Farmer depredation

[TheLBLman]

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.

Mike,
I can tell you one way it "could" be done at this time.

Statewide:
Annual limit of 2 antlered & 2 antlerless.
Then, go back to county-level management of additional antlerless opportunities,
in those counties where more females are needed to be killed, including even portions of particular counties, such as "east or west" of a particular highway, etc.

Ongoing deer populations are mainly controlled by the ongoing doe harvests.
Ongoing herd health is determined mainly by the deer density, age structure, and buck:doe ratios.
The "simple" idea above (debate welcomed) is one "simple" way of county-level micro-management.
It is not robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Most hunters would applaud the simplicity of an annual limit of . . . . .
2 bucks and 2 does, statewide, any time (of any season segment) with any weapon they prefer.

 

[Mike Belt]

Re: Farmer depredation

LBL... Aye, and there's the rub. I don't know that TWRA is willing to go back to the old between this highway and that one but south of interstate X. Once you simplify something it's hard to go back to making it harder on yourself.

 

[TheLBLman]

Re: Farmer depredation

LBL... Aye, and there's the rub. I don't know that TWRA is willing to go back to the old between this highway and that one but south of interstate X. Once you simplify something it's hard to go back to making it harder on yourself.

Mike, I'm in general agreement with you.
But this idea is extremely simple, statewide.
TWRA already analyzes at the countywide level,
so simply having an end-of-the season "bonus" doe(s) opportunity in select counties
would not necessarily cost TWRA much in financial resources.

This might be the most cost-effective means for TWRA to manage the various counties differently,
as each county is truly a bit different from all others.
They do similar management by each major lake with our fisheries resources, so it is not an unreasonable idea
that we could have a final week or so of deer season with various "bonus" doe opportunities for select counties.

Some will say 2 doe is too much in some East TN counties.
That is debatable,
as is whether virtually unlimited doe in all Unit L counties is too many.

 

[TX300mag]

Re: Farmer depredation

Let's see how much of an effect the new antlerless regulation actually has before making THAT drastic of a change. I think it is going to affect the antlersless (and to a lesser extent antlered) harvest more than I originally thought.

I know some people who either had to burn a buck tag or came dangerously close to burning a buck tag on a borderline deer. This is going to affect their doe kill. It will happen to more people next year, too.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mike Belt]

Re: Farmer depredation

One of the things I liked most about the 3 doe/day limit was that it allowed for all hunters to have an opportunity to take a deer. When you limit a hunt to a post season hunt or maybe even the last week of season hunt there are many that, for one reason or another, don't or can't hunt that week. Even if they can does may be hard to come by after a season of being pressured. If there is any reduction in the 3 doe/day limit I'd have to cast my ballot for X/season; any season and any weapon. That would be fair to all, adults as well as juveniles.

Agreed that consideration of non-hunters has to be given. One accident on the highways is too many especially if it involves an individual's loved ones. I will add that I've seen fewer deer hit on my 60 mile one way drive through deer country on the way to my hunting grounds in the last 3 years than ever before. No telling how many deer are hit and make it off the roadway and die out of sight but I haven't seen a total of 10 on the side of the road in 3 years. That's 10 in 3 years driving over 3000 miles.

 

[TheLBLman]

Re: Farmer depredation

One of the things I liked most about the 3 doe/day limit was that it allowed for all hunters to have an opportunity to take a deer.

Please, Mike, tell me how an annual season allowing ANY hunter the option of killing 2 bucks and 2 does doesn't do exactly that?

And again, frame this in the context of the average hunter currently not killing even "a" deer,
whether by choice, by lack of opportunity, or just lack of priorities.

Much as we agree, your first sentence there did not make sense to me

 

[TX300mag]

Re: Farmer depredation

I know I'm in the minority, but I'm not 100% sure that reducing the antlerless limit by over 99% is the solution to depredation permits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Winchester]

Re: Farmer depredation

They definitely have their place, but I think they should be monitored more closely before/when being granted.

 

[TheLBLman]

Re: Farmer depredation

I'm not 100% sure that reducing the antlerless limit by over 99% is the solution to depredation permits.

I'm 100% sure reducing the antlerless limit would NOT be a solution to depredation permits

This thread, beginning about depredation permits, got side-tracked

If the annual antlerless limit in Unit L were reduced (there), I don't think it would have much effect on the depredation permits, mainly because a "reduction" in theoretical potential doe kills is not as much a reduction in the actual number of female deer hunters would ultimately kill.

We can talk about the doe limit going from hundreds to two as being a 99% reduction,
but not even a single hunter has killed 25% of that potential current doe limit?

Any reduction in the annual doe harvest would likely lead to increased demands from farmers requesting depredation permits.

 

[TX300mag]

Farmer depredation

That's my concern. I'd rather hunters kill the does than farmers gut-shooting them during the summer. I think hunters killing deer in an agricultural area is a win-win.

I'm glad you pointed out that nobody shoots 25% of the limit (I would have guessed none killed 10%). There are many hunters that seemed convinced that their neighbors must be killing them 3 at a time all season long and that hunters are driving across the state to kill them by truckloads.

Besides, I don't think the intention of the regulation was for hunters to kill 300+ does/year. I think the purpose is to allow hunters to kill up to three in a single day. That does happen and is needed in some areas.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mike Belt]

Re: Farmer depredation

I meant that with 3/day if a hunter was limited in his hunting via work schedule, health, inclimate weather, etc, at whatever point he decided to go that option was still available. It would be the same whatever the limit might be provided it was season wide versus post season hunting.

