|
Post by cambygsp on Aug 1, 2005 5:57:11 GMT -5
www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050731/COLUMNISTS02/507310413July 31, 2005 Deer-thinning policy's price is too dear FREEDOM, Ind. -- Everything is lush down here, in this White River bottomland in southwestern Indiana. Sparsely traveled gravel roads are lined with dense emerald soybean fields, tall walls of corn and old woods. The deer are thick, too. Or scarce, depending on your view. For Doug Dyer, 48, the herd is out of control. He farms 800 acres, and whitetails have been invading his soy fields and devouring beans. In 2002, they cost him $15,000 in losses, he said. So in 2003, Dyer obtained permits from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources to kill deer before the Oct. 1 hunting season. In summer of that year, with friends, he shot and killed "about 60" deer on land he farms. The next year, they killed about 40. This year, he has permits to shoot 80 deer on his farmland in Greene and Owen counties. He doubts if he will use all 80 -- but just in case. To Dyer and the DNR, this is business as usual. In 2004, the state issued 330 permits. They are given out when a farmer demonstrates $500 in crop damage. To Steve Flecker, Zionsville, the practice is offensive. He's doing all in his power to get it changed, short of suing the state -- and he's considered that. Flecker, a 56-year-old businessman, owns 140 acres in Owen County for recreation and bow hunting. A nature lover, he encourages deer in his woods. Although he did shoot one last season, he hardly sees any now -- and he blames Dyer. He is indignant that Dyer participates in what he calls a "slaughter" with high-powered rifles or pistols, illegal weapons for hunters. He also fears for the safety of people. Most of all, he's angry that Dyer is killing does in spring and summer. The result is fawns starving to death -- a fact of life DNR does not dispute. According to Flecker, letting a fawn starve violates the state's own policies forbidding inhumane treatment of wildlife. Dyer fails to understand the fuss. A laconic man, his family has farmed the area for generations. He is doing nothing illegal. Besides, the meat is donated to church missions. So is there a villain here? Certainly not Dyer. He's earning a living and following the law. Flecker, too, has legitimate concerns -- although he did nothing to endear himself to neighbors when he threatened to employ his attorneys in New York City and Indianapolis to stop the killing. That leaves DNR. No question, the state agency's policies could stand public scrutiny and debate. Sure, the state has to manage the herd. "It's a balancing act," said fish and wildlife director Glen Salmon. For years, Indiana's deer population has gone up and down. Now, the number of deer-auto accidents and other indicators point to an excess of deer, especially does. So why not let hunters take more during hunting season, especially in hot spots like Owen? That would save fawns and ultimately help Dyer and Flecker. Instead, DNR lets fawns die. Maybe that's the hidden agenda.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Aug 1, 2005 6:01:14 GMT -5
My comment is........
No landowner or farmer should be granted out of season permits until they can prove that their efforts to reduce the herd population DURING THE REGULAR DEER SEASONS have failed!
I find it REAL hard to beleive that you can kill 60+ out of season deer when you allow hunting pressure during the deer season.
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Aug 1, 2005 7:14:33 GMT -5
Flecker has no right to think that Dyer alone is responsible for the lack of deer on his land , deer move on when conditions no longer suit them . There is no guarantee that deer will frequent a particular patch of ground , and sueing the state won't change that . Unless the predators(us) kill sufficient deer to control the amount of damage that they can inflict on crops the DNR is well within their rights to issue deer damage permits in an effort to protect the agriculture industry .
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 1, 2005 8:13:31 GMT -5
I do have a problem with them killing deer in June and July. Fawns are not weaned and die a death they shouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Aug 1, 2005 9:22:32 GMT -5
I do have a probnlem with them killing deer in June and July. Fawns are not weaned and die a death they shouldn't. I seem to recall that the fawn mortality rate is on the high side anyway . Damage permit , disease , or predator , either way they die . The species appears to be able to handle it . In the article cited Flecker sound's like he is about to attempt to legislate game management policy from the court bench , we get ed when the Supreme Court does that even when it's legislation that doesn't affect us personally , so why should Mr. "I own 140 acres" have the right to do the same ? I'd expect that sort of chicanery from bunny huggers like PETA , not a fellow hunter . Face it pal , your hot spot is probably worthless right now , and that's the risk you took when you bought it . I've seen no more than a few tracks on mine since the deer season closed last year , but I'm not crying about it and threatening to sue the DNR . Suppose development and the ensuing habitat loss in the area was the real culprit for his lack of deer sightings , does that give him the right to sue the state ?
