Farmer depredation

[pressfit]

Re: Farmer depredation

Try giving a dead deer away in the middle of July when is 140 degrees in the shade and 500 flies swarming all over it..

 

[cozy23]

Re: Farmer depredation

How about a county by county depredation draw hunt program.

Any farmer with permits can open his land to the draw hunts. Hunters choose a county. TWRA draws names and selects the farms.

Make it an "earn a buck" program to ensure the hunters are not strictly trophy hunting.

BOOM! There's the answer right there.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Roost 1]

Re: Farmer depredation

Depardation hunts are ridiculous in the first place. They allow the shooting of any deer. If anything is allowed, it should be antlerless only. KY doesn't even issue crop damage tags anymore to my knowledge. In zone 1 counties antlerlesss harvest is unlimited during season, landowners don't have to buy tags to hunt their own land.

 

[rukiddin]

Re: Farmer depredation

How about a county by county depredation draw hunt program.

Any farmer with permits can open his land to the draw hunts. Hunters choose a county. TWRA draws names and selects the farms.

Make it an "earn a buck" program to ensure the hunters are not strictly trophy hunting.

BOOM! There's the answer right there.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

That's good in theory but most farmers have been burnt by idiot deer hunters in the past. That's why a lot will only allow family or people they know well to hunt. Farmers aren't babysitters and when you start allowing a bunch of joe public deer hunters, one will eventually do something stupid to ruin it for everyone.

 

[pressfit]

Re: Farmer depredation

Depardation hunts are ridiculous in the first place. They allow the shooting of any deer. If anything is allowed, it should be antlerless only. KY doesn't even issue crop damage tags anymore to my knowledge. In zone 1 counties antlerlesss harvest is unlimited during season, landowners don't have to buy tags to hunt their own land.

Why are they ridiculous? If you made a living selling cheese and you had 40-50 rats in your store each night eating all your cheese you would catch and kill them..
why anterless only? Bucks mowcdown as many soybeans as does do.. when it comes time to pay the money back you borrowed to pay for the seed, the fertilizer, the herbicide, the land taxes, the tractor, combine, grain bin, grain truck, planter, chisel plow, disk, etc.. the banker is not going to say.. good job!! Since you let the bucks walk your not going to have to pay all of the money back.. just part of it...

 

[Roost 1]

Re: Farmer depredation

Let's keep it real... 1 groundhog will do more damage to beans than 10 deer. Deer eat the green leaves not the bean itself. I have seen small fields demolished but this is not the norm and if one watches one of these fields you will see 10x as many antlerless deer than you will see antlered deer. Coming from an agriculture background and living in a big farming community I do have experience with this situation. I know some farmers that say the deer destroy there crops and 90% of the time it's simply not true and apparently the Fish and Wildlife agree since they stopped issueing the crop damage tags.
Most depardation permits are not used for their original intent. Also, depardation permits and crop damage permits are totally different permits. Although the results are usually the same(dead deer) the intent for each are different.
I'm not against farmers by any means but the govt makes sure they are successful and they are some of the biggest welfare recipients around. Deer eating bean leaves should not be at top of their list of worries and honestly I'm sure it's not. Seldom hear any complaining about crop damage these days unless they are farming refuge type areas where hunting is either very limited or not allowed. However if it was a losing proposition they would not farm those places however they fight for those places every year trying to outbid each other.

 

[pressfit]

Re: Farmer depredation

I didn't know there was a difference on the permits.. I do know that the majority of my beans were waist high except the areas near the woods where the deer entered the field each day.. there the beans ranged from ankle high to knee high.. one of my friends had a 30 acre field that the insurance company made him harvest.. it made 30 bushels.. not to the acre but the whole field... a bushel to the acre.. no groundhogs were involved.. growing up I trapped groundhogs for $5 each from my uncles bean fields.. they eat a half moon in front of their den.. coyotes have pretty much wiped them out around here.. you see one occasionally..

 

[Roost 1]

Re: Farmer depredation

Sounds like y'all may need to shoot some antlerless deer. Do you live in an area with high deer density or just not very much agriculture, which would cause to deer congregate near the crops beans especially during the summer? I have a buddy who planted a 35 acre field 3 times in a refuge type area. The deer would not allow the beans to get very tall before snipping the top off. He said the last time he planted the field he counted 75 doe in the field right before dark. Although this is definitely a problem, it's not normal by any means. As bad as it sounds he's not only going to continue raising crops there but he was awarded more land for being the highest bidder. I'll never be convinced he's losing money there regardless of the crop damage attributed to deer.

