Dale Bruder, Lake Superior Chapter SCI president, said of the donation, “We believe organizations like ours have to work hand-in-hand with conservation officers because we’re against everything they are against — poachers and violators of any kind. Our board thought it was an excellent idea for the organizations to work together.”
K-9 “Axel” and his partner, Conservation Officer (CO) Pat McGowan of Hastings, have already completed nearly 12 weeks of human tracking, obedience and evidence search field training conducted by CO Travis Muyres, a certified K-9 trainer and experienced DNR K-9 team handler.
According to Lt. Todd Kanieski, K-9 unit coordinator, the dog comes in “green,” which allows DNR to train the K-9 how the department wants. Kanieski added that the internal “working drive” of both dog and handler are paramount to the success of the K-9 team. “Being a K-9 handler carries a lot of extra responsibility,” he said. “The handler must have a proven history of making solid decisions in the field. The dog must be social around people.”
Conservation officers typically work alone in a 650 square mile patrol area and the DNR working dog model is a lot like the civilian law enforcement patrol dog. It takes a dog of steady, stable character but capable of controlled aggression under certain circumstances, such as on command, when attacked, or when the handler is attacked. The added dimension of a DNR K-9, however, is the ability to sniff out game and fish violations, which is a force multiplier noted Kanieski.
“Searching for trace blood evidence or a shell casing in a large field or wooded area could take multiple officers several hours, but with the right K-9 team, that task can be done in minutes and the area would be more thoroughly searched,” Kanieski said,“We have had great success at finding fish/game evidence and shell casings in the field. That evidence helps us in protecting our natural resources. A K-9 makes sure of that.”
The K-9s are a small part of the DNR Enforcement Division and relies primarily on private donations from organizations such as SCI that have a heavy interest in conservation education and humanitarian projects. The ability to protect natural resources was a big reason why SCI made such a generous donation to the DNR K-9 program. “We see the benefits of establishing good rapport with game agencies, so this fell right in line with what our chapters need to do,” said Derron Wahlen, SCI field coordinator. Funds to assist with the acquisition of a K-9 are raised through SCI chapter fundraisers. “Without the support of the Lake Superior Chapter of the Safari Club…we would not be adding a third K-9 unit,” said Kanieski.
Some hunters strictly avoid nonnative, introduced big-game species. I respect this ethic, and trust that those same hunters also eschew ring-necked pheasants, chukars and Hungarian partridges here in North America. Let’s face it: The hand of man has left fingerprints all over the globe, and sometimes it’s very difficult to determine exactly what is “native” and what is not.
Fallow deer, for instance, are thought of as a European deer–but they have been moved around for so long that their exact origin isn’t entirely clear. They are now huntable on every continent save Antarctica, and even, in most regions, offer a choice between free range and estate hunting. So, since we consider there are six “hunting continents,” are there six fallow deer to hunt? Or just one? That’s up to each of us, but the only possibility for a true “native range” fallow deer probably lies in Iran! These animals were introduced here and there at least as far back as the days of the Roman Empire.
Australia’s water buffalo and banteng were introduced in the mid-19th Century as a meat source for early settlers. Many of the worldwide populations of feral goats and pigs were introduced for the same reason, some of them at least a couple hundred years earlier. Pioneers in New Zealand found a wonderful climate devoid of
large mammals, so over the years they experimented with many species. Mule deer and blue sheep, for example, didn’t make it. Moose were once established, but it’s been a generation since there was a confirmed sighting. Red deer, Himalayan tahr, chamois and fallow deer were perhaps the greatest successes, but New Zealand boasts isolated populations of whitetail, sambar and rusa deer as well.
Many introductions have been more recent. A lot of the non-native species in Texas–in a time when whitetail deer had become scarce—-were brought in as ornamental curiosities, without any forethought regarding either conservation or hunting potential. Some introductions were the result of careful study. When the late Frank Hibben headed up New Mexico’s game commission, he had a concept of “habitat niches” unfilled by native game. His successful experiments included Persian ibex, gemsbok and aoudad. Hindsight being a wonderful tool, isn’t it a shame he didn’t experiment with similar species that are now scarce in their native lands, like Walia ibex and scimitar oryx?
