Our members fully support the proposal, which will allow special snow goose hunting methods when and where appropriate and utilize the Light Goose Spring Conservation Hunting Season (if approved by USFWS). Enhancing farmers’ options when addressing crop depredation as a result of an overabundance of snow geese is critical and we believe that Maryland’s agricultural community should be able to utilize all methods within the parameters set by USFWS and the Department.

Our members also support increasing the length of the ‘Antlered or Antlerless’ segment of the Region A Firearms Season to 2 days on private lands. Being able to further manage the deer populations on our farms in Region A, while still maintaining flexibility on public lands is critical to mitigating economic losses from crop depredation.

However, the Department should also consider farmland adjacent to public lands as it discusses further limiting the antlerless harvest on public lands. Unfortunately for those landowners, deer herds do not recognize property lines and can freely roam on and off public lands to seek a ready food source on farms abutting state parks for example.

Lastly, MFB supports allowing the use of crossbows during the entire Bow Season in the Suburban Deer Archery Zone in an effort to increase harvest rates and reduce the deer herds in those designated counties. Farmers in this Zone have an especially difficult time addressing crop depredation due to the limiting factors associated with hunting in a suburbanized environment and this measure has the potential to make a real impact on the local deer herds.

The relationship between Maryland’s agricultural community and the Department continues to be a positive one, based on mutual respect and cooperation. We appreciate your consideration of our position on the proposed changes.

Sincerely, KURT H. FUCHS Asst. Director of Government Relations, Maryland Farm Bureau, Inc.

I really appreciate that you have considered the expansion of small game seasons. Everyone is not a deer hunter, and it has been discouraging to see more & more deer seasons, as well as longer deer seasons. As you can imagine, it is not a very comforting feeling to be out with your beagles trying to small game hunt while deer hunters are in the same area. Safety and the occasional conflicts with other hunters are always on your mind when seasons overlap. Deer hunters get very angry when they feel "their" area has been disrupted, but we have no control of where the rabbit runs, and where the rabbit runs, the beagles run. So, I was very excited to see the extension of rabbit season to the end of February. Could the grouse season be considered into February as well?  - R. S.

I use 2219 and 2216 arrows and cut them down to 20” and add 3 vanes the only difference is I use a flat knock as a vertical bow uses a forked knock.

As for Crossbow hunters being lazy hunters, you will find this with any group of hunters. I know a lot of so called hunters that never fire a single shot from their shotgun until opening morning. These people wound or miss most of the deer and say it is part of hunting. This can be said for muzzleloader hunters and I even know some bow hunters that just get the bow out of the closet on Sept 15 and go in the woods.

Just because someone wants to use something different then you, doesn’t mean they are lazy and are going to take shots they shouldn’t. I have been shooting vertical bows since I was 4 years old and now I am going on 39 so I have 35 years of experience with bows. In the past I have injured my shoulder so I can no longer pull back and hold a vertical bow and make a clean shot. I have seen both sides of the fence. Last year was the first time I ever hunted with a crossbow. I found it to be more of a hindrance then a help when in the field. It is heavy and hard to get into shooting position. The horizontal limns makes an off side shot is hard to almost impossible to make. The heavy front end takes a lot to keep it steady and requires a lot more movement for the deer to spot. All of the anti crossbow commits are from uneducated bow hunters that are unwilling to learn the truth and use the same argument that a hunter with a crossbow is a lazy or unethical hunter. Nothing can be further from the truth. A crossbow hunter is just a bow hunter that uses a different style of  bow. It is the same if one uses a recurve or compound bow. – R. S.

I am very excited about bow hunting this year. I wish you would remove the word "metal" from the description of the broadheads to be used. I would like very much to have more options as to what materials my broadhead is made of please. Thanks. M

Please remove the steel edge regulation for the broadhead specifications. The width is fine, however the requirement of a steel point limits many traditional hunters. – B. C.

1)limited Fall Turkey season in So MD.

2)extension of late season waterfowl into Feb., possibly with a lowering of the bag limit from 2 to 1. The argument about pair bonding and breeding is nullified with RP ending in Feb.

3) zoning the state for foxes, in my opinion/observation the fox population has increased in the area of So MD I hunt. Where I used to see none I now see several in less time afield. – R. M.

