PDA

View Full Version : Farm Bureau opposed to NRC recommendation to eliminate late firearm antlerless deer s




Tom Morang
05-02-2003, 08:55 AM
Farm Bureau opposed to NRC recommendation to eliminate late firearm antlerless deer season for most of state


Michigan deer population remains too large to take control tool away, MFB says


LANSING, May 1, 2003 - Although next week's Natural Resources Commission (NRC) meeting lands during one of the busiest months for farmers, Michigan Farm Bureau (MFB) members are expected to attend the meeting to express opposition to an NRC recommendation to eliminate the late firearm antlerless deer hunting season for most of the state.
The NRC, which meets May 8 in Lansing, will discuss a proposal to amend the state Wildlife Conservation Order so that the late antlerless firearm deer season is available only on privately owned lands within Alcona, Alpena, Crawford, Montmorency, Oscoda, Otsego and Presque Isle counties as a means to eradicate bovine tuberculosis in the state's deer herd.
Currently, the late antlerless firearm deer season is available on most privately owned lands in the Lower Peninsula. The last season ran from Dec. 23, 2002 to Jan. 1, 2003.
"Michigan Farm Bureau will be at the meeting because now is not the time to take away what has been an effective tool to help manage the state's sizable deer population," said Rob Anderson, associate legislative counsel for the MFB, the state's largest general farm organization.
A report released in January by the Office of the Auditor General found that the 2002 deer herd was about 10 percent higher, or 325,000 deer larger, than allowed under state guidelines established in 2001. The report, which did not include figures from the state's early and late antlerless deer seasons, said hunters were expected to kill 325,000 deer during the 2002 firearms season but only harvested 288,000 deer.
According to the report, the eastern Upper Peninsula was the only area of the state where the number of deer was lower than population goals. "Without stronger methods to reduce deer populations, it is likely that significant overpopulations in many areas will continue," the audit said.
DNR reports, meanwhile, indicate that the late antlerless deer season traditionally has been an efficient control tool and was responsible for about 12 percent of last year's total antlerless deer harvest, Anderson said.
"When there's a state audit saying Michigan's deer herd is over the state target and farmers continue to express frustration over deer spreading bovine tuberculosis to cattle and destroying their crops, why would the NRC take any private land control tools away? It just doesn't send a consistent message," said Anderson.
While some critics may argue that the 10-day late antlerless deer season conflicts with the state's small game hunting season, the option to participate should remain in the hands of private landowners, Anderson said.
"It should be the landowner's decision to choose whether he wants to hunt for small game or control the deer on his property," he said. "That decision should not be taken away from landowners who use the late antlerless deer season as a control tool, especially farmland owners who have to contend with deer destroying their fruit trees and fields when winter food sources are scarce."
Anderson acknowledged that it could be problematic for some farmers to break free from spring planting to attend the hearing - another concern of Farm Bureau's.
The issue will only be up for consideration and discussion at next week's NRC meeting. Public comment will be accepted for 30 days following, after which the issue can be taken up for final action at the NRC's June meeting.
-30-




Pinefarm
05-02-2003, 10:12 AM
Imagine that! What farms does the Farm Bureau expect us to shoot these deer off of if the Farm Bureau doesn't suppy us with a list of farmers who want these deer shot off these farms? Say that 3 times fast! I think we should e-mail the Farm Bureau and ask them just that.
http://www.michiganfarmbureau.com/about/contactus.php

mich buckmaster
05-02-2003, 11:03 AM
Done!! I sent them a good message, I hope to be contacted back.

marty
05-02-2003, 02:57 PM
Yes this should be interesting. I emailed them and asked for farmers with deer problems in the NE Mi area. My poor inbox will probably be overflowing by tommorow at this time:rolleyes:
...........marty:D

Pinefarm
05-03-2003, 09:03 AM
Everytime the Farm Bureau raises it's head about too many deer, but "we farmers won't allow anyone on our private land", we need to hammer them with demands for a list of anyone who wants hunters help to control this mythical herd overrunning only their land. Don't hold your breath, farmers don't want them killed by anyone but their friends and family. I can assure you, if my property was being overrun with, say rats or locusts, I'd ask for all the help I could get. They are playing politics, but we can play politics too. They can't have it all, they have to meet us half way. The solution to their "problem" is beyond simple. Whatever there perceived deer problem is, it would be fixed in one season of allowing hunters to decimate their deer with antlerless permits.

huntingfool43
05-03-2003, 11:46 AM
I just hope the NRC don''t let the Farm Bureau have their way. It's time the NRC starts managing the heard for the betterment of the heard instead of special intrest groups like Farm Bureau.
Bob you are right about farmers not allowing hunters to thin the heard.There are several farmers around where I live that either do not allow anyone but family huntor charge outragous amont to hunt their land and then tell you what deer you can shoot and the ones you can not.

Pinefarm
05-03-2003, 12:08 PM
Yeah, if rats were overrunning my fields, I wouldn't have the guts to charge the people helping me out and clubbing them.

One Eye
05-03-2003, 12:30 PM
The last time this thing came up, we bombarded the FB with these same requests for access. The FB immediately responded by saying this was a carefully orchestrated e-mail campaign. This was an outright lie, as I e-mailed them on my own with no forms or templates provided by any hunting group.

Hunters need to continue to be heard in Lansing. Whenever the FB speaks up about too many deer and the need to eradicate them, we need to remind the NRC and the legislature that all hunters need is access to help them with their "problem".

If this was causing such economic impact on them, they would utilize any means necessary, including allowing more access to their lands.

I am done e-mailing the FB. I will concentrate my communications on the NRC and my elected officials, since they will be the ultimate decision makers on these issues.

