Are depredation permits hypocritical???
01-05-2010, 02:33 PM
#11
Typical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 564
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.
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.
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.
01-05-2010, 02:53 PM
#12
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cedar Valley Utah
Posts: 977
I don't think anyone is saying the government should have the right to tell you who you can and cannot let on your property but if public owned animals are being a nuisance then you should have to give some public hunters a chance to take that wildlife during normal hunting seasons. At that point you would qualify for a depredation hunt if so needed.
There are lots of meat/youth hunters that could benefit from that rather than just burying them in a hole as fast as you can kill them. That shouldn't mean you cannot screen those coming on your property, tell some "no", or even ****** them while they are there but wildlife is a public resource and if you own land then that's something you should have to accept along with the price of ownership.
If you don't want anyone on your property fine, but you'll have to spend the money in fencing or deterants to keep wildlife off. If you want a depredation hunt then you must allow a legitmate hunt to happen there first IMO.
01-05-2010, 03:00 PM
#13
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cedar Valley Utah
Posts: 977
To answer the original question I don't think a depredation hunt is hypocritical as long as a legitimate hunt has taken place first.
I think the laws are laxed a bit on a depredation hunt to meet the objective of getting rid of so many animals with minimal hunters in the field. The reason for the stiffer laws during a normal hunting season is to lower the odds of success to give more hunters an opportunity to be in the field without wiping out a large portion of the population with some tradition and "fair chase" sprinkled on top.
Yes hunts create revenue but I still believe in my heart of hearts that the majority of that revenue goes right back into the wildlife management with conservation of a precious resource being the main objective.
I think the laws are laxed a bit on a depredation hunt to meet the objective of getting rid of so many animals with minimal hunters in the field. The reason for the stiffer laws during a normal hunting season is to lower the odds of success to give more hunters an opportunity to be in the field without wiping out a large portion of the population with some tradition and "fair chase" sprinkled on top.
Yes hunts create revenue but I still believe in my heart of hearts that the majority of that revenue goes right back into the wildlife management with conservation of a precious resource being the main objective.
01-05-2010, 05:32 PM
#14
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moravia NY USA
Posts: 2,164
I agree with your statement above but I have to side with the other end of the argument on this.
I don't think anyone is saying the government should have the right to tell you who you can and cannot let on your property but if public owned animals are being a nuisance then you should have to give some public hunters a chance to take that wildlife during normal hunting seasons. At that point you would qualify for a depredation hunt if so needed.
There are lots of meat/youth hunters that could benefit from that rather than just burying them in a hole as fast as you can kill them. That shouldn't mean you cannot screen those coming on your property, tell some "no", or even ****** them while they are there but wildlife is a public resource and if you own land then that's something you should have to accept along with the price of ownership.
If you don't want anyone on your property fine, but you'll have to spend the money in fencing or deterants to keep wildlife off. If you want a depredation hunt then you must allow a legitmate hunt to happen there first IMO.
I don't think anyone is saying the government should have the right to tell you who you can and cannot let on your property but if public owned animals are being a nuisance then you should have to give some public hunters a chance to take that wildlife during normal hunting seasons. At that point you would qualify for a depredation hunt if so needed.
There are lots of meat/youth hunters that could benefit from that rather than just burying them in a hole as fast as you can kill them. That shouldn't mean you cannot screen those coming on your property, tell some "no", or even ****** them while they are there but wildlife is a public resource and if you own land then that's something you should have to accept along with the price of ownership.
If you don't want anyone on your property fine, but you'll have to spend the money in fencing or deterants to keep wildlife off. If you want a depredation hunt then you must allow a legitmate hunt to happen there first IMO.
01-06-2010, 11:07 AM
#15
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cedar Valley Utah
Posts: 977
01-06-2010, 11:23 AM
#16
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southwest Ohio
Posts: 10,277
Teedub,
If someone with a 30 or 80 acre nursery is suffering significant damage from deer then it is most likely that other folks in the area are suffering damage too. I've got a neighbor who operates a vineyard who has all sorts of problems with deer, but so do the folks trying to grow corn in that whole area. You might also check into what it costs to deerproof fence 30 to 80 acres.
As a general rule of thumb, private property rights trump regulation of public resource game animals when things reach depredation levels. The only exception is usually if one is dealing with endangered species.
