Eveland. Furthermore, data provided by the DCNR on estimates of deer density 2000-2010 rebut Mr. Eveland’s contentions about the large drop in deer density in PA. * based on data provided by the PGC                                                                        Also, the Legislative Budget & Finance Committee of the PA General Assembly24 stated that total number of deer in PA on all Deer Management Units (with no data from two) was 886,837 in 2009, 878,627 in 2010, 987,943 in 2001, 1,035,142 in 2012, 1,080,008 in 2012 and 1,082,450 in 2014, not at all reflective of the great decline in deer abundance Mr. Eveland asserts that occurred. Regarding the target deer density of 5-6 deer per square mile Mr. Eveland attributes to the PA Game Commission president, I was unable to find documentation of such. What I did unearth, was the recommendation in 200125 for a reduction of the deer herd by 5%, rather than a recommendation to reduce the deer herd to 5-6 deer/square mile.
  18. Eveland stated that …”A member of PGC’s deer team stated in a private conversation, ‘Deer have literally been exterminated in some regions and still regeneration has not returned.’” He further alleged that, “Regarding PGC’s control of Legislative oversight, a wildlife management chief bragged in private conversation that, “I get what I want; I baffle them with b__ s__”. Unless Mr. Eveland has proof of these claimed statements, they can only be taken as intentionally inflammatory statements designed to discredit Pennsylvania Game Commission employees without proof—in other words, intentional and unsupported defamation. Such statements have no place in professional discourses regarding management of deer or other natural resources and should be disregarded as having no merit nor value save to sow doubts on the professionalism of Pennsylvania Game Commission employees. The words “private conversation” should be viewed skeptically as they are designed to prepare recipients of the “information” that they will be exposed to hearsay in support a position for which the author has no factual information.
  19. Eveland stated that, “The Legislative Budget and Finance Committee determined that as of 2011 the resulting annual DCNR gain in revenue was about $1.2 million, while the cost to Commonwealth economic activity – primarily to family businesses and rural communities – was a minimum of $501.6 million per year. The LB&FC further calculated that a minimum of $40 million in annual tax revenue was being lost as a result of the deer-reduction program — $25 million in lost annual state tax revenue and $15 million in local taxes. By 2017, these annual impacts had increased to $1.16 billion in losses to our economy and $92.5 million in lost tax revenue.” This information was published by the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania in a publication authored by Mr. Eveland. These data overstate information released by The Legislative Budget and Finance Committee in its 2010 report19, which stated, “The decline in hunter participation between 2001 and 2011 therefore represents a potential loss of $285 million in direct economic activity.” The report adds this caveat: “It would be overly simplistic, however, to link a reduction in either the PA deer herd or the number of general licenses sold directly to DCNR’s forest certification program, as many factors are involved in these trends.” I was unable to find any documentation of the numbers produced by Mr. Eveland in the form of alleged reports issued in 2011 and 2017 by the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee. Using unproven numbers published by an organization of disgruntled deer hunters to discredit the Pennsylvania Game Commission cannot be taken seriously nor used to direct management of the Pennsylvania deer herd. In contrast, a report by the Legislative Budget & Finance Committee of the PA General Assembly24 stated that, “The economic benefits of FSC certification are modest, but may increase in future years. A study done of PA timber sales found that between 2001 and 2006, DCNR earned a premium of about $7.7 million by selling to FSC-certified buyers. This premium—about 10%—is higher than most studies find (typically 6% or less) and was largely attributable to one species, black cherry.”
  20. Eveland disputed studies conducted by “… PGC and DCNR … proving that deer were destroying new forest regeneration to the detriment of red oaks for foresters and understory shrubs and wildflowers as habitat for nongame wildlife,” by stating that .”…multiple studies dispelled this belief...” and that rather “…it was discovered that the lack of regeneration had not been caused by deer, but by aging forests with 80-125-year-old trees. Tightly closed canopies were preventing sunlight from reaching the forest floor. In addition, Penn State had told PGC to no avail that increasingly acidic soils from acid precipitation was also responsible for low and decreasing levels of understory regeneration.  Mr. Eveland needs to document what the “multiple studies” are if he wants any credibility to his claims. In point of fact, maturing forests, including old growth, are not characterized by total overstory canopy closure but rather by multiple openings of various sizes that contain tree seedlings that form the next forest when the overstory is removed by natural disturbance or timber harvest. The acid rain theory (that it’s acid rain and not deer browsing that causes failures of advanced regeneration in the forest understory) advanced by Dr. William Sharpe of PennState University is easily debunked by comparing vegetation inside and outside deer-proof fenced exclosures. Unless acid rain falls in patterns that exclude falling within deer-proof exclosures (of which there are many in forests impacted by acid rain) it cannot be acid rain that causes regeneration failures.
  21. Eveland claimed that, “For some time legislators and sportsmen had wondered why PGC was not cutting more timber and making millions of dollars annually from their mature forests that at 80-125 years old have grown to a very marketable size of 20-24 inches in diameter. PGC’s failure to cut timber for desperately needed wildlife habitat was recently explained by a retired PGC chief: “The Game Commission is playing a political game with Legislators.  If they cut the amount of timber that’s needed for wildlife habitat, they’ll make a lot of money and won’t be able to justify a license increase.” is undocumented and misleading hearsay purportedly made by a retired PGC chief (but no proof is offered concerning the claim and who made it.)  Also, data from the Legislative Budget & Finance Committee of the PA General Assembly24 indicates timber revenues from state game lands was 6.6 million dollars in 2011-2012; 7.2 million dollars in 2012-2013; and 7.1 million dollars in 2013-2014 – refuting the claim by Mr. Eveland that PGC has failed to cut timber.
  22. Eveland incorrectly concludes in his report that, (1) no significant benefits have resulted after 17 years of herd reduction—not for science, society, nor economy—while the negative impacts to the future of sport hunting and the Commonwealth have been great; and (2) that PGC’s deer-reduction program is designed to serve foresters and fringe environmentalists at the expense of wildlife resources, sportsmen and recreational hunting, rural economies and the outdoor industry, and the general outdoor interests of Pennsylvania’s citizens.” This assessment is faulty. The reduction in the deer herd over the last 10 or so years has resulted in improved wildlife habitat, improved understory vegetation, and improved deer condition12. Improved understory vegetation (species composition, and horizontal and vertical structure of ground and shrub vegetation) means improved habitat for dependent wildlife species, including turkey, grouse, and hares.
  23. Eveland’s statements that, “…lumber coming from DCNR’s red oak and black cherry trees was no different than lumber from Farmer Brown’s oak and cherry trees, nor was it superior to trees that had grown during the same time period on almost any other public or private forest lands in the Commonwealth. While DCNR had sufficient revenue to purchase the annual award, according to a 2011 Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee report, many smaller landowners were financially unable to purchase FSC’ green certification award and would be at a disadvantage in selling their timber – placing these small operators at risk and forcing some previously forested areas to be converted to agriculture.  When trying to sell the award to a small family-owned lumber company, the representative told the owner that he could purchase the certification without worrying about making any management changes to his forest holdings, stating: “I’m an environmental opportunist, not an environmentalist “are false and misleading. It is true that certified lumber has little if any superior quality to that grown on uncertified forestland, but quality of timber is not the goal of certification.  Certified forestry operations do not “buy certification.” Rather, the initial fee, and subsequent fees assessed to ascertain whether actions need to be taken to correct deficiencies noted in initial assessments are used to pay certification companies to conduct the initial assessment and succeeding audits. Additionally, certified timber is grown on forestlands certified as managing for all forest resources sustainably, with special emphasis on diversity and quality of other forest resources. It is true that smaller, private woodlot owners may be unable to pay for the certification process and obtain certification, but that imposes no financial burden on them. They can still sell their timber to buyers. Some form aggregates of forest landowners in group assessments to spread out the cost, but again, lack of certification does not impose financial hardship on small woodlot owners or others who do not seek certification.
