# depredation tags



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I've been thinking about his some lately, and I can't figure it out...


Our deer herds are struggling. Our hunting is changing. But, the hunt changes won't help the herds in general. People still think something needs to be done to help the deer herds, but nobody has a good solution.

In all the discussions, I've yet to hear anyone bring up depredation tags. Why not? If our deer herds are in trouble, then the FIRST thing that should be done is the elimination of depredation tags!

Instead of issuing ranchers and farmers depredation tags, pay them $$ for their losses. NO MORE DEPREDATION TAGS!

Anyone have any numbers on how many depredation tags are handed out annually in Utah?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

It's been discussed. I'm not sure how I feel about this one. The going rate for $ in lieu of depredation tags I believe is $250 per deer. Statewide, that adds up to a lot of cash. Would the money be better spent elsewhere? Can $250 spent in another area save more than one deer? I'd think at $50 a head, 5 coyotes would equal more than one saved deer, but that's obviously speculation. Is $250 enough motivation for people to fill cougar quota tags? $500? 

Any other options?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

If you mean mitigation tags, which are issued instead of paying $$ to landowners..

In 2009 there were 3,039 deer permits issued with a success of 1,114..

This information is available in the 09 annual report on pages 41 & 42..
Shows by unit break down and by does or fawns harvested.. don't have the 2010 #s yet.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> The going rate for $ in lieu of depredation tags I believe is $250 per deer. Statewide, that adds up to a lot of cash.


How much? How many tags are given out? I think people would be outraged if they knew how many depredation tags were handed out every year.

We're upset that our herds are in decline, yet we're allowing thousands of does to be killed each year by ranchers and farmers. There is something wrong with this picture.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Good Point PBH-


For the life of me, I cannot grasp why we are doing this when herds are below objective. 

My favorite thing that I see on a regular basis is ranchers getting depredation tags (for antelope in Rich County) and then not allowing ONE person to hunt their land during the regular seasons, both buck and doe............there is something wrong with this. Most of these guys are the loadest complainers as well...........

Something should be worked out, similar to the walk in access that if you recieve depredation tags you **** well better be letting the general public hunt your land.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Goofy is right, "mitigation" refers to compensation to landowners in the form of tags or $.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Been whining about depredation and doe tags on Monroe for 10yrs.  

Prying these tags out of the locals hands will be a feat. Depredation tags have become the bread ad butter for many locals living on the bottom of the mountain. Get the herds back to viable hunting status and they will forfeit them readily.

The DWR may not have a bunch of money to throw at the deer problems. But they do posses the commodity we covet so much. Hunter opportunity. Instead of paying cash bounties the DWR should implement a a program rewarding tags for coyote and cougar harvest. Free of charge to the DWR. They could even get away with a $50 fee to participate. And make some money. With DH in jeopardy it would also provide an opportunity for these guys to continue hunting. Say 5 yotes gets you a deer tag or one cougar gets you a deer tag.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Here are a few statistics available in the 2009 annual reports(s):

Statewide LE antlerless deer harvest highlights-

Statewide harvest of doe/fawn- 902 deer

Monroe/plateau Seveir valley- 144

Panguitch Lake, Parowan Front- 74

30 116 Pine Valley, Enterprise- 63

Statewide CWMU antlerless harvest-

78 total deer

Alton- 35

*Mitigation*

Free mitigation deer harvest:

Statewide total harvest- 1114

Permits issued- 3039

Central Mountains- 145

Plateau (Fishlake, Boulder, Thousand Lakes) - 131

Fee mitigation deer harvest:

-356 total statewide harvest

-525 permits issued

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... report.pdf


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I wouldn't mind getting rid of these tags but I thought the reason they existed was to minimize crop damage. If that's the case you've got to over come that obstacle to get these tags eliminated. Does the state just tell farmers to live with the damage because they aren't killing any more deer? I don't know if that would be a practical or not. That would be a tough social issue to overcome. If they do that I wonder if farmers will take things in their own hands and kill deer anyway.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Most LE tags are issued for herds that migrate to agricultural areas and stand to create a problem or become subject to mitigation tags.

In many cases landowners are getting much more for these tags, so in order to cease the killing of problem deer, the division would probably have to raise the $ quite a bit. One landowner that I know of gets 800 dollars apiece for (10) 2 doe permits every year. That's a substantial amount of money for a guy who's growing hay and oats on 120 acres. In this case, the degree of damage and loss created and quantity of deer that come on his property is unbelievable and the landowner is constantly spitting mad. As he cuts his alfalfa, the deer are on all sides, eating an astonishing amounts. The DWR will not let him haze or kill any of the deer and only issues a handful of tags for over 300 head of deer.

What to do?


----------



## humpyflyguy (Sep 10, 2007)

This is an interesting post, one can sit back and watch as the non landowners complain about a rancher who is wanting to save his crops. Have any of you seen the destruction a herd of deer or elk can do to one field? I hardly doubt it, on our land we have on a given night 50 deer just in one field, they eat pretty much the whole third crop. At $120.00 a ton, and suppose the field would raise 5 ton of hay per acre, the field is a total of 200 acre, that would equal $120,000. So suppose the deer eat it so bad that we only produce 2 ton per acre, that would be a loss of 3 ton or a loss of $72,000. These are just numbers and not actual, but as you can see the land owner is losing money, who do you think should make up for the ammount each owner loses? Are you as the hunter willing to pay a lot more to make sure everyone in the state is taken will be paid for their loss each year. I doubt it. So if the tags were taken from the landowners most of them would just shoot the deer anyways and call the dwr up to have them come remove the carcass. 
In other words is you are wanting to take the tags from the landowners you better be willing to lose more deer or be willing to put up a lot more each year for the difference in their crop loss due to the animals.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> The DWR will not let him haze or kill any of the deer and only issues a handful of tags for over 300 head of deer.
> 
> What to do?


Is this deer herd struggling?

I spent some time in Garfield County over the weekend. Many alfalfa fields that typically held 100 or more deer this time of year were barren of deer.

If our deer herds are truly struggling, then farmers should not be given tags to kill our depleted deer herds. Monetary compensation is 1 alternative. I'm sure there are others. We've been subsidizing farmers in this country for a long, long time -- what's the problem with it now that our deer are going down hill?

This is a lot like the Endangered Species act. It's all about incentive. What incentive is there to have prime prarie dog habitat? None. However, if you come up with an incentive that is worth more to the land owner, then the land owner just might decide that having prarie dogs on his land is worth it! Why not the same with deer and farmers???


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

humpyflyguy said:


> Are you as the hunter willing to pay a lot more to make sure everyone in the state is taken will be paid for their loss each year. I doubt it.
> 
> ...if you are wanting to take the tags from the landowners you better be willing to lose more deer or be willing to put up a lot more each year for the difference in their crop loss due to the animals.


What's wrong with constructing a deer/elk fence? That would be a one-time initial cost, plus some yearly maintenance (which I would suspect the land owner could afford, but I'd still be willing to front some of that cost too). That would be considerably less money than handing out compensation year, after year, after year......it would also save some of our deer.

There are alternatives to handing out tags to land owners.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

humpyflyguy said:


> This is an interesting post, one can sit back and watch as the non landowners complain about a rancher who is wanting to save his crops. Have any of you seen the destruction a herd of deer or elk can do to one field? I hardly doubt it, on our land we have on a given night 50 deer just in one field, they eat pretty much the whole third crop. At $120.00 a ton, and suppose the field would raise 5 ton of hay per acre, the field is a total of 200 acre, that would equal $120,000. So suppose the deer eat it so bad that we only produce 2 ton per acre, that would be a loss of 3 ton or a loss of $72,000. These are just numbers and not actual, but as you can see the land owner is losing money, who do you think should make up for the ammount each owner loses? Are you as the hunter willing to pay a lot more to make sure everyone in the state is taken will be paid for their loss each year. I doubt it. So if the tags were taken from the landowners most of them would just shoot the deer anyways and call the dwr up to have them come remove the carcass.
> In other words is you are wanting to take the tags from the landowners you better be willing to lose more deer or be willing to put up a lot more each year for the difference in their crop loss due to the animals.


Why can't landowners protect their own investment by legal means...such as building a fence. I understand that deer/elk can cause damage that hurts landowners, but I don't understand why the landowners aren't held responsible to protect their own livelihoods or investments. If I had a business and the local gang was vandalizing my store and causing damage, I would surely think it were my responsibility to install cameras to catch the perps...yet, landowners think the only solution is to either kill the deer themselves or have someone else kill them.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I'll go one farther as suggest the farmers be paid to plant a winter crop for deer and let them winter on it.


