POLL: MOST BENEFICIAL REGULATION CHANGE?

[daniel93077]

I'm a big fan of 1 buck limit period...not a fan of special deals for landowners. Plenty of ways to manage the herd on large plots of land if that's part of the concern.

 

[iowavf]

I'm a big fan of 1 buck limit period...not a fan of special deals for landowners. Plenty of ways to manage the herd on large plots of land if that's part of the concern.

So landowners feed and house the deer year around so you can hunt them a few weeks out of the year, but they don't deserve anything for doing that? Who owns these large plots of land you're talking about?

 

[daniel93077]

So landowners feed and house the deer year around so you can hunt them a few weeks out of the year, but they don't deserve anything for doing that? Who owns these large plots of land you're talking about?

I never said anything about me getting anything from the landowner...and what I do get... I pay a premium for...and then I'm also the one feeding the deer with food plots.

1. Referring to large landowners because small landowners definitely don't need the extra tag for management purposes if there is other hunting going on within the properties surrounding them (assuming we are starting with the premise/assumption that the one buck limit is a good rule for the future of our herd).

2. What kind of feeding are we talking about? Personally, food plotting is a choice, there are benefits that I can appreciate but nobody is asking those landowners to "feed the deer". Also, I think there are plenty of benefits/arguments to be made about not allowing food plotting too but that's a whole different can of worms (yes I food plot but wouldn't be upset if it went away either...though I do enjoy it). Regarding feeding them with farming and crops they are already compensated for that.

3. Housing the deer - If you own wild places, and especially if you improve wild places, wildlife will live there...housing them in that way shouldn't give landowners extra rights above the common man. This isn't Europe...it's not the "Kings Deer".

4. Landowners are also compensated by their investment in land overall so I don't think an extra deer is necessary if this is truly about conservation and we are united that a one buck limit is a good conservation measure.

5. If they needed that one extra buck killed for management purposes they could charge for that.

6. If they needed that one extra buck killed they could mentor a kid each year and give them the gift of introducing them to the outdoors... I can't imagine better compensation for feeding and housing the deer.

7. Plenty of one buck states where landowners don't get another extra tag so not sure why it's needed here


I could keep going...but you see my line of reasoning

 

[iowavf]

I never said anything about me getting anything from the landowner...and what I do get... I pay a premium for...and then I'm also the one feeding the deer with food plots.

1. Referring to large landowners because small landowners definitely don't need the extra tag for management purposes if there is other hunting going on within the properties surrounding them (assuming we are starting with the premise/assumption that the one buck limit is a good rule for the future of our herd).

2. What kind of feeding are we talking about? Personally, food plotting is a choice, there are benefits that I can appreciate but nobody is asking those landowners to "feed the deer". Also, I think there are plenty of benefits/arguments to be made about not allowing food plotting too but that's a whole different can of worms (yes I food plot but wouldn't be upset if it went away either...though I do enjoy it). Regarding feeding them with farming and crops they are already compensated for that.

3. Housing the deer - If you own wild places, and especially if you improve wild places, wildlife will live there...housing them in that way shouldn't give landowners extra rights above the common man. This isn't Europe...it's not the "Kings Deer".

4. Landowners are also compensated by their investment in land overall so I don't think an extra deer is necessary if this is truly about conservation and we are united that a one buck limit is a good conservation measure.

5. If they needed that one extra buck killed for management purposes they could charge for that.

6. If they needed that one extra buck killed they could mentor a kid each year and give them the gift of introducing them to the outdoors... I can't imagine better compensation for feeding and housing the deer.

7. Plenty of one buck states where landowners don't get another extra tag so not sure why it's needed here


I could keep going...but you see my line of reasoning

Not really!

 

[daniel93077]

Not really!

Hmm…well I don’t know how much simpler to break down my reasoning for you.

I mean, I see your line of reasoning from the one post. Wasn’t too hard for me to understand.

Reasonable minds can disagree but if you don’t understand the line of reasoning not sure what more I can offer that would allow us have any kind of productive discussion about the merits of each position.

 

[Farm boy]

I never said anything about me getting anything from the landowner...and what I do get... I pay a premium for...and then I'm also the one feeding the deer with food plots.

1. Referring to large landowners because small landowners definitely don't need the extra tag for management purposes if there is other hunting going on within the properties surrounding them (assuming we are starting with the premise/assumption that the one buck limit is a good rule for the future of our herd).

2. What kind of feeding are we talking about? Personally, food plotting is a choice, there are benefits that I can appreciate but nobody is asking those landowners to "feed the deer". Also, I think there are plenty of benefits/arguments to be made about not allowing food plotting too but that's a whole different can of worms (yes I food plot but wouldn't be upset if it went away either...though I do enjoy it). Regarding feeding them with farming and crops they are already compensated for that.