  24. Regarding costs of certification of the DCNR forest management program, Mr. Eveland claimed that, “The Legislative Budget and Finance Committee determined that as of 2010 the annual DCNR gain in revenue from the green-certification/deer-reduction scheme was about $1.2 million per year, while the cost to Commonwealth economic activity – primarily to family businesses and rural communities – was a minimum of $501.6 million per year. The LB&FC further calculated that a minimum of $40 million in annual tax revenue was being lost as a result of the deer-reduction program — $25 million in lost state tax revenue and $15 million lost annually in local taxes. By 2017, these annual impacts had increased to $1.16 billion in losses to the state’s economy and $92.5 million in tax-revenue losses.” These claims are not supported by the 2012 report of the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee report titled, “The Costs and Benefits of FSC Certification of DCNR Forests.” Instead, the report found that, 1.) “DCNR has a five-year contract for $101,736 covering the recertification audit and the four annual reviews between recertifications. These costs represent about a 4.8 cents per acre over the five-year period, or about a penny a year per acre.” The Heinz Endowments program, through a grant by the Gifford Pinchot Institute for Conservation, paid for the initial certification assessment, at no cost to Pennsylvania taxpayers. Additional findings of the LB&FC regarding costs/benefits of certification included: 2.) “DCNR has a five-year contract for $101,736 covering the recertification audit and the four annual reviews between recertifications. These costs represent about a 4.8 cents per acre over the five-year period, or about a penny a year per acre;” 3.) “DCNR characterizes the benefits of FSC certification as important, but largely for nonfinancial reasons. DCNR cites the primary benefits being an independent review of its forest management practices; improved staff morale in knowing the department meets certification standards; and added credibility in assuring the public that it is managing state-owned forests in a professional and sustainable manner;” 4.) “Several studies, including one of DCNR timber sales, have found that FSC certification can also provide modest financial benefits, often on the order of a 5 percent premium over noncertified lumber. A 2008 study of DCNR timber sales found that, between 2001 and 2006, FSC-certified buyers of Pennsylvania state forest timber paid approximately $7.7 million more for this timber than what would have been earned had all buyers been non-certified. According to the study, higher bid prices offered by FSC-certified buyers (primarily for black cherry) translated into roughly a 10 percent increase over what would have been earned in the absence of certification. The study also found that by 2006, FSC-certified buyers accounted for nearly two-thirds of the dollar value of all state forest timber sales24” and, 5.) “In April 2011, DCNR’s State Forester reported to the Pennsylvania Game Commission that DCNR has seen positive signs of recovery in many of state forests as a result of deer management policies of the past 10 years,” Nowhere in the report did I find any of the costs to Pennsylvania of certification asserted by Mr. Eveland, nor could I find any corroboration of his claimed costs in other reports of the PA Legislative and Budget Committee. I examined the comprehensive, 2010 report by the PA Legislative and Budget Committee titled, “Examination of Current and Future Costs and Revenues from Forest Products and Oil, Gas, and Mineral Extraction on Pennsylvania Game Commission Lands” and found no corroboration of Mr. Eveland’s asserted costs of certification.
  25. In his assessment of the DCNR monitoring report16 on deer impact in a 2006 report, Mr. Eveland got it half right, but made inferences that were wrong and misleading. Concerning the report, Mr. Eveland stated, “DCNR conducted possibly the most comprehensive forest regeneration/browse study in the history of the agency – counting tree seedlings and saplings to six feet in height and measuring the amount of browsing by deer. According to the report, DCNR crews surveyed “47,327 individual plots along more than 1,600 miles of transects, with 88% coverage of the state forest system.”  In 2006, DCNR published the results of their survey in a 30-page technical report.  All seedling browsing by deer was listed in five categories: none, slight, moderate, heavy, and severe.” This is the part Mr. Eveland got right. But he went on to say, “The results shocked the two agencies, discovering that over 68% of young trees were not browsed at all, and another 21% were only lightly browsed – representing little to no browsing of a combined 89% of seedlings and saplings.  Another 7% were moderately browsed, indicating that 96% of all samples fell within the unbrowsed to moderately browsed categories.  Therefore, only 4% of seedlings and saplings from the 47,327 survey plots covering 1,600 miles were categorized as heavily or severely browsed.” Actually, on average, 4 percent of plots contained seedlings that were heavily to severely browsed not 4% of seedlings. However, if one looks at the data from Table 2 of the report, for a number of species (15 of 51) the percent of plots containing those species heavily to severely browsed was 10-29% or more. These species are known to be preferred by deer (greenbrier, black gum, hawthorn, white oak, chestnut oak, sassafras, elderberry, red oak, aspen, witch-hazel, ash, magnolia, basswood, Virginia creeper). More telling, the percent plots containing individual species of any damage level was very low: ranging from less than 0.10 percent of all plots to 39%. Thirty four of the 51 species occurred on less than 5% of all plots. In other words, most plots did not have any seedlings of species evaluated, most likely because heavy deer browsing over the last century removed most and kept them from recurring. When seedlings are so scarce that the highest percent of plots containing seedlings of individual species (22.6% to 40%) are populated by species avoided by deer (beech, striped maple, mountain laurel, and huckleberry) it is clear that there was very little of anything available for deer except species they do not prefer. Another factor to consider in evaluating the report is that the period of evaluation was for only two years (2006-2007) which was 3 years after the DMAP program (for increasing harvest of antlerless deer) was initiated.  Likely percent plots with individual seedling species was much lower prior to deer reductions resulting from the DMAP and concurrent buck-doe seasons (2003). And, it is likely that a second survey conducted in 2010 or later, when the DMAP and concurrent seasons had been in place for longer would have shown marked increase in percent plots with seedlings of seedling species preferred by deer, as was the case on the Kinzua Quality Deer Cooperative12.  Additional parameters for evaluating deer impact (percent plots with no impact on regeneration and percent plots no regeneration of any species) are part of the protocol26  for estimating deer impact but they were not used in this report. On forest landscapes so heavily browsed by deer that there are few seedlings of any species, these broad estimators of deer impact are more informative. Finally, Mr. Eveland’s’ comment that, “Shortly thereafter (publication of the monitoring report), the study’s two principal architects, Merlin Benner from DCNR and Gary Alt from PGC, resigned in the face of their dramatic failure – possibly to avoid repercussions that were expected to result once the Legislature realized that they had perpetrated such a grand scientific, social, and economic error” is mere speculation without a shred of corroboration. [Note from Josh First: I personally knew both Merlin Benner and Dr. Gary Alt at the time being discussed here, and I have never before heard, read, or encountered any information that supports John Eveland’s allegation that the two scientists had to resign, did resign, or were criticized for their scientific work. Merlin Benner left public service to start several businesses doing work he loves, and Gary Alt was openly burned out by the Pennsylvania “Deer Wars” and he happily left public service to become a much more relaxed private sector naturalist providing wildlife tours to people who are interested in wildlife science]

