Let's get some opinons (deer eradication)

[Caveman]

Not too far from me there's a farm that operates by doing pick-your-own apple type things in the fall and selling some other small crops at market.  This fall they invited anyone who wanted to come hunt to do so.  Over 60 people filled tags there shooting everything that moved including fawns that barely pushed 80 pounds.  Obviously they wanted any and all deer gone to protect their crops but some hunters from the neighboring properties were livid claiming that the DEC should not allow them to do that.  They claimed they walked the perimeter and could not find a single track leading into or out of the property by the end of the season...this was in the snow.  Now, obviously you can let anyone you want hunt your private property but they also brag that they have nuisance permits and they'll take out any remaining deer later in the year. 

So what are your opinions? Should they be allowed to do this in defense of landowner's rights and free enterprise?  Or should the DEC step in and limit how many deer can be taken off a private property in during a season? 

[wooly]

Shoot 'em up. Not my propperty to say what goes.

  Over 60 people filled tags there shooting everything that moved including fawns that barely pushed 80 pounds.

Yeah so what's the problem? Those same fawns are some of the first deer to succumb to the elements and victims of over browsing. Me personally would rather see them shot than let mother nature choose her course of action.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

Thats a tough one!!! I think there should be limits and i think these permits in the end will be the demise of deer hunting as we used to know it.It wont be long and the deer population in the south will be like the big woods up north.On the other hand you have land owners tryin to make a living off the land.I sure can feel for the hunters on the other property!!!

[Doewhacker]

Are there ways for land owners to recoup money they lose from animal damage?

[Bleitten04]

That is a tough one.  If the deer are really causing that much damage then yes they should be taken out because there is to many in that area.  However it sounds like they might be going a little overboard.  The DEC should step in and modify it and see how bad the damage really is. 

[RPIBuckHunter]

I don't think that it is the place of government to mandate the type of deer management that occurs on private lands, especially if it is within the laws.  I'm sure alot of these farms depend on income generated from the apple picking season to survive as a business, so naturally they can't have a bunch of deer in there destroying the crop.

It's easy to get caught up in the hype of trophy hunting, but hunting is first and foremost a means of population control.  If a farm wants all the deer eliminated, better to invite hunters in to do it legally and will actually use the meat as opposed to them being slaughtered and thrown in the dumpster. 

[phade]

Over 60 people filled tags there shooting everything that moved including fawns that barely pushed 80 pounds. 

I'm not sure how familiar you are with deer and their biology, but 80lbs is not all that small. An 80 lb doe (regardless of birth date), is more likely to be a part of the breeding process than not. Most people mistake age for viability...rather it's weight. An 80lb doe fawn is likely to be a breeder in its first fall. An 80 lb fawn stands a relatively good chance of survival...maybe a little heavier if a button, but still.

Not sure what the fact that hunters were shooting viable deer has to do with the subject at hand. I think it's more in line with the act rather than the targets themselves.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

The nursery that I spoke of in the other thread actually had a Member of the DEC come out and do a survey. That is how they arrived at the tag number that were issued. They looked at damage and went through some giration  compared to the local deer herd numbers and issued 20 permits.

That was at least 10 years ago and I don't know how that play into the recent cuts the DEC has had.

I would like the think that there would be some consideration given to the local herd effects. I can understand the locals rage at this becasue let's face it. most farmers are using damn near every bit of their property for whatever it is they are growing. Probably little is there for bedding areas for the deer. the Deer are on the neighboring property and feeding in the farmers crops. Gotta be a tough one to swallow seeing the deer you are hunting walking across the property line to feed and being taken.

That said I am NOT infavor of the government dictating what the private owner can do on their lands. It has to be in the management and issuance of the permits. how about this....little less for illegal aliens and welfare and a little more for DEC

[First-light]

If I was bordering that place it would tick me off. Let alone they are shooting all those deer but you have a bunch of strangers hunting right next to you.

I don't know, we have pages and pages of debate about QDM and AR's and then you hear stories like this. It makes you wonder about our decision makers in power.

[Doc]

I'm not sure I want the DEC coming on to my property and mandating how many people I can invite to hunt there. First of all, I am sure that they do not have the manpower to inspect each parcel to make that determination in an over-all statewide manner. So that kind of micro managing of hunter density is never going to happen.

As far as nuisance permits, if the system is working properly, none should be issued to land parcels that have the near zero deer levels that those neighboring hunters are claiming. If the system isn't functioning properly then that's a whole different subject.

Actually, if some of these farmers want to open their property to hunters, I see that as a good thing. Also, I really can't see that as being any different than the conditions you could expect to see on public land. What I have found is that when hunters begin to get too efficient at thinning the herd, there automatically occurs a re-distribution of hunters to other areas. I've seen it happen. It's kind of self-regulating.

Doc

[SteveB]

So many don't like nuisanse permits and feel the landowner should allow hunting as the means to control the damage to their property. But now there are some who think they should not use hunters to control it? Which is it?

They claimed they walked the perimeter and could not find a single track leading into or out of the property by the end of the season...this was in the snow

I would like to hear how anyone knows for sure that 80 deer where taken and how big the property is. I find it amazing that it held 80 deer that would stay there until the last one was shot. Must be some incredibly stupid deer - any I have ever seen would go nocturnal and/or vacate the area if that kind of pressure happened.