Please legalize stone broadhead use for bow hunting...thank you for your time. – A. B.

Remove the words metal cutting surface from the regulations and allow points of other materials for the up coming hunting season. – D. L.

To Whom it May Concern: I would like to express my concern of your "metal broadhead" for hunting arrows. I have hunted with stone points for some time now and believe that they are more effective than a straight edged broadhead in producing humane fatal wounds to game. Stone points have been used to harvest game in North America for over 10 thousand years; why illegalize them now? Thank you, - D. D., DVM

No for extending crossbow season. It's not the crossbows fault, just the many unpracticed unethical hunters who chose to use this weapon. Unfortunately I hunt with five of them. They watch too many Gladiator movies. Until they were legalized I didn't need to see them until muzzleloader and rifle season. Now they're hunting round the clock crippling deer shooting for "center of mass" and just generally screwing up deer and hunting opportunity. They're the ones shooting 50 and 60 yards sticking deer in the gut, but it keeps the buzzards fed and after all DNR just wants in screw up another resource that way they won't have to leave the office and actually do anything. Gotta keep the insurance companies and farmers happy (especially with corn@$6.00 per bushel and beans @$11.00 per bushel).

Reduce the Buck count to 2 per season, not 2 per firearm. Reduce the does back to 2 per firearm. Take Bucks out of the Late Firearm season. If you're really trying to reduce does, then why give hunters that option. Most will just trophy hunt or shoot a small Buck.

Take an area wide approach to managing deer, not statewide. Areas with heavy pressure are already suffering by this approach and of course areas that can't be hunted are still full of deer.

Get rid of the current check in system. DNR has no idea how many deer are killed.  

Extend Duck season into Feb. and reduce the daily bag limit to 4 as it use to be. -M. M.

Regarding Proposed Changes for Deer:

A crossbow is not a bow; it is a FIREARM that shoots bolts. I have bowhunted in MD for 30 years, and I adamantly oppose the proposed change with crossbows. Under your proposed changes for deer (item 4), DNR proposes to allow crossbows to be used during the entire Bow Season in the ‘Suburban Deer Archery Zone’. For the record, I protested when DNR originally proposed allowing them to be legal during bow season. The DNR's justification used in basing its decision back then was flawed, and the political outcome was predictable. Obviously someone at a very high level in the agency wants to allow crossbow use in bow season, even though there was no scientific basis then (and still is none). I suspect the outcome of the current proposal is also predictable since the same managers are still present at DNR and will be making this decision.  

The DNR's current justification: "This concept would allow the use of this weapon during the entire Bow Season in these selected counties. The expectation is that this proposed change would help meet our goal of increasing the deer harvest in the ‘Suburban Deer Archery Zone’ through increased hunter participation during the Bow Season."

The flaw: Based on my experience in southern Anne Arundel and PG Counties (two of the “suburban” counties), the deer population has taken a dramatic steep decline in quality and quantity in the last 5 years. We have had two major outbreaks of hemorrhagic fever in that time, and numerous expansions of harvest limits and seasons. The disease outbreak here last fall reduced our population by (my estimate) 40-60 percent.

I am ok to use a crossbow in firearm season, no problem - if you simply want to try to kill a deer with a crossbow. CROSSBOWS ARE FIREARMS. But DNR’s justification of enticing more people to hunt during bow season by allowing them to use a crossbow, and thinking it will get more deer harvested in "urban" zones is absurd. The reason: Most deer populations in MD's “urban” zones are stable or increasing because of the increasing amount of land that cannot be hunted due to real estate development. Changing the open seasons or legal weapons for these areas will not accomplish a larger harvest, since the deer simply hide out in the adjacent refuge until the shooting stops in the areas where the hunters are. It is that simple, and there is no valid reason that is based on wildlife management principles for expanding the opportunity to hunt with crossbows in order to harvest more deer in these areas. It won’t increase the harvest, and it will AGGRAVATE bowhunters.