I'm afraid if the limit was reduced those farmers seeking depredation permits probably would want to up their numbers and I would also rather see the hunters taking them. Then we're right back at the beginning again...the point of possibly reducing those limits because of declining numbers.

I'd still be interested in knowing how those permits are handled. By numbers? By county? How does TWRA determine who gets what, where, and how many?

 

[TheLBLman]

Re: Farmer depredation

I'd rather hunters kill the does than farmers gut-shooting them during the summer.
I think hunters killing deer in an agricultural area is a win-win.

I'm afraid if the limit was reduced those farmers seeking depredation permits probably would want to up their numbers and I would also rather see the hunters taking them.

Believe all of us non-farming hunters are in agreement here.

I'm glad you pointed out that nobody shoots 25% of the limit (I would have guessed none killed 10%). There are many hunters that seemed convinced that their neighbors must be killing them 3 at a time all season long and that hunters are driving across the state to kill them by truckloads.

Well, very, very few hunters kill more than 2 deer (of either sex) annually, period.
However, there remains a significant convey of East TN hunters traveling to Unit L counties to kill extra doe each year.
If the Unit L doe limit were reduced, we would likely see a reduction in the traveling doe-killing conveys.
And I do not mean for this to be taken as derogatory in any way towards those hunters doing this.

I'd still be interested in knowing how those permits are handled.
By numbers? By county? How does TWRA determine who gets what, where, and how many?

Where is Alan Peterson when we need him? :mrgreen:
I believe it's truly on a case by case basis.

I also believe the depredation permits issued are not as widespread as many on here fear.

 

[TheLBLman]

Re: Farmer depredation

Last but not least, the creation of Unit L (with its near no limit on doe) has done much of what it was designed to do ---- encourage more hunters to kill more does so that the deer density would be reduced in these Unit L counties.

In reality, it was more a psychological statement, promoting a change in hunter mindset, so that many hunters shooting zero doe would maybe begin shooting "a" doe, or even 2 or 3 a year. No one at TWRA ever thought any one, not even TNdeer.com's DA, would ever kill more than a small percentage of this potential annual limit of several hundred antlerless deer.

It worked.

The question now is whether this current near "no limit" should be reduced, especially since some counties later placed in Unit L (for regulatory simplicity) maybe either should not be there, or maybe would be OK with "more a limit" on doe now.

As to the state of the depredation permits,
there should be much less need for them now than there was prior to the creation of Unit L.

 

[TX300mag]

Re: Farmer depredation

Ok, you've convinced me. Unit L is working as planned. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. :mrgreen:

 

[TheLBLman]

Re: Farmer depredation

Actually, I wasn't so much "pushing" anything, just throwing out thoughts for "debate" :mrgreen:

Just not sure we now need to encourage the virtually unlimited killing of antlerless deer in Unit L
It was a good idea when it was needed.
Is it needed now?

 

[Mike Belt]

Re: Farmer depredation

Around my area... no. Around some areas... yes. My suggestion is to reduce it where needed. It didn't take long to produce the results desired. If needed again just re-instate it for a season.

 

[Grill-n-man]

Re: Farmer depredation

1st of all unless you are the farmer thats doing the growing, harvesting, spending the money, paying the bills, and counting the year end dividends to see if you made enough money to continue on then there is no way that anyone can tell if the depredation permits are needed and justified simply by "looking" at a crop field. In case it has been forgotten or simply not know, farming is very hard and expensive work and any loss hurts.

2nd its their land and their livelihood and they are the ones that make the rules and if lucky enough to be given permission to hunt then its their rules that need to be followed. Simple follow the rules or move on.

3rd yes letting an animal that can be consumed go to waste is very wasteful. But get off the farmers back and get on TWRA's. Last I checked its TWRA that says let em lay not the farmer.

4th It's TWRA's decision to issue the permits, if there is not a valid reason for the permit then why was it issued.

I think there is alot out there that need to try farming and have the end yield determine how much their bank account has in it, how much food goes on their table, how many new toys their kids get, and so on. Bet if your livelihood was determined on what deer, drought, insects, etc left you at harvest time your take on things would be different. Oh and where do you think the money comes from to help these farmers out for crop damage? Could it be tax dollars? And just who do yall think pays those tax dollars?

Oh and just for giggles how many out there know where the corn, beans, lettuce, etc that we buy off the shelf comes from? Could it be from a farmer? Until deer and other animals start driving tractors and picking fields I'm going to have to side with the farmers.

And to the farmers out there, hats off to yall for all the hard work and countless hours yall put in so me and my family can enjoy so much on our table.

 

[pressfit]

Re: Farmer depredation

Well said brother!!

 

[Mike Belt]

Re: Farmer depredation

I grew up farming. No more of a rewarding yet stressful job. They have all the elements working for or against them 365 days a year. Many they have no control over. Deer eating their crops is one that they may can negotiate to some extent. I understand why they want depredation permits if the need be. By default they create and sustain the very thing that they battle. Between them, the hunters, and TWRA there is a fine balancing act. Sometimes it appears to lean more favorably one way or the other. As a hunter but knowing what the farmer faces I'd hate to know I had to be the deciding factor.

 

[TheLBLman]

Re: Farmer depredation

I grew up farming.

I grew up in a big farming family.
The deer loved to eat our soybeans.
We raised more corn.
The deer didn't bother the corn, and had zero effect on the corn yields.

Farming can be very hard, but a very rewarding way of life.

Between them, the hunters, and TWRA there is a fine balancing act.

Very true.
Then add the non-hunting general public to that list to be balanced, at least from the TWRA perspective.