Inaccurate and Misleading Assertions Concerning Pennsylvania Game Commission State Law/Constitution

  1. Eveland claims that the deer management program “was and remains a gross and deliberate violation of Title 34, Section 322 (c) (13). This state law states that a duty of the Pennsylvania Game Commission is to “serve the interest of sportsmen by preserving and promoting our special heritage of recreational hunting and furtaking by providing adequate opportunity to hunt and trap the wildlife resources of this Commonwealth.” However this duty does not describe preserving and promoting hunter heritage of hunting and furtaking by providing as many deer or furbearers as hunters want. It simply states that hunters will have an adequate opportunity to hunt and trap and does not equate “adequate opportunity” with an unlimited quantity of deer to shoot or furbearers to trap. Mr. Eveland further stated that the reduction in deer density was, “…initiated without the benefit of a cost/benefit analysis and without approval by the Joint Legislature, and represents a gross and deliberate violation of Title 34 State Law: Section 322(c) (13)”. I am not aware that a mandated function of the PA legislature is to approve of Pennsylvania Game Commission management actions. Mr. Eveland’s erroneous claim that the reduction in the deer herd is a gross and deliberate violation of Title 34 State Law, Section 322(c)(13) is false and misleading
  2. Eveland claims that the Pennsylvania Game Commission violated Article I, section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, stating that, “the Pennsylvania Game Commission has ignored the creation of adequate habitat for deer, grouse, and an estimated 150 species of wildlife – placing Pennsylvania’s State Mammal, State Bird, and wildlife resources at risk – a violation of The Pennsylvania Constitution, Article I, Section 27,” Actually, Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution States that, “…the people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.” The article further states that, “Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.” Mr. Eveland claims without proof that the Pennsylvania Game Commission does not manage habitat for the benefit of wildlife species.  He asserts that the Pennsylvania Game Commission does not create wildlife habitat because it does not harvest timber (which can only relate to Pennsylvania State Gamelands – about 9% of forestland in Pennsylvania. The other 91% of Pennsylvania forestlands are owned/managed by other persons/entities over whom the Pennsylvania Game Commission has no management authority regarding timber management). Article I, Section 27 can in no way be construed to mean that the Pennsylvania Game Commission must harvest timber to avoid risking the welfare of 150 wildlife species.
  3. Eveland stated that the reduction in deer density was, “…initiated without the benefit of a cost/benefit analysis and without approval by the Joint Legislature, and represents a gross and deliberate violation of Title 34 State Law: Section 322(c) (13).” It is not a mandated function of the Pennsylvania legislature to approve of Pennsylvania Game Commission management actions.

