Interesting NYODN

[growalot]

Head line :

DMAP,"nuisance"deer take nears 15,000

Hhhhmmm perhaps I  should have posted this in the future of deer hunting thread.....

[dbHunterNY]

paper is sitting on the kitchen table haven't read it yet.  ECO's around here have said they don't like nuisance permits.  they feel they're poorly tracked.  despite the wildlife tech out this way is awesome.  i don't like nuisance tags either.  DMAP tags on the other hand has the highest success rate, property specific, and tracked well enough.  we send in a harvest report every year for them and do a management plan every 3 years to continue getting them.  i'll have to read it tonight when i have some time.

[NFA-ADK]

Then the hunter wonders why HIS area has few deer in it?

[BizCT]

Just realized I haven't gotten that paper in months- guess my membership expired.

[Nomad]

The 15,000 is combined Dmaps ( 9,134) and DDMP (5,688) . So the nuisance tags account for 1/3 of that number. The total number accounts for 7% of the deer take, bad weather on opening week end has a bigger effect on deer take .

As I have said prior on here we get a couple dozen dmaps, but then many of us don't then apply for doe  tags, leaving them for others , I also can give dmaps to friends I bring who may not have a tag for my area . 

Where's the down side ?

[Curmudgeon]

25 minutes ago, Larry302 said:

Where's the down side ?

I don't see any. Dmaps are only used where the is a documented problem, like here.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

The problem is when farmers gut shoot them and let them run off to die and shooting both sexes. They are thought of as Rat's down on a couple farms near our other farm because of the so called crop damage... But wont allow hunters on the property when asked. Should be a rule where hunters must be allowed in order to get the extra tags.

[Buckmaster7600]

The problem is when farmers gut shoot them and let them run off to die and shooting both sexes. They are thought of as Rat's down on a couple farms near our other farm because of the so called crop damage... But wont allow hunters on the property when asked. Should be a rule where hunters must be allowed in order to get the extra tags.

Aren't you a land owner? Do you like the Gov. Being able to tell you what to do with your land?

If a farmer has problems with crop damage why in the hell should he have to let people on his land hunt them?

In my opinion a farmer shouldn't even need nuisance permits, if deer are eating their crops they should be able to shoot them. What they want to do with the deer after is up to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrisw]

Aren't you a land owner? Do you like the Gov. Being able to tell you what to do with your land?

If a farmer has problems with crop damage why in the hell should he have to let people on his land hunt them?

In my opinion a farmer shouldn't even need nuisance permits, if deer are eating their crops they should be able to shoot them. What they want to do with the deer after is up to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm going to disagree with you on this one. That could and would lead to a trickle effect, if that were the case what stops Joe Blow down the Rd with his personal garden from doing the same? How about turkeys? Are they included? What if I have a rabbit farm and the Hawks are eating them? Can I start killing Hawks? I don't agree with nuisance permits. Or how about if you own a few hundred acres bordering a farm with what you consider good/fair deer numbers and the farmer starts killing every deer that steps into his fields, now he's screwing you too. I think they are mis-managed and often times just casually doled out. I've witnessed it. I think if you truly have an issue with deer crop damage then you'd be willing to let the state select a few hunters every fall to help you with numbers. Also I think every deer that is killed on a nuisance permit needs to be donated to a food pantry, they are not for personal consumption. I know if I had a farm where I was losing money to deer, I sure as hell wouldn't not let anyone hunt it, now it wouldn't be an open door but I'd let a few on each year. Just my thoughts on it, we don't need any more renegades thinking if the farm next door can do it so can I....

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[Doc]

44 minutes ago, chrisw said:

 

 

I'm going to disagree with you on this one. That could and would lead to a trickle effect, if that were the case what stops Joe Blow down the Rd with his personal garden from doing the same? How about turkeys? Are they included? What if I have a rabbit farm and the Hawks are eating them? Can I start killing Hawks? I don't agree with nuisance permits. Or how about if you own a few hundred acres bordering a farm with what you consider good/fair deer numbers and the farmer starts killing every deer that steps into his fields, now he's screwing you too. I think they are mis-managed and often times just casually doled out. I've witnessed it. I think if you truly have an issue with deer crop damage then you'd be willing to let the state select a few hunters every fall to help you with numbers. Also I think every deer that is killed on a nuisance permit needs to be donated to a food pantry, they are not for personal consumption. I know if I had a farm where I was losing money to deer, I sure as hell wouldn't not let anyone hunt it, now it wouldn't be an open door but I'd let a few on each year. Just my thoughts on it, we don't need any more renegades thinking if the farm next door can do it so can I....