3. Housing the deer - If you own wild places, and especially if you improve wild places, wildlife will live there...housing them in that way shouldn't give landowners extra rights above the common man. This isn't Europe...it's not the "Kings Deer".

4. Landowners are also compensated by their investment in land overall so I don't think an extra deer is necessary if this is truly about conservation and we are united that a one buck limit is a good conservation measure.

5. If they needed that one extra buck killed for management purposes they could charge for that.

6. If they needed that one extra buck killed they could mentor a kid each year and give them the gift of introducing them to the outdoors... I can't imagine better compensation for feeding and housing the deer.

7. Plenty of one buck states where landowners don't get another extra tag so not sure why it's needed here


I could keep going...but you see my line of reasoning

You struck a nerve on me.
Last sentence in point no. 2
Kinda hard for farmers to tell the deer not to eat my crops, then I am getting compensated?

Now to your point no. 3
You probably have never been in a combine before when it is harvesting.
I invite you into my cab and let you look at my yeild monitor. Green color is over 160 bu tan 40 and under.
I will attach a couple of pictures of 2 fields that have severe deer damage.
Neither one has any deer habitate done around it at ALL.
no. 4 I am compensated because of my investment. You have no idea how much investment it takes just to plant a crop , then watch it get eaten up.
The farmers r the the ones feeding the deer not you.

 

[daniel93077]

You struck a nerve on me.
Last sentence in point no. 2
Kinda hard for farmers to tell the deer not to eat my crops, then I am getting compensated?

Now to your point no. 3
You probably have never been in a combine before when it is harvesting.
I invite you into my cab and let you look at my yeild monitor. Green color is over 160 bu tan 40 and under.
I will attach a couple of pictures of 2 fields that have severe deer damage.
Neither one has any deer habitate done around it at ALL.
no. 4 I am compensated because of my investment. You have no idea how much investment it takes just to plant a crop , then watch it get eaten up.
The farmers r the the ones feeding the deer not you.

I figured I might strike a nerve with someone on that comment. I totally agree that farmers are the ones actually feeding the deer…no disagreement there.

Commodities markets are very volatile and certainly the degree of efficiency in that market at any one time is very variable.

However, yield loss from wildlife will definitely vary but shouldn’t vary statistically by extraordinarily large amounts year over year (not talking farm to farm but across the entire agricultural enterprise) unless we had a big die off…which the market would be aware of…. This being the case, it’s just simply an economic fact that those known yield losses are baked into commodity prices because all large markets are efficient at pricing in the “knowns” (and that’s why I can confidently state farmers…as a whole/not necessarily individually) are compensated by the market for those losses…never mind any other compensation/tax-payer subsidy that might come their way.

As it relates to the individual farmer I get that some farms are going to get hammered harder than others but also know there are tools for managing it. If there is above average yield loss on a farm due to deer I don’t see an extra landowner tag as the answer to that problem.

However, I stand-by my opinion that if the one-buck limit is about conservation then I don’t support the landowner tag. If it’s about something else then happy to have that discussion.

Family has farmed in Arkansas since the 1800s. I have spent a lot of time in a combine as a young man but not in years now because I left to defend our nation for 24+ years. I do know what you mean about their impact on yields…not landing on a different side of you on that.

I do agree with giving farmers measures to control deer populations on their property. 100% in support of that. I don’t think a single landowner tag for all landowners of a certain size is that solution.

 

[iowavf]

You struck a nerve on me.
Last sentence in point no. 2
Kinda hard for farmers to tell the deer not to eat my crops, then I am getting compensated?

Now to your point no. 3
You probably have never been in a combine before when it is harvesting.
I invite you into my cab and let you look at my yeild monitor. Green color is over 160 bu tan 40 and under.
I will attach a couple of pictures of 2 fields that have severe deer damage.
Neither one has any deer habitate done around it at ALL.
no. 4 I am compensated because of my investment. You have no idea how much investment it takes just to plant a crop , then watch it get eaten up.
The farmers r the the ones feeding the deer not you.

Glad I'm not the only one who was having a hard time figuring out his logic? He lost me on the compensated part that farmers get, almost made it sound like you get extra money from somewhere for feeding the deer? And it seems everyone just assumes every LO anysex tag is filled, and only used for bucks.

 

[newfarmer]

You struck a nerve on me.
Last sentence in point no. 2
Kinda hard for farmers to tell the deer not to eat my crops, then I am getting compensated?

Now to your point no. 3
You probably have never been in a combine before when it is harvesting.
I invite you into my cab and let you look at my yeild monitor. Green color is over 160 bu tan 40 and under.
I will attach a couple of pictures of 2 fields that have severe deer damage.
Neither one has any deer habitate done around it at ALL.
no. 4 I am compensated because of my investment. You have no idea how much investment it takes just to plant a crop , then watch it get eaten up.
The farmers r the the ones feeding the deer not you.