Favoring a single, minority stakeholder group over a majority of Pennsylvanians affected by deer management.

  1. It must be acknowledged that the stakeholder groups the Pennsylvania Game Commission is accountable to include more than just deer hunters who want to maximize deer density for hunting. Other stakeholders negatively affected by overabundant deer include grouse, turkey, and hare hunters, public and private forest landowners attempting to provide sustainable timber harvests, motorists who collide with deer, landowners whose landscaping is decimated by overabundant deer, and managers of public lands mandated to optimize diversity of forest resources.
  2. It is true that revenues provided by hunting licenses and federal Pittman Robertson funds allotted to Pennsylvania (based on number of hunting licenses sold) provide the financial underpinning of the Pennsylvania Game Commission. However, Mr. Eveland ignores the reality that private landowners and public agencies (e.g., state and national parks, state and national forests) provide deer habitat, provide deer forage, and provide hunter access to their lands with their own financial resources and absorb the costs of negative deer impact on their agricultural crops and forest regeneration caused by the high deer densities sought by hunters. Furthermore, deer hunters do not reimburse these landowners for the services, habitat, and access they provide, nor for the damage deer cause. With the exception of the system of State Gamelands in Pennsylvania (which are managed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission and only comprise approximately 9% of forested land in Pennsylvania), the costs of providing deer habitat, maintenance of hunting access, and absorption of costs of overabundant deer herds are borne by landowners and managers of private and public forestlands not in the Gamelands system and are not supported by deer hunters (reference my papers).
  3. In Appendix C of his report, Mr. Eveland complains about the DCNR plan to promote and retain old growth forests within the system of State Forests. Unfortunately, he is unaware that the stakeholders served by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry, and its parent organization, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural resources include all citizens of Pennsylvania, not just deer hunters who want more deer. For clarification, the mission statements, and actions by which these DCNR and BOF missions are to be accomplished are:
    1. The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources’ mission27 is to ensure the long-term health, viability and productivity of the Commonwealth’s forests and to conserve native wild plants. To achieve this mission, the DCNR will:
  4. Advocate and Promote Forest Conservation
  5. Provide Forestry Information and Outreach
  6. Prevent and Suppress Wildfires
  7. Protect the Forest From Destructive Insects and Diseases
  8. Conserve Native Plants
  9. Conserve Private Forest Land
  10. Promote Community Forests and Tree Planting
  11. Manage the Certified State Forest System
  12. Protect Water Quality
  13. Sustainably Harvest Timber
  14. Manage Natural Gas Activity
  15. Provide Forest Recreation Opportunities —Featured recreational activities include hunting, along with scenic driving to hiking, camping, and snowmobiling. The Bureau maintains thousands of miles of trails, roads and related infrastructure to accommodate state forest visitors and ensure quality low-density recreational experiences. Note that hunting is one of several recreational activities the DCNR will promote and enhance by maintaining hunting access and ensuring quality, low-density recreational experiences.  Nowhere is maximizing number of deer for deer hunters identified as a goal.
  16. b) The mission of the DCNR Bureau of Forestry28, a division within the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, is to ensure the long-term health, viability, and productivity of the commonwealth’s forests and to conserve native wild plants. The bureau is to accomplish this mission by:
  17. Managing state forests under sound ecosystem management, to retain their wild character and maintain biological diversity while providing pure water, opportunities for low-density recreation, habitats for forest plants and animals, sustained yields of quality timber, and environmentally sound utilization of mineral resources.
  18. Protecting forestlands, public and private, from damage and/or destruction by fires, insects, diseases, and other agents.
  19. Promoting forestry and the knowledge of forestry by advising and assisting other government agencies, communities, landowners, forest industry, and the general public in the wise stewardship and utilization of forest resources.
  20. Protecting and managing native wild flora resources by determining status, classifying, and conserving native wild plants.

 Unsupported, conspiracy-theory type statements

Sprinkled throughout his report, Mr. Eveland makes a number of conspiracy-theory type statements about various individuals whom he claims, without proof, colluded to reduce deer density, and mandated the findings and recommendations of the certification assessment of the PA DCNR. A few such statements are appended below:

  1. “…in 1998, the PGC established the Deer Management Working Group (DMWG) to review the existing program and provide recommendations regarding the creation of a new statewide deer management program. Scot Williamson (the principal representative of the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI)) was selected by the PGC as the group’s chairman. This action was designed to create the perception that the findings and recommendations of the DMWG had resulted from an unbiased independent assessment of the state’s deer management program. In reality, however, the new deer-reduction/ecosystem-management program had already been designed by Gary Alt and Calvin DuBrock at the request of Bryon Shissler and Dan Devlin (DCNR).”
  2. “Three men who all despised deer and who blamed deer for virtually all maladies that befell the forest ecosystem (FSC’s regional representative (Bryon Shissler), DCNR forester Dan Devlin, and PGC’s chief of wildlife management (Calvin DuBrock), who was, himself, not a hunter) conspired to use this opportunity to permanently reduce the deer herd. A provision was inserted into the DCNR/FSC green certification agreement stating that the Game Commission would need to comply with a hoped for, new herd-reduction program in order for DCNR to be granted the annual award.  While in reality this deer-reduction requirement was not the case but simply a ruse by the three men (in that DCNR would receive the annual award from FSC as long as they paid FSC the required annual fee), they succeeded in convincing the governor, who adjusted the Commission’s board of game commissioners and executive staff toward achieving their desired personal herd-reduction goal.  Therefore, herd reduction was initiated for two reasons: (1) to increase timber-sale revenue for DCNR, and (2) to achieve the anti-deer, environmental agenda of three men.”
  3. “Three men redesigned the deer management program at their personal discretion to serve the interests of foresters and environmentalists – not just instead of serving the interests of sportsmen for recreational hunting, but at the expense of sportsmen and recreational hunting.”
  4. In 1998, DCNR had entered into an agreement with the Forest Stewardship Council … in which DCNR would pay FSC an annual fee, and in return FSC would grant DCNR an annual Green Certification Award. According to this mutually-beneficial scheme, the annual Green Certification Award would give environmentally-minded retail and wholesale customers the impression that lumber from DCNR’s state forests was superior to other sources of wood products, and, therefore, domestic and international sales of DCNR lumber would increase. Three men (FSC’s regional representative, DCNR’s chief of forestry, and PGC’s chief of wildlife management) conspired to use this opportunity to permanently reduce the deer herd. The trio arbitrarily included a provision in the DCNR/FSC Green Certification agreement that the Game Commission would need to comply with herd reduction in order for DCNR to be granted the annual award.  While in reality this was not the case but simply a ruse by the three men, they succeeded in convincing the governor, who adjusted the Commission’s board of game commissioners and executive staff toward achieving herd reduction.” 
  5. “It is important to note that prior to DCNR’s signing of the Green-Certification agreement with FSC in 1998, forestry agencies from other states were invited to the meeting in Harrisburg toward soliciting their participation in the program along with DCNR.  However, according to written records these states left the meeting and refused to participate in the program, stating that the Green-Certification program was based on politics, not on science.”
  6. “In 2008, an audit was developed consisting of 15 questions that had been pre-designed by PGC, Tim Schaeffer, and a small group of deer-reduction “orchestrators” to provide a positive response in favor of  PGC’s deer program – attempting to validate the program as being based on “sound science”.  Levdansky and Tim Schaeffer had promoted this audit to the House Game & Fisheries Committee and the Legislative Budget & Finance Committee for several months.  Once approved, to further assure the outcome of the audit, by selecting Scot Williamson as the auditor, the legitimacy of PGC’s deer-reduction program was being investigated and determined by the person who had developed the program for the PGC 10 years before as chairman of PGC’s DMWG… Therefore, both the audit and the auditor were biased, and, thus, the audit-process was fraudulent – designed to deceive the board of commissioners, legislators, sportsmen, and the public to believe that PGC’s deer-reduction program was based on noble ideals that were in the best interest of all parties.”

In summary, Mr. Eveland’s comments are based not on established science as supported by research but instead on beliefs and culture of a minority of Commonwealth residents. Hunting deer for 50 years does not make a deer scientist, but rather a seasoned deer hunter. Persons hunting deer for recreation do not put themselves in the shoes of foresters whose regenerating seedlings are wiped out by overabundant deer, nor do they commiserate with farmers whose alfalfa crop has been decimated by too many deer. Deer management should be based on the needs of all stakeholders affected by deer, rather than only on the desires of hunters or businesses that support hunting.