----------



## humpyflyguy (Sep 10, 2007)

Go price out one of those deer/elk fence, not the cheapest thing around. And then you will need to price out the cost of putting one in, once again labor is not cheap. Yes it is the landowners responsibility to protect their own investment and they are, and will do it the same way a business owner would, they will look for the least amount of cost for hopefully the best result. 
And no Garfield County Deer herds are not hurting, ever looked in the fields as your driving into Panguitch, clear full of deer, get off the highway a bit and take the dirt roads. Packed full of them.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I figure buying crops would be as effective as the habitat restoration we have spent 100s of millions on in the last 10 yrs. And if a fence is built it should be to keep predators off the winter range.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I'll go one farther as suggest the farmers be paid to plant a winter crop for deer and let them winter on it.


What would you suggest planting? Winter crops for deer would have to be something that protruded above the top of the snow, like perennial brush, for example. This would take entire fields out of commission, plus attract deer to adjacent fields still in production for alfalfa or corn. It would also make the farmer, in essence, a state employee. Since most Utah farms grow crops to support livestock, this would also take its toll on livestock production. In the end, this might cost an awful lot of money.

Then again, there are many marginal private acres with decadent sagebrush or greasewood stands that could be chained, bullhogged, dixie harrowed and reseeded with a variety of brushes, forbs and bunch grasses. Ranchers might even be able to make a profit on those unproductive areas with some incentive to rehabilitate them with dollars from permit sales. Of course, our fees would go up, but if it worked, I'd be willing.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

humpy -- the cost of the deer fence wouldn't have to be absorbed by the farmer. I'm pretty sure that the DWR would be willing to foot the cost of the fence vs. handing out tags/compensation.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I don't know what would be optimal to plant. My first assumption would be to leave alfalfa. In my neck of the wood the snow is over a foot deep only few weeks of the yr.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> humpy -- the cost of the deer fence wouldn't have to be absorbed by the farmer. I'm pretty sure that the DWR would be willing to foot the cost of the fence vs. handing out tags/compensation.


In my experience you would be wrong. I know someone who has a farm, they have been having elk come in and eat there stock pile of hay for the winter. They have tried and tried to get the DWR to help them with the cost of a fence with no luck. So either they lose crap loads of money and feed, or they front the cost of the fence, or they shoot the troubled animals. Also they had the elk tear down multiple fences also, when elk want to get to something they usually will. I do agree with PBH and Wy2ut on it would be better to try a more permanent fix than a temporary fix, but most farmers are lucky if they aren't in the whole at the end of the year, they don't have the money to pay for expensive wildlife fences.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

jahan said:


> ... they [farmers] don't have the money to pay for expensive wildlife fences.


not trying to argue here, just curious. What do they do with the compensation money they are given when wildlife damage their crops? Maybe they should invest that money into a fence that might help keep more animals out. Elk are one thing, but the issue here isn't elk. It's deer. Our deer herds are hurting, and the deer aren't destroying fences.

I don't know anything about the DWR paying for fencing. But I can't imagine the DWR not wanting to help with a fencing project, vs. handing out compensation money year after year, after year, after year...


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

The Division has paid for fencing on quite a few different properties in Cache and Rich Counties that I know of..........I wish they would do it more.

What qualifications the property owner does/has I have no idea but it has been done.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> The Division has paid for fencing on quite a few different properties in Cache and Rich Counties that I know of..........I wish they would do it more.
> 
> What qualifications the property owner does/has I have no idea but it has been done.


That is good to know, I think it is a good option.

PBH, as far as the extra money, he never got any.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

PBH said:


> What do they do with the compensation money they are given when wildlife damage their crops? Maybe they should invest that money into a fence that might help keep more animals out.


As the name implies, it's compensation for loss caused by wildlife. The farmers and ranchers don't make money on it. As for what farmers and ranchers do with the money, I assume they use it to repair damage and to make up for monetary losses incurred by the wildlife damage for which they're being compensated.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > ... they [farmers] don't have the money to pay for expensive wildlife fences.
> ...


I wouldn't imagine the money is "extra". It would seem to me that compensation brings them back towards par, or where they might be if animals weren't causing their harvest to be reduced. I'm not defending farmers, just like homeowners who build where deer are more likely to inhabit, then complain. I think the two are similar. Plant deer and elk food then complain that the deer and elk show up. If pheasants, starlings and magpies eat all of the grapes, cherries, corn and raspberries out of my yard, should I be entitled to compensation from the division???? What's the difference?

Same with cattle and sheep. Haul cows and sheep into wolf, lion and coyote habitat and then become outraged because their animals become prey. Seems backwards to me.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

I have a mitigation tag where the deer in the area have NO INFLUENCE on surrounding herds. They are a very small group and stay in a very small area. I have no problem with these type of tags. BTW, this group of deer have caused over $200,000 in damage in the last 3 years on a very small amount of land. It is not winter range or anything close to it. These deer need to be killed. A
Also, when they take away all of our opportunity to shoot bucks, what the hell else are we going to shoot?


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

One more thing , the DNR WILL front the money to put up a fence around a smaller area but it is up to the landowner to install it. I know of 3 L owners that have the fence piled up and have never installed it. What the %&*#$ does that do and say? One of these ranchers has 300 head of elk come into his yard at night and destroy is hay stack. He's more than happy to have hunters kill them but won't put up the gawd **** fence.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > ... they [farmers] don't have the money to pay for expensive wildlife fences.
> ...


I caution you guys from going after the landowners and treating them as the enemy, w/o them the deer herds are hosed far worse than they are right now. Just because you/me want more deer/elk doesn't mean every landowner wants them on HIS land on HIS dime.


----------



## the_big_watusi (Jan 1, 2010)




----------



## humpyflyguy (Sep 10, 2007)

Okay for all my years of working on my fathers land and knowing our neighbors I have not heard of any being compensated any money. If someone could give some names and truthful amounts of money that they know was given to the landowners for damages that the wildlife have accrued I would be surprised. I am sure some are paid back but I doubt it was a large amount of money and very select few. Most landowners will just ask for a few tags to try and manage the herds to small few that will stay year round and know that when winter comes more will show up, the dwr gives us our tags early in August and we have until October to shoot the local deer, they will not extend the tags out past October because the deer that show up then are migrating deer. 
As far as the dwr giving building material they will try first to help with the plastic netting to put around the hay stacks, this will help on the small group of deer but you get a large group in they will rip it apart or a small group of elk will have it down in one night. I like the fact of every piece of land having a high fence around it but think of what that will do to the deer that use the area to migrate from summer range to winter range. There will start to be a bunch of animals stuck on one side of the road with nowhere to go, in hard winter as a group of treehuggers drive by they would sit there and count how many animals are starvinging to death and how may have already died. Probably would not look good, but on the other side now the farmers will have high fences and start their own high fence hunting. Wow think of the future revenue, PBH you may be on to something. I can see the post now, monster buck taken off Jim Jones property, world record. Can't count it because it was behind a high fence even though it was a wild animal. o-||


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I know a family with a high fence around their hay property. They leave the gates open UNTIL early opening morning then they close the gate. I've personally watched them chase the now locked in deer around until all the bucks are dead then they open the gates back up to let the does out. :shock: 


-DallanC


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Compensation for landowners is not speculation. I posted the numbers of mitigation tags given out last year. Landowners can choose to take the tags or the money, per DWR policy.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

Humpyflyguy wrote"
"Most landowners will just ask for a few tags to try and manage the herds to small few that will stay year round and know that when winter comes more will show up, the dwr gives us our tags early in August and we have until October to shoot the local deer, they will not extend the tags out past October because the deer that show up then are migrating deer."

I am headed to Bear Lake to kill a doe on a landowner mitigation tag saturday. I had a late season cow tag on the South Cache year before last and landowners were still shooting cows in Jan up there. Not trying to call you out or anything, perhaps where your land is the division doesn't want to kill the deer past October for some reason. When there is a large problem with wildlife damage the division also conducts depredation hunts and have seen those happen as late as Feb.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Luv2fsh&hunt how did you get a mitigation tag if your not the landowner?, my brother only got six this year but he has to fill them because his name is the one on the tag. Six tags do little to a herd of a few hundred that never leave the ranch.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

They are vouchers you turn in the voucher to DWR pay the tag fee and go shoot the critter.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

the_big_watusi said:


>


Perfect example of browsing deer :lol: we had the DWR tell us that is what deer do, I think browse is just a fancy way of saying graze. All of the deer I have shot on my parents ranch have had stomachs full of alfalfa. Its 10:30 I bet if you went by any of the hay fields right now and spot lighted you would see a couple hundred deer "browsing". It's the same in the summer too. PBH alfalfa is a cash crop, if you were the one losing money that you needed for your family I bet you would have a different opinion. Do you eat beef cause those cattle aren't cheap to feed. You should go work for a rancher for a while maybe you see the other side. The fifth generation is working the ranch now, its not an easy living.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> They are vouchers you turn in the voucher to DWR pay the tag fee and go shoot the critter.


Those are depredation tags. Mitigation tags are free.