 

[rukiddin]

Re: Farmer depredation

Let's keep it real... 1 groundhog will do more damage to beans than 10 deer. Deer eat the green leaves not the bean itself. I have seen small fields demolished but this is not the norm and if one watches one of these fields you will see 10x as many antlerless deer than you will see antlered deer. Coming from an agriculture background and living in a big farming community I do have experience with this situation. I know some farmers that say the deer destroy there crops and 90% of the time it's simply not true and apparently the Fish and Wildlife agree since they stopped issueing the crop damage tags.
Most depardation permits are not used for their original intent. Also, depardation permits and crop damage permits are totally different permits. Although the results are usually the same(dead deer) the intent for each are different.
I'm not against farmers by any means but the govt makes sure they are successful and they are some of the biggest welfare recipients around. Deer eating bean leaves should not be at top of their list of worries and honestly I'm sure it's not. Seldom hear any complaining about crop damage these days unless they are farming refuge type areas where hunting is either very limited or not allowed. However if it was a losing proposition they would not farm those places however they fight for those places every year trying to outbid each other.

Farmers don't give two $h!ts about a deer once the beans are made. Because like I said......the beans are made. A soybean will not grow to maturity if it's not allowed to get more than 6" out of the ground and typical soybeans will just give up and quit after being ate back a couple of times and that's with perfect rain. Even forage type soybeans are no good if they're allowed to grow to the point they can make leaves. I don't know of any of my friends who are farmers who shoot ANY deer once bean is made. Or maybe I just grew up in an area where there are a lot more deer and there wasn't a refuge within 75 miles of any of the fields.
I agree with you on them eating the leaves but when you shine a light across a field of 3-6" soybeans and there's 50+ deer standing in it eating, the beans never have a chance.

 

[Country1]

Re: Farmer depredation

It's easy to state a farmer shouldn't be allowed to protect his investment. If the deer belong to the state, then shouldn't the state be required to pay for crop damage. As for the welfare statement, that might apply to corporate farms, but not to the majority. If farming is so profitable, have at it.

 

[Snake]

Re: Farmer depredation

How about a county by county depredation draw hunt program.

Any farmer with permits can open his land to the draw hunts. Hunters choose a county. TWRA draws names and selects the farms.

Make it an "earn a buck" program to ensure the hunters are not strictly trophy hunting.

BOOM! There's the answer right there.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

That's good in theory but most farmers have been burnt by idiot deer hunters in the past. That's why a lot will only allow family or people they know well to hunt. Farmers aren't babysitters and when you start allowing a bunch of joe public deer hunters, one will eventually do something stupid to ruin it for everyone.

We have a winner ding , ding !

 

[TheLBLman]

Re: Farmer depredation

Hum.....haven't heard of anyone pushing for 2 does only in Unit L.........

I also haven't heard of anyone PUSHING for 2 does only in Unit L,
although I have presented that idea for DEBATE,
in the context of regulatory simplification
and the fact most hunters are currently not even killing a single deer annually
of any sex.

Debating an idea and pushing an idea are entirely different things.

 

[Mike Belt]

Re: Farmer depredation

Simplification can override what might need done in different areas and I can't blame TWRA for wanting to simplify regulations. Easier on them and easier on the hunter. In my particular area of Fayette/Hardeman County I do believe the doe population is down and needs looked at closer. I'm still on board with the 3 does but I personally think it needs to be per season and not per day. There you go.... bucking simplification per Unit L regs, lol.

I'd be interested in knowing just how TWRA goes about determining what areas get depredation permits and just how many. Is it by county, by parcel, by acreage?

 

[TX300mag]

Re: Farmer depredation

There are plenty of people wanting it. It's very easy to say "I don't kill more than ____ does, so that should be the limit." Lowering the limit to two or three does/season in Unit L will accomplish nothing other than making the antler hobbyist feel better. It will actually punish the very low percentage of hunters who are still willing to kill does after the newness of Unit L has worn off. Remember, I don't think there is a county in Unit L that has as many does killed as bucks. Once of the greatest benefits to the 3/doe a day limit is the hunter going into the woods knowing they don't have to kill a young buck if unless they WANT to (and are willing to pay for the Type 94).

If indeed hunters are killing 3 does/day all season long as some claim (I still have doubts) they AREN'T doing it in areas with very low density. They are either hunting farms with high density that need them killed or hunting several different farms (and even counties).