DNR needs to keep the bow season as it is, and if anything should reduce the amount of dates when crossbows are legal, or better yet, just ban its use in bow season completely except for medical reasons. If DNR wants less deer present in urban zones they should simply go out and sterilize deer in these areas, because increasing hunting pressure will not accomplish the desired result, and expanding the days of crossbow use in bow season will aggravate humans in these areas. The proposed change would do nothing to change the level of harvest, and will only aggravate the existing bow hunters here that prefer to use traditional or compound bows.

The Pope and Young Club does not allow deer that are taken with a crossbow to be eligible for their trophy standards (even if you have a medical reason or use). Again, a crossbow is not a bow; it is a firearm that shoots bolts. You don't have to pull the string and physically hold it until you release it; you simply draw it and lock it, and then can set it down and eat, smoke, drink, go to the bathroom, do whatever until you simply pick up the firearm and shoot the bolt at a target. You can even do it with one hand! That is not bow hunting. It is analogous to the modern muzzleloader, which now is vastly superior in accuracy and performance even to a shotgun, let alone a flintlock rifle; and is no longer considered a "primitive weapon". It has lost all aesthetic value, and vastly reduced the quality of experience that was formerly available to MD’s recreational hunters who used to enjoy “black powder” hunting.

Mr. Peditto, please don’t expand the crossbow use at all, period.

Proposed Changes for Furbearers:

The state-wide increase in bag limits for river otter and fisher are unjustified. DNR says its proposal “would provide additional recreational opportunities for trappers and hunters”. As any fur bearer biologist knows, the ONLY reason to harvest furbearers is to sell their pelts for money, it is not for "recreational sport" or to harvest meat or a trophy game animal. It is different than sport hunting or sport fishing, because the intent of trapping is to make money. It is analogous to commercial fishing. There is no intent to harvest wild furbearer game for food, or to have a social hunting experience with family or friends. As DNR states on its web site: "Furbearer harvest pressure is largely driven by market demand and average pelt prices. As pelt prices increase or decrease, subsequent harvest levels typically mirror these fluctuations." The level of trapping effort is driven by economic fluctuations, but the population management should not be.

Obviously if the market value (demand) goes way up, it can vastly influence the level of harvest effort (supply), which could exceed any given species’ optimal threshold for population viability (stability). This wildlife management approach has no consideration for a given year’s prey-base or habitat condition, which is what SHOULD be used for determining the harvest level, instead of basing it on economic interest. This is the basis for harvest recommendations that are made annually for migratory birds, and to a lesser extent for game animals. An example (worst-case) of the huge potential for adverse population level impacts from inappropriate management is bluefin tuna, which have become so expensive now (demand) that regulating their harvest (supply) is almost entirely political, since harvest decisions are made at the international political level. Individual large fish sell for an average of 5 figures (US dollars, unprocessed, at dockside), and exceptional ones sell for 6 figures, with the record price continually rising. This puts intense political pressure on fishery resource management agencies to allow expanded harvest in spite of global population declines and increasing threats to the species' habitat. And that is the basic flaw - DNR should not base its population management decisions at the species level on economic market factors. Furbearer management should not be based on demand, it should be based on scientific and ecologically sound wildlife management principles.

DNR must have accurate estimates of population abundance, which should NOT be based on HARVEST data, it should be based on DNR or academic surveys designed to estimate population size and distribution. For example, some statements made in DNR’s justification are baseless as is, and could possibly be valid but not without relevant information, which is not provided. Is it available? If so, why did DNR exclude it? DNR states: “A pronounced increase in harvest trends began during the 1999-2000 season when 16 animals were harvested. During the 2006-07 season, the highest recorded harvest of fisher occurred when 45 animals were taken”. This increase (trend) is totally irrelevant, unless it has direct context to the harvest effort level (DNR needs a comparison for number of trappers over same time period; number of hours trapped for same species over same time period; PLUS independent estimates of population density).

Based on conversations with wildlife watchers and hunters in the area where I live (southern MD) and on my own observations, it is my understanding that river otters are either increasing or expanding. They are also not noticeably declining; for the last ten years their population has remained about even both in range and density. I think river otters are only doing well enough to consider an increased harvest in a few local areas of the state, not state-wide as proposed (increase limit from 1 to 2 in 5 counties, and limit from 5 to 10 for remaining 16 counties that are open). Which begs the question, why are Garrett and Allegany Counties closed, when Garrett County has the highest recorded observations of otters in the state (based on the most recent published data supplied from DNR’s bowhunter survey)?

