Interesting NYODN

[chrisw]

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

You're overlooking the voluntary program that anyone can sign up for, take a few measures and be put on a state list so when eligible farms are available the state can then call you from the list to participate. And this is no mandatory program, if you want (extra) deer taken off of your farm this is the avenue you could take. The rules for land use would be up to the farm owner. It would be similar to the January deer hunts that have been happening around Ithaca the past few seasons...

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[gjs4]

I would say based on most of personal experience with knowing farmers or hunters related to "Nuisance permits", the fudge factor is about 50%. There is a farmer here in Wyoming co that uses a 50bmg and know of a few in eastern Erie co that have had velvet deer mounted or were cited for taking one (and yes that group still gets permits and they used to plant 5-6ac of corn just to get them).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TreeGuy]

There are always going to be those acception to the standard farmers out there. I love a big herd myself and would hate to hear of a big buck taken illegally by farmer or poacher. As far as the whole nusiance tags go, I think we are looking at it from the hunter/sportsman/conservationist perspective only. The farmer sees it different. He takes the time to work the dirt and makes his living off the ag he grows. When he sees a few deer in his beans everynight he isn't going to go inspect the damage or count the plants the deer eat, he's going to imagine them devistating his crop and taking from his income. I can see why they would want to kill them all. And even when they let hunters come in during season, and watch them walk back to their trucks night after night empty handed.... They don't see the massacre they want to. I'm with helping farmers out where needed and within reason. We just need to try understand the mindset of the farmer before we assume they are just slaughtering the deer herd because of a few lost kernels.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Buckmaster7600]

There are always going to be those acception to the standard farmers out there. I love a big herd myself and would hate to hear of a big buck taken illegally by farmer or poacher. As far as the whole nusiance tags go, I think we are looking at it from the hunter/sportsman/conservationist perspective only. The farmer sees it different. He takes the time to work the dirt and makes his living off the ag he grows. When he sees a few deer in his beans everynight he isn't going to go inspect the damage or count the plants the deer eat, he's going to imagine them devistating his crop and taking from his income. I can see why they would want to kill them all. And even when they let hunters come in during season, and watch them walk back to their trucks night after night empty handed.... They don't see the massacre they want to. I'm with helping farmers out where needed and within reason. We just need to try understand the mindset of the farmer before we assume they are just slaughtering the deer herd because of a few lost kernels.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

You bring up a great point. Let's say farmers decide to let people hunt and the trophy " not used derogatory" hunters come in and day after day return to their truck empty handed because they are waiting on the big one. That's not doing the farmer any good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TreeGuy]

You bring up a great point. Let's say farmers decide to let people hunt and the trophy " not used derogatory" hunters come in and day after day return to their truck empty handed because they are waiting on the big one. That's not doing the farmer any good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would be important for the farmer to profile first, and also it's important for "trophy" hunters to disclose their style of hunting and expectations.

I sure hope your not saying that the "meat hunter" has it easier in the deer woods than the "trophy" hunter.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Buckmaster7600]

It would be important for the farmer to profile first, and also it's important for "trophy" hunters to disclose their style of hunting and expectations.

I sure hope your not saying that the "meat hunter" has it easier in the deer woods than the "trophy" hunter.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I sure hope you're not saying that a hunter that is waiting on a mature buck isn't harder than the hunter who is waiting for the first legal deer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TreeGuy]

Hmm. Well alright then. Maybe it's just me and the trophy hunters that don't kill every sit.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[gjs4]

Killing does controls the population .... not the first deer, such as the little buck excuse makers tend to use as their "meat hunting " fall back


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[wolc123]

12 hours ago, TreeGuy said:

There are always going to be those acception to the standard farmers out there. I love a big herd myself and would hate to hear of a big buck taken illegally by farmer or poacher. As far as the whole nusiance tags go, I think we are looking at it from the hunter/sportsman/conservationist perspective only. The farmer sees it different. He takes the time to work the dirt and makes his living off the ag he grows. When he sees a few deer in his beans everynight he isn't going to go inspect the damage or count the plants the deer eat, he's going to imagine them devistating his crop and taking from his income. I can see why they would want to kill them all. And even when they let hunters come in during season, and watch them walk back to their trucks night after night empty handed.... They don't see the massacre they want to. I'm with helping farmers out where needed and within reason. We just need to try understand the mindset of the farmer before we assume they are just slaughtering the deer herd because of a few lost kernels.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 

My biggest problem with the nuisance permits is the waste of all the deer.  It just seems to be a shame that so much fine, healthy meat is left out in the fields and hedgerows to rot.  These are not "bark-eating", foul tasting big-woods deer we are talking about.  The meat from cropland deer tastes as good as beef and is better for you.      

A solution to the problem might be to educate the public on the health benefits of venison (it should not be difficult with all the interest in "organic" foods lately) and legalize the sale of venison taken on nuisance permits.   That would give the farmers an extra source of income and eliminate the waste.  It would also make it easier for the DEC to regulate the number of deer killed, and make it easier to maintain optimum populations. 

The way it is going currently, the nuisance permits give the farmers the right to use a rifle at night to kill deer.  Most of the deer they shoot are not tagged, and just left to scavengers or to rot where they fall.  A farmer might only be issued 5 permits, but there is no limit to the number of deer he "misses".  

[chrisw]

My biggest problem with the nuisance permits is the waste of all the deer.  It just seems to be a shame that so much fine, healthy meat is left out in the fields and hedgerows to rot.  These are not "bark-eating", foul tasting big-woods deer we are talking about.  The meat from cropland deer tastes as good as beef and is better for you.      
A solution to the problem might be to educate the public on the health benefits of venison (it should not be difficult with all the interest in "organic" foods lately) and legalize the sale of venison taken on nuisance permits.   That would give the farmers an extra source of income and eliminate the waste.  It would also make it easier for the DEC to regulate the number of deer killed, and make it easier to maintain optimum populations. 
The way it is going currently, the nuisance permits give the farmers the right to use a rifle at night to kill deer.  Most of the deer they shoot are not tagged, and just left to scavengers or to rot where they fall.  A farmer might only be issued 5 permits, but there is no limit to the number of deer he "misses".  

Legalizing the sale of "nuisance deer" will only open the door to more poaching, putting a price tag on it will only increase ones desire to obtain it illegal or legal. When they stand to make money from the deer they kill they'll certainly be shooting every deer they can. I don't like that idea, it's the same reason you can't sell walleyes in NY...

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[wolc123]

21 minutes ago, chrisw said:

 

Legalizing the sale of "nuisance deer" will only open the door to more poaching, putting a price tag on it will only increase ones desire to obtain it illegal or legal. When they stand to make money from the deer they kill they'll certainly be shooting every deer they can. I don't like that idea, it's the same reason you can't sell walleyes in NY...

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 

 

How is that worse than fat, well fed coyotes and buzzards?  Also, they will still be limited by the number of permits they are issued.  If they can sell the meat, their "aim" should improve considerably.

Edited July 30, 2017 by wolc123

[chrisw]

How is that worse than fat, well fed coyotes and buzzards?  Also, they will still be limited by the number of permits they are issued.  If they can sell the meat, their "aim" should improve considerably.

I never said the deer should'nt be utilized for human consumption. In fact earlier in this thread I said it should mandate all nuisance shot deer should have to be donated to food pantries. Yes, there aim should improve, but so will the desire to make even more money by killing more and more. And before you know it you're in cahoots with the local poacher running an organized venison meat market that "we" created! There's a reason you can't sell wild game meat, why do you think that is? Because as soon as you put a monetary value on something it gets exploited...

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[stubby68]

17 hours ago, TreeGuy said:

It would be important for the farmer to profile first, and also it's important for "trophy" hunters to disclose their style of hunting and expectations.

