Controlled or co-op hunts often place more restrictive conditions on participants such as only hunting on certain days or at certain times, hunting only from tree stands and not field-dressing animals on site. However, hunters who are willing to accept these conditions may find themselves with more and better hunting opportunities.

Findings from the latest research on deer population control are out and surprise of surprises, immunocontraception (birth control) still doesn’t work.

It’s a shame really that so much money and effort is expended on a problem that already has a solution. I’ve worked on several deer population control efforts and reviewed piles more. In nearly every instance, the parties involved had to go through every step of the process, ignoring the recommendations of wildlife managers and the past experience of others, exhausting all other possibilities before inevitably ending up with the same conclusion.

What We’ve Learned
Human populations keep sprawling across the landscape and deer populations continue growing in range and number--eventually they collide. Finding ways to control deer numbers, in turn, becomes a daunting task for state wildlife agencies.

The first option usually championed by the non-hunting public is non-lethal means. One technique is trap and transfer, which is extremely expensive and rarely successful. The most recent figures I could obtain put the cost at between $2,000 and $3,000 per animal.

Someone has to foot that bill, and most of the time it’s the taxpayers. With ever-escalating tax rates, it’s hard to justify spending money on something citizens (hunters) are willing to do for free, and in some cases even pay to do.

Furthermore, it doesn’t really work. Research has shown that some animals perish during the process from stress or physical injuries. Still more succumb to stress after being released. And many of the remaining survivors later perish as a direct result of being transferred to a new/foreign environment.

Even if they could survive at a higher rate, where would you put them? Most adjacent or nearby areas have similar problems. With recent proliferation of maladies like CWD and EHD, transporting is ill-advised, and may be illegal.

The other non-lethal means is immunocontraception. The most common contraceptive drugs available require two treatments the first year, followed by an annual booster--for every breeding female in the population. Some treated does may continue to cycle as many as five times. Drugs used to date have moderate to high failure rates, and their use is permitted by the FDA only on an experimental basis and only under tightly controlled circumstances. Additionally, you must prevent all untreated deer from entering the area, or all your efforts are for naught.

That brings us to lethal solutions. The one so often considered first by non-hunters is sharpshooters or culling. This is an effective short-term means of reducing deer numbers. Like transport however, it’s very expensive. It’s also an irresponsible use of taxpayer’s money and a reprehensible abuse of the public trust (deer are public property and therefore owned by the citizens). How is it that those states can deny the public access to a renewable, harvestable, public resource, and a revenue-generating recreational opportunity and then tax them to pay a professional “hit man?”

That brings us to the other lethal method of deer control. This one has been proven over and over to be the most effective, cost-effective, efficient, fair and equitable means of controlling exurban (urban or suburban) deer populations over both the short and long terms. It’s bowhunting.

Application
Many of you are probably thinking, “that’s all well and good, but how does knowing all this help me to be a more successful hunter?” Consider the equation: success = preparation + opportunity. Too many deer is not a problem; it’s an opportunity. Archery hunters are the solution. The difficulty becomes selling yourself, which is made easier through organization and education.