In that report, no otters were observed in MD’s Piedmont or Ridge and Valley regions, while Garrett had 2.5 times more otters seen than the eastern shore, and the eastern shore had 2.5 times more otters seen than the western shore (Coastal Plain). I live on a tidal river in southern Prince Georges County and observe (and record) wildlife of all types almost daily. Although the area along the river is largely absent of real estate development and is ideal habitat for river otters, I only see them occasionally (a few times per year). In contrast, beavers can be seen daily, and I see muskrats daily during the time of year when they are active. River otters simply are not that common here - or anywhere in most of the "western shore" of MD's coastal plain. The region's waterfront and its adjacent buffer areas are ideal for otter habitat, yet pressure to develop real estate here is rising and will only continue to adversely affect their habitat as more people move into this area. So we don't need to increase population pressures on the species in this part of the Coastal Plain. If any justification is available for other regions of the state, it should be scientifically based on what is best for the species, not what is best for economic or politically motivated interests.

As for fishers, obviously they are only present in western MD. As a wildlife biologist, and as a bowhunter who has spent almost all my free time over the last 40 years in MD's great outdoors watching and enjoying wildlife (including 5 years living in western MD), I can tell you the fisher population is not in danger of overpopulating! I have observed fishers in several states, but have only ever watched one fisher in MD. In my opinion, they are still rare, and there is no logical reason to actively reduce the population level of this species in MD, since it is not invasive or a "pest" species and there is no current ecological basis for increasing the harvest. Yet, if DNR did expand the harvest I believe there is potential for negative impacts at the regional or local population levels. Based on the DNR’s latest bowhunter survey report of wildlife observations (2004-5), I would add that reported sightings of fisher are declining. In this report, their observations declined each year over a three year period, and were only seen in two of MD's counties.

In Allegany County, they were previously observed but were absent for the two most recent years of the report. During the same time period and by the same hunters, bobcat sightings were reported throughout the state and were far more prevalent than fisher (4 to 10 times greater), yet bobcat has a closed season for all of MD. So what is the scientific logic behind a DNR proposal to expand fisher harvest? There is no appropriate justification for an increase statewide.

I am opposed to extending the fox season, at all. Although I don't have specific facts about either red or gray fox densities in southern MD, they are not so numerous that there is a need to harvest more, and there is no basis of a need for expanding the harvest. Their population has either been stable here in areas that are still rural, or declined slightly in formerly rural areas that have been developed, but neither species have had any noticeable increase in the last ten years. Anyone that thinks increased fox populations are a main reason for reduced availability of other small game is sadly misinformed. Habitat loss is the number one reason for the decline of ALL small game and songbirds, and a fox or squirrel can survive in a subdivision but a quail cannot. Quail are becoming very rare in most of MD, and probably will be extinct on the western shore within the next 10-20 years due mostly to real estate development. And the eastern shore will not be far behind at the rate MD is losing its farms. I also read a comment about fox eating deer (carcasses, that are shot by a hunter), that is exaggerated. Foxes will scavenge as a last resort, but I rarely see deer carcasses get scavenged by fox in southern MD. However, in southern MD we do have a feral dog problem, which are far more likely to scavenge a deer carcass, and are far more aggressive. Wild dogs will eat almost any thing they can find or kill. Normally both wild dogs and foxes will hide if a shot is fired nearby. If a dog could find a carcass and eat some of it before a hunter can find it, either the hunter took a very poor shot - or the hunter has poor tracking ability. – J. S.

I am a trapper and I am against the proposal of extending the trapping season because pelts are not worth harvesting in February. Thank You, J. L. G.

Dear Mr. Peditto, I am writing to voice my opposition to DNR's proposal to extend the hunting and trapping season of red and gray fox. The proposal could endanger the fox population by allowing the killing of foxes during their gestation/birthing period. Hunters, and certainly trappers, cannot distinguish between a dog fox and a vixen, nor can they determine if a vixen is pregnant. If they kill a pregnant vixen, they are also killing an average of 5 pups.