-DallanC


----------



## humpyflyguy (Sep 10, 2007)

Luv2fsh each area is different that is just what they have in place where our land is. The reason they do this on our land and our neighbors is to try and keep the local deer herd down to a manageable number before the winter deer move in. So far it has been working. Your hunt will be fun and yes we get the land owner tags for me and my father and also a few vouchers that we hand out to first come first serve. We don't ask for any money in return only that the individuals have a good time and try to make sure they take a grown doe and try to make sure she is dry. Yes it is hard to determine but as long as they make sure she has no fawns around her it is most likely she is dry.

Tree, I have not seen them offer money, they send out the CO officer, he does a head count, and from that number he will determine how many tags they will give you. Not once have they said do you want the tags or do you want money. They may do this on other parts of the state but down south they just offer the tags.

All this talk about the land owners just shooting deer and hurting our herds is B.S. I would dare bet if anyone who is against the land owner tags would have property of their own and the animals were on their crops would be taking the tags and doing the same. Also, I would dare say that some of them while out hunting have made comments that they wish they had private land of their own to hunt on, at least once while out hunting.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

DallanC said:


> luv2fsh&hnt said:
> 
> 
> > They are vouchers you turn in the voucher to DWR pay the tag fee and go shoot the critter.
> ...


I thought depredation tags were the tags you get when your on the depredation list and the division calls up and says meet the CO at such and such a place and you go kill the elk or deer. The whole system is so confusing anymore it is hard to keep up with all the different type of tags. Hell we've got general tags,LE tags,depredation tags,mitigation tags,land owner tags(the ones they get for enrolling in the CWMU program),CWMU tags and who knows what I missed. Either way I am going to be spending time with my kid and another forum member on saturday hunting deer and hopefully some bunnies and maybe catch a fish or two. Seems to me with the ?mitigation? tags should be vouchers as well,if they are not already this way,the landowner could sell them or give them away whatever he decided and somebody gets to hunt.For a landowner seems like a win-win if he could sell them he gets a little cash to make up for wildlife damage and eliminates the animals doing the damage. Worked out good for me with this one because I wasn't able to put in for any draws and I will get to restock the freezer with venison. I guess I will have to get the book out and read some more so I use the right terminology so ignorance doesn't eminate from my keyboard.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

I just read thru the bucks and bulls and antlerless books and can't find any information on the mitigation tags. Can someone point me to the right reference where I can read for myself.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

There are 2 types of mitigation tags, "free" and "fee".


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

there are farmers out there that will shoot deer and elk on their property even with out a tag many times they just let them rot. i heard one farmer years ago saying he shoots them with a shotgun so they don't die on his property :evil:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I'm still confused.

I still don't understand why, with some much money at stake, don't farmers and ranchers do more to keep the deer away from their investments?


I don't understand why, if our deer herds are actually in as much trouble as some want to believe, are we still allowing depredation\mitigation of antlerless deer?

Why are we changing our hunting to increase buck to doe ratios, when it's the does that are the problem?


what's wrong with this picture?

I'm so confused....


----------



## humpyflyguy (Sep 10, 2007)

So PBH since does are the problem and that we have to many does per buck, you are wanting them to shut down the land owner tags to where the land owner of if he gives tags out to the public cannot shoot the does. So lets see, we have too many does per buck ratio. Let's shut down the doe tags so the does can keep growing in numbers but the bucks will stay the same. Now I am confused, how is this going to help them achieve the buck to doe ratio? Now if we don't shoot does but continue to shoot bucks, would not the buck to doe ratio go down not up?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

We don't have "too many" does. We have "not enough" deer. Hunting doesn't create a situation where we have too many does, it creates a situation where we don't have enough bucks. The buck to doe ratio isn't a problem unless it gets extremely low. In the less than 7 or 8 bucks per 100 does. And even then most of the does will be bred, just not all in the first estrus cycle. The buck to doe ratio is more of a measure of huntable animals. The more does, the more fawns. The more fawns, the more deer.

Does anybody help the poor alfalfa farmers keep insects away from their crop through subsidies or "low fences" to keep the bugs out?

Fishrmn


----------



## reaper (Nov 18, 2010)

Almost every doe shot in the Sanpete/Sevier valley hunts are residents, they never leave or migrate. They do nothing for the herds that do migrate off the monroe or Fishlake. Field fence is around 75 bucks for 300ftx4ft high X that by two per 300ft to get the fence high enough to keep the deer out. Now go look at how much hay is stored, giving tags for compensation is much cheaper and since they are resident deer they do not affect most of your hunting. The tags do help keep money in the DWR's pockets though to put towards areas that do affect the herds most people hunt. This idea of fencing off entire crop fields is just silly. Great idea concentrate the whole migration to the highways and roads, where will the deer end up, Walmart for the winter???


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Yes farmers do get help with insects from the gov. Ever heard of a mormon cricket?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

My point being; If taxpayers subsidize insect control, why not deer control? Why do we have to pay (through our licenses) for damage done by deer? 

Fishrmn


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

PBH said:


> I'm still confused.
> 
> I still don't understand why, with some much money at stake, don't farmers and ranchers do more to keep the deer away from their investments?
> 
> ...


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

PBH said:


> I still don't understand why, with some much money at stake, don't farmers and ranchers do more to keep the deer away from their investments?
> 
> I don't understand why, if our deer herds are actually in as much trouble as some want to believe, are we still allowing depredation\mitigation of antlerless deer?


To answer that, I think it's necessary to look at the issue from the viewpoint of someone who isn't necessarily a hunter. As hunters, we think herd conditions and numbers are important. From the viewpoint of most people in the state, it's a non-problem. Deer eat crops, they run in front of cars, they nibble on fruit trees and eat tulips in the spring. In other words, from many (if not most) people's perspectives, deer are nice and they're cool to look at, but they're huge nuisances when they get too close. I mean, really, most people probably wish we had fewer deer in the state - especially after crashing their car into one. Hunters have the minority view.

As for ranchers' views on deer and elk damage compensation, the state does its best (which often isn't good enough) to increase the numbers of these animals for us hunters, so from a farmers point of view, if the state is using public money to increase the numbers of these nuisance animals, the state better well be willing to pay out some money when those state-sponsered deer and elk start eating their crops, chewing on their haystacks and knocking down their fences.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> My point being; If taxpayers subsidize insect control, why not deer control? Why do we have to pay (through our licenses) for damage done by deer?
> 
> Fishrmn


_The sportsman are the ones who care about the deer not the mass population. Insects have a direct impact on everyone, not just the farmers and ranchers_


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

HunterGeek that post said everything really well.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I'm still confused. We have farmers complaining about not having enough money to protect their investment and operate their buisness without damages from other animals. Isn't this part of the business you are in?? I guess it just doesn't make sense that farmers can just ignore fencing because they know that the DWR will take care of that portion of their business for them.

I sure wish it worked that way in my profession...


As for "resident" farm deer -- they wouldn't be resident if they were fenced out, correct? So, if they couldn't access the alfalfa in the first place, they most likely would have an affect on the "other" deer.

Keeping the same amount of tags on male deer won't affect deer herd size. Deer herd size is controlled through female numbers. If you want to reduce the number animals in a herd, you kill the females. If you want to increase the size of the herd, you allow the females to live.


I still don't get why a farmer wouldn't do something about fencing to protect their investment. It still sounds to me like they don't do it because they know that they can get someone else (DWR) to do it for them. A bit Tom Sawyerish if you ask me...



(I'm not saying fencing is right, or wrong, or the best solution. I'm just trying to discuss something that I don't fully understand.)

Consider: I live in an area known for prarie dogs. I certainly DO NOT want dogs on my property. Why? They cause damage. So, I'll do everything I legally can to prevent the dogs from coming on my property and establishing themselves. This includes prarie dog fencing. It would come out of my own pocket to install this fencing. It is unsightly, and a pain to maintain. But, my investment in my property is too much to just stand around and wait for the dogs to move in on my property. I'm not going to wait until that happens, and then hope that the DWR will step in and take care of my problem.

I guess the difference with the above is incentive. There is no incentive to having dogs on my property. Farmers DO have incentive. They get tags\compensation when deer move in on their property.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> I thought depredation tags were the tags you get when your on the depredation list and the division calls up and says meet the CO at such and such a place and you go kill the elk or deer. The whole system is so confusing anymore it is hard to keep up with all the different type of tags. Hell we've got general tags,LE tags,depredation tags,mitigation tags,land owner tags(the ones they get for enrolling in the CWMU program),CWMU tags and who knows what I missed. Either way I am going to be spending time with my kid and another forum member on saturday hunting deer and hopefully some bunnies and maybe catch a fish or two. Seems to me with the ?mitigation? tags should be vouchers as well,if they are not already this way,the landowner could sell them or give them away whatever he decided and somebody gets to hunt.For a landowner seems like a win-win if he could sell them he gets a little cash to make up for wildlife damage and eliminates the animals doing the damage. Worked out good for me with this one because I wasn't able to put in for any draws and I will get to restock the freezer with venison. I guess I will have to get the book out and read some more so I use the right terminology so ignorance doesn't eminate from my keyboard.


