Are depredation permits hypocritical???
 

Just curious as to the opinions. In Indiana deer season, you can't bait, spotlight, have limited firearm that can be used etc etc when harvesting a deer. However, it is my understanding that the use of depredation permits (after the season is over) allows you to bait, spotlight deer, use any weapons you desire. All of these things were illegal from October 1 to January 3, but are legal now. According to my uncle in Ohio, they have very similar rules (or lack there of) for depredation permit hunting. Is a state hypocritical in having a deer season with rules only to have an unofficial deer season (no bad limits, No One Buck Rule) that is basically a free for all if you are able to have access to depredation permits??

I have access to ground for next year. However the owner has acquired 10 depredation permits (will be issued more in lots of 10 when the 1st 10 are filled). Part of the access for next year is fill the depredation permit now. I have no problem with that. I am just wondering why I can now legally be what would be considered a poacher 3 days ago.

I see a good for the goose good for the gander situation. If hunting rules are good for the hunting season then they should be good for the depredation season or vice versa. Yet in Indiana they are not. I find that hypocritical.

As the year progresses obviously the deer hunting season and management objectives change. You would have also been poaching by hunting on Sept. 29th.

Exactly. The objective is no longer hunting. The goal there is to get rid of many deer as possible because they are deemed a problem. There's a reason the license is being issued, and I'd imagine they're not very easy to come by, though I could be wrong.

I have participated in a deer population control hunt the past two years in a state park. They close the entire park down and open it to hunters (who have to go through a lottery to hunt). Even though they tell us to kill as many as possible, we still cannot bait, etc, etc. Now I PERSONALLY don't agree with those methods during regular hunting, but when the stated purpose is to kill as many as possible, I feel like the park management should have ALREADY set up bait/food a week or two prior to the hunt in order to meet the objective, which is to kill 200 does. They NEVER come close to meeting it.

What kills me about these permits are when they are issued to landowners that allow no hunting on their property!!!!! Let folks that have no place to hunt a chance to kill some of those deer. IMO if you are to qualify for a depradation/slaughter permit you should have to be on some kind of list that shows that you are also trying to rid the deer during the normal hunting seasons. There was a farm that bordered an area i use to hunt that was posted up tight as a drum. We tried many times to get permission to hunt there but were always told there was ABSOLUTELY NO HUNTING on the farm. But all summer they would crack every deer they saw and throw them in holes. Someone tell me the logic in this??!!

You assume that the states goal from October thru Christmas is purley hunting. It is not it is revenue enhancement and depredation on a large unspecified scale. The state wants the deer killed, they don't care that you can "hunt". The state never has your interest in mind.

So again is the state hypocritical in saying that only slug guns are used for hunting season (unspecified depredation) but that you can use your AR in a .308 or a .50BMG during the specfied depredation hunts.?? Yes.

The logic is to protect the rights of the property owner. I don't want any goverment telling us who or if we have to allow on the property. I also would bet most farmers shooting deer on permits are also hunting the land - they may tell all who ask no to keep it simple.

If they are shooting ever deer they see with the nuisance permits, they are breaking the law if they take any antlered deer. They also need to report every deer shot.

You would lose that bet in the scenario i was talking about.Around here most landowners have someone else carry out the killing of the deer. They dont give a damn how many deer that guy kills!!! He wants every one of them dead!!!! Guys that have had those permits before(myself included) will tell you the landowner/farmer usually will tell you to shoot as many as you can. I can tell you for a fact that the majority of guys that carry out those permits around these parts dont report every deer they kill on those permits. One other thing thats for sure...the landowner doesnt give a damn they kill more than they are supposed to. They get thrown in a hole somewhere and thats the end of it.

Agreed on both points. I should rephrase and say that it's what they would tell you..their stated goal.

Needing a "license" to hunt, IMO, is ridiculous...a THINLY veiled revenue collection scheme.

It is different around here. I know at least a dozen farms that get permits. Every one of them is also hunted, but just not enough deer can be shot during the regular seasons to control the numbers. Lots of big fields with small patches of woods and cover so only a few can effectively hunt and once you start, they get smart fast.

If the farms are taking deer not allowed or in excess of the permits given, they need to be reported. Again around me, the Encons issuing the permits take their use and misuse seriously. If yours don't, report higher up the chain.

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.

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.

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.

Read my 2nd post.

Steve my whole post wasn't directed at you, rather I was using one of your statements as a launch point for my point of view on the subject.

Sounds like we obviously agree on that part of the equation.

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.

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".

It's not as simple as you make it out to be. There is a liability issue if I let random hunters onto my property and they get hurt.

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.

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.

For the 10000X, I have yet to find a state that does not have laws on the books that prohibits hunters that are given permission to hunt to sue a landowner (unless the landowner is charging the hunter money to hunt ie lease). That was worded poorly. But any how, look up Recreational Use Statutes and you will find the liability protection you need. Hunters are given no guareente that the property is safe and assume all responsibility for injuries that happen that are not willfully caused by the property owner. Property owner assumes no liability.

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

In almost 40 years of hunting, I have never come across a situation where a deer hunter caused significant property damage. I mean what can they do if you require them to walk into the property and use a portable stand? The small chance of damage by a hunter pales in comparison to the damage caused by several surplus deer who are gonna spend all spring and summer dining on corn on your south 40.

As for the liability issue, landowners are well protected. However, given how sue happy our society has become, it is not surprising that some people would be gunshy about potential lawsuits. Even the frivolous ones can be time consuming and expensive.

It might behoove hunters to work more diligently to educate landowners about the way they are protected. Its not the landowner's job to know such things if they have no interest in having hunters on their land. But educating them on the subject might just help to remove barriers to them allowing access to land.