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 

 

I agree with this reply. How long has it been since the DEC looked for alternatives to nuisance permits. I think that a list of reliable hunters who can pass a certification program  would be a good solution. These tested hunters would be chosen from the list randomly or according to location by the DEC to handle population thinning and the landowner would be excluded from the activity. It would not open the farmer's land to random public access, but adequately take care of the over abundance of deer.  No rights are trampled on since the farmer has the right to refuse the service and continue on with the problem or seek other legal solutions. Also I agree that every deer that is taken should be used by somebody. No natural resource should ever be wasted when there is a need for that resource.

[Buckmaster7600]

I'm going to disagree with you on this one. That could and would lead to a trickle effect, if that were the case what stops Joe Blow down the Rd with his personal garden from doing the same? How about turkeys? Are they included? What if I have a rabbit farm and the Hawks are eating them? Can I start killing Hawks? I don't agree with nuisance permits. Or how about if you own a few hundred acres bordering a farm with what you consider good/fair deer numbers and the farmer starts killing every deer that steps into his fields, now he's screwing you too. I think they are mis-managed and often times just casually doled out. I've witnessed it. I think if you truly have an issue with deer crop damage then you'd be willing to let the state select a few hunters every fall to help you with numbers. Also I think every deer that is killed on a nuisance permit needs to be donated to a food pantry, they are not for personal consumption. I know if I had a farm where I was losing money to deer, I sure as hell wouldn't not let anyone hunt it, now it wouldn't be an open door but I'd let a few on each year. Just my thoughts on it, we don't need any more renegades thinking if the farm next door can do it so can I....

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

You must have more faith in the Government than me. It would be a cold day in hell before I let the DECor anyone else for that matter chose who can hunt my property.

In all honesty it really doesn't make much difference. Around these parts most every farmer and farm help has a rifle in the tractor or truck all the time. Never known of any of them to get a nuisance permit but I sure know of a lot of deer they have killed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrisw]

I agree with this reply. How long has it been since the DEC looked for alternatives to nuisance permits. I think that a list of reliable hunters who can pass a certification program  would be a good solution. These tested hunters would be chosen from the list randomly or according to location by the DEC to handle population thinning and the landowner would be excluded from the activity. It would not open the farmer's land to random public access, but adequately take care of the over abundance of deer.  No rights are trampled on since the farmer has the right to refuse the service and continue on with the problem or seek other legal solutions. Also I agree that every deer that is taken should be used by somebody. No natural resource should ever be wasted when there is a need for that resource.

I fully agree with this. Hunters can go complete a proficiency exam and sign a document agreeing to the landowner terms. From there you can be placed on a list for eligible farms. I don't see a negative side to this. I just don't think the farmers should be treated as wildlife biologists, because they aren't.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[chrisw]

You must have more faith in the Government than me. It would be a cold day in hell before I let the DECor anyone else for that matter chose who can hunt my property.

In all honesty it really doesn't make much difference. Around these parts most every farmer and farm help has a rifle in the tractor or truck all the time. Never known of any of them to get a nuisance permit but I sure know of a lot of deer they have killed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not about having faith in the government, it's about putting too much faith in the farmers who would just assume kill every deer they see. Farmers aren't wildlife experts or biologists, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to make those decisions. If we allowed private citizens to manage all of the wildlife on their own property to their liking we'd screw things up in a hurry. I never said the DEC got to choose who hunted your property, interested hunters could apply, pass a proficiency exam and sign a legal document agreeing to the terms set forth by said farmer. To me it's asinine to plant 1,000 acres of corn and then want to kill every animal that's attracted by it. They know the risks going in. Now if the land truly is overpopulated then the above mentioned program will help alleviate that.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[growalot]

Are we forgetting that a very good percentage of farms are now leased to hunting groups..I know ones around us are...they get good money for it. SO I can assume they also make arragements for the leese guys get those permits. When farmers say no to Joe Shmoe knocking on their door one shouldn't assume no one is hunting their lands.  

[First-light]

Big farm was just sold right by me. Heard the new owners use a lot of permits and shoot up the does. Seems they also let hunters on the property. I guess pressure could be good and they come my way....

[Nomad]

Honestly I feel it's mostly misinformation and jealousy . Nuisance tags account for about 2% of the deer take,  over all that's not effecting everyone's hunting to a large degree .

The farm I hunt gets DMAPs , about 25 for 3,000 acres so,less then one for each 100 acres, and each Hunter can only use two of them , so guess what ?they get passed out amoung a dozen or more hunters . Each guy gets one , if he fills it he can come get his second one . 

The few times the farm  got actual nuisance tags, it was a handful for that 3,000 acres . It's not like some small 300 acre farm gets 20 nuisance tags, at least where I hunt and own land . 