Depredation tags can be drawn for a specific area via the general draw, or depredation vouchers can be issued to landowners. In the later case, the landowner gets X number of vouchers. He then signs the voucher over to an individual, they then take it to the F&G office and pay for the actual tag. "Buying" a landowner tag in this case, is simply buying the voucher part, but the true license cost still gets paid to the F&G.

Mitigation tags get issued specifically to an individual right up front, and they have the actual persons name right on the tag and its only good for the property its issued for. There is NO fee, and it cannot be transfered to anyone else.

I used to get Mitigation cow elk tags on some family property a while back. I havent had a tag in years though. /shrug

-DallanC


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

How about letting them shoot all of the deer on there ranches. Before my parents ranch was homesteaded, before there was a DWR or a State of Utah the deer weren't there. It took the building of reservoirs to store the water to irrigate the crops.(I would bet you fish some of those same rancher provided waters)Don't let me forget about the canals to get the water to the fields. My parents ranch has been made what it is today from no help from the DWR, it was desert land before the water was brought there. My grandpa said the deer moved in after the land was made what it is today. A bullet is cheaper than a fence.


----------



## reaper (Nov 18, 2010)

PBH, Cost is the reason and fencing is only a bandaid. Farmers make very little as it is, adding extra fencing and maintaining it would be a huge cost and burden on them. A farmer already works 16hrs a day, not much time left to add to his pile of jobs. Also if the farmers and ranchers fenced off all their land, the migrating herds would all but be wiped out the first year. How would you feed all those animals and where, 5th and main???


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

PBH we also have those stupid dogs on our ranch, but we have the ones you can legally shoot. Have you ever seen what a prairie dog can do to a earthen dam on a pond when they dig to far in toward the pond?. I don't know how many acres of hay that took out. You make it sound like ranchers have it easy, I would like to know what profession you are in that you have time to make such lengthy posts on this forum during work hours?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

We all have variables in the profession/area we choose to sustain our livelihood. I think the difference with farmers and depredation is that hunters push to artificially sustain larger animal populations for sport etc. I liken this to a concrete guy having to deal with neighborhood animals that consistently run through freshly finished concrete. Would he/they have a case against these nuisance animals interfering with what they are trying to accomplish? Absolutely, especially if it happened at every job.

Farmers have to deal with this every single day, every single year. I think if we just let things be and didn't restrict harvest, especially in the case of elk, that we as hunters could just tell them "tuff ****", but since we are manipulating the natural population for our benefit, we don't have much of a case against compensation of some kind.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

reaper said:


> PBH, Cost is the reason and fencing is only a bandaid. Farmers make very little as it is, adding extra fencing and maintaining it would be a huge cost and burden on them. A farmer already works 16hrs a day, not much time left to add to his pile of jobs. Also if the farmers and ranchers fenced off all their land, the migrating herds would all but be wiped out the first year. How would you feed all those animals and where, 5th and main???


I agree with reaper. Most farmers are lucky to break even, there is no budget for a fence.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Tree we concrete guys call that a dog paw finish and we charge more for that.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

EmptyNet said:


> PBH we also have those stupid dogs on our ranch, but we have the ones you can legally shoot. Have you ever seen what a prairie dog can do to a earthen dam on a pond when they dig to far in toward the pond?. I don't know how many acres of hay that took out. You make it sound like ranchers have it easy, I would like to know what profession you are in that you have time to make such lengthy posts on this forum during work hours?


Empty...I think you may be taking things a bit personally. I see what PBH is driving at. You could easily compare the local wildlife in a ranchers world to shoplifters in the retail world. They both cause damages and loss to the business. The thing is a retailer is not subsidized, reimbursed, or given any relief from shoplifters. It's his problem to deter them, what ever that cost may be. In the free market you either mark up your price after you build a fence or fail to keep up with your competition. As long as the rules are the same for all, then you should be able to fairly compete.

Second...we are being told deer herds are in trouble. The science tells us that if we want deer herds to increase the does and fawns are the key. Killing them makes the situation worse. Maybe a deer lives on your ranch year round but many of the fawns a doe drops willl grow up and live outside the ranch. Also if you fenced them out they wouldn't live on the ranch anymore.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

jahan said:


> I agree with reaper. Most farmers are lucky to break even, there is no budget for a fence.


I would argue the market prices for farmers are artificially low due to subsidies causing them to be unable to properly deal with costs. If you stop subsidies for everyone then everyone's cost of doing business goes up, and everyone's prices go up. Everyone still competes but can charge enough to pay to reasonably protect their investment. It's simple economics guys.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Bullsnot I thought we were having a discussion. Trying to compare other professions to ranching just doesn't seem right to me, if you haven't done it you can't see there side of it. I am one of many contractors that is struggling to stay a float, and I can say that concrete work is a lot easier than ranch work. I still don't see how the few tags that are given ranchers and farmers equal the damage that they do. I would bet that more than half of these tags never get filled.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

EmptyNet said:


> Bullsnot I thought we were having a discussion. Trying to compare other professions to ranching just doesn't seem right to me, if you haven't done it you can't see there side of it. I am one of many contractors that is struggling to stay a float, and I can say that concrete work is a lot easier than ranch work. I still don't see how the few tags that are given ranchers and farmers equal the damage that they do. I would bet that more than half of these tags never get filled.


We've owned and leased land for alfalfa in the past although we aren't in that business anymore so I know a little something about it. Each profession has it's unique challenges but business is business is business.

The point I'm making though isn't about you or any one person. I have no doubt you are struggling. My point if is they would do some things differently you would be able to compete better....i.e. charge your customers for your costs of doing business. Right now if a policy change takes something like this away from you...then it would sink you. But if we make your competition do the same thing all of you would have to raise your prices, your bill rate, your invoiced amount. In that case you would be able to absorb the costs.

For the record I'm not against alloting you some tags to hunt your ground. I'm just saying that rather than having a program in place to take out deer and elk that cause "damage" I would rather see you be able to absorb the costs of detering those animals and still compete in the market place.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with reaper. Most farmers are lucky to break even, there is no budget for a fence.
> ...


I doesn't work that way Bullsnot. I personally don't know anyone that gets subsidies for there farm or ranch, I don't think you understand the industry well enough to make assumptions that they should be able to afford fencing, could you have been able to make a profit while building a fence around your fields. Not all ranches are the same. The reason my family is still in the ranching business is the work and skill they put in. I know what PBH is trying to do, but this isn't the solution. I can say, at least he is trying to think of something, or get a discussion going in hopes that there may be an "AH HAA" :idea: moment. We all hunt, and would like to see more deer. Look at the bright side of things, we have a good elk herd in the state.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

I can see that some of you guys don't come from ranching/farming backgrounds.  

Farmers and ranchers don't set their prices. They sell for whatever the market is willing to pay that year. It's not exactly negotiable, and in recent years, ending the year in the black is the exception — hence the decline of the agriculture industry in the state over the past 50 years.

Eighty thousand for a deer fence is out of pocket cash that can't be recouped. Remember, we're not talking about fencing an urban backyard third of an acre. We're talking about fencing and maintaining hundreds of acres, and that cash comes out of a family's cash flow that's likely already in the red.

The state promotes, though various management and habitat programs, deer and elk herd growth. From a farmer's point of view, when the state manages for more of these animals, then restricts the options the farmer has at his disposal to deal with the problem, the state needs to pay for the damage that result from those programs. The state's answer is depredation hunts and sometimes helping out with other mitigation projects, like fencing, when it makes economic sense.

I think that we all should remember that deer and elk aren't managed for the exclusive benefit of hunters. Instead, these animals are managed from a very politicized point of view that takes into consideration a much wider swath of the public.

As evidence of this, look at how the regional RAC members are selected: they're deliberately composed of individuals that represent sportsmen, non-hunters, agriculture, federal land agencies, local public officials and the general citizenry. Hunters might pay for the bulk of the management, but they're only one voice among several that have different concerns and objectives that they'd like to see met. The agriculture industry's notion of what constitutes a good deer herd (fewer deer on agricultural land), for example is very different from that of most hunters (more deer in more places).


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I hope everyone is seeing where this is going....



The next time I hear anyone complain about some cow elk massacre (see any number of past Fish Lake cow elk hunting threads), I'll point them towards this thread. Ranchers and farmers hold the cards -- they control the elk numbers.


now, back to deer. 

So, anybody tell me what's up with the large barrier fence preventing deer depredation in several alfalfa (and pumpkin) fields north of Pragonah to Buckhorn Flat? It was (I believe) constructed by the UDWR. I also believe that it prevents deer from destroying alfalfa (and pumpkin) crop, while still allowing deer to migrate to winter range. This MUST be a figment of my imagination.

A fence certainly would be a large upfront expense. But, wouldn't a farmer make up that expense over the long run by protecting his investment from future damages? Weren't you guys throwing out numbers like $200,000 per year loss due to depredation?