If someone with a 30 or 80 acre nursery is suffering significant damage from deer then it is most likely that other folks in the area are suffering damage too. I've got a neighbor who operates a vineyard who has all sorts of problems with deer, but so do the folks trying to grow corn in that whole area. You might also check into what it costs to deerproof fence 30 to 80 acres.
As a general rule of thumb, private property rights trump regulation of public resource game animals when things reach depredation levels. The only exception is usually if one is dealing with endangered species.
01-07-2010, 03:53 AM
#17
Dominant Buck
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ramsey , Indiana
Posts: 22,545
Here's one difference:
According to IDNR Indiana fields about 225,000 hunters during the deer season, roughly 25-30% of them actually take a deer. IDNR gets a huge share of it's operating revenue from hunting licences and the Pittman-Robertson tax on hunting gear.
Crop damage permits are issued free of charge by the local district biologist to landowners who can show at least $500 in crop damage , 96% of which get filled. No revenue is generated, but the herd is further reduced at a time where it will be most effective since any doe killed probably has at least two fawns which will also die.
Both are culling attempts, and part of the state's overall game management plan. The one thing I would change would be to make the crop damage permits "antlerless only".
According to IDNR Indiana fields about 225,000 hunters during the deer season, roughly 25-30% of them actually take a deer. IDNR gets a huge share of it's operating revenue from hunting licences and the Pittman-Robertson tax on hunting gear.
Crop damage permits are issued free of charge by the local district biologist to landowners who can show at least $500 in crop damage , 96% of which get filled. No revenue is generated, but the herd is further reduced at a time where it will be most effective since any doe killed probably has at least two fawns which will also die.
Both are culling attempts, and part of the state's overall game management plan. The one thing I would change would be to make the crop damage permits "antlerless only".
01-07-2010, 07:10 AM
#18
Spike
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 41
I agree with your statement above but I have to side with the other end of the argument on this.
I don't think anyone is saying the government should have the right to tell you who you can and cannot let on your property but if public owned animals are being a nuisance then you should have to give some public hunters a chance to take that wildlife during normal hunting seasons. At that point you would qualify for a depredation hunt if so needed.
There are lots of meat/youth hunters that could benefit from that rather than just burying them in a hole as fast as you can kill them. That shouldn't mean you cannot screen those coming on your property, tell some "no", or even ****** them while they are there but wildlife is a public resource and if you own land then that's something you should have to accept along with the price of ownership.
If you don't want anyone on your property fine, but you'll have to spend the money in fencing or deterants to keep wildlife off. If you want a depredation hunt then you must allow a legitmate hunt to happen there first IMO.
I don't think anyone is saying the government should have the right to tell you who you can and cannot let on your property but if public owned animals are being a nuisance then you should have to give some public hunters a chance to take that wildlife during normal hunting seasons. At that point you would qualify for a depredation hunt if so needed.
There are lots of meat/youth hunters that could benefit from that rather than just burying them in a hole as fast as you can kill them. That shouldn't mean you cannot screen those coming on your property, tell some "no", or even ****** them while they are there but wildlife is a public resource and if you own land then that's something you should have to accept along with the price of ownership.
If you don't want anyone on your property fine, but you'll have to spend the money in fencing or deterants to keep wildlife off. If you want a depredation hunt then you must allow a legitmate hunt to happen there first IMO.
Also, who knows what kind of damage those hunters will do to my property when they are out hunting. ******ing the hunters is not a viable option for either side. Hunters won't want extra people tagging along, and technically it is illegal for them to do so without a deer license in some states. Also, if the farmer is going to be out there with the hunter, why wouldn't the farmer just shoot the deer himself? Which brings us right back to depredation permits.
01-07-2010, 07:12 AM
#19
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southwest Ohio
Posts: 10,277
Kevin,
Good point, but it can easily be argued that while culling does not generate revenue in the same way that selling permits does, it is certainly helping to prevent lost income on the part of farmers. If someone is losing thousands of dollars in crop damage, then the state (and local economy) is probably losing an amount of tax dollars in excess of what several hunters would pay in licenses and permits.
Good point, but it can easily be argued that while culling does not generate revenue in the same way that selling permits does, it is certainly helping to prevent lost income on the part of farmers. If someone is losing thousands of dollars in crop damage, then the state (and local economy) is probably losing an amount of tax dollars in excess of what several hunters would pay in licenses and permits.
01-07-2010, 08:38 AM
#20
Typical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 564
I have always said that the "liability excuse" is just an excuse property owners use to deny hunting access without sounding like a jerk. That or they are ignorant of their rights