References

  1. Leopold, A. 1943. Deer irruptions.   Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. Pages 351-366
  2. deCalesta, D. S., and S. L. Stout. 1997. Relative deer density and sustainability: a conceptual framework for integrating deer management with ecosystem management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25:252‑258.
3. McCullough, D. R. 1979. The George Reserve Deer Herd: Population Ecology of a K-selected  Deer Herd. University of Michigan Press.
4. Rooney, T. P. 2001. Deer impacts on forest ecosystems: a North American perspective.  Forestry 74: 201-208.
5. deCalesta, D. S. 1994.  Impact of white‑tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania.  J. Wildl. Manage. 58:711‑718. 5.
6. McShea, W. J., and J. H. Rappole. 1992. White-tailed deer as keystone species within forest habitats in Virginia. Virginia Journal of Sciences 43:177-186.
7. Rooney, T. P., and W. J. Dress. 1997. Species loss over sixty-six years in the ground-layer vegetation of Heart’s Content, an old-growth forest in Pennsylvania, USA. Natural Areas Journal 17: 297–305.
8. Horsley, S.B., S.L. Stout, and D.S. deCalesta. 2003. White-tailed deer impact on the vegetation dynamics of a northern hardwood forest. Ecol. Appl. 13(1):98-118
  1. Wildlife Management Institute. 2010. The deer management program of the Pennsylvania Game Commission: a comprehensive review and evaluation. The Wildlife Management Institute, Washington D.C., USA.
  2. Tilghman. N. G. 1989. Impacts of white-tailed deer on forest regeneration in northwestern Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:524-532.
  3. Stout, S. L., A. A Royo, D. S. deCalesta, K. McAleese, and J. C. Finley. 2013. The Kinzua Quality Deer Cooperative: can adaptive management and local stakeholder engagement sustain reduced impact of ungulate browsers in forest systems? Boreal Environment Research 18:50-64.
  4. Royo, A. A., S. L. Stout, D. S. deCalesta and T. G. Pierson. 2010. Restoring forest herb communities through landscape-level deer herd reductions: Is recovery limited by legacy effects? Biological Conservation 143:2425-2434.
  5. deCalesta, D. S. 2017. Achieving and maintaining sustainable white-tailed deer density with adaptive management. Human Wildlife Interactions Journal. 11:99-111.
  6. deCalesta, D. S. 1994. Impact of white‑tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania. J. Wildl. Manage. 58:711‑718.
  7. McShea, W. J., and J. H. Rappole. 2000. Managing the abundance and diversity of breeding bird populations through manipulation of deer populations. Conservation Biology14: 1161-1170.
  8. Royo, A. A., S. L. Stout, D. S. deCalesta, and T. G. Pierson. 2010. Restoring forest herb communities through landscape-level deer herd reductions: is recovery limited by legacy affects: Biological Conservation 143: 2425-2434.
  9. Benner, M. 2007. Browsing and regeneration monitoring report for Pennsylvania’s state forests. Pennsylvania Department of conservation and natural resources. 21pp.
  10. Wager, D., R. S. Seymour and D. deCalesta. 2003. Forest management and chain-of-custody 5-year recertification evaluation report for the state of Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Forestry. Unpublished report by Scientific Certification Systems, Emeryville, California, submitted to Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Harrisburg. 125 pp.
  11. Legislative Budget and Finance Committee: A Joint committee of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. 2010. Report: Examination of Current and Future Costs and Revenues from Forest Products and Oil, Gas, and Mineral Extraction on Pennsylvania Game Commission Lands.
  12. deCalesta, D. S. 2017. Achieving and maintaining sustainable white-tailed deer density with adaptive management. Human Wildlife Interactions Journal 11:99-111.
  13. Horsley, S. B., and D. A. Marquis. 1983. Interference by weeds and deer with Allegheny hardwood reproduction. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 13:61-69.
  14. Price, W., and E. Sprague. 2012. Pennsylvania’s forests how they are changing and why we should care. Pinchot Institute for Conservation. Washington, DC.
  15. Wallingford, B. D. , D. R. Diefenbach, E. S. Long, C. S. Rosenberry, and G. Alt. 2017. Biological and social outcomes of antler point restriction harvest regulations for white-tailed deer. Wildlife Monograph 196. Pages 1-26.
  16. Legislative Budget and Finance Committee: A Joint committee of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. 2012. Report: Costs and Benefits of FSC Certification of DCNR Forests.
  17. Wallingford, B. D. 2001. Pennsylvania Game Commission Bureau of Wildlife Management, white-tailed deer research/management. Project Code 06210.
  18. Pierson, T. G., and D. S. deCalesta. 2015. Methodology for estimating deer impact on forest resources. Human Wildlife Interactions Journal 9:67-77.
  19. DCNR Mission statement – http://www.dcnr.pa.gov/about/Pages/Forestry.aspx

28.Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry Mission Statement and Objectives: http://www.docs.dcnr.pa.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_20031026.pdf

 

Credentials for David S. deCalesta

I received MS and Ph.D. degrees in wildlife ecology from the college of Wildlife, Range, and Forest Science, Colorado State University In 1971 and 1973. My Ph.D. thesis focused on mule deer nutrition. In 1973 I was awarded the Dale and Ashby Hibbs award for outstanding contribution to big game management in Colorado based on my Ph.D. thesis. In 1998 I was recognized for my contributions to research on management of overabundant white-tailed deer populations in the Northeast by the Eastern Association of Animal Damage Professionals in the Northeast. In 2000 I was awarded the John Pearce Memorial Award for outstanding contributions and leadership on research on animal damage control and the impact of deer on forest ecosystems by the Northeastern Section of the Wildlife Society. In 2006 I was awarded the Kirkland Lifetime Achievement Award given biennially by the PA Chapter of the Wildlife Society to a professional in the wildlife discipline in mid-career to recognize outstanding achievement towards issues related to Pennsylvania wildlife.

I am a Certified Wildlife Biologist, a title bestowed by the Wildlife Society that is based on education, management, and publications in the field of wildlife management.

I have worked as a university professor in zoology, wildlife and forest ecology at North Carolina State University and Oregon State University 1973-1988 where a good part of my research and peer-reviewed scientific publications were on deer (publications list relevant to deer attached). My research focused on applied management of deer and other wildlife resources for the benefit of landowners and managers. From 1988 – 2001 I was a research wildlife biologist for the USDA Forest Service research laboratory in Warren PA where my research was focused on the impact of overabundant white-tailed deer on forest resources. From 2001 to 2012 I was a wildlife consultant providing training workshops on deer density and impact and certifying forest operations as sustainable (including management of deer impact) for the Forest Stewardship Council. At the same time I was the data manager and coordinator for deer management on the very successful Kinzua Quality Deer Cooperative in Northeast Pennsylvania where deer density was brought into balance with forest resources through public hunting by coordination, cooperation, and involvement of landowners, resource managers, scientists, and most importantly, deer hunters. Since 2013 I have been working on a book entitled Deer Management for Forest Landowners and Managers through a contract with CRC Press. Additionally, I have written invited book chapters (6) related to deer impact and deer management.

I have been an invited keynote speaker and contributor at 20+ wildlife/forestry conferences, have been a reviewer of scientific publications for wildlife and forestry journals and was an associate editor for the Wildlife Society Bulletin.

I know deer, I know their management, I know the science behind their management, and I know and respect the values and cultures of forest landowners and hunters as my entire 50 year career has been focused on deer research, deer management, and outreach to publics impacted by deer, including hunters. I am also a deer bowhunter.