To my knowledge, there is no overpopulation of fox in the state of Maryland that would warrant expanding the hunting and trapping season. Therefore, I respectfully request that the DNR protect this resource so that we all may have good sport in the future, and ask that the DNR not accept this proposal. Sincerely,   E. F. H.

Dear Mr. Peditto: I am a foxchaser who enjoys riding to hounds in central Maryland. I am writing to voice my opposition to DNR's proposal to extend the hunting and trapping season of red and gray fox.   

The proposal could endanger the fox population by allowing the killing of foxes during their gestation/birthing period.  Hunters, and certainly trappers, cannot distinguish between a dog fox and a vixen nor can they determine if a vixen is pregnant.  If they kill a pregnant vixen, they are also killing an average of five pups.

To my knowledge, there is no overpopulation of fox in the State of Maryland that would warrant expanding the hunting and trapping season. The current regulations seem to work, so why change them.

Therefore, I respectfully request that DNR protect this resource and not adopt this proposal so that we all may have good sport in the future. Sincerely, C. M.

I am writing to you in my capacity as a long standing fox chaser with the Marlborough Hunt Club in Upper Marlborough, Maryland.   I understand that the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is currently in the process of adopting its hunting and trapping regulations for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 hunting seasons.

Under consideration is a potentially harmful regulation change that would extend the gun hunting and trapping of red and gray foxes by another two weeks.  This proposed extension would endanger the fox population by stretching into the gestation / birthing period for foxes. Hunters, and certainly trappers, cannot distinguish between a dog fox and a vixen nor can they determine if a vixen is pregnant.  If they kill a pregnant vixen, they are also killing an average of five pups. 

There is no overpopulation of fox in the State of Maryland that would require expanding the hunting and trapping season.  In fact Coyote have moved into the state which already be threatening the state’s fox population. And increased highway traffic is resulting in more road kills. Thank you for your attention to this critical issue for the Maryland fox population. Sincerely, V. O.

“DNR is considering a potentially harmful regulation change that would extend the gun hunting and trapping of red and gray foxes by another two weeks.  This proposed extension would endanger the fox population by stretching into the gestation / birthing period for foxes. Hunters, and certainly trappers, cannot distinguish between a dog fox and a vixen nor can they determine if a vixen is pregnant.  If they kill a pregnant vixen, they are also killing an average of five pups.

Dear Mr. Peditto, The above email was sent to me recently.  I find legislation such as this very disturbing as I can personally attest to the decline in fox population in the area from routes 32, 144, & Pfefferkorn Rd.

I used to see, daily, fox traversing this farm on their usual routes foraging for food. My children and I would watch the fox and his/her antics as they stalk the geese, chase mice.  They are quite comical and provide loads of entertainment.  We also follow the hounds on this farm in pursuit of fox once every 6 weeks or so.  Over the past 3-4 years, there has been a dramatic decline in the fox population in this area that I have to attribute to the dramatic upswing in the population of coyotes. In years past, where we would see 3, 4, 5 fox in a chase and NO coyotes, now, we rarely see ANY fox and might see coyotes.

I cannot believe there is a necessity to extend the fox gun hunting/trapping season because of overpopulation.  What is the purpose of the extension of the season?  Please consider the damage already done by coyotes invading this area before allowing the humans another chance to upset the balance of nature even more than they already have. Why have the fox become endangered in this region and then have to change regulations again? 3-4 years is a relatively short period of time for such a dramatic decline in the population of an animal.  I would not want to see it further diminished due to trapping/ gun hunting. yes, i now animal populations have a natural flux and  this decline in fox could be due to that, but, whatever the cause, i  encourage you to look at what has been happening here and other areas  (manor lane) before trying to increase gun/trapping season on animals  that are currently struggling for other reasons. Thank you for your time. – A. M.

Dear Mr. Peditto: I am writing to voice my OPPOSITION to DNR's proposal to extend the hunting and trapping season of red and gray fox.  The proposal could endanger the fox population by allowing the killing of foxes during the gestation/birthing period.  Hunters, and certainly trappers, cannot distinguish between a dog fox and a vixen nor can they determine if a vixen is pregnant.  If they kill a pregnant vixen, they are also killing an average of five pups. 