 

[Mike Belt]

Re: Farmer depredation

TX300... In mine (and I'm sure plenty of others) it's not a matter of "antler hobbyist" and it's not a matter of I only kill X number of does per season so everyone else should be limited to that as well. As far as I know there are no hunters going afield that are required to kill young bucks or even old bucks. It's a simple 2 bucks. Your choice. If you just want meat take your does. I don't know of but a handful of people that take over 3 does a season. If that's what they want good for them. If not, good for them as well.

If you hunt in an area that's over populated with does then thinning them out may very well be what's needed. If you hunt in an area where their population has dropped and continues to do so then you need to back off somewhat on killing does. My hunting area falls into that latter category. I don't know how much simpler that can get.

You seem to still have a bad taste left over by Tn going from 3 bucks to 2 bucks and attribute it solely to "trophy" hunters... and now it has carried over into the mention of reducing doe killing. Most of the hunters I know like shooting bigger bucks and not a one of them pushed for a reduction in the buck limits. If asked for their opinions they preferred a 2 buck limit but wouldn't have been upset if the limit had remained at 3. At the same time they like freezer meat and have no objections to shooting does but down to the last man all agree that we've possibly taken too many at this point and need to back off.

 

[TX300mag]

Re: Farmer depredation

Mike, I'm trying to look at it from a broad perspective. From what I can gather you hunt one (large) property that is intensely managed. Your doe quotas are set by the people you send your check to every year, not the agency. Why should the regs be changed for EVERYBODY?

I attribute TN going from 3 bucks down to 2 as hunters wanting to use the govt to restrict OTHER hunters, which is exactly what it is. "Trophy" hunters is a broad term, but I know plenty who would fall into that category that didn't feel the need to reduce the limit-whether they believed in voluntary trigger restraint or just understood that some guys have different goals than theirs and that was OK. Next was the antlerless reg (which had much more support than people publicly admit).

Yeah, I think it's too soon to broadly make another big reduction across the board-at least for EVERYBODY.

 

[TheLBLman]

Re: Farmer depredation

I'm trying to look at it from a broad perspective.

EXACLTY what many of us have been trying to do - simply have an honest DEBATE of all reasonable options
regarding our deer hunting regs.

1) Exactly which hunters would benefit most should the Unit L antlerless limit go from in the neighborhood of 300-plus annually (that's about 3 a day for the gun season) to perhaps a number such as 3 a year?

2) IF the Unit L antlerless limit did go from virtually no limit to 3 per year,
which hunters would be harmed?

I attribute TN going from 3 bucks down to 2 as hunters wanting to use the govt to restrict OTHER hunters, which is exactly what it is.

I attribute TN going from 3 bucks down to 2 as the TWRA & the Commissioners wanting to protect the resources while providing broader opportunity to a larger group of hunters. Never mind that most hunters had little to no preference whether the buck limit was either number.
True, the lead TWRA biologist (at the time) didn't believe it was necessary to make the change in 2015 (when the Commission decided to take that step), but other TWRA deer biologists did not believe it to be a bad idea, and it would probably have happened (on the TWRA's recommendation) within another year or two had not the Commission made it happen a year or two sooner.

Without some "reasonable" regulation of our wildlife resources,
we saw TN's deer and waterfowl populations go to nearly zilch in the early 1900's.
Thankfully, a few true conservationists (TN Conservation League nka TN Wildlife Federation) had the foresight to see the value of some reasonable protections for our wildlife and fisheries.

Please keep any debate in the factual context of our average TN deer hunter killing less than one (1) deer annually,
regardless of the sex of that deer. Truth is, most TN deer hunters kill neither "a" buck, nor "a" doe annually.

How can any reg changes benefit the most hunters, detrimentally effect the least, while protecting our resource (the deer population),
and bode well to the future of both the hunters and the statewide deer herds?

Unfortunately or fortunately (depending on your personal circumstances) any discussion should include the majority of TN's residents
who do NOT deer hunt, but are effected by the number of deer in our state. Everyone who drives or rides in an automobile on our highways is effected.

 

[TX300mag]

Re: Farmer depredation

LBLMan, I think we are all for "reasonable" regulation of our wildlife resources. Reducing the buck limit from 3 to 2 was NOT done to save the deer population, so that's not a valid comparison.

 

[TheLBLman]

Re: Farmer depredation

The most recent buck limit change (2015) from 3 to 2
was primarily done to increase opportunities for the most hunters.

It was a minor carburetor adjustment that slightly helped many, slightly harmed a few.
And again, who was harmed?
Certainly not most hunters who continue to kill one or zero deer annually.

 

[Mike Belt]

Re: Farmer depredation

I don't see any way of bolstering and/or containing the resource under the guise of simplicity. That's like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Short of going back to some form of micro management some are going to be covered by one blanket or another.