Not disagreeing with you one once- but do you believe the damage is actually from deer? Or is it knocked down like coon and turkeys have had at it? I know my neighbor was blaming deer, but I hung cameras and showed him coon. I caught 53 coon crossing his fenceline, but yes, he did have some deer damage as well....

Glad I'm not the only one who was having a hard time figuring out his logic? He lost me on the compensated part that farmers get, almost made it sound like you get extra money from somewhere for feeding the deer? And it seems everyone just assumes every LO anysex tag is filled, and only used for bucks.

Ive gotten LOT tags for 10ish years- so 4 per year, so 40 tags...and have filled less than 5 over the years... clearly doing something wrong...

 

[Farm boy]

Not disagreeing with you one once- but do you believe the damage is actually from deer? Or is it knocked down like coon and turkeys have had at it? I know my neighbor was blaming deer, but I hung cameras and showed him coon. I caught 53 coon crossing his fenceline, but yes, he did have some deer damage as well....

Ive gotten LOT tags for 10ish years- so 4 per year, so 40 tags...and have filled less than 5 over the years... clearly doing something wrong...

Not disagreeing with you one once- but do you believe the damage is actually from deer? Or is it knocked down like coon and turkeys have had at it? I know my neighbor was blaming deer, but I hung cameras and showed him coon. I caught 53 coon crossing his fenceline, but yes, he did have some deer damage as well....

Ive gotten LOT tags for 10ish years- so 4 per year, so 40 tags...and have filled less than 5 over the years... clearly doing something wrong...

Not disagreeing with you one once- but do you believe the damage is actually from deer? Or is it knocked down like coon and turkeys have had at it? I know my neighbor was blaming deer, but I hung cameras and showed him coon. I caught 53 coon crossing his fenceline, but yes, he did have some deer damage as well....

Ive gotten LOT tags for 10ish years- so 4 per year, so 40 tags...and have filled less than 5 over the years... clearly doing something wrong...

All three we have issues with.
I have actually watched for the first time turkeys fly up and land into the corn wings wide open and knock down corn.
I know how to tell the difference from deer and coon damage.
Will add most of my damage is from deer

 

[daniel93077]

Glad I'm not the only one who was having a hard time figuring out his logic? He lost me on the compensated part that farmers get, almost made it sound like you get extra money from somewhere for feeding the deer? And it seems everyone just assumes every LO anysex tag is filled, and only used for bucks.

Not extra money…compensation comes from the market and the market knows about the year to year losses from wildlife…markets are great at pricing in knowns. It’s the unknowns that the market can’t always adequately compensate for and that’s why those markets have so much volatility.

I get that doesn’t help each individual farmer who experiences varying degrees of yield loss. I can concede that,

Overall, farming is a very profitable enterprise. My family that is still into farming is probably amongst the wealthiest across my entire extended family. As well they should be, they work hard and risk a lot of capital.

 

[Farm boy]

I figured I might strike a nerve with someone on that comment. I totally agree that farmers are the ones actually feeding the deer…no disagreement there.

Commodities markets are very volatile and certainly the degree of efficiency in that market at any one time is very variable.

However, yield loss from wildlife will definitely vary but shouldn’t vary statistically by extraordinarily large amounts year over year (not talking farm to farm but across the entire agricultural enterprise) unless we had a big die off…which the market would be aware of…. This being the case, it’s just simply an economic fact that those known yield losses are baked into commodity prices because all large markets are efficient at pricing in the “knowns” (and that’s why I can confidently state farmers…as a whole/not necessarily individually) are compensated by the market for those losses…never mind any other compensation/tax-payer subsidy that might come their way.

As it relates to the individual farmer I get that some farms are going to get hammered harder than others but also know there are tools for managing it. If there is above average yield loss on a farm due to deer I don’t see an extra landowner tag as the answer to that problem.

However, I stand-by my opinion that if the one-buck limit is about conservation then I don’t support the landowner tag. If it’s about something else then happy to have that discussion.

Family has farmed in Arkansas since the 1800s. I have spent a lot of time in a combine as a young man but not in years now because I left to defend our nation for 24+ years. I do know what you mean about their impact on yields…not landing on a different side of you on that.

I do agree with giving farmers measures to control deer populations on their property. 100% in support of that. I don’t think a single landowner tag for all landowners of a certain size is that solution.

I want to say a big thanks for serving and defending our nation. I don't take freedom for granted

 

[daniel93077]

I want to say a big thanks for serving and defending our nation. I don't take freedom for granted

Thanks for feeding our nation and the world!

 

[IowaBuckMaster]

Maybe I'm an oddball, have access to LO tags, but haven't harvested a buck in several years, so it would be tough to not at least have the opportunity for Archery, Shotgun and ML. How many other LO's are in the same boat of rarely taking a buck with all 3 tags?

Rarely 3. On average 1.5 tags used per year.