To my knowledge, there is no overpopulation of fox in the State of Maryland that would warrant expanding the hunting and trapping season.  The current regulations seem to work, so why change them.  Therefore, I respectfully request that DNR protect this resource so that we all may have good sport in the future and NOT adopt this proposal. Sincerely, S. H.

Concerning that DNR is considering a potentially harmful regulation change that would extend the gun hunting and trapping of red and gray foxes by another two weeks, I would like to add my comment.

This proposed extension would endanger the fox population by stretching into the gestation / birthing period for foxes. Hunters, and certainly trappers, cannot distinguish between a dog fox and a vixen nor can they determine if a vixen is pregnant.  If they kill a pregnant vixen, they are also killing an average of five pups.

There is no overpopulation of fox in the State of Maryland that would require expanding the hunting and trapping season.  The current regulations seem to work, so why change them. 

I’m not denouncing the hunting, just the extension. Thank you. K. C-R.

Dear Mr. Peditto: I am writing to you as a concerned citizen. I understand the DNR proposes to extend the red and gray fox gun hunting and trapping season.  Robert Colona, of the Wildlife and Heritage Service, DNR, cites some compelling facts regarding the impact of the coyote on red fox populations which indicate this proposal may exacerbate an already negative situation regarding fox populations in Maryland.

Mr. Colona states Maryland is one of the last states to be infiltrated by coyotes, and therefore benefits from the opportunity to observe population patterns in other states.  He believes we, like Virginia, are experiencing a 29% annual growth rate in the coyote population.  He further states “Red fox decline dramatically in response to increasing coyote populations”.  This does not bode well for the red fox, as it appears we are on the leading edge of this trend.  He further states “diminishing red fox populations have currently been noted in portions of central and western Maryland”.

Given these facts, I feel an increase in gun hunting and trapping of fox is counter indicated.

I would prefer to see our knowledgeable DNR staff apply themselves to the problem of controlling the coyote population without risk of further diminishing the fox, which is a much more desirable species.  Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, D. L.

Dear Mr. Peditto: I am writing to voice my opposition to DNR’s proposal to extend the hunting and trapping season for red and gray fox.  I am a Joint Master of Foxhounds for the De La Brooke Foxhounds.  Our kennels are in Mt. Victoria, Charles County, Md., and we hunt approximately 10 other locations throughout St. Marys and southern Calvert County.  My opposition is based on sound game management principals.  Vixens are pregnant in February and moving to establish new territory to raise their young.  Areas heavily trapped will not be replenished if the season is extended into February and these surviving vixens are also trapped or shot.

Case in point, Charles County (we hunt Mt. Victoria and Keechland) has always had far fewer foxes than the other two counties we hunt.  We presume it is due to the Charles’ year around trapping of fox.  For fox, this year was far worse than normal; a professional trapper started trapping a couple farms adjacent to the 4,000 acres we have traditionally hunted around Mt. Victoria.  He was so successful that he totally eliminated the fox in the entire area.  On horse back we can cover a lot of ground, therefore we are intimately familiar with their numbers within our territory.  There had been a few fox to chase in the early fall.  Mt. Victoria was trapped out by January thus we had to reschedule our hunts to other locations.  In February soft footing elsewhere required us to return for a hunt from our kennels.  The day produced one chase of a gray fox that was obviously a transient judging from the way it ran.  Hopefully the trapper had pulled his traps so that this late winter fox movement and infilling will be successful for repopulation.

I have always been surprised by the efficiency of modern trapping and shooting methods compared to our fox chasing.  The scent bombs, laser sights, recorded calls and spot lights are real effective.  If hunters and trappers move in, our sport is finished.  That is why we protect our territory if we can.  This year at Mt. Victoria we trained our hounds twice a week in the early fall and hunted seven times from early November until we gave up on the location in January.  Our hounds killed only one fox in Charles County, it was a red caught in the trappers leg trap.   We did not deplete the fox population.

