Early BWCA season for whitetail deer not needed

TOWER, MINN. - The Department of Natural Resources public-input meeting here Wednesday night -- not far from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness --was similar in many ways to area meetings that have gone before it over the years.

Some who attended raised their voices, and an occasional cuss word was heard.

But no one threw a punch. Or even pointed a finger.

So by historical standards, this gathering to discuss a beloved Minnesota natural resource -- two resources, actually, white-tailed deer and the boundary waters -- was calm.

Still, an overflow crowd of mostly Ely-area deer hunters made its opinion unmistakably known about a proposal to establish an early whitetail season (Oct. 24-Nov. 1) in the western portion of the BWCA.

"I've trapped and hunted that area for 22 years," said Charlie Cowden, who lives up the Echo Trail, a winding stretch of mostly gravel that connects Ely with Crane Lake country.

"This hunt isn't needed," Cowden said, adding that hunters from outside the area share his opinion. "Others think it's a crock, too."

Only one attendee, Ely resident, magazine publisher and guide Stu Ostoff, spoke in favor of the proposal.

Throughout the meeting, DNR area wildlife manager Tom Rusch remained calm and professional, and listened intently.

"We want to hear what you have to say," he said. "It's a democracy."

Sometimes portrayed as hotheads or rubes, Ely area residents are neither.

Passionate, yes. Give them that much.

But don't blame the DNR for proposing it. Or the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association (MDHA), which helped formulate the idea.

Legitimately, each regularly seeks more opportunities for more hunters to participate in more and different types of hunts.

But this proposed hunt -- justified, at least theoretically, because it would allow hunters easier access to the area before freeze-up -- would, ironically, reduce the variety of hunting opportunities available in Minnesota, not expand them.

Worse, it would place still more (and unnecessary) hunter pressure on the wilderness area's scant deer population, while diminishing the quality of the hunt in the same region during the regular whitetail season.

• • •

• The proposed hunt would start five days after moose hunting ended in the same area, in years a moose hunt is held.

• The DNR says the hunt would "provide hunters with a safer, more practical alternative in the water-access parts of the wilderness interior that are currently lightly hunted during the established early November season."

• The wilderness portion of DNR deer permit area 115 would be open for the early hunt, an area of about 343,000 acres. Any legal big game firearm would be allowed, as would archery (which already is allowed at that time in the BWCA).

• A total of 150 permits would be issued by lottery. Residents and nonresidents could apply. Generally, one deer would be allowed, with a DNR estimated success rate of 15 to 20 percent (about 30-40 deer, predominately bucks, would be killed, the DNR believes).

Here's the problem -- or problems.

But as was evident Wednesday evening, plenty of people already participate in the regular hunt. They love it for its rugged conditions; its relative isolation from other hunters; and -- especially -- for the type of country they see and travel while hunting.

They aren't the only hunters in that part of the state, of course. Or even the best. Wolves, ever-present, kill some deer, and change travel patterns of others.

For these and other reasons, the hunt is so unique that if Minnesota didn't have such an opportunity, it would have to invent one.

What's more, the "access is too difficult during the regular season" argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Yes, travel is tough, or can be in many years, because in the boundary waters in November, snow falls, lakes freeze up and camping can be uncomfortable.

Therefore ... what? The state is supposed to offer yet another special hunt to keep people from being too chilly, or to prevent the foolish from acting foolishly and endangering themselves?

Which in the end might be the most salient argument against the proposal. Where is it written, after all, that every game population in the state has to be harvested at maximum levels?

At the very least, deer living in the boundary waters, which endure the harshest elements, including wolves -- every waking minute of every day -- are deserving of predators willing to endure a little cold weather.

Yes, of course, these deer should be hunted. But those who seek them should be required to enter the woods during the traditional firearms season, paddling if they can, walking across thin ice if they must.

The hunt will be better for it.

So, too, the hunters.

• • •

A bit of a fuss was made Wednesday night over who was responsible for floating the proposal -- one that likely will be decided, in the end, by DNR Commissioner Mark Holsten.

Some said it was the DNR. Others targeted the MDHA. But neither is to blame. They're doing what they are supposed to do: look for more hunting opportunities for more hunters.

That said, this plan, having been aired, should go away.

As Ely Mayor Roger Skraba said: "I just don't understand the need for it. I hunt in the wilderness during the regular season.