Deer-related publications list for David S. deCalesta, Ph.D.:

deCalesta, D. S., Nagy, J. D., and J. A. Bailey. 1974. Some effects of starvation on mule deer rumen bacteria. J. Wildl. Manage. 38:815‑822.

deCalesta, D. S., Nagy, J. G., and J. A. Bailey. 1975. Starving and refeeding mule deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 39:663‑669.

deCalesta, D. S., Nagy, J. G., and J. A. Bailey. 1977. Experiments on starvation and recovery of mule deer does. J. Wildl. Manage. 41:81‑86.

deCalesta, D. S., and D. B. Schwendeman. 1978. Characterization of deer damage to soybeans. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 6:250‑253.

Kistner, T. P., and D. S. deCalesta. 1978. Black‑tailed deer weights. Oregon Wildl. 33:7.

deCalesta, D. S., Zemlicka, D., and L. D. Cooper. Supernumerary incisors in a black‑tailed deer. Murrelet 61:103‑104.

deCalesta, D. S. 1981. Effectiveness of control of animal damage to conifer seedlings. Pp102‑104 in S. D. Hobbs and O. G. Helgerson (eds.) Reforestation of skeletal soils. For. Res. Laboratory Workshop, Oregon State Univ. Corvallis OR. 124pp.

Sturgis, H., and D. S. deCalesta. 1981. The MacDonald Forest deer hunt: a second look. Oregon Wildl. 36:3‑8.

Matschke, G. H. , deCalesta, D. S., and J. D. Harder. 1984. Crop damage and control. Pp 647‑654 in L. K. Halls (ed.) The white‑tailed deer of North America. Stackpole Books. New York NY. 870pp.

deCalesta, D. S. 1985. Influence of regulation on deer harvest. Pp131‑138 in S. L. Beasom and S. F. Roberson (eds.) Symposium on game harvest management. Texas A & I Univ. Kingsville TX. 374pp.

deCalesta, D. S. 1985. Estimating cost‑effectiveness of controlling animal damage to conifer seedlings.  Proc. Eastern Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 2:44‑49.

deCalesta, D. S. 1986. Southwest Oregon forest mammal pests. Pages 25‑28 in O. T. Helgerson (ed.) Forest pest management in southwest Oregon. Proc. Workshop August 19‑20. Oregon State Univ. Forest Res. Lab. 88pp.

DeYoe, D. R., deCalesta, D. S., and W. Schaap. 1986. Understanding and controlling deer damage in young plantations. Oregon State Univ. Ext. Circ. 1201. 16pp.

deCalesta, D. S. 1989. Can liberal deer harvest regulations control deer damage over large areas?  Abstr.  NE  Fish and Wildl. Conf. 45:56.

deCalesta, D. S. 1989. Even‑aged forest management and wildlife populations. Pages 210‑224 in R. H. Yahner and M. Brittingham (eds.) Symposium on effects of forest management on wildlife. Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park 296pp.

deCalesta, D. S. 1990. Impacts of prescribed burning on damage by wildlife to conifer regeneration. Pages 105‑110 in Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific northwest forests. J. R. Walstad, S. R. Radosevich and D. V. Sandberg (eds). Oregon State Univ Press. Corvallis, OR, 317pp.

deCalesta, D. S. and G. W. Witmer. 1990. Drive line census for deer within fenced enclosures. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE‑643, 4pp.

deCalesta, D. S. 1991. Modification of the standard deer pellet group technique. Pennsylvania Acad. Sci. 64:187.

deCalesta, D. S. 1992.  Impact of deer on species diversity of Allegheny hardwood stands.  Proc. Northeastern Weed Sci. Soc. Abstr. 46:135.

Witmer, G. W., and D. S. deCalesta. 1992. The need and difficulty of  bringing the Pennsylvania deer herd under control.  Proc. Eastern Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 5:130‑137.

Helgerson, O. T., Newton, M., deCalesta, D. S., Schowalter, T., and E. Hanson.  1992.  Chapter 16. Protecting young regeneration.  Pp.384‑420 in Reforestation practices in southwestern Oregon and Northern California.  S. B. Hobbs, S. D. Tesch, P. W. Owston, R. E. Steward, J. C. Caprenter Jr., and G. E. Wells (eds.).  Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State Univ. Corvallis. 465pp.

Jones, S. B., deCalesta, D. S., and S. E. Chunko. 1993.  Whitetails are changing our woodlands.  Amer. Forests. 99:20‑26.

deCalesta, D. S. 1994.  Deer and diversity in Allegheny hardwood forests: managing an unlikely challenge.  Landscape and Urban Planning 28:47‑53.

deCalesta, D. S. 1994.  Impact of white‑tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania.  J. Wildl. Manage. 58:711‑718.

Walstad, J. R., Edge, D. E., and D. S. deCalesta. 1994. Vertebrate pests of conifers in the Pacific Northwest. Video. Oregon State Univ. Corvallis OR.

deCalesta, D. S., and W. J. McShea. 1994. Impacts of white‑tailed deer on understory vegetation and faunal diversity in forest ecosystems in the eastern United States. Abstr. The Wildl. Soc. Annu. Conf. 1:22.

deCalesta. D. S. 1995. Effect of white‑tailed deer and silvicultural practices on herbs and shrubs in northern hardwood forests. Abstr. Ecol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 80:318.

McGuinness, B. and D. S. deCalesta. 1996. White-tailed deer alter diversity of songbirds and their habitat in northwestern Pennsylvania.  PA Birds (10):55-56.

deCalesta. D. S. 1997.  Deer density and ecosystems management. Pages 267‑279 in W. J. McShea (ed.). The science of overabundance: The ecology of unmanaged deer populations.  Smithsonian Inst. Press. Washington D. C.

deCalesta, D. S., and S. L. Stout. 1997. Relative deer density and sustainability: a conceptual framework for integrating deer management with ecosystem management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25:252‑258.