I sure hope your not saying that the "meat hunter" has it easier in the deer woods than the "trophy" hunter.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 

There are a couple farmers by us who won't let you on there land if they even think you will pass a doe. First thing they ask is are you willing to kill every doe you see. If you hesitate with your answer or get a funny look on your face you are told no. Does not always help to profile though. If the guy is a good bs artist they could still get on and that does not help the farmer.

       The thing I find funny though is that in 9P gives out next to no doe tags yet these farmers own some land in 9P and get nuisances tags for it. There fields in 9P are alwas full of deer and get destroyed every year. Letting hunters on does not always help though. Having few or no dmp tags makes it hard to keep the population in check. 

[TreeGuy]

As far as the donation of the meat, there are few local butcher shops involved in the venison coalition (I think that's what it's called) that will take deer free of charge and donate to needy families. It's a large program. Local to me, is the buck and doe shop on Sheridan drive in williamsville. Both the farmer and myself have tried to contact the shop to verify how/when they accept deer and have gotten no response. I have a farmer I am working with currently and the rules on the tags are 1 shooter can keep 1 deer, the rest has to be donated or a hole dug and buried. This creates an issue as the farmer wants his tags filled and prefers not to waste the meat, yet doesn't want to have to multiple guys hunting his land off season. He's very "by the books" and this is his first year with tags.

I know another farmer in catt county that gets tons of tags as the deer just hammer his fields, he wants everything shot and already has holes dug. His freezer is held shut by a few cinderblock. I wouldn't doubt if he shot bucks too. When we did some tags for him in the past he laughed when we wanted the tags for transport.

It just shows you there are all forms of farmers as there is all forms of hunters. I think there should be some leniency on how many deer the hunters can take and I think it should be easier to find donation spots as it could be a win/win situation. The amount of tags given is surprisingly low though, so I don't see at all how it could deeply impact the herd. I have to "trust" that the DEC is doing the best they can to satisfy everybody and maintain a healthy herd population.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Nomad]

On July 29, 2017 at 9:04 AM, gjs4 said:

I would say based on most of personal experience with knowing farmers or hunters related to "Nuisance permits", the fudge factor is about 50%. There is a farmer here in Wyoming co that uses a 50bmg and know of a few in eastern Erie co that have had velvet deer mounted or were cited for taking one (and yes that group still gets permits and they used to plant 5-6ac of corn just to get them).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I have a had time believing that 5 or 6 acres of corn and they get Nuisance permits ??? We have 3,000 acres and get around 5 . Dmaps ( extra doe permits ) 25 .

5 acres they would laugh in your face . 

I have first hand experience , not rumors or I heard of at the dinner .

Edited July 31, 2017 by Larry302

[growalot]

I dont know about his experience but  I do know I read where a guy got them for damage to food plots...it was lat year..that said I'm sure someone else here can recall that...it was discussed on the forum as I recall.

[gjs4]

Nope- they get 8 and claim they can get more when they're filled. Alden/Lancaster area.

They used to have a biologist or tech come out and see the damage .. now it's a phone and they'll show if they have time kind of deal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrisw]

I also belonged to a hunting club when I was younger, we leased 800 acres and one year they had a biologist come in and he said it was way over browsed and he gave us 15 nuisance permits, it was not in an agricultural area, no plots, just big woods. A furniture company owned the property.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[Doc]

Wouldn't you think that nuisance permits would be good only for does? I mean the object is to cut population. Also, there would be no problems with people passing does as they wait for a trophy. Seems like an obvious requirement to me. But from what I am reading here, it sounds like that is not the case. Anybody know why?

[Curmudgeon]

On 7/30/2017 at 1:12 AM, wolc123 said:

My biggest problem with the nuisance permits is the waste of all the deer.  It just seems to be a shame that so much fine, healthy meat is left out in the fields and hedgerows to rot.  These are not "bark-eating", foul tasting big-woods deer we are talking about.  The meat from cropland deer tastes as good as beef and is better for you.      

