ESCANABA — Historical market hunting of wildlife contributed to the demise of many now-recovered game and commercial species. Might the idea have a modern role regarding overabundant populations?

The concept of market hunting, particularly for white-tailed deer, evokes a visceral reaction among many. In wildlife management, the practice would be opposed by traditionalists because of its poor track record in the century past. Forbidding market hunting is one of the tenets in the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

So, why even consider it?

Market hunting from a hundred years ago was a wanton affair before any substantial wildlife management science evolved. Elk, bison, passenger pigeon, deer, turkeys, plumage birds, and many others fell victim to uncontrolled exploitation. There were no rules. There was no science.

Roll ahead to current times and we are facing a plethora of different challenges in the conservation and management of wildlife, and their habitats. Deer are an excellent example of overabundance, and their management is fully-stocked with controversy and emotional argument.

In order to consider market hunting as a management tool, one must first recognize the damages done by burgeoning populations and the failure of current control practices, such as hunting, to keep the populations in check with the ecological, economic, and sociological environments. This is not a challenge restricted to Michigan or the Lake States. It has been well-documented across eastern North America.

For those that don’t buy into the science, then there’s no need to think about market hunting or reading the remainder of this article.

Market hunting can, potentially, be a great asset in population management but also an economic driver in the restaurant industry. Imagine having wild venison on the Saturday night menu, even if only seasonally.

If the financial calculations are run backward from the restaurant dinner plate, there is plenty of room to pay the hunter, the landowner, and DNR.

The DNR would need to play the critical regulatory role and would require a cut of the purse to pay for that. The hunter would harvest the deer according to DNR specifications, presumably based on population science. This way, a better gender balance could be achieved and deer that are less likely to survive a winter could be taken. More trophy deer might even be available for the seasonal public hunts.

In short, a market hunter would need to be trained and licensed by the DNR or other regulatory agency. There are several ways to skin that cat. It would not be a free-for-all shoot.

Landowners would need to be incented and compensated, probably in terms of payment for property access. Restaurants would also need to be inspected to ensure that only licensed and legal venison reaches their kitchens. None of this is cosmic science and all have applicable precedents.

However, no small amount of effort would need to be expended in order to build the machine that contributes to the economy and balances deer populations with their environment. Most prudently, the prototypes should probably be best run on a trial basis in a geographically limited area, perhaps across a couple of deer management units.

A deer will yield 40-60 pounds of venison. Lets say 50 pounds for the sake of argument. A venison dinner, with six ounces of meat, might cost 40 dollars at a supper club, maybe more. The simple math yields a gross income of over five thousand dollars per deer. That income would need to be split among all parties involved. Maybe, 100,000 deer (five percent of the herd) could eventually be sustainably harvested, on top of the deer hunt and other mortality factors, especially winter kill. That’s half a billion dollars.

It seems like there would be enough money to make the market hunting concept work. Deer damage in Michigan amounts to at least 400,000 dollars each year. So, that figure would presumably be reduced at the same time revenue would be generated, and we would all see a healthier deer herd. Some might say that’s a win-win situation.

Of course, marketing hunting would likely create a hew and cry that we’ve not seen in decades. That’s a huge deterrent to policy-makers and elected officials. It would probably be much louder and angrier than what is currently espoused by those who wish to see a more sustainable deer population, especially in relationship to our forest resources.

And, there are other practices that could be considered before or with market hunting. The Michigan Society of American Foresters has a well-written position statement about these ideas. It might be a worthy effort to explore all the potential practices and tack-down just what might be needed and what might fly through the opposition. The model can always be turned-down. However, the entrenched status quo is likely to persist, as our forests and economy quietly pay the price.