Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > General Hunting Forums > Whitetail Deer Hunting
sharpshooters culling deer - how?? >

sharpshooters culling deer - how??

Whitetail Deer Hunting Gain a better understanding of the World's most popular big game animal and the techniques that will help you become a better deer hunter.

sharpshooters culling deer - how??

Old 01-18-2010, 10:50 AM
  #11  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,828
Default

22 magnum and a spot light is all you need. Government type entities can get by using different tactics then most of us.
sjsfire is offline  
Old 01-18-2010, 03:41 PM
  #12  
Spike
 
HuntingKS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 60
Default

In a park in the burbs in my area, they had to do the same thing. They took out about 330 of them within 10 days - all at night. Then, they let 10 bow hunters in to continue the job. It was very controversial with PETA type groups protesting.

The funny part about it though, is that they announced when they would begin the cull, but actually had finished before their announced start date. They really pulled a fast one on the protesters. Just when the protests were reaching a peak it was announced that they were done. Too late to protest.

In these types of situations, the sharpshooters are really the only option. You just can't have regular hunters harvesting such a high number of deer in such a short period of time. It would have greatly affected the operation of the part also. As it was, they did it at night after hours when nobody knew it was happening. Also, they donated the meat to food shelters. So, much less wasteful than other culls and methods.
HuntingKS is offline  
Old 01-18-2010, 04:33 PM
  #13  
Typical Buck
 
glew22's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SE PA
Posts: 657
Default

As some have mentioned these sharpshooters hunt over bait using .22s w/ silencers and night vision equipment.

Here's something interesting that I've learned....These guys will actually watch a herd, figure out the EXACT dominance hierarchy from top to bottom. And then systematically take them out 1 by 1 starting with the most dominant. If the most dominant deer in a group is shot the others just stand around going "uhhhhh duhhhhh," they have no idea what to do.

We has hunters need to educate the public that there are other alternatives (managed archery hunting), that can have the same if not better effects, cost less money, and boost local economies.
glew22 is offline  
Old 01-18-2010, 05:07 PM
  #14  
Nontypical Buck
 
sconnyhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wherever liberalism must be eradicated.
Posts: 2,734
Default

While I agree totally with allowing special Archery only hunts to manage herds in confined areas. The practicality of that is not there to cull large number of animals in a short period of time. Archery hunts alone can't do it. Sharpshooters at night can.
sconnyhunter is offline  
Old 01-18-2010, 05:15 PM
  #15  
Nontypical Buck
 
fastetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,462
Default

Doing these types of shoot Varies A LOT from state to state. Some states will have state police sharp shooters come in and do the job. Mainly in the more populated areas they will used 22-250's and .223's. For many areas the less noise the better, at least how they have "Culled" deer in a more populated area for instance around the greater chicagoland area. I know of spots in Wisconsin where they are stepping up the firepower a bit since the noise isn't as big a factor. Most of these shoots take place over bait to make it more time efficient as well. Some states are a lot more expensive than others too. Ive heard of counties spending upwards of $500 a deer when it is all averaged out. Its crazy because seeing some of the deer that Ive seen in forest preserves around Chicago Id gladly pay $500 to hunt these!

I agree with HuntingKS in a way. It is tough to take out that many deer soley by hunters in a short season. The more appropriate thing for these places to do it try to spread it out over a few months and have a drawing for particular weeks and charge $100 a person. I know of places that started doing this and it has worked better than they thought. Before this they were spending around a 100k to get rid of deer, but then with a little planning and having a drawing for hunters who were certified in Hunters Educations and passed a short shooting test, they are now able to MAKE around $20,000 a year off of this. An added thing was if that you harvest 5 antlerless deer in your zone or time frame you get your money back! It has worked like a charm from what I have heard.
fastetti is offline  
Old 01-18-2010, 05:25 PM
  #16  
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 824
Default

Originally Posted by teedub31
the current rate of deer removal has been established at $200 per head. They should either reduce the lease rate or pay the hunter that harvests the deer.
So you think a landowner should pay a hunter to allow them access to their PRIVATE land?