Healy, W. M., D. S. deCalesta, and S. L. Stout. 1997. A research perspective on white‑tailed deer overabundance in the northeastern United States.  Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25:259‑263

deCalesta, D. S. 1997. Deer, ecosystem damage, and sustaining forest resources.  Pages 29-37, in B. L. Gardiner (ed.). Proc. Conf. Deer as public goods and public nuisance.  Issues and policy options in Maryland. College Park.  106pp.

deCalesta, D. S. 1998. Effects of deer on forest resources: ecosystem, landscape, and management perspectives. The Wildl. Soc. Annu. Conf. 5:76.(abstr.).

Lawrence, R. K., S. L. Stout, D. S. deCalesta, W. F. Porter, and H. B. Underwood. 1998. Forest regeneration: can we overwhelm deer? The Wildl. Soc. Annu. Conf. 5:104.(abstr.).

deCalesta, D. S. 2000.  Sustained deer harvest and sustainability of ecosystem resources in Pennsylvania. The Wildl. Soc. Annu. Conf. 7:84.(abstr.).

Horsley, S.B., S.L. Stout, and D.S. deCalesta. 2003. White-tailed deer impact on the vegetation dynamics of a northern hardwood forest. Ecol. Appl. 13(1):98-118

Augustine, D. J., and D. S. deCalesta. 2003.  Defining deer overabundance and threats to forest communities from individual plants to landscape structure.  Ecoscience.  10:472-486.

Royo, A. A., S. L. Stout, D. S. deCalesta, and T. G. Pierson. 2010.  Restoring forest herb communities through landscape-level deer herd reductions: is recovery limited by legacy affects: Biological Conservation 143: 2425-2434.

  1. L. Stout, A. A Royo, D. S. deCalesta, K. McAleese, and J. C. Finley. 2013. The Kinzua Quality Deer Cooperative: can adaptive management and local stakeholder engagement sustain reduced impact of ungulate browsers in forest systems? Boreal Environment Research 18:50-64.

deCalesta, D. S. 2013. Collaboration among scientists, managers, landowners, and hunters – The Kinzua Quality Deer Cooperative.  Chapter 14 In Sands. J. P., S. J. Demaso, M. J. Schnupp, and L. A. Brennan. Wildlife Science – Connecting research with management.  CRC Press, Boca Raton FL.

deCalesta, D. S. 2013. Reliability and precision of pellet-group counts for estimating landscape -level deer density.  Human Wildlife Interactions Journal. 7:60-68.

Pierson, T. G., and D. S. deCalesta. 2015. Methodology for estimating deer impact on forest resources.  Human Wildlife Interactions Journal 9:67-77.

deCalesta, D. S., R. Latham, and K. Adams.  2016. Chapter 17 – Managing deer impacts on oak forests. In P. D. Keyser, T. Fearer, and C. A. Harper.  Managing Oak Forests in the Eastern United States. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

deCalesta, D. S. 2017. Achieving and maintaining sustainable white-tailed deer density with adaptive management.   Human Wildlife Interactions Journal. 11:99-111.

deCalesta, D. S. 2017. Bridging the disconnect between agencies and forest landowners to manage deer impact. Human Wildlife Interactions Journal. 11:112-115.

deCalesta, D. S., M. Eckley, and T. G. Pierson (eds.).  Deer management for forest landowners and managers.  CRC Press.  Available spring 2019.

 

 

 

Irony is not necessarily an important part of a person’s diet, but here, have some

I will take some irony, please, with a heaping side of steaming crow.

Oh, not for me!

I am going to serve it up to those Americans who believe that a Christian baker MUST be coerced by government force to bake a cake for someone he disagrees with politically, but that the owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, has every right, even a duty, to expel and not serve people (Sarah Sanders of the White House staff) she disagrees with politically.

Then there’s a big serving of the same irony and crow for those who believe it’s just fine for public employee unions to force union dues from public employees who do not support the unions’ political activism, but it is just terrible to allow people to contribute their own money to political campaign PACs.

Democrat congresswoman Maxine Waters has become a radical firebrand for angry Socialists across America. She has said some real irony-laden doozies, like “We are sending a message to every Trump-supporting American that you are not welcome here!”

Followed by “We must welcome everyone who crosses our borders, whether they are illegal or not.”

For whatever reason having to do with artificially inflating the voter rolls, Waters and her supporters value illegal invaders over American citizen taxpayers. A lot of Black Americans wonder what that’s all about. But Waters is going to have a big heaping serving of irony n’ crow, too.

Then there’s a plate of irony and crow for Rob Cox, the loose-lipped, itchy trigger finger Reuters editor who late today directly blamed President Trump for a shooting at a newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland, but who has never said a word about the mass shootings and massive amounts of shootings in Baltimore, Chicago, Philadelphia, and other “gun-free” zones. Now the most very politically partisan and fact-challenged Mr. Cox’s integrity and credibility as a “reporter” are shot, as zero facts were available to him at his moment of big mouthed fame, and those facts beginning to subsequently dribble out don’t put Trump or his words at the scene of the crime.

See the symmetry here?

Hypocrisy has a way of catching up with people. That is called irony.

The crow is extra, gratis, on the house, served up by a host of recent US Supreme Court decisions contrary to what the once-irony-deficient here believed.

Two big plates. Hope you enjoy your meal. If you don’t enjoy it, then quit being a hypocrite and stop using double standards.