Empty -- I'm not trying to make anything sound easy. I just don't get how we can say that deer herds are in trouble, and then hand over tags to kill does and fawns. It doesn't make sense. Expensive or not, it doesn't make sense...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I see some of you don't understand some of the basic principles of macroeconomics.  

Maybe a farmer in Utah doesn't get subsidised but there are many farms across the country that do, particularly in the plains states. Because they are subsidised they are able to keep producing their product at a lower price which drives down the market price and hurts the farmer that isn't subsidised. Doesn't matter who sets the price....same principles apply. 

Having said that let's not get too far off track. I understand that pricing for some items is set by the market but we are talking about alfalfa primarily here. That's what deer impact primarily. The price of bailed hay is not set by the market, it is set by the seller. At least in smaller operations it is. When we bought and sold hay it was set by the seller. So putting up a fence would not in fact be an unrecouped cost, it would be passed on the customer by the way of higher prices at market.

I will give you guys this though....if the cost of putting up a fence is unreasonably high then it wouldn't make sense. I think there may be an opportunity here for a creative inventor.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> I see some of you don't understand some of the basic principles of macroeconomics.
> 
> Maybe a farmer in Utah doesn't get subsidised but there are many farms across the country that do, particularly in the plains states. Because they are subsidised they are able to keep producing their product at a lower price which drives down the market price and hurts the farmer that isn't subsidised. Doesn't matter who sets the price....same principles apply.
> 
> ...


So you were willing to pay whatever price for the alfalfa? My guess is no, you knew what the going price was and would shop around if need be to get a good price. You could always try and jack up your price, but you won't sale it.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

jahan said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > I will give you guys this though....if the cost of putting up a fence is unreasonably high then it wouldn't make sense. I think there may be an opportunity here for a creative inventor.
> ...


Jahan...please read the last paragraph of my last post.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> The price of bailed hay is not set by the market, it is set by the seller. At least in smaller operations it is. When we bought and sold hay it was set by the seller. So putting up a fence would not in fact be an unrecouped cost, it would be passed on the customer by the way of higher prices at market.


As you mentioned, alfalfa isn't a typically a cash crop except for smaller hobbiest or extra-income farmers. Most alfalfa production is to support the farmer-rancher's livestock operation. If the alfalfa runs out before spring, the rancher is forced to buy it at market prices. And I disagree with you about for-sale bailed hay not being subject to market valuations. Sure, farmer Jones could set his prices higher than farmer Smith, but market forces will force farmer Jones to lower his prices or risk not selling the hay. If the higher priced hay does sell, the lower-priced hay will likely go up the next year - again, a response to market forces.

And actually a fence might very well be an unrecouped cost if the price of the fencing requirements disproportionately affects one alfalfa producer over another. Higher production costs due to wildlife damage mitigation issues for one farmer doesn't necessarily translate to higher mitigation costs for the guy on the other side of the valley.

Macroeconomic theory doesn't hold much significance to individual farmers operating on a microeconomic scale. Making the mortgage payment on a farm while having crops destroyed by state-funded deer herds or having to erect $50,000 fences might just push that farmer over the brink into insolvency or having to forgo a new tractor or sending his kid to college.

For that matter (back to macroeconomics) the entire state's agriculture industry is slowly going under due to competition from overseas, regulation, evolving production efficiencies that favor out-of-state locations and changing consumer habits. Placing additional burdens on farmers and ranchers to facilitate better big game herds for the pleasure of hunters, might be viewed as one more nail in the coffin. It may very well be that the writing is on the wall for, especially, Utah livestock producers. But from a rancher's point of view, a state-sponsored wildlife management area adjacent to his 300 acres of cultivated crops, is a danger to his his family's livelihood, and from his point of view, he should be compensated for the damage done to his crops from the state-sponsored elk or deer haven next door.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

wait a minute......so, the "state-sponsored elk or deer haven next door", which I'm assuming is a convoluted way of saying "the public land next door", is something that the farmer is holding against the Utah public? That doesn't make sense. Maybe the farmer shouldn't have purchased land next door to public land? Isn't it as much his own fault for farming next to public land?

See, I still just don't get it. I guess the answer is "well, then keep your damned PUBLIC animals off the farmers land!". Exactly. Let's put up some fences to keep those animals off the farmers alfalfa field. I don't see why we can't take the money used for compensatory damages, or tags, and use that money to help poor Mr. Farmer construct a fence that will keep those pesky deer off his alfalfa field. Help. I still feel it's partially his responsibility to keep the deer out -- but I'd be willing to sacrifice some of my own money (license dollars -- a portion of license dollars should go towards mitigation and depredation). 
Doesn't the State unemployment program work this way? Don't those collecting unemployment have to show that they are actively looking for employment in order to continue to receive unemployment checks? Why can't farmers/ranchers be the same? In order to continue to receive depredation\mitigation benefit, shouldn't the farmer\rancher show that they are actively attempting to depredate\mitigate on their own? Shouldn't they do _something_? (maybe they are -- I'm not saying that they aren't).


----------



## humpyflyguy (Sep 10, 2007)

PBH go for it, see how far your dumb idea goes.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Humpy there is no reason to call PBHs ideas dumb just because we don't agree with them.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

PBH my family acquired our ranch before Utah was made a state. So the public land came second, other than no public land touches my parents ranch.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

PBH I think you came up with the answer, If the DWR builds the fence then they should be able to take away the tags. PROBLEM SOLVED that was good thinkin PBH


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

empty -- this was brought up clear back on page 2. I know that the DWR helps with fencing projects. Heck, they might even front the whole cost in lieu of depredation\mitigation compensation.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

PBH said:


> Maybe the farmer shouldn't have purchased land next door to public land? Isn't it as much his own fault for farming next to public land?


I'll answer your rhetorical question by saying what you already know - the farmer probably had his land long before elk were an issue there. If it were the other way around, their might be a better argument. Even taking the broader view of human encroachment on wildlife habitat, when the question becomes a choice between realizing the economic value of land and letting the animals keep it, the animals will lose. Even those dang Cedar City prairie dogs down your way will eventually find themselves without a home.

As for fences, they're situationally a doable thing, but lining highways and freeways, for example, with deer and elk fences cuts migration routes and divides critical seasonal habitat. Deer (and vehicles) might be saved, but the artificially restricted carrying capacity of the remaining habitat might just make that a mute issue.

Also as you know, big game numbers are a tough and multifaceted problem with no easy solution - assuming that a realistic answer even exists.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

PBH do you remember a few years back when the guy(I refuse to call this guy a farmer or rancher)in enterprise that shot all of those deer that where in his hay field? I don't agree with what he did, but he had every legal right to protect his property. You can't compare your prairie dog problem to the deer problem. Deer aren't endangered, so if the deer belong to the DWR why should the landowners be the ones that have to build the fences you propose. Once again I will remind you about the cost difference between bullets and building fences.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I understand the tight margins of the rancher and farmer, I really do hope the writing is not on the wall for them. I am some what torn on the argument that deer and elk herds are managed for maximum herd size and the effects that has. I can see the ranchers point of view on that. 

I have two questions:

1 - How much of the damage being done is real vs. percieved? In other words how much damage are deer and elk really doing? Now I know the rancher will say they are eating them out of house and home. But I'm curious what the real damage is? Any man worth his salt will protect what he's got, it's a part of being human. But I can't help but wonder too if over react when protecting our property.

2 - Why would it not be worthwhile to assist farmers/ranchers in putting up fences?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

EmptyNet said:


> if the deer belong to the DWR why should the landowners be the ones that have to build the fences you propose. Once again I will remind you about the cost difference between bullets and building fences.


the deer don't belong to the DWR. They belong to the public. I've consistently stated that the landowners shouldn't have to be held responsible for the total cost of the fencing. I would be willing to have a portion of my own license fees go towards fencing projects to help mitigate damages done by deer.

this sounds just like the open range theory of fencing. Fences are NOT constructed to keep animals inside an area. They are constructed to keep things out.

good discussion. I've learned a few things. I'm out, 'til tomorrow.



EmptyNet said:


> Deer aren't endangered


 They might not be registered with the Endangered Species Act, but depending on who you talk to in Utah, this could be debatable.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I understand the principle behind this discussion....the state is maximizing herds so they should assist in matters of damage caused by that.

But from a business standpoint, and using the numbers being thrown around in the this thread, wouldn't it make sense to invest in an $80,000 fence to prevent $50,000 in annual losses? You would be positive on that investment in less than a year and half. Bullets may be cheaper but less effective in the long run and this still would make sound business sense.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> if the state is using public money to increase the numbers of these nuisance animals, the state better well be willing to pay out some money when those state-sponsered deer and elk start eating their crops, chewing on their haystacks and knocking down their fences.


