|
Post by span870 on Sept 21, 2013 6:57:23 GMT -5
Yesterday while working I was noticing hundreds of doves flying in a pasture next to the house I was at. When I finished the job I stopped by and talked to the farmer about hunting them. After awhile and some begging I locked up 400 acres more for dove hunting and running my dogs on.
While talking to him and letting him know how I hunt and that I would take care and respect his property he asked me if I wanted to deer hunt. I informed him that I no longer deer hunt. He told me that he was going to have to get deprecation permits. He said that he has let guys hunt his property before and always had the same problem. All they wanted to do was trophy hunt. He had nothing but negative things to say about the practice. After talking to him and understanding his point of view as a landowner it makes sense. He has hunters in the past that he kicked off the property because they wouldn't shoot does. Talking to this old boy I think he has a better understanding of game management than a lot of us. I was there as a "trophy" Hunter. Not wanting to shoot anything that Isn't going on the wall. To this farmer who wanted the deer under control this makes no sense. He said when this whole trophy hunting idea came in he has seen the number of deer skyrocket on his farm. All the leasing is what is hurting him. Every piece of property that surrounds him has been leased up. He has been approached several times by leasing company's to lease his property and flat out refuses to because he wants the deer managed. He was a small 20 acre parcel that he does lease to one family friend and even went so far as to put a small food plot it for the guy. The guy wants him to let the little ones walk. He is a brown and down Hunter. He says the more he kills the more there are. That guy might ghost by not have a place in the near future.
I suppose the point of my post is guys might want to talk to the landowners that they are on and find out what their management ideas are for their property. You might just be surprised that it might be a little different from what yours are. It also might save you a spot that might be taken away. This property was up for grabs for someone that wanted to hunt and was willing to kill is deer off but will end up being one of the places that guys are complaining about farmer brown shooting an excess of deer with deprecation permits. It's not that he won't let guys hunt its guys won't hunt it.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Sept 21, 2013 9:25:58 GMT -5
Seems like an area where some further communication is needed. I think there are a lot of us who have compatible hunting goals, and many of those hunters also have lost good hunting ground to leasing.
I suspect there are even some others who would be willing to lease at a more reasonable rate and hunt for the table in an area where they could leave a stand up and expect to find it again the next trip, and where they didn't have to arrive two hours before dawn to be sure of a parking spot. And probably some other old coots like me who have worn out many pairs of boots in our younger days but who just aren't interested in trying to out-walk the hunters with twenty years lass wear and tear on their legs on the large public land tracts.
But the leasing outfits are only interested in the kind of money they can make by selling access to big bucks, and when their costs are added to the mix, the price goes too high for a meat hunter in most cases.
The state has done a lot in assuring the landowner that they will be protected against liability issues as long as they are NOT leasing. There's still some doubt among the landowners that I've spoken with on that issue,though. many suspect the lawyers will find a way to sue if there's a pile of money to be won with the effort, no matter what laws a bunch of other lawyers have written. Can't say I blame them for some skepticism.
The loss of available land that can be hunted either for a handshake and an agreement on the rules, or even for reasonable trespass fee, has long been the biggest factor in hunter decline. Yet at the same time we have landowners who need and would welcome respectful hunters who would take does, but don't know where to find them.
Seems like a need on both sides waiting for a solution.
Wouldn't be much if any money in it, so no sense waiting for someone to take it on as a business opportunity.
Anyone know of a website that's frequented mostly be rural landowners? Maybe we could advertise there, as responsible hunters seeking private land opportunities.
I would take a nice buck if it was the first opportunity to present itself, but I have a game cart, and don't need the drag handles on the deer's head to get it to the truck. I "score" mine on the pounds of wrapped meat going into the freezer, not by the calcium buildup on their heads.
I have also thought about contacting some who lease about having another member or two on a lease who, in exchange for a reduced rate, would pass on the bucks and take ONLY antlerless (and only does, if the sex can be determined). Seems like that would be another good possibility for a cooperative agreement that would be beneficial to both parties. I've not tried to do that either, so I'm as guilty as anyone in sitting around cursing the darkness rather than lighting a candle.