Dan

farmlegend
05-03-2003, 04:01 PM
"There are several farmers around where I live that either do not allow anyone but family huntor charge outragous amont to hunt their land and then tell you what deer you can shoot and the ones you can not."

How dare those rascally farmers dictate to those hunting their land what kind of deer they should shoot? Just what the hell do they think this is, America? Them and their quaint little concept of property rights.

And just what is an outrageous amount to charge someone to have access to your land for hunting? Practically all leases I've observed are priced quite reasonably when compared to the cost of out-of-state hunts or land ownership/maintenance. If you don't like the price, don't lease from them. Certainly, no hunter is owed free access to private land.

One Eye
05-03-2003, 04:11 PM
I have no problem with anyone restricting access to their land. I also have no problem with them charging for access.

I do have a problem with farmers who "cry" about crop damage, but allow no hunters access to help with this problem. Contrary to most farmers' opinion, those deer are owned by the people of Michigan, not the individual land owner. Most farmers I know feel that they should be able to shoot any deer whenever they want. They view these great animals as pests.

If you are truly experiencing economic loss, wouldn't you do whatever it takes to eliminate the threat to your livelihood? How many farmers in Michigan truly rely on farming for their sole source of income?

Dan

huntingfool43
05-03-2003, 09:00 PM
farmlegend


I would say $350.00 for 2 weeks hunting is a little steep. On top of that you are allowed to shoot a 1 doe or a buck that is wider than his ears. For that money you should be allowed any deer you want. As far as the ones who only allow family to hunt and they still complain about to many deer need to shut up or open their land up.

boehr
05-04-2003, 08:07 AM
Ok, I'll chime in too.

First, I believe it's a mistake to completely do away with the late season. We still have too many areas where we have too many deer. Some counties have been closed and it should continue to be on a county by county bases.

Second, don't stero-type all farmers. Some of what is said is true and some is false, that too should be dealt with on a case by case bases. Remember, farm bureau doesn't speak for all farmers no more than you or I speak for all hunters.

Third, there is nothing wrong with just allowing family and friends only to hunt your property so don't go there. However, if a person is complaining about deer and nobody is hunting then there is a problem. Being a farm has nothing to do with it.

Fourth, I have heard time and time again that liability issues is a concern of many people not allowing hunters to hunt their land, farmers or otherwise. However, when you pay someone to hunt, you get closer to a liability issue.

324.73301(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a cause of action shall not arise for injuries to a person who is on the land of another without paying to the owner, tenant, or lessee of the land a valuable consideration for the purpose of fishing, hunting, trapping, ... unless the injuries were caused by the gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct of the owner, tenant, or lessee....

Although having stated that, I will reiterate that I know of absoulutely no civil action that has ever been taken against any property owner for the sole purpose of allowing someone to hunt their land, paying or otherwise.

Last but not least, keep in mind that just because a farmer is complaining about crop damage doesn't automatically mean that a hunter can do anything about it even if allowed to hunt there. Crop damage happens when the crops are growing, in the mid to late summer for the most part. There are some farms out there that by the time hunting season comes around and the crops are already harvested, the deer are gone, moved on to another location. You could hunt there for free every year and likely never see a deer during the season in some of those places. I realize this has nothing to do with the late season but it does have to do with stero-typing farmers.

Of course this argument could be used in the baiting debate too. Never mind, I didn't say that, off topic.;)

DRHUNTER
05-04-2003, 04:51 PM
Sent the letter. Not pretty, but from the heart. I encourage everyone on this site to let the Farm B. know how you feel. The pen is more powerful than the sword. Just an observation regarding crop damage. I owned property in Michigans thumb for 14 years. I allowed the Farmer adjacent to my land to grow crops on my land for free just to keep the land cleared. While bowhunting along the corn I would watch Raccoons wreak havok on the corn. Staddling the stalks and bending them over before ripping the cob off. I can tell you that the coons did a lot of damage to that corn field. The farmer told me many times that the coons did more damage to the corn than the deer would and there were a lot of deer in the area. Now I know the deer do hit the beans and other cash crops but it just seems to me that between hail storms, wind, drought, and to much rain that the deer are taking an unfair perportion of the blame for crop loss. In regards to the TB problem in northeast Michigan. Last year I spoke with a DNR biologist. He told me that The DNR has known for 50 years that approx. 1% of the deer in Michigan will carry TB. But the deer have always been dispersed prior to baiting and it was not an issue. It seems that the recent data on TB indicates that his statement is quit accurate. This is why I draw the conclusion that there is more to the deer slaughter than we the hunters are being told. Just my thoughts.

goose hunter
05-08-2003, 01:36 PM
$350 for 2 weeks hunting is dirt cheap in my book. I wished they would not shorten the late season. On our farms this is the most productive time for us to harvest deer. It is also the slowest time around the farm. I am against the DNR having to over manage the deer hunting. It should be in our hands how many and what sex deer we take on our farms. I'm against any limit on private lands and think the owners should make the call as to how the herd is managed. They dont allow you to fence out the deer so we should be allowed to manage them how we see fit. Just more of my B.S.

Hamilton Reef
05-09-2003, 10:28 PM
Deer finds State Farm neighborly 05/09/03

BLOOMINGTON -- State Farm Insurance Cos. will have to foot the bill itself after a deer hoofed its way through corporate headquarters Thursday.
No claim will be filed

http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/050903/new_20030509014.shtml
:D

Trophy Specialist
05-12-2003, 03:24 PM
Instead of wasting your time writing to the Farm Bureau, who really don't give a rat's a** what non-members think, I'd suggest focusing your efforts by writing to the DNR commissioners, each and every one of them. Also write your representatives in Lansing and don't forget the Governor who ultimately chooses DNR commissioners, who make the laws.