# He's at it again



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

I swear, this guy has popped up in the news every year for this crap for the last few years.

Burleigh County man could serve four days in jail for dead deer
JENNY MICHAEL, Bismarck Tribune | Posted: Thursday, January 6, 2011 2:54 pm | (4) Comments

A Burleigh County man who pleaded guilty to killing deer on his feedlot could end up spending four days in jail for 17 Class A misdemeanors.

However, South Central District Judge Bruce Haskell won't make William Dethloff serve the sentence he handed down on Thursday until he has a chance to appeal the case to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

Dethloff entered a conditional guilty plea to eight counts of unlawful taking of big game and nine counts of unlawful possession of big game in October. He has admitted to shooting numerous deer on his feedlot near the Missouri River over the past 20 years but says he did so to protect his feed from hungry deer during wintertime. Dethloff also says North Dakota Game and Fish knew he was killing deer for years and did not adequately help him protect his feed from the animals.

A conditional guilty plea means a defendant could take back the plea if a higher court agrees with him over legal issues involved in the case.

Haskell sentenced Dethloff to one year in prison with all but four days suspended and two years of unsupervised probation. He ordered him to pay $8,500 in restitution for the deer and $1,350 in court fines and fees. The judge also stripped Dethloff of hunting, fishing and trapping privileges for three years. Haskell granted a stay of execution of sentence pending appeal, meaning Dethloff will not have to serve the sentