---

It seems a strange irony that many of us are almost religious in our commitment to providing a banquet for birds in our backyards, yet we are deeply divided in our attitudes toward feeding deer, pheasants, and other wild creatures we call "game."

That is a dialogue that is now being heard throughout Minnesota, as the rollercoaster of winter weather continues to whiplash us with deep-freeze temperatures, and deep snows in many parts of the state. That snow is likely to persist for weeks to come. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' winter severity index (WSI) is not yet at levels that could be called "deadly," but that is the fear that is nagging at many deer and pheasant hunters, these being the two Minnesota game species that most lend themselves to supplemental feeding.

The arguments are as old as they are opposite, and it is risky to assume uniform values on one side of the issue or the other. But in general, those who oppose targeted feeding contend that it concentrates game unnaturally. This, they say, makes game more susceptible to the transmission of disease, or to predation, when wolves, foxes, hawks or other predators key in on movement patterns influenced by artificially placed food. Opponents also cite the "survival of the fittest" factor, a force supposedly leading to a stronger gene pool for future generations.

Supporters of supplemental feeding may, to a greater degree, see deer or pheasants as a crop, a harvestable resource that should be maximized to provide recreational benefits, not to mention the economic benefits to communities where hunters find lodging, meals, fuel and other necessities. Feeding supporters may also view game-killing winters as the exception rather than the rule, an event to get by, even if it is done by artificial means.

There are some fine lines and judgment calls, of course. Game managers who oppose setting out corn in feeders, or deer food pellets, will instead advocate planting food plots near sheltering cover. The classic example is to plant rows of corn and leave them unharvested so that wild creatures can find food there in winter. Does this concentrate game unnaturally? Is this really artificial feeding, but by a different name?

Objectively, food plots do not concentrate game in a manner as unnatural as a feed crib or a deer pellet pile. Nor is game behavior modified any more than it is when deer or pheasants feed in a field that a farmer intends to harvest. It is not a behavior modification to the same degree as spot feeding "feed trough style."

Unanimous, however, is the wildlife manager's caution that once target or spot feeding begins, it should be continued throughout the winter, because deer or pheasants will quickly adapt to getting a handout, and to stop feeding "cold turkey" can lead to an abrupt energy deficit that can kill them.

The standard winter severity index (WSI) adds the number of days with temperatures below zero to the number of days with snow depths of 15 inches or more. Although it has implications for other wild creatures, it was conceived chiefly as a measure of winter's effects on deer. It is tied to snow depth because deep snow causes deer to "yard up," to gather in preferred feeding locations where the packed trails they create allow more freedom of movement, but eventually limit their access to food. If confined there too long before spring arrives and snow depths diminish, some deer will likely starve.

A season-ending WSI under 100 is considered a mild winter, one over 180 severe, and anything in between, well, in between. But labels are imprecise, and winter's effects on one deer versus another may differ. A young deer going into its first winter will not only be immature, but smaller and more likely to succumb than an adult deer.

Some game managers have reported that when WSI readings reach the 135 to 150 range they start seeing these younger deer die. Winter mortality, and there is always some, can double in a winter that is beyond normal in severity, according to studies that have been done in northern Minnesota.

WSI readings reportedly are already at, or near, 100 in parts of northern Minnesota, which has stimulated a lot of deer feeding chatter. The Minnesota Deer Hunters Association is asking the DNR to release funds to begin feeding efforts, assets that are in a dedicated fund earmarked for deer feeding, or to be used in the DNR's efforts to monitor and control chronic wasting disease (CWD), and bovine tuberculosis. The Minnesota DNR has consistently opposed supplemental deer feeding.

Complicating the picture even more, some believe the Minnesota DNR's recent deer management policy is aimed at too low a target population, with overly-generous harvest practices that have resulted in too few remaining deer. Some fear that a big dose of winter mortality now could be the double whammy that drops hunter success rates even lower than this past season, a success rate many have grumbled about. Those who believe this feel we should save as many deer this winter as possible by supplemental feeding.

Pheasants Forever, the other Minnesota hunter group with skin in any artificial feeding game, is not officially in favor of supplemental feeding. It does, however, permit its individual chapters to make feeding decisions on a local level, advising them to do so only in areas close to shelter, with minimum exposure to predators; a number of local chapters do, in fact, have pheasant feeding programs.

Last to be considered, but certainly not least, is the possibility that the Minnesota legislature will get involved in the deer feeding issue, as it did in the late 1990's when it added a surcharge to deer licenses for possible future feeding needs. The DNR was later authorized to use those funds in its disease control efforts, and that is how they have been spent.

Ideally one would think that most management decisions would be in the hands of trained biologists. But we know that is not always the way it works in Minnesota fish and game management. Our Legislature has something of a history of natural resource micro-management. Presently, however, we have a governor who seems inclined to stand by the DNR's decisions.

In the weeks to come we will be keeping one eye on the winter weather, and the other on St. Paul. That is where the DNR and the Legislature, potential antagonists over the supplemental feeding issue, are both housed just a few whitetail bounds away from one another.[[In-content Ad]]

---