Getting to the woods and into the tree or blind is all the challenge some of us need to keep our interest up and keep the juices flowing. Never did find a good recipe for horns.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Sept 21, 2013 12:13:45 GMT -5
I agree completely! While I would not pass up a nice buck, wouldn't even think about it, I am very happy killing a doe or even a small buck. I just love to deer hunt. It's a shame that so many people are in it only for bragging rights.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2013 12:15:33 GMT -5
Hummm...........I was thinking about not responding to this post but just couldn't resist mainly due to the inaccurate comments made in these two posts. I'll finish quickly and get I out so that the bashing can continue.
I'll say that you won't find many lessors that do not strive to manage their leases at a 1:1 ratio. Just not wanting to shoot does is way down on the list. There are several issues present that sometimes makes it hard to do. For one its the fact the DNR wants too much money for doe tags. Not many will pay up to $150 for a few pounds of meat. That is what it costs a NR to shoot one doe.
Second is that most people will not shoot any animal that they don't eat. Freezers are only so big. HFH programs are good but it still cost money to donate a deer to the program.
This is not a lease problem. The same problem happens on any property. The root cause is that the hunter and the farmer may never agree on how many deer need to be removed.
I'd be surprised if this deer problem happened over night and why theb other area farmers are not having the same issues.
|
|
|
Post by span870 on Sept 21, 2013 12:31:31 GMT -5
The fact is timex the other farms are having the same problems. The problem is alot of properties that are leased down there are absentee landowners. They have no idea what is going on with there properties nor care what is happening to there neighbors crops. As far as leasees being concerned with a 1:1 buck to do ratio i think u are a little off base. The majority of people that lease that i know are leasing for a place to hunt that they dont have to deal with public land competition. There idea is let the little ones walk and magically the big ones are there. They arent concerned with managing for a quality herd. If you trace the deer explosion in certain areas i guarantee you will see a increase in leasing in said area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2013 13:11:00 GMT -5
Not true....I have never leased to or had any member on my leases that would not shoot a doe. Never. Not one. There are times and reasons why they sometimes don't, but the want to is still there.
The other factors is that landowners/farmer really doesn't have a clue as to his crop damage that is directly related to deer. His damage could be the "hundreds of doves" you saw or the other thousand you didn't see. Not to mention coons, turkeys, squirrels and a bunch of other critters living off his crops.
|
|
|
Post by span870 on Sept 21, 2013 13:19:45 GMT -5
The key words is my lease or anyone lease from me. Yes in your little bubble world it might be true. There is a bigger world out there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2013 13:29:09 GMT -5
True....so tell me Why would someone give lots of money for hunting rights and turn it into a piece of crap. Todays hunters all know a little bit about managing deer for quality and that the rut is always better to hunt with less does to pick from. I would bet money that there is no over population of deer on the property your talking about.
Anyway, this is just another sad story of how leasing is ruining hunting for us all. And another myth.
|
|
|
Post by span870 on Sept 21, 2013 14:04:48 GMT -5
Because most people "manage" for trophy deer by letting anything walk unless it goes on the wall.
So tell me this you doubt that there is the over abundance of deer on the property. His son is a conservation officer that lives on the property. Course im sure he is wrong in his assessment of the deer population.
Not one of my posts said anything about leasing ruining the hunting except the landowner. I could care less. I have shot enough deer in my life i dont feel i need to kill another. Makes no difference to me who shoots what. I have several thousand acres to run my dogs on and not have to deal with ruining someones deer hunt. The post was meant to show one that there are places to hunt. Several guys have posted losing there properties. Two that if you are hunting a spot maybe you ought to talk to the landowner to get on the same page as he is. You might just be surprised you two aren't.
As always you turn it into an argument. Exactly why i dont post anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2013 14:45:56 GMT -5
One of the first steps in managing for trophy bucks is the insure you have a balanced ratio.That equates into a healthy doe harvest. One way to verify if you have too many deer is to consult with a biologist, not a L.E. officer. Another way is to look for a browse line on the property. If its visable to the untrained eye, then its obviously too many deer on the property.
|
|
|
Post by span870 on Sept 21, 2013 15:04:46 GMT -5
Yeah whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Sept 21, 2013 15:27:48 GMT -5
Sounds like you all just need to agree to disagree.