Our Hunt carries on the tradition of riding to hounds that was started on the shores of the Patuxent at De La Brooke Manor in 1650.  On weekends we can have as many as 50 riders; members, parents, children and staff, but on a weekday in the worst winter weather, we may have only 10.  We hunt 50 times a year and if by chance hounds catch a gray fox it is a sad occasion honored by a long mournful blowing of the huntsman’s horn.  Fortunately Maryland’s ground hog holes, thick briars and swamps give the advantage to the fox.  We work to conserve their numbers.  Trapping and shooting of pregnant vixens in February will severely reduce their numbers and diminish all future fox sport.  DNR would be better advised to bring Charles County in line with the winter only season followed by the vast majority of the counties in the state. Sincerely, Albert W. Zahniser, MFH, De La Brooke Foxhounds

There is no overpopulation of fox in the State of Maryland that would require expanding the hunting and trapping season. The current regulations seem to work, so why change them.  Thank you. – S. C.

1)There isn't a single blind manufactures that produce such a blind so this regulation will make hunting from a factory blind illegal and then explain to us all how we could put the 250 square inches of orange “near” the blind!

2) What do you consider “near”? My mom lives near me but her house is 300 yards down the street. Near is to broad of a term I consider 50 yards as near but a DNR officer may consider 6” to be near.

3) The orange will cause the blind to not only stand out to hunters but to game animals as well thus making a blind almost useless.

Crossbows - There is a lot of miss information out and pudgiest about them. This is mostly coming from very selfish vertical bow hunters that think the woods belong only to them. Just because a hunter chooses to use a crossbow doesn’t mean they are lazy and do not practice. It doesn’t mean they will be more willing to take a poor shot then any other hunter.  some (not all) crossbow will extend your distance but not by that much I switched from a compound bow to one of the most powerful crossbows on the market and was only able to extend my distance by 10 yards (30 feet) at the very maximum. Crossbows do have a higher draw weight but that doesn’t translate into more power, they have a shorter power stroke and need the extra draw weight to achieve the same power as a vertical bow, Crossbow ARROWS are about ½ the length and weight as vertical bow arrows, so they loose emerge faster. A crossbow is nothing more then a different style of bow nothing more nothing less. If you consider Archery season to be for primitive hunting then we need to outlaw The carbon / scent proof clothing and sprays Carbon and aluminum arrows with plastic fletching and mechanical Broad heads need to go Then do away with the fancy fiber optic sights along with peeps red dot and scopes that can be mounted on a bow., Laser range finders they make hunters lazy and not practice judging distances. Take away any bow with mechanical advantage systemic strings and cables. Outlaw any bow made out of light weight sound absorbing materials YOU KNOW YOUR PRIMITIVE ARCHERY SEASON REALLY ISN’T ALL THAT PRIMITIVE AFTER ALL!!!!  - R. P., Sr.

Thank you for the work done and for the opportunity to comment. I would like to restate my belief that buckshot should be allowed in (at least) the suburban deer zone.It is unsafe to use slugs when shooting at a deer that has jumped up from bedding and not nearly as effective in close range shooting as buckshot.I think this would increase the number of deer taken in MD.

I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed regulation extending the Foxhunting Firearms and trapping season. From what I understand, this will endanger the already thin fox population by extending into the gestation and birthing period for foxes. It is pretty much impossible to tell the gender of a fox, unless you get up close and turn them over. Hunters will not be able to determine the sex before actually killing the fox.  If they happened to kill a pregnant vixen, (or mother) they would essentially be killing up to 6 fox at once.

It seems the current regulations are working well enough as I don't have as many fox in my area of Sparks as I used to. So as the old adage goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Thanks for your time, - A.S.K.

Please include the following comments in your planning for season regulations:

1. Sunday hunting for deer with firearms is a popular pursuit, but please limit it by time of day, location, etc.  Although I am an avid deer hunter, I prefer my Sundays for other occupations in the woods, and I don't want to spoil another sportsman or sportswoman's hunt by riding horses, hiking, or other pursuits.  Sunday hunting has expanded far enough!

2. Please do not extend fox trapping later in the year.  The population seems relatively stable, and is providing sport for mounted foxhunters throughout the state.  Extended trapping could be hard on the population, and also limits the extent of dog sports due to the traps.

Thank you, J. S. M. 

Dear Sir, I understand that DNR is considering a potentially harmful regulation change that would extend the gun hunting and trapping of red and gray foxes by another two weeks.  This proposed extension would endanger the fox population by stretching into the gestation / birthing period for foxes.

