Originally Posted by
Lanse couche couche
I don't know how many hunters who are trying to get access to posted private land would want to hunt it if they were limited to shooting does, and multiple does at that. So, while it would make some sense for landowners to allow hunters access if they have problems with depredation, I don't know how successful it would be in actually reducing numbers compared to the landowner going out in the offseason and killing 10 or 12 deer.
As others have said, I see no hypocracy here. When animals cross the line from game animal to pest, then the ordinary rules get suspended.
Well as far as being pests, I can only say what happens at this place I am speaking of. The deer numbers are not horrific by any means to be considered pests by anyone other then the landowner that owns a tree nursery on 80 acres. His permits are not just antlerless, but antlered, as his biggest gripe has been rub damage. Now should a landowner that has only 80 acres with 30 or so being nursury be given depredation permits to basically kill off deer that are in numbers so low that no one but him consideres them pests?? Should the state be responsible for managing deer herds so as not to hurt his trees???? NO. While his 80 acres are precious to him, it is not all that in the big picture. If the issue is the property owners trees, it is the property owners resposnibility to protect them with fencing and such prior to herd eradication that neighbors may in fact depend on.
But back to my original question. Can anyone give a rationale why the issuing state would say gun X is illegal during deer season, but the that same gun is just fine to use in eradication. If a .270 was deemed unsafe during gun season what makes it magically safer to use during eradication season? The logic makes no sense to me.