A solution to the problem might be to educate the public on the health benefits of venison (it should not be difficult with all the interest in "organic" foods lately) and legalize the sale of venison taken on nuisance permits.   That would give the farmers an extra source of income and eliminate the waste.  It would also make it easier for the DEC to regulate the number of deer killed, and make it easier to maintain optimum populations. 

The way it is going currently, the nuisance permits give the farmers the right to use a rifle at night to kill deer.  Most of the deer they shoot are not tagged, and just left to scavengers or to rot where they fall.  A farmer might only be issued 5 permits, but there is no limit to the number of deer he "misses".  

This has not been my experience. I generally use dmaps but when I have had nuisance tags, I was allowed  a few deer for myself. All others had to be donated.   

[stubby68]

6 hours ago, Doc said:

Wouldn't you think that nuisance permits would be good only for does? I mean the object is to cut population. Also, there would be no problems with people passing does as they wait for a trophy. Seems like an obvious requirement to me. But from what I am reading here, it sounds like that is not the case. Anybody know why?

Been about 8 years since we last used nuisances permits. Farmer near us got them and asked us to do it for him. We only got 5 at a time all deer had to be does and all had to be donated. There was a form with each tag when we took deer to a local butcher who was in the donation program he filled out the form. We sent from in to Dec as proof tag was used and deer donated. Then Dec would send usome tags and new forms to replace the used ones. Never were able to have more then 5 tags at a time. Didn't have an option of digging a hole and burying them either.

   Like I said it has been 8 years since I last been involved with it. Sounds like a lot has changed.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

On 7/28/2017 at 9:32 AM, Larry302 said:

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 . 

 

I know of 3 farms that get Nuisance tags. (DDP's) They can take the deer off season when the crop damage is happening. All three of those places use the DDP's at a shooting permit. They go afield with rifles (legal), and proceed to shoot the deer to wound them. Let them go and wait for the next one to appear to wound it. So those numbers on the DDP's mean nothing in my book. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

On 7/29/2017 at 0:37 PM, TreeGuy said:

There are always going to be those acception to the standard farmers out there. I love a big herd myself and would hate to hear of a big buck taken illegally by farmer or poacher. As far as the whole nusiance tags go, I think we are looking at it from the hunter/sportsman/conservationist perspective only. The farmer sees it different. He takes the time to work the dirt and makes his living off the ag he grows. When he sees a few deer in his beans everynight he isn't going to go inspect the damage or count the plants the deer eat, he's going to imagine them devistating his crop and taking from his income. I can see why they would want to kill them all. And even when they let hunters come in during season, and watch them walk back to their trucks night after night empty handed.... They don't see the massacre they want to. I'm with helping farmers out where needed and within reason. We just need to try understand the mindset of the farmer before we assume they are just slaughtering the deer herd because of a few lost kernels.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 

I put them in the same category as a professional football player and the concussion issue. You CHOSE your career and should have understood the issues. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

6 hours ago, Doc said:

Wouldn't you think that nuisance permits would be good only for does? I mean the object is to cut population. Also, there would be no problems with people passing does as they wait for a trophy. Seems like an obvious requirement to me. But from what I am reading here, it sounds like that is not the case. Anybody know why?

They are for Antlerless only UNLESS the damage can be attributed to bucks. A prime example if a nursery or an orchard. thousands of dollars in losses can happen in a night during the antler rubbing time period. 

[dbHunterNY]

On 7/30/2017 at 7:23 AM, wolc123 said:

How is that worse than fat, well fed coyotes and buzzards?  Also, they will still be limited by the number of permits they are issued.  If they can sell the meat, their "aim" should improve considerably.

in the early days of this country various big game could be hunted and sold.  it nearly wiped out multiple species.  that's one good reason why it's illegal to sell wild game meat.  not coming up with an apples to oranges comparison, it's good that we don't repeat the same mistakes.  i like to know i'll be able to take my future grand kids hunting knowing something will still be there for them to hunt.