Does the state compensate me when they run into my car? I've never been hit or hit a animal. But I don't think they help compensate me if that happens.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> I understand the principle behind this discussion....the state is maximizing herds so they should assist in matters of damage caused by that.
> 
> But from a business standpoint, and using the numbers being thrown around in the this thread, wouldn't it make sense to invest in an $80,000 fence to prevent $50,000 in annual losses? You would be positive on that investment in less than a year and half. Bullets may be cheaper but less effective in the long run and this still would make sound business sense.


If the farmer has an extra $80K sitting around I am sure he would put the fence up. I grew up in a farming community, and I never knew of a single farmer with a spare $80K in the bank.

Here is reality, one of the single biggest threats to mule deer, elk, and other wildlife is DEVELOPMENT, and if increased deer numbers are FORCED on framers, and they are told to pony up for the fences to keep these new deer out of THEIR fields, MORE farmers will sell out to developers. Once a farm is developed, it will NEVER be recovered. How many **** deer will be in that area once its a subdivision or strip mall?


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> Does the state compensate me when they run into my car? I've never been hit or hit a animal. But I don't think they help compensate me if that happens.


Now that's a good observation, and it speaks volumes on just how powerful and effective the agriculture/livestock lobby has been. Like I mentioned, each of the five RACs have two members apiece picked specifically to represent agriculture and livestock interests. The last I checked, AAA gets zero seats on the RACs. Maybe if the auto insurance industry or AAA were similarly effective in lobbying their causes, drivers and their insurance companies _would_ actually get reimbursed for deer and elk collisions.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I think people are forgetting that farmers used to be able to shoot nuisance wildlife if the DWR couldn't deal with the problem. That has largely gone away under the depredation tags.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> If the farmer has an extra $80K sitting around I am sure he would put the fence up. I grew up in a farming community, and I never knew of a single farmer with a spare $80K in the bank.


I know a man with a modest income that had his eye on a $500,000 mountain property with a small cabin sitting on it. Well out of his means. He noticed down the road that a logging company was doing some cutting. He asked the logging company if they'd be interested in logging the property he had an eye on. They said they were interested and he quickly went to the bank with an agreement in hand that the logging company would pay him $500,000 to log the property over the next 18 months. The bank granted the loan and within 18 months the man owned the property scott free, other than annual taxes of course. With a solid business plan a bank would approve any loan that paid itself off in 18 months to an established small business owner. Throw in some assistance from DWR mitigation funds. Take that for what it's worth.



proutdoors said:


> Here is reality, one of the single biggest threats to mule deer, elk, and other wildlife is DEVELOPMENT, and if increased deer numbers are FORCED on framers, and they are told to pony up for the fences to keep these new deer out of THEIR fields, MORE farmers will sell out to developers. Once a farm is developed, it will NEVER be recovered. How many **** deer will be in that area once its a subdivision or strip mall?


I hear you. I would not want to see a plan put in place that runs people out of business. I'm just wondering if ranchers are putting their thinking caps on. It might be worth a look for some is the only point I'm making. Ranchers are big on principle....I think that's good but as a business man in todays world you've got to think like a modern business owner.

Fair question...do the mitigation and depredation tags really help ranchers much? Do they remove enough mouths to make much of a positive difference?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Just wanted to throw one more thing out there that I just don't get....


The State pays for damages that PUBLIC deer do to PRIVATE land. OK, I guess I can understand that.
But, the State also pays for damages that PRIVATE cattle do to PUBLIC land. What's up with that?

If we're going to sit around and pay compensatory damages to private land owners from deer, then why the heck aren't private cattle companies paying compensatory damages for damages done to PUBLIC land?

this whole thread just seems so bassackwards to me!


----------



## humpyflyguy (Sep 10, 2007)

I have to call you out on the PBH, you need to get some facts straight. The ranchers pay the state a fee called an AUM (animal unit monthly) They don't run on the public land for free, and most of it is federal land. It is up the government to decide what they do with the money. Maybe the state should do the same to the farmer and pay them an AUM, maybe that is the answer.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

come on humpy! I know about leasing grazing rights. But, what happens when our streams and rivers are damaged by uncontrolled cattle access? Who pays for the rehabilitation? Also, you must consider that damages to streams and rivers extend downstream BEYOND cattle alotments! Who pays for those damages? The State. Me and you, whether we want to or not.

cattle don't run on public land for free, and deer don't run on private land for free. What's the difference?

The State spends thousands on repairing damage done by cattle. One _little_ example would be UM Creek. The State, along with TU, spent a lot of money repairing damages done by cattle on UM Creek, INCLUDING FENCING to keep the cattle off the stream!

Call me out all you want -- don't use the word "fact" if you don't have your own facts straight.

You know what the king of the forest is, right? It's a ****ing cow! How sorry is that?


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

humpyflyguy said:


> I have to call you out on the PBH, you need to get some facts straight. The ranchers pay the state a fee called an AUM (animal unit monthly) They don't run on the public land for free, and most of it is federal land. It is up the government to decide what they do with the money. Maybe the state should do the same to the farmer and pay them an AUM, maybe that is the answer.


....and that AUM is a pittance. The bottom line is landowners and hunters need each other and it should be a mutually beneficial relationship however it has become an us against them situation. Those that spend anytime at all in the outdoors it is not hard to understand why many landowners don't want to give permission to tresspass and it is understandable why many hunters have taken a hostile position toward landowners but this only serves to cause damage to both sides. It takes time and effort but with patient persistence a guy can attain permission to access private property. I for one am thankful for private property because it does provide sanctuary to the critters. Without the sanctuary that private property provides I suspect our herds would be in even worse shape than they are in now. I do however believe that Tree may be onto something about artificially inflated populations and we are now coming into a more natural population trend in regards to the deer herd.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Great post Larry!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> humpyflyguy said:
> 
> 
> > I have to call you out on the PBH, you need to get some facts straight. The ranchers pay the state a fee called an AUM (animal unit monthly) They don't run on the public land for free, and most of it is federal land. It is up the government to decide what they do with the money. Maybe the state should do the same to the farmer and pay them an AUM, maybe that is the answer.
> ...


BINGO! AUM's are just another form of subsidy.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I don't have a problem with private property owners and as a hunter I choose to work with them, rather than against them. My approach is to look at the system and I'm simply questioning if the status quo is still the best way to approach some of the problems that wildlife cause. I'm wondering if there isn't a better way. Many have taken the time to explain the way things are and why something else can't be done. But most of the reasons I hear some to be out dated reasons i.e. the way things were done 20-30 years ago and don't necessarily apply to todays world. Now I could be wrong about that but it's hard to get anyone to answer my questions.

When approaching a problem like this its usually a fairly simple process to determine the size of the problem (real not percieved) and look at the size of possible fixes to determine the best course of action. The status quo has been depredation and mitigation programs. One of my questions are how big is the real problem i.e. how much property damage are we talking? If the damage is really $50,000 annually to some farmers /ranchers and it would cost $80,000 to fence the property the solution is rather simple. Investing in a fence is a very cost effective, high return solution. In today's world you don't need a lump of change sitting in the bank either to fund a project like this, especially if the DWR was willing to assist with funds from the mitigation/depredation program.

It just seems the status quo is a money pit that never really resolves the problem, it is only a temporary feel good solution. If the damage is minimal, dispersed, and sporadic then perhaps the system we have now is the best. I'm just curious is all, I am not trying to pick on farmers/ranchers.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

How many pounds per day will a deer eat? How much per foot installed is deer fence? Bullsnot you keep throwing #s out there that may sound good to you, but there just #s you thought up....Here are some numbers for you to crunch. My parents place is one of the smaller in the area and it would take over 100,000 feet of deer fence, how is fence for that going to cost 80,000? There are about 200 head of deer, if a deer eats 6lbs a day(I don't know how much deer eat, just pulling a # out of thin air)that's 1200 lbs. a day, 438,000 lbs. a year, so 219 tons a year. at an estimated loss of $22,000. I would bet that fence cost more than $8 per foot installed. That's a grand total of 800,000, that plan doesn't look so good now does it. o-||


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

No


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Farmers just got SCREWED over by our lovely government... unbelievable. Anyone that voted for Obama and Co needs to be horsewhipped.

Google up bill S 510. It puts the Food and Farms under the Dept of Homeland Security. 

No if's, ands or buts... when they look back through history to the time when Free America collapsed, it will be the Dept of Homeland Security that was the power behind it. Anyone notice how casually the Dept of Homeland security siezed websites due to piracy claims? Warrentless siezures? Why would that in any way shape or form be under the jurisdiction of DoH???

So now farms are officially under control of DoH. And with this bill, basically without some new licensing & restrictions ... its now illegal to grow and sell food locally. 

I kid you not. I am absolutely dumbfounded at how quickly the governement is asserting its power and control over this nation.