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Aug 1, 2005 10:01:14 GMT -5
Kevin1,
When a community has a "deer problem" do you favor sharpshooters of actual hunting to reduce the herd?
Out of season permits is nothing more than "sharp shooting".
Have you ever seen an area that has plenty of hunting pressure with a over population problem?
Working with your biologist to recruit deer hunters onto yoyur property is a far better way to go. Plus the state gets $24.00 from every hunter that makes an attempt to harvest one of those over populated deer.
As for the story in the paper....
I can't beleive that if your neighbor is taking 50+ out of season deer a year...that you don't have adequet deer population running around your place.
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Aug 1, 2005 12:35:52 GMT -5
Kevin1, When a community has a "deer problem" do you favor sharpshooters of actual hunting to reduce the herd? Hunting , of course , but sometimes it just doesn't get the job done these days unless the surplus deer are "boneheads" . Out of season permits is nothing more than "sharp shooting". You could view it that way , I suppose , the permits wouldn't exist if the herd were under control unless there is a hidden agenda on the part of the farmers . There will always be deer damage , and a lot of what I've seen reported was actually coon damage . Have you ever seen an area that has plenty of hunting pressure with a over population problem? Nope . Working with your biologist to recruit deer hunters onto yoyur property is a far better way to go. Plus the state gets $24.00 from every hunter that makes an attempt to harvest one of those over populated deer. Already on it , I'm taking my grandson to the next HE class I can get him into , and if the deer play ball I'll be stuffing more than one in the freezer this year , I live in a reduction county. As for the story in the paper.... I can't beleive that if your neighbor is taking 50+ out of season deer a year...that you don't have adequet deer population running around your place.
|
|
|
Post by Indyhunter on Aug 1, 2005 13:09:00 GMT -5
No landowner or farmer should be granted out of season permits until they can prove that their efforts to reduce the herd population DURING THE REGULAR DEER SEASONS have failed! Without a question, I agree 100%. I don't hear of too many bean fields "devastated" by deer. Everywhere i've been they seem to prefer corn by far. The farm I hunted in Montgomery Co last year, the owner wanted permits. One corn field, 3 bean fields, and they did nothing to the beans, only the corn. I suppose if beans are all they had they would nail it. I've never seen that being the general rule myself though. I also believe these permits are handed out with a lack of "investigation". Not all of the time i'm sure, and it may vary from biologist to biologist. But I also believe the DNR gets tired of a farmer whining and simply hands them out when not needed, or hands out way too many. Similar to the handicap permit issue, some are legit, but many aren't.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Aug 1, 2005 15:24:35 GMT -5
I am not saying the system is being abused, I am saying that there IS a better way.
As for the handicap permits....I am sure that is not being abused, I hardly EVER see anyone hunting from a vehicle.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Aug 2, 2005 8:19:30 GMT -5
Did I read it right, only 330 permits were issued last year?
If so that is really just a very small drop in the bucket. Now if they are all coming from Tipton Co. then I'd be concerned, but really 330 deer state wide is nothing.
I would be concerned if I owned property that buts up against a landowner who was killing 40-80 deer during the summer though.
And I do agree with the idea of proving you allow suffecient hunting pressure during the regular hunting season, but what if you have private ground surrounding and only 2 or 3 people are allowed to hunt those areas or noone is allowed to hunt. Too many circumstances to say it is an unfair practice.
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Aug 2, 2005 8:27:51 GMT -5
A landowning farmer is under zero obligation to allow hunting if he doesn't want to , that leaves deer damage permits as the only realistic way to reduce predation of his crop . Why should he have to open his land to a practice that he may object to just to get permits ? What if the farmer in question is a member of an antihunting org , should the DNR play Gestapo and tell him that he can't have permits unless he allowed hunting the year before ? How many deer should these theoretical hunters have taken before a permit(s) is issued ? There's a lot more at issue here than just hunting , the farmer has rights too as a landowner .
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 2, 2005 8:53:33 GMT -5
FYI
2003 Farm Operator Surveys by the IDNR..
Abstract: A random sample of 12,000 farm operators statewide was surveyed in March, 2004. The mean acreage for respondents statewide was 304, and almost 23% of all respondents claimed that more than 75% of their household’s income was due to farming.
As in years past, deer were indicated as the most common species involved in depredation (94%) and raccoons were the second most commonly indicated species (61%).
Statewide, the mean and median percent of crop loss from depredation by deer was 39 and 30, respectively.
Respondents characterized their damage as negligible (29%), tolerable (37%), and unreasonable (23%), while 8% were unsure.
Statewide, the mean and median dollar value of crops lost to deer damaged was $767 and $448, respectively.
Only 4% of respondents indicated that they contacted the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) concerning their crop damage.
Approximately half of the respondents indicated that they wanted a decrease in the deer population in their county. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of the operators wanted a substantial reduction, 24% wanted a slight reduction, 35% wanted the population stabilized at current levels, 10% wanted a slight increase, and 5% wanted a substantial increase. The statewide Farmer Dissatisfaction Value (FDV) decreased 11% from the 1998 survey, and 60% of the counties showed a decrease in the FDV. Over 82% of the operators had some deer hunting occurring on their property, and 58% of the respondents indicated that they, themselves, deer hunt on their farm. Leasing of land for hunting is not widespread in Indiana at this time nor has it increased since 1998; only 2% of the operators indicated that they lease their property for hunting.
Work Plan: # 200359 Federal Aid Study/Job No.: W-26-R-30 Job 13-B
PROCEDURES
A random sample of 130 farm operators from each of the 92 counties was selected by the Indiana Agricultural Statistics Service (IASS) at Purdue University from their database, and a questionnaire was mailed in March, 2004 to each farm operator. There was no follow-up mailing to non-respondents or test for non-response bias because names, addresses, and telephone numbers remained under the control of IASS.
As in the previous 2 Farm Operator Surveys, farm operators were asked to state their desired trend for the deer population in their county. The choices ranged from “substantially increase” on one end of the continuum through “substantially decrease” on the other end. Responses for each of the 5 possible choices were tabulated by county. In order to differentiate between farmers who wanted no or slight changes from those who wanted major changes, the percentage of respondents providing a given answer was multiplied by a constant as follows: Substantially increase = -2, Slightly increase = -1, Stabilize = 0, Slightly decrease = 1, Substantially decrease = 2. Counties were ranked from 1-92 based on their FDVs; counties with greater FDVs were assigned higher rankings.
RESULTS
Farm Size and Income.— Almost 23% of all respondents claimed that more than 75% of their household’s income was due to farming . The mean acreage for respondents statewide was 304, was significantly smaller than 402 acres reported in 1998, and differed by county.
Agricultural Losses.—Combined, 75% of respondents named corn or soybeans as the primary crop most frequently damaged by deer, and 77% named corn or soybeans as the secondary crop most frequently damaged by deer. Table 1 reports the frequency distribution of both primary and secondary crops listed as damaged by deer.
Deer were indicated as the most common species involved in depredation (94%; 2,583 of 2,734 responses). Raccoons were the second most commonly indicated species (61%) causing damage. Statewide, the mean and median percent of crop loss from depredation by deer was 39 and 30 respectively, while the mean and median percent lost from raccoons was 18 and 10, respectively. The distribution of responses for the percentage of crops lost to deer was skewed with 42% of respondents estimating crop loss from deer at less than or equal to 10% of all damage, 13% of respondents reporting 40-60% loss from deer, and only 9% of respondents reporting loss from deer greater than or equal to 90% (Fig. 1). While only 55% of the respondents identified specific crops and percentages of yield damaged by deer, 97% of the respondents gave a qualitative self-assessment of their tolerance toward deer damage. Respondents characterized their damage as negligible (29%), tolerable (37%), and unreasonable (23%), while 11% were unsure. The median dollar value lost, was significantly different between these groups as well, but highly variable within most groups. Statewide, the self-assessed median dollar value of primary crops lost to deer damage was $448. Damage per acre was quite variable statewide, ranging from 0 to 1,000 dollars/acre with a statewide mean of $8.12/acre. Operators who felt their crop damage by deer was unreasonable reported significantly higher median dollar loss per acre than the other groups.
Operator and DNR Interaction.—Only 3.6% of respondents indicated that they contacted the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) concerning their crop damage. Operators who characterized their damage as “unreasonable” were much more likely to contact the DNR. Similar to the 1998 survey, there was no difference in contact rates on the basis of the household’s income from agriculture. Thirty-five percent (35%) of survey respondents were aware of DNR programs to assist in alleviating crop damage by deer.
Operators who found deer damage to be unreasonable were relatively unaware of DNR depredation programs. Only 25% of the operators who characterized their damage as “unreasonable” were aware of any DNR programs, as opposed to 39% who characterized their damage as either “tolerable” or “negligible”.
Attitudes Toward Deer.—When asked what the deer population trend in their county over the past 5 years had been, 43% of respondents felt that more deer were present than 5 years ago, 37% felt the population was the same, 18% felt there were less deer, and 2% were unsure. Those operators who felt that there were more deer than 5 years ago had higher mean reported damage losses when compared with the groups who felt deer population levels were similar or less than they were 5 years ago. Statewide, approximately half (2,373 of 4,669) of the respondents indicated that they wanted a decrease in the deer population in their county. Approximately 27% of the operators wanted a substantial reduction, 24% wanted a slight reduction, 35% wanted the population stabilized at current levels, 10% wanted a slight increase, and 5% wanted a substantial increase.
Farmer Dissatisfaction Values (FDV) ranged from 4 to 102 with the mean value equal to 57.8. The statewide FDV was 59, which represents a 10.6% decrease from 1998 and a 25.6% decrease from 1993. On a county basis, 59 of the 92 counties (60%) had a decrease in the FDV from the 1998 survey. The qualitative assessment of deer damage was related to the operator’s response toward the desired future deer trend. As the degree of deer damage became more severe, respondents were more likely to want a more drastic reduction in the deer population in their county (Fig. 2). In addition, respondents who wanted a substantial decrease in the deer population were significantly less aware of the DNR damage control programs than the groups with more moderate population desires. Farm Operators and Hunting.—Almost 82% of the operators who responded had some deer hunting occurring on their property; 59% allowed their family to hunt, 52% allowed their friends to hunt, and 6% allowed anyone who asked for permission to hunt.
Over 3% allow lessees to hunt on their property.
Nearly 58% of the respondents indicated that they, themselves, deer hunt on their farm. Of those operators who hunted (n = 2,718), the most popular season was firearms (94.0% participation) followed by early archery (49.2%), muzzleloader (46.2%), and late archery (23.4%).
The mean acreage was larger for those respondents who leased property for hunting. The frequency of leasing land for hunting was greater than expected among operators who indicated that more than 75% of their household’s income was due to farming and less than expected among operators who indicated that less than 25% of their income was from farming.
CONCLUSION Although the majority of Indiana farm operators would still like to see a decrease in the deer population, their attitudes toward deer have become increasingly more positive since 1993. Farm operators have perceived a decrease in deer numbers, incidences of damage, and intensity of damage. Considering that Indiana farmers do little else besides hunting to alleviate deer damage, the switch to a more positive perception is likely due to the Division’s effort to reduce the deer herd over the last decade, farmer acclimation to deer damage, or a combination of the two.
Because Indiana farmers seldom use other methods to alleviate deer damage such as repellents and fencing, hunting is the primary, if not only, method to reduce local deer densities and reduce damage. Therefore, it is counter-productive that operators limit hunting on their property to family and friends. In order to decrease deer depredation and farmer dissatisfaction, hunter access needs to be liberalized
|
|
|
Post by Indyhunter on Aug 2, 2005 9:24:24 GMT -5
Why should he have to open his land to a practice that he may object to just to get permits ? What if the farmer in question is a member of an antihunting org What is the difference? They are going to be killed either way. If a person is against the practice of hunting it isn't going to make a bit of difference! Someone will have to kill them unless the DNR is going to start trapping deer. If you have too many deer, there is only 1 way to solve the problem: kill them. Anti hunter or not, that is a fact and you know that. I've never met a farmer that is anti-hunting, although many are "anti-hunter" because of the bad experience they've had with slobs. I'd much rather see the DNR hand out permits for during the season, not the spring and summer. It gets the job done, but it is still pathetic. Other states maintain a list of "certified, trustworthy, and competent" hunters for landowners who need help with a deer problem. I'd rather see that than a farmer getting together with his buddies and whacking 50 deer with a 30-06 off of a John Deere in the early summer. A good friend of mine owns a cabin and 80 acres in Freedom, he knows who this guy is but doesn't know him personally. He can walk to this guys property in 5 minutes from his back porch, he flat out said there are not THAT many deer in that area and taking 50+ a summer sounds obsurd.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Aug 2, 2005 10:27:14 GMT -5
I know you cant beleive EVERYTHING one reads in the newspaper....but come on! They are claiming that only 300 or so permits were issued, yet this guy redily admits to shooting 60 or so....in one summer? I find it REAL hard to beleive that ONE FARMING LANDOWNER gets 20% of all permits issued state wide. Maybe they were misunderstood or mis-quoted....maybe there are 300 or so farmers that partisapate.....I don't know...... I do know thats it's an awfull program that needs re-vamped. No one should force a landowner to allow hunters onto their property.....but its a pretty good trade off if the huners are saving you thousands of dollars is crop damage!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Aug 2, 2005 10:48:49 GMT -5
I didn't create the deer damage permit system , Indy . Are you gonna sit there and tell me that if a farmer offered to let you take a few deer in June on permits that you would turn him down ? I wouldn't . It is regretable that those permits have to exist , but they do , and hunters themselves are largely to blame for that IMO . The alternative is for the state to tell the same farmer "You have to let people hunt your land whether you like it or not , their are too many deer ." Even if he agrees that the deer need trimming he will still be ed because he didn't get to make the final call on use of his own land . You would be too . As to why they don't issue the permits during the season the answer is pretty plain , it would decrease license sales , and it wouldn't protect the crops when they were most vulnerable . That list you mentioned is a good idea , and I'm sure that it's been proposed before , so why doesn't Indiana have such a program ? The bottom line here is not our hobby , it's the farmer's livelihood , and he will always have the last word .