 

[Buckmaster7600]

Honestly I feel it's mostly misinformation and jealousy . Nuisance tags account for about 2% of the deer take,  over all that's not effecting everyone's hunting to a large degree .
The farm I hunt gets DMAPs , about 25 for 3,000 acres so,less then one for each 100 acres, and each Hunter can only use two of them , so guess what ?they get passed out amoung a dozen or more hunters . Each guy gets one , if he fills it he can come get his second one . 
The few times the farm  got actual nuisance tags, it was a handful for that 3,000 acres . It's not like some small 300 acre farm gets 20 nuisance tags, at least where I hunt and own land . 
 

BINGO!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Buckmaster7600]

I agree with this reply. How long has it been since the DEC looked for alternatives to nuisance permits. I think that a list of reliable hunters who can pass a certification program  would be a good solution. These tested hunters would be chosen from the list randomly or according to location by the DEC to handle population thinning and the landowner would be excluded from the activity. It would not open the farmer's land to random public access, but adequately take care of the over abundance of deer.  No rights are trampled on since the farmer has the right to refuse the service and continue on with the problem or seek other legal solutions. Also I agree that every deer that is taken should be used by somebody. No natural resource should ever be wasted when there is a need for that resource.

Wasted is a broad term. Your definition of wasted is different than mine.

Is wasted not being eaten by humans?
Is a deer wasted if it's buried in a pile of rotten haylage and spread on a field putting nutrients back in the ground?

Is it a waste of natural resources to use fish as Fertilizer?

The farmer that is on his property everyday knows way more about his land and crops than the dec.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[biggamefish]

2 hours ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

You must have more faith in the Government than me. It would be a cold day in hell before I let the DECor anyone else for that matter chose who can hunt my property.

In all honesty it really doesn't make much difference. Around these parts most every farmer and farm help has a rifle in the tractor or truck all the time. Never known of any of them to get a nuisance permit but I sure know of a lot of deer they have killed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one is saying that the government gets to or has to choose who hunts on your land. What is being said is that a farm if the crop damage is so great should allow hunters on to take care of the problem. I am sure everyone here has a buddy that they would let hunt if needed. 

 What is really being said is if the deer are such a problem then the farmer would probably be looking for any means to stop the damage. I know if a dairy farmers cows were getting taking out by a huge ny mountain lion or bigfoot that they would be calling on all possible outlets to get it to stop. Same as rats in a chicken coop.  When I was a kid I was always asked if I wanted to take some  rats out with my pellet gun when the farmer had a gun himself. They want the problem gone but have a lot of things to do being on a farm. 

[dbHunterNY]

the problem with nuisance permits is you get tags but the damage is already done in order for you to get those tags.  so it's a halfass fix and isn't well tracked anyway.  I think what people mean is if you request nuisance permits you damn well should have someone hunting on your property during deer season, whether it's you, family, friends, or joe blow who asked.  your choice as a landowner.  however, if you don't you're just causing your own problem, reducing hunting opportunity both in deer to shoot at, and increasing the problems of access.

[dbHunterNY]

before i got to read the paper my 3 yr old i guess used it for art and then my mother in law tossed it.  lol so unless i come across another copy idk what was said in the article.

[growalot]

It described nuisance permits  vs DMAP tags and gave the #'s  regions used It was actually a rather big article in the paper

[Buckmaster7600]

I think if you truly have an issue with deer crop damage then you'd be willing to let the state select a few hunters every fall to help you with numbers.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Unless I can't comprehend I'm pretty sure he's suggesting having the state pick who can hunt on your property?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tuckersdaddy]

When a.good friend of mine put 15000 apple trees on his property, He had a deer issue. Before he was given any nuisense permits he was required to show fencing, alternative food sources outside the fence, and and action plan for it to be hunted... Another large farm nearby posted thier property.. following spring requested and received nuisence permits. The following fall opening morning the property was posted, in the afternoon it was not. I mention all of this to show The Dec has a plan on how to manage farm deer crop issues.. The Dmaps are an extention of this to be used during the season by regular hunters that have permission to use the property.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Doc]

12 hours ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

Unless I can't comprehend I'm pretty sure he's suggesting having the state pick who can hunt on your property?

You seem to be forgetting that these programs are voluntary. No one is compelled to take part. The government is not forcing any farmer to do anything. They simply are applying reasonable rules to what amounts to a government subsidy involving state owned resources. Farmers are asking for special dispensation that allows them to disregard regulations designed to manage a state resource. So if that special privilege involves special requirements, he still has the right to refuse participation in the program.