-DallanC


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

EmptyNet said:


> How many pounds per day will a deer eat? How much per foot installed is deer fence? Bullsnot you keep throwing #s out there that may sound good to you, but there just #s you thought up....Here are some numbers for you to crunch. My parents place is one of the smaller in the area and it would take over 100,000 feet of deer fence, how is fence for that going to cost 80,000? There are about 200 head of deer, if a deer eats 6lbs a day(I don't know how much deer eat, just pulling a # out of thin air)that's 1200 lbs. a day, 438,000 lbs. a year, so 219 tons a year. at an estimated loss of $22,000. I would bet that fence cost more than $8 per foot installed. That's a grand total of 800,000, that plan doesn't look so good now does it. o-||


Hey fair enough. It doesn't look like a cost effective solution. But for the record I didn't make anything up. I used numbers that were being thrown around in this thread.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

DallaC don't get yourself in a panic, this is from that bill

SEC. 403. JURISDICTION; AUTHORITIES.

Nothing in this Act, or an amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to--

(1) alter the jurisdiction between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, under applicable statutes, regulations, or agreements regarding voluntary inspection of non-amenable species under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.);

It goes through all jurisdictions after that, I just didn't think we needed to get to far off of the subject so I didn't put the whole bill in.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

PBH you should go eat lunch at Top Spot, and as your eating your all beef patty you can curse under your breath,"****** cows". I think that will make you feel better. :lol:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

empty -- seriously? So, this begs the question, where do those all beef patties come from? I know that Walmart does NOT purchase any of their beef from my uncles cattle operation. Neither does Smiths. Or Fresh Market or Lin's.

So, where do our grocery stores get their beef from? Are they purchasing from local (Utah) based cattle ranches?

I've always wondered, when I've come across a cow standing in the middle of the river I'm fishing, will I be eating THAT cow any time soon?


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

A lot of that depends on which market they sell to, and what meat packing co. has the demand. The meat packers in this country set the price most of the time on all meat prices, there just isn't enough competition between packing companies so they usually set the price. I'm not to sure where Smiths or Lins or Fresh Market Get their beef, but Walmarts mostly comes from south of the border. I don't know what market your uncle sells to, whether it is the one in Cedar, Salina or one of the others, most small ranchers beef is purchased by larger cattle companies. There are a few big outfits out of Colorado that have been buying like crazy lately. You can ask the butchers where their beef comes from, but I don't think they will know what ranch. I get mine straight from the source. You should buy one from your uncle, it's a lot cheaper that way, you also know what your getting.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I appreciate your answer.



EmptyNet said:


> You should buy one from your uncle, it's a lot cheaper that way, you also know what your getting.


I don't buy much beef from the store. My family eats a lot more elk than we do beef. Not that I don't like beef...i just really like elk!

I know that Brad's buys from Kanab Custom meats, I don't know where they get their beef from. As for Top Spot, I'm not positive if those "all beef patties" are really _all beef_... :shock:

So, this still begs the quetion: when I see a cow on the mountain, is it really going to end up on my dinner table? What happens to the majority of cattle in Utah? Do they end up in our restaurants, grocery stores, etc.? (I'm really curious. I'm not being a smart ass).


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

I know that, It's just not that simple of an answer. My parent sell to what ever market gets them the most, so most likely it will go out of state and then redistributed. If it doesn't say its locally grown, then it has come from out of state, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have purchased some from Utah. Thats good being able to keep elk on the table. Out of the six guys I was supposed to go spike hunting with four of them filled their tags.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Farmers just got SCREWED over by our lovely government... unbelievable. Anyone that voted for Obama and Co needs to be horsewhipped.
> 
> Google up bill S 510. It puts the Food and Farms under the Dept of Homeland Security.
> 
> ...


HR 875 is the House's counterpart to S510 
http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-02mar2009.htm
I fail to see where this is being put under Homeland Security. Dept. of Health and Human Services is who will have jurisdiction.
This bill actually came about as a result of that Salmonella outbreak in peanuts well over a year ago.
My Son had heard much of the rumors that you've stated and was concerned (since I grow organic produce and sell locally) how it would effect me. So I've looked into it and all the rumors are hogwash. It will not make it illegal for me to grow and sell produce locally, or be able to use it for my own use.
http://delauro.house.gov/files/HR875_Myths_Facts1.pdf

BTW....Dept. of Homeland Security I believe was established under G.W. not Obama.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

The Naturalist said:


> HR 875 is the House's counterpart to S510
> http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-02mar2009.htm
> 
> I fail to see where this is being put under Homeland Security. Dept. of Health and Human Services is who will have jurisdiction.


Type this into Google: "bill s 510 homeland security", there are currently 10 pages of results.



> BTW....Dept. of Homeland Security I believe was established under G.W. not Obama.


True, and one thing I hated about Bush, but all recient new powers given to Homeland Security are from the current administration.

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

One more thing, since I first posted about this: it was discovered the passed bill had a new tax included in it. The senate of course, cannot legally create new taxes, those have to come from the House.



> NaturalNews) It is now being revealed that US Senators slipped up in a big way when passing the Food Safety Modernization Act on Tuesday: They added what are effectively "new taxes" into the bill, and according to the U.S. Constitution, only the House of Representatives can initiate legislation requiring new taxes.
> 
> Thus, the House is now obliged to give this food safety legislation the so-called "blue slip," meaning that it rejects the law and sends it back to the Senate for yet another vote. This would take time and effort, of course, and the Democrats have very little of either remaining in their lame duck session.


So it appears the bill will get nixxed regardless.

-DallanC


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

PBH. You Talking about UM Creek up Sheep Valley Way? Man I've caught a ton of small Tigers out a that creek. 6 years ago, As for cattle killing off the Creek. Stinking Wormers hit that stream took just bout every fish in it. No enforcement at all! Time was you could put on a hopper barbless and catch and release 50 fish in a few hours. No more fish haven't seen any put 
back in that water way.. **** Wormers! As for deperdation.. LEAVE THEM DOES ALONE ! One doe could. 2 fawns or 3 fawns X couple hundred Do the math..


----------



## RECURVE (Dec 1, 2010)

what does the term de-predation really have to do with killing does?
does it mean that we kill them before the predators get to?
does it mean we should be killing the predators as the term would suggest?
or does it mean we kill those evil does before they get to prey on the hay bales?
.........i'm just sayin' :roll:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

oldfudd -- I'm talking Danish Meadows.

"Wormers" have as much right as you and I to fish that stream, as well as harvest fish. You lost me at "barbless".


Merriam-Webster defines depredate as: 
1. to lay waste: plunder, ravage
2. to engage in plunder

Depredation is:
1. the act of preying upon or plundering; robbery; ravage.

doesn't sound like a very nice word, does it?


----------



## RECURVE (Dec 1, 2010)

That really isn't a very nice word.
I guess it really does mean to kill all the evil does before they can prey on the hay bales.
At least we know what the intended purpose of Depredation is.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

PBH, RECURVE would you guys be willing to lose $22,000 a year off your pay to save 6 does? It sounds like you only like to look at things very one sided. :roll: D-tags don't come close to compensate for most ranchers losses. Would you guys be willing to pay $3666 to shoot a doe? You guys think that is fair? This is what the DWR offers to the ranchers as compensation for the lose in revenue(hay). Find a better solution PBH.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

EmptyNet said:


> PBH, RECURVE would you guys be willing to lose $22,000 a year off your pay to save 6 does? If my job required me to lose that kind of money, I would find a new one. It sounds like you only like to look at things very one sided. :roll: D-tags don't come close to compensate for most ranchers losses. Would you guys be willing to pay $3666 to shoot a doe? You guys think that is fair? I think a doe is potentially more valuable to our economy than $3666..so, yes!This is what the DWR offers to the ranchers as compensation for the lose in revenue(hay). Find a better solution PBH.


The solution is simple--either protect your investment by doing something to keep the deer/elk from causing damage, or find a new livelihood! I don't understand why people believe the government should always bail them out! Again, if my livelihood was invested in selling hay or raising hay for livestock, I would be damned if I didn't try to keep the deer/elk off it.

I have neighbors that raise elk...they build good fences that keep their elk in, so why can't rancher's build fences to keep them out? Is it costly? Probably. Is it hard to maintain. Probably. Am I naive and ignorant to the plight of ranchers/farmers? Probably. But, again, I just don't understand the idea that if you can't make it on your own, the government should bail you out. I believe that farming/ranching in wildlife habitat is an inherent risk with the job!

Also, like PBH has already mentioned, it bothers me that the private ranching community can use public land for cattle to graze and cause lots of damage in the process with virtually no consequences, but as soon as public wildlife cause damage to private property the expectation is for the public to pay. Seems bassackwards to me!


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Go back and reread my posts. As far as your neighbor and his elk, totally different, isn't your neighbor supposed to keep his elk away from the wild population, different laws apply to raising elk. Also how many acres are you talking about???

If the doe is more valuable to our economy than 3666$ you should have to pay for it. You want these deer feed for free. It sounds to me like you haven't read all my posts or you have and just don't see the other side. What would you like explained better.