|
|
|
Post by duff on Aug 2, 2005 12:46:16 GMT -5
I was talking to a guy in OH a few yrs ago and he claimed that OH had a list of landowners that wanted more deer killed off of their property. He called one guy and was granted access to over 1000 ac. with him and his buddy. No one else hunted it according to him. Only requirement was shoot all that they could.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 2, 2005 12:50:51 GMT -5
The difference is we consider the deer to be a magnificent game animal and some farmers consider them "hooved rats.".
|
|
|
Post by Indyhunter on Aug 2, 2005 12:55:13 GMT -5
Are you gonna sit there and tell me that if a farmer offered to let you take a few deer in June on permits that you would turn him down ? I wouldn't . Actually, I did turn the opportunity down on the Montgomery County farm. I have no interest in shooting deer in June. My Dad and I didn't actually tell the farmer no, but we quickly told him we had more doe permits we can use during firearm season, muzzleloader season,and he also agreed to let me start bowhunting there also. The DNR never sent him the permits so it never became an issue. My Dad was out there in the first visit with the DNR, they told the owner much of his damage was from coon and squirrel, but they would go ahead and give him permits anyhow. He was expecting up to 15 permits if I remember correctly, but I could be wrong. This is on about 40 acres. Only way I would consider it is if the farmer gave me an ultimatum, if I don't take extra deer out of season then he will find others to hunt during the season. If we were taking as many as possible during the season and that still wasn't enough, I can see a legitimate reason when there is REAL damage from deer, not from raccoon and squirrel. Maybe some of these farmers do let people hunt and that still isn't enough. That is legitimate in my book. But I would bet that most refuse to let anyone hunt and their property becomes a safe haven for deer. Their own decisions contribute to the issue in the worst way. They don't take advantage of the reason there is a deer season in the first place, to keep numbers in check. I just don't like the idea, simply my opinion. I guarantee that every single farmer either has trusted family members or friends that hunt. If they have over population issues and they don't let anyone hunt just for the sake of it, but turn around and bust 50 during the summer from their tractor, that is bs. If I owned property next to this guy and invested $$ to make it a nice deer hunting property then found out my neighbor turns his property into a wildlife sanctuary 11 months of the year only blast 50 of them in June, i'd be p*ssed off also. The Montgomery Co farm, and a very good friend of mine who is a wildlife biology researcher and professor at Purdue really opened my eyes to this issue.
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Aug 2, 2005 13:15:21 GMT -5
Glad you could find an amicable solution , Indy , if everybody else did those permits wouldn't be necessary . I've always strongly suspected that deer are getting much of the credit for the damage even though they aren't actually doing it . As long as the permits are available I do intend to take advantage of them though , but I'll be sure to "smooth the trail" for future hunting if the farmer I talk to is open to it . Most , as you pointed out , are open to the idea unless some jagoff ed them off . Above all else I'll try to educate them to the long term value of allowing hunting , particularly doe thinning , with regard to their crops . It'll be a tough sell , most of the ones who ask for permission won't want a doe unless it's the only way they can hunt a buck there .
|
|
|
Post by Indyhunter on Aug 2, 2005 17:05:57 GMT -5
As tough as it is finding a private spot to hunt now, I could care less if the guy actually said does only until the herd is down a little. I need meat first, rack second. (Of course that is when i'd see the buck of a lifetime walk by my stand at 20 yards). Any land is better than no land.
|
|