There are folks out there just like what both sides of the issue has stated.
I do know if I was a farmer wanting deer killed the hunters would be on a very strict earn a buck regimen. Two or three DOES ( or whatever i deem necessary) before any buck is ever taken...
Just mho ...
|
|
|
Post by 36fan on Sept 21, 2013 20:22:25 GMT -5
span - did you inform the landowner of the hunters helping farmers program? There are a lot of hunters that would love to help out landowners like this.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Sept 21, 2013 23:09:48 GMT -5
timex, I didn't intend to say that leasing was evil or the basis of the problem. I have a mixed opinion of the practice overall. Even sought a lease on a small parcel or two in recent years, but couldn't close the deal in either case.
I saw many properties being closed to hunting even before leasing became more popular. Urban sprawl, increasing population, and the increasing number of landowners in the generation that grew up learning about wildlife by watching Disney and Animal Planet all have an effect as well.
And I do agree completely with you on the deer often being blamed for crop losses that were caused by other critters. I've sat along a cornfield edge and watched a constant parade of ground squirrels climbing the stalks and slipping inside the shucks until nothing was visible except the twitching end of the tail as they filled their cheeks and then scampered back to their burrows with another load of kernels. The railroad embankment that ran near that field edge was honeycombed with burrows and the occupants were all stocking up for the winter from the first couple rows. I did also see a deer come along and she also sampled a little from one stalk as she passed.
I happened to think about the evidence that was left behind. First couple rows of corn pretty much decimated, deer tracks in the soft ground, no remaining sign of any other culprit. Therefore, "deer damage" in the eyes of the farmer.
Though about that again when I was floating the river for ducks one season and saw the slides and debris mounds of beaver at regular intervals, almost all of them containing a good number of cornstalks. That's in addition to the coons you mentioned, and the fox squirrels that I've watched hit the corn on a regular basis, often carrying off entire ears with them.
No doubt the deer are responsible for a good portion of the damage, probably most of it, but in many areas I suspect that maybe close to half of what they are blamed for is actually done by other critters.
But back to the leasing....I was just trying to make the point that at least SOME leases are closed to other hunters who would be glad to help with the excess doe problem that the lessees find to be more of a chore than an enjoyable opportunity. I suppose it's natural that the guys leasing who are concentrating on antlers and just can't understand the meat hunter, might not trust him to pass up the nice buck if it happens to stroll past them, and of course they wouldn't want their doe reductions being handled by others while they are still pursuing the bucks that are chasing those does. So in that way, the hunters who would be glad to help are still being screened out, with good reason and not malice. I'd probably manage the same way most of the time if it were my lease.
It's good that the ground is at least being hunted, rather than simply posted against any legal use and saved for the trespassers who don't give a hoot about the no hunting or trespassing signs. And it's probably good for hunting in general that the landowners are realizing a cash benefit from hunting.
But balanced against those benefits is the further reductions in land available to the hunter of less means or the more casual hunter who used to find permission easier to gain by knocking on doors.
Like most areas in life, there's more than one side to the question.
I was only trying to point out the need for better communications between the factions involved to better take advantage of those situations where all concerned could come out ahead with some cooperation.
|
|
|
Post by goosepondmonster on Sept 21, 2013 23:25:20 GMT -5
Second is that most people will not shoot any animal that they don't eat. Freezers are only so big. HFH programs are good but it still cost money to donate a deer to the program. Outside of the tag and the gas to haul the deer to the processor, what costs are there in donating to Hunters Feeding the Hungry?
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Sept 22, 2013 11:43:39 GMT -5
All I can add to this discussion is that I personally know guys who ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT KILL A DOE NO MATTER WHAT. They feel that deer numbers have never been where they would like them to be, and that killing a doe is really killing three deer (two fawns next year). It's buck only for them. One guy goes as far as to claim road-killed deer so as to have meat from more than just a single buck a year. He even had a shirt made to wear to DNR meetings that says "NO MORE DOE TAGS".
Me? I focus on killing as many does as I legally can in early archery season, then switch to buck-only with a firearm/muzzleloader if I haven't already taken a buck with a bow.
|
|