Even so, there are many instances today where introduced populations of various species are far more plentiful than on native range, and in some cases offer the only hope for survival. Perhaps the most classic example is Pere David’s deer, which became extinct in China during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. At that time a herd on the Duke of Bedford’s estate was all that remained in the world, but since then herds of this unusual deer have been established in Argentina, South Africa and the United States—-and Pere David’s deer have been re-established in China. Arabian oryx and scimitar oryx from the United States have been reintroduced into the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa. The Cretan ibex or kri kri was already very scarce on Crete when, just a couple of decades ago, they were introduced onto a couple of Greek islands. Today it is believed that the remnant population on Crete is no longer pure because of
interbreeding with feral goats, but populations have been established in Macedonia and elsewhere.
Whimsical introductions are not always beneficial because of competition with native wildlife and potential habitat destruction, but there are many other good examples of introduced species providing a reservoir for animals that have been diminished or eliminated in their native lands. Obviously zoo populations are another reservoir. There are a number of species that have been saved only in captivity, but zoos tend to have ongoing problems with funding and space limitations. Introduced herds are often self-supporting and self-sustaining through the live capture and sale of breeding stock to create new herds, and trophy hunting of surplus, older males. Some areas, including Argentina, New Zealand and Texas have created major industries from hunting non-native species, and the wildlife has proliferated.
Given a choice, I would always prefer to hunt an animal on its native range. If this isn’t possible, and given a further choice, I would much prefer to hunt free range than estate. However, I freely admit that I have taken species in Texas that I could not take on native range. Perfect examples are both scimitar oryx and addax. It’s highly unlikely that those animals will ever again be hunted in North Africa, and I wanted examples of them with my other oryx. I make no apologies!
Over the years, there have been so many introductions of non-native species that you never know exactly what you might run into. Two years ago, in Argentina’s Sierra de la Ventana, I “discovered” a population of Himalayan tahr. Okay, I didn’t discover anything; they’d been there for 20 years, but nobody in the English-speaking world knew about them. We now have them as a category in our record book, and an addition to the available species in South America.
For some years, I’ve been aware that there was a substantial herd of sambar not far from where I live in California’s Central Coast. They’ve been free-ranging there since the 1930s, but access has been very limited. After years of effort, local guide and taxidermist Don Anderson finally secured permission to take a few older bulls every year. The sambar is one of the most impressive deer in the world, but although widespread in Asia, it is not currently huntable anywhere on native range. So I got on the list!
Honestly, I expected a very easy hunt. This is often the way we think of nonnative species…but it isn’t always that way. (Aoudad, for instance, are never easy wherever you hunt them!) It was not an easy hunt at all. We saw and passed quite a few, but we put in four long days before I finally got a shot at the kind of bull we were looking for. Non-native he might be, but he was a great trophy taken on a memorable hunt. That’s the way hunting introduced species can be, and often is, and I think it’s marvelous that today’s hunting world offers us such opportunities…with conservation of major species often a by-product.
It’s pretty amazing what professional wildlife managers can do to manipulate animal populations to meet specific cultural, economic, or geographic needs. For example, when I was growing up in rural Virginia, the rule when deer hunting was “bucks only,” as the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries was managing the herd for growth. It succeeded. In fact, some would say they over succeeded as today Virginia has liberal antlerless deer opportunities as the Department works to either sustain or in some places even reduce deer populations.
Indiana is no different in managing its deer herd to suit that state’s needs as evidenced by the Indiana Natural Resources Commission recently approving an indefinite extension of a management tool commonly referred to as the “one-buck” rule. That rule limits hunters in Indiana to only one antlered deer during the regular archery, firearms and muzzleloader deer seasons.
The rule was first applied in 2002 and was set to sunset after a five-year period. I spoke with Chad Stewart, the deer biologist for Indiana, about the “one-buck” rule, its background, and the effect it has had on the deer herd and hunting in Indiana.
Stewart wasn’t with the Commission when the rule was implemented, but his understanding is that sportsmen and women lobbied for the rule to manage the herd for more mature deer. Steward explained that in 2001, the year before the one-buck rule was applied, 56% of the bucks harvested were yearlings. He recalls that at the time, there was some push-back from some groups of hunters, but the rule was renewed in 2007 and today 65% of Indiana hunters support the rule, and most of those support the rule “overwhelmingly.”
According to Stewart, the popularity has a lot to do with hunters seeing more bucks, and the bucks they are seeing are larger and more mature. In fact, in 2011 (the latest year for which there is data) the yearling buck harvest was only 39%. As Indiana’s one-buck rule demonstrates, when hunters and game departments work together and use sound wildlife management practices, great things can happen.