Hey Randy,

Hell no will not hang it up. This is important for larger issues than just deer hunting. I think you know I will disagree with you on how the t-tag came to be and we argued that out in the other thread, so any of that KDWP vs Legislature stuff I disagree with you will be posted back on the other thread, I think it is a 50/50 blame there. I do care what came first, but for the sake of discussion I would like to address in this thread the influences on this tag and examine what pushed it.

The Damage reimbursment issue. On this I can see ag CROP producers having a stake in this (though I still can' t support it), but the livestock producers getting the KLA involved with the T-Tag was a huge push. I am going over the numbers in the study that was released today and there is not a good argument that the gain in average total money received would even dent any damage crop wise, but how do deer inflict damage on livestock producers? We need to get someone to make a statement on how much damage deer do to livestock producers, I have not even heard of this in any discussions on this subject. That is one that needs to be brought up next legislative session and at the public meeting for Unit 12 expansion.

The question to be asked is: What damage is occurring in nature and cause to the ag producers that would warrant the liberalization of tags in that area? Or Is the public tolerance low for deer in that area? How can people leasing land to hunt get t-tags and extensions on tags and depred. tags and still make the justification that the herd needs to be reduced if they lease? You know I think that the leasing will actually explode the deer population and we will be hip deep in does again like in 1999. As hunting land is closed off less deer will be taken giving a good pool to reproduce. These are some of the questions that come in my mind that seem to get lost in the haze. At the heart of the problem in my mind is twofold: If deer damage is an issue can we control or influence legislature to address the issue of leased hunting land being limited in depred. tags and input on management since they are going outside the influence of the State (KDWP) on their own private ground, and if leasing is the paramount push from one group it needs to be offset by public influence, just as public influence indicated to reduce the herd. If they lease and increase the population then couldn' t it be argued the deer produced by that land is the responsibility of that land and the damage therefore goes to the leaser. In Environmental Law, if one upsets the balance or changes conditions to a less desireable one, the responsible party pays, would this not apply in this case?

I would like to see some figures on the leasing. If the people in the Unit 12 are leasing to hunt how can the claim be made that they need to reduce the herd?

A little scatterbrained thinking, but some good things to think about.

Dana