You say you would be damned if you didn't try to keep the deer/elk off of you land if you had a ranch. I am sure that guy in Enterprise that shot all of those deer a few years back(bucks and does if you remember)was doing that very thing. PROTECTING his land....(all though it would have been realistic to fence his property.)


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Let's just say for an example that for some reason it was put into law that all ranches had to put up deer fence around their property.

What impact could that have on the deer herd a whole?

1-They could be cut off from summer or winter range.

2-They could be cut off from a needed food or water source during tough times.

3-DWR no longer needed to give D-tags


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

EmptyNet said:


> Go back and reread my posts. As far as your neighbor and his elk, totally different, isn't your neighbor supposed to keep his elk away from the wild population, different laws apply to raising elk. Also how many acres are you talking about???It is totally different and the laws are totally different but the concepts are the same...fences can keep animals out. My neighbors have very little land fenced, but I am pretty sure the elk farm just south of Nephi has quite a lot of land fenced to keep elk in.
> 
> If the doe is more valuable to our economy than 3666$ you should have to pay for it. You want these deer feed for free.No, actually I don't want those deer fed for free. I want wildlife habitat to be good enough that deer aren't on private farmland. And, I especially don't want to give private people the idea that they have the "right" to force the public lots and lots of money to hunt public game. I want ranchers/farmers to take some responsibility in the problem and not put it all on hunters/DWR.  It sounds to me like you haven't read all my posts or you have and just don't see the other side. What would you like explained better.Like I said earlier, I probably don't understand the other side at all. But, again, I just don't understand the idea that the government should come in and bail out a farmer/rancher who can't make money because of the inherent risks in his job.
> 
> You say you would be damned if you didn't try to keep the deer/elk off of you land if you had a ranch. I am sure that guy in Enterprise that shot all of those deer a few years back(bucks and does if you remember)was doing that very thing. PROTECTING his land....(all though it would have been realistic to fence his property.) I am also sure that the individual who, as a result of the rancher's actions, shot all the cattle was also PROTECTING his/her public animals. But, that doesn't make it right now either.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

EmptyNet said:


> Let's just say for an example that for some reason it was put into law that all ranches had to put up deer fence around their property.
> 
> What impact could that have on the deer herd a whole?
> 
> ...


Whooooaaaa horsey. I am in no way saying that all ranchers/farmers should have to fence their property to keep deer/elk or other animals out. What I am saying is that more of the responsibility should be placed on the farmer/rancher. If they don't want the wildlife on their land, they should take legal steps to mitigate the problem. Otherwise, deal with it. I feel the same way about all the deer that wander down in to towns like Bountiful and destroy the little shrubs...


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

I don't know anyone that is being bailed out by the gov. Please explain to me how six tags is being bailed out. Your trying to tell me that they should have to build over a twenty mile long fence. wyoming2utah state law allows the farmer or rancher to defend there land, I guess they shouldn't be able to shoot jackrabbits, since coyotes need them for food, and maybe if there were more of them the coyotes would leave the deer alone. Should we continue to compare apples to prunes. o-||


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

In the past these problems have been solved with a bullet. D-tags keep the rest of the herd from being shot. D-tags are a modern solution to the problem, you make it sound like D-tags are the reason the deer are in a decline. 

Look at the AZ strip, NO D-tags are given, the deer herd is still declining.  

The DWR continues to monitor the status of the deer herd on my parents ranch and the tags are different from year to year.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

EmptyNet said:


> I don't know anyone that is being bailed out by the gov. Please explain to me how six tags is being bailed out. why are you getting those 6 tags? Your trying to tell me that they should have to build over a twenty mile long fence. NO. I am trying to tell you that it should be the rancher's responsibility to protect his investment....and not force the government to bail him out by giving him money or allowing him to simply shoot the animals.wyoming2utah state law allows the farmer or rancher to defend there land, I guess they shouldn't be able to shoot jackrabbits, since coyotes need them for food, and maybe if there were more of them the coyotes would leave the deer alone. Should we continue to compare apples to prunes. o-||


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

EmptyNet said:


> , you make it sound like D-tags are the reason the deer are in a decline.


In some areas depredation has been identified as PART of the problem....


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Let me give you a quick history of my parents place, my great grandpa homesteaded it in the 80s. and thats not the 1980s. There was nothing there that would support the amount of deer that are currently. Reservoirs and canals were built to bring water to a place that had none. This was done by the ranchers and farmers in the area, not by any hunters or the DWR. You should learn some history of this state and how some of these high altitude res. got there. You think that D-tags have a big impact on the herd, is this herd size from the 1980s or the 1880s. I remember commenting on the deer on the ranch to my grandpa when I was younger. He told me when he was younger he didn't see deer on the ranch. I guess you think its wrong to get six tags for a herd that shouldn't be. I truly believe the deer herd today is larger than it was before Utah was settled. Read some early accounts of trappers or settlers, most of them ate elk, not deer.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

EmptyNet said:


> You think that D-tags have a big impact on the herd...


Not necessarily. BUT, IF the deer herd is in trouble, and declining, how do you increase it? By fawn production. How do you increase fawn production if you issue tags that allow for the killing of does?


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

We need more fawns to increase the size of the herd ON PUBLIC GROUND, not on private land where the public can't hunt.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Why should you count deer that you cant hunt


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The problem is that the the two aren't mutually exclusive--deer do NOT know what is private and what is public. So, deer spend a lot of their summer time on public land and much of their winter time on private land...and vice versa. If you kill does that winter on the benches and that spend some of their time stealing hay from private landowners, you are also hurting the recruitment and reproductive potential of animals that spend much/most of their time on public land.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Didn't I already say the deer on my parents ranch never leave. Summer winter fall spring same deer all year long.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Have you put collars on them to track their movements?


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Count the numbers year round, same amount of deer. why would you need to put a collar on them.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

If they don't migrate in, or out, and just stay year round, I would imagine that you could take care of all of them by killing only the bucks. Without the bucks, the does would have no more fawns. Without fawns, the herd on your parents land would eventually die off, which would then result in your problems being solved. No more depredation, no more damage. Problem solved.

but somehow I doubt that the deer on that ranch never leave.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

If the deer stayed there all year wouldn't the herd on the ranch be growing? 

Either animals are moving on and off the ranch or someone is keeping the herd thin.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

I guess since you guys own mass tracks of land that you take care of you must know more than I do. D-tags help keep the herd thin along with people shooting a few bucks, mostly my nephews hunting the ranch and their friends. I'm sure the coyotes do their part too. PBH once again you have posted an idea that you couldn't achieve without a high fence, when you have doe the bucks will come..


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

EmptyNet said:


> PBH once again you have posted an idea that you couldn't achieve without a high fence, when you have doe the bucks will come..





EmptyNet said:


> Didn't I already say the deer on my parents ranch never leave. Summer winter fall spring same deer all year long.


You have one unique ranch, my friend.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

I don't my parents do. If you head to checker board country you might understand more. The whole state isn't the same and not all deer move like they do on the Pine Valley unit. How many acres do you think I'm talking about? I guess some might move to the east on to Indian land which isn't "typical summer ground" it's about the same elevation. If they go east you or I no longer "own" the deer the Indians do. I don't think you can grasp the situation PBH unless I took you there. I don't think I could take a "cow hater" there and stay in the good graces of the family.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

> You have one unique ranch, my friend.


Must not be that unique with the amount of D-tags the DWR gives out. :roll:


----------



## RECURVE (Dec 1, 2010)

Empty, why don't your parents and their neighbors just get together with their mass tracts of land and become a CWMU. With your excellent deer population and the current situation there would be plenty of hunters wanting a tag that didn't get it in the draw, then you could sell the tags the DWR gives you for big $, give out less than 10% to the public draw, all your land is off limits to everyone else, and the dedicated hunters could come help put the fence up to keep the deer out of the haystack. Your problem could be solved and everyone else's could remain status qou with the direction the WB is taking. Less opportunity, more special interest.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

RECURVE that sounds good on paper, but trying to get all of the neighbors on board was impossible, they tried a few years ago. I suggested the walk in program, they are thinking about it.

PBH so fewer bucks=smaller herd, I know you said


> you could take care of all of them by killing only the bucks. Without the bucks, the does would have no more fawns. Without fawns, the herd on your parents land would eventually die off, which would then result in your problems being solved. No more depredation, no more damage. Problem solved.


seriously the DWR is going to buy into that. What option is that? Option #7 let the land owners kill all the bucks so the does will go away. -)O(-


----------



## RECURVE (Dec 1, 2010)

Empty, one more year of region hunting plus your land will always be in a hunting unit if you don't lock it all up, advertise and invite enough hunters in and take all those bucks legally. The DWR wants to save the does, it's the WB that wants to grow more bucks, unless the plan is for your nephews to honey hole a few to harvest each year


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

My moms plan is to turn the ranch into a wildlife preserve.


----------