Hunters, and certainly trappers, cannot distinguish between a dog fox and a vixen nor can they determine if a vixen is pregnant.  If they kill a pregnant vixen, they are also killing an average of five pups. 

There is no overpopulation of fox in the State of Maryland that would require expanding the hunting and trapping season.  The current regulations seem to work, so why change them. 

Please consider this very carefully before proceeding. Sincerely, - C. J. H.

To my knowledge, there is no overpopulation of fox in the State of Maryland that would warrant expanding the hunting and trapping season.  The current regulations seem to work, so why change them.  Therefore, I respectfully request that DNR protect this resource so that we all may have good sport in the future and not adopt this proposal. Sincerely, - L. Y.

I am a hunter in Washington County, all my adult life (65 yrs old). The hunting regulation for the deer season is too high. My son and I have not taken deer in Maryland for (5) years. Some hunting day's you have to be lucky to see a deer in this county. The call in system is a joke, 50% of the call's are not true, the 2nd deer (bucks) are being called in as doe, so some hunter can kill extra bucks. Go to a (1) or (2) buck season, with a (3) day doe season at the end of the second week, for my safety in the wood and all other hunters. Let’s bring our deer herd back, so that young men will be interested in hunting, you must see deer in the mountain areas if we are going to keep our youth interested in hunting. I am a MD. &  PA. HUNTER. It looks to me as if both states are trying to eliminate the deer, then their will be no reason to own a fire arm. COULD THIS BE A LONGER RANGE PLAN, THAT THE HUNTER DESTROYS HIM SELF. – Z. Y.

I recall just a few years ago when Sunday hunting finally became possible in Maryland. I was very disappointed at that time to learn this privilege would exclude persons that were not affluent enough to own lands or were not fortunate enough to have affluent friends that allowed them access. In recalling the history of the passing of the law that allowed this privilege; it was during the time when Governor Glendenning was in office. The proponents of Sunday Hunting finally won this great victory and the law was about to be passed. Unfortunately, an argument was raised that many parks are used on Sundays by birdwatchers, horseback riders, hikers and other nature lovers. In response, Governor Glendenning worked hard to limit this law to allow its passage in its current version. It was passed allowing just a few areas in which Sunday hunting on private property was legal.

While it may be true in some of our urban areas that parks are frequently used by non hunters on Sundays, I can tell you anecdotally that in over 30 years of hunting, this is not the case in many rural areas. I frequently traverse the woods on Sundays to scout ad better acquaint myself with the terrain. The only park I have ever observed activity by persons considered non hunters, which are usually horseback riders, is at Myrtle Grove in Charles County and this is only in recent years. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule but many friends, associates and other hunters I talk with and encounter in the woods have the same observations.

Changing subjects slightly, consider the current system of using parks. Hunters are required to sign in and many times required to obtain advanced reservations. Why is there no system in place for non hunters? I am well versed in the concept of land usage, carrying capacity, (for wildlife and hunters), hunter safety concerns and all accompanying issues, but "hunter sign in" not only ensures a safe number of hunters are utilizing a piece of property, it also accumulates a vast amount of information on park usage by hunters. However, what information is really accumulated on park usage by non hunters? How can decisions on safety and proper usage of parks on Sundays continue to be made without hard data as a reference? If there is data on this subject, where is it?

It appears there is very little information available on what research was done in making the decision to allow Sunday hunting only on private property. Were there studies and research done? Why not publish this information and better justify the decision to restrict Sunday hunting? I think this it not published because such research information or studies do not exist. I propose studies be conducted to determine which parks are actually used on Sundays by non hunters. This potentially will open many public lands to Sunday hunting, offering opportunities to the underprivileged or “the other half “of society, who are not so fortunate as to have access to private lands.

In a time of ensuring that civil rights, fairness and equality are protected for all, I truly wonder how we have erred so egregiously in this area. I have been a law enforcement officer for over 30 years and the issue of justice, civil rights and equality for all is a critical issue for me, as I hope it is for you. I strongly urge you to consider this matter and begin to work towards fairness for all hunters, not just those who have been fortunate to acquire land or have friends that allow them access. I strongly urge you to open Sunday hunting to many of the parks that stand idle on Sundays. - S. W.