You want on, you pay the landowner...you suck at hunting...I find someone else...

Whats the problem?
vabyrd is offline  
Old 01-18-2010, 05:40 PM
  #17  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 234
Default

What they do by hiring "sharpshooters" is, in effect, stealing opportunity from hunters. Already mentioned, they are losing a possible source of revenue.

Iowa City, Iowa, used to do the same thing. I posted (several different times) that I thought that this was stealing from the taxpayers, by losing possible revenue, and even more so stealing from hunters by taking away opportunity. I do think that organizations and governmental bodies search the internet for mention. Iowa City no longer pays people to cull deer. Bow hunters now do it and citizens get hunting opportunities.

If enough people post that Vassar is wrong, or if a hunting alumni decides not to donate, Vassar may reconsider.

I know that there is at least one campus where deer have been attacking students, but I'm not sure if it is Vassar. I think hunters who live in or near Poughkeepsie (sp?) might raise heck on the local opinion pages. (The only reason I know where Vassar is is because my cousin's house is on Vassarview and backs up to woods owned by Vassar.)
Robert L E is offline  
Old 01-18-2010, 08:45 PM
  #18  
Fork Horn
 
jakelogsdon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 159
Default

I will preface by stating, I know this answer is not right for everyone. However the only suggestion i have is prevention. If we can prevent the wild game populations from getting out of control in the first place we all can benefit. First thing i will say is, the most likely reason these animals are living in the burbs in the first place is because these areas are acting as sanctuaries. If you have a large number of deer in surrounding areas where hunting is allowed, it is only common sense that when hunting season comes in, large numbers of deer are going to flee to the no hunting sanctuary that lies in the burbs, regardless of the traffic or human presence. If that area had the slightest hunting pressure it would not be the same story. I say allow hunting in these areas, but make it archery only, make hunters pass a special urban hunting course, and make it open the length of the states archery season. This in turn will eventually get the animal numbers in check and keep them there.
jakelogsdon is offline  
Old 01-19-2010, 04:45 AM
  #19  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 564
Default

Originally Posted by vabyrd
So you think a landowner should pay a hunter to allow them access to their PRIVATE land?

You want on, you pay the landowner...you suck at hunting...I find someone else...

Whats the problem?
I have no problem paying the land owner. I have a problem with him saying that if I am going to hunt, then I owe him $X plus I need to kill x amount of deer or I can't hunt. He wants something done. I will provide the service what is so hard to understand. It is akin to me wanting a roof put on my house and then telling the roofer he owes me X amount of dollars for the priviledge of giving him work. Or similar to having a coon investation that he wants eliminated and wants a trapper to pay him for the removal of the problem as opposed to him (landowner) paying a licensed exterminator to come in. Once the owner crossed the line into saying he needs X deer removed it changed from a hunting relationship to a depredation relationship

Now if he just wants money to hunt and have access, but has no expectations on a harvest, then I will not complain and hunt as my needs and desire see fit.
teedub31 is offline  
Old 01-19-2010, 04:47 AM
  #20  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 564
Default

Originally Posted by Robert L E
What they do by hiring "sharpshooters" is, in effect, stealing opportunity from hunters. Already mentioned, they are losing a possible source of revenue.

Iowa City, Iowa, used to do the same thing. I posted (several different times) that I thought that this was stealing from the taxpayers, by losing possible revenue, and even more so stealing from hunters by taking away opportunity. I do think that organizations and governmental bodies search the internet for mention. Iowa City no longer pays people to cull deer. Bow hunters now do it and citizens get hunting opportunities.

If enough people post that Vassar is wrong, or if a hunting alumni decides not to donate, Vassar may reconsider.

I know that there is at least one campus where deer have been attacking students, but I'm not sure if it is Vassar. I think hunters who live in or near Poughkeepsie (sp?) might raise heck on the local opinion pages. (The only reason I know where Vassar is is because my cousin's house is on Vassarview and backs up to woods owned by Vassar.)

I hardly see how you can say the lost revenue. A private company is paying taxes on a $15000 bill that they sent to the school.
teedub31 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.