[Mr VJP]

The state has decided the permits are less expensive than paying for a 12 foot fence to be installed around every farmers property where the deer do damage.  I think they have made the right decision.

[Doc]

The state has decided the permits are less expensive than paying for a 12 foot fence to be installed around every farmers property where the deer do damage.  I think they have made the right decision.

I'm quite sure that there is some pretty heavy political pressure on this issue as well. Unlike hunters, farmers are very well organized and always have the ear of the politicians. One way or another the DEC is going to act to satisfy political pressures or be forced to stand back and let the legislators dictate actions to be taken.

[fasteddie]

As I see it , the only right the DEC has is to limit the amount of Crop Damage Permits they allow ....

p.s. ------ Make sure those hunters / shooters are wearing back tags !  ... ...

[Caveman]

I myself am very confused on the issue.  I can feel for both parties.  First the neighboring hunter, you pay a ton in taxes on your land so you can hunt, then someone else destroys the heard.  Next the farmer, he only works six months of the year and needs to make as much money as he can.  I can see things from both directions.  Perhaps a little compromise is in order.  It seems to me all parties involved are being somewhat selfish.

As for the critics, don't shoot the messenger.  I should have mentioned that I have no experience with this issue personally.  This information is all from hunters who came into my work.  We all know how a sportsman's story can snowball after all so take it with a grain of salt.  But it did come from multiple sources. 

[shenders]

Here is a perfect case where the land owner doesn't appreciate the natural resource he has. It all comes down to money. Which in this day is a major factor with the economy etc.  But to destory a whole deer herd from your property is a little much. When it comes to nusiance permits there should be a limit set and the DEC should monitor them better. Those permits can made a big dent on a deer herd in a specific area.

[RPIBuckHunter]

I can understand the landowner paying taxes being upset, however, deer are a public resource, [oddly religious messages, etc.].  Just because a deer spends some of it's time on their land, does not make it their deer.  Maybe the landowner should plant some apple trees on his land if he wants to keep deer there...

[Culvercreek hunt club]

In reality the deer herd is not wiped out. it is kind of like a glas of water....take a spoon full out and it will rush back in to fill the void. granted not that fast but it will. the same items that drew the deer there before are still there. they will come back. If I were the landowner I would approach the DEC and present my case. and present it again....and again... I am a firm believer in the squeaky wheel getting the grease. They may just be able to influence the nuisence tag issuing.

That won't however stop the farmer from inviting avery hunter he knows in to fill their tags. but Like Doc said...if the deer are gone so are the hunters......at least until the deer return

[Santamour123]

My self I dont know what to say.  This is hpw it should be, if their is a deer problem.  Not nucience permits.  But it does such for the land owners next door.

[Husker5]

I would like to hear how anyone knows for sure that 80 deer where taken and how big the property is. I find it amazing that it held 80 deer that would stay there until the last one was shot. Must be some incredibly stupid deer - any I have ever seen would go nocturnal and/or vacate the area if that kind of pressure happened.

I am with you on that! It seems to me that you are going by heresay. You know how stories grow from the truth. It could have started out that they shot 10 deer on that property and through the grapevine now its 80! I would also like to know where this was that that property was so overrun with deer that it was able to have 80 deer taken. That is a ridiculous amount of animals to be held on a single property, not to mention that you claim they shot every last one. I have yet to SEE 80 deer in a season!

[the blur]

The DEC issues the nusiance permits, no one else.  they are usually for doe only.

You can jack light, take them off season, bait them, eat them, or donate them.

Every farmer does it on the east end of Long Island.  many are slaughtered.

It's their land owner right.

The tag is BIG,  like an index card.  and when they fill the tag, the DEC gives them another tag. (depending)  I don't think they are valid during the real season, so not to interfere with sportsmen.

I have no opinion on this matter, just relaying what I know. 

(as I am sitting here eating venison taken on a nusiance permit  )

[nyantler]

I would like to hear how anyone knows for sure that 80 deer where taken and how big the property is. I find it amazing that it held 80 deer that would stay there until the last one was shot. Must be some incredibly stupid deer - any I have ever seen would go nocturnal and/or vacate the area if that kind of pressure happened.

I am with you on that! It seems to me that you are going by heresay. You know how stories grow from the truth. It could have started out that they shot 10 deer on that property and through the grapevine now its 80! I would also like to know where this was that that property was so overrun with deer that it was able to have 80 deer taken. That is a ridiculous amount of animals to be held on a single property, not to mention that you claim they shot every last one. I have yet to SEE 80 deer in a season!

How about this?  If they had to shoot 80 deer that year.. wouldn't it have been much easier to let hunters shoot 80 over the course of a bunch of years before then? Might be smarter than waiting til there is 80 deer to ravage through your crops..duh!

[SteveB]

Or Joe, maybe they have allowed hunters and the population still needed more thinning - very possible on many farms where there is lots of food/feilds and limited cover.

Or, my original thought, the 80 deer killed is just an unsubstantiated story and would be nearly impossible to do.

[Caveman]

Regardless of how many were killed the larger issue is should an individual be allowed to completely eradicate the herd on his property or should someone be able to step in and control how many deer are taken off private property?

[nyantler]

Or Joe, maybe they have allowed hunters and the population still needed more thinning - very possible on many farms where there is lots of food/feilds and limited cover.

Or, my original thought, the 80 deer killed is just an unsubstantiated story and would be nearly impossible to do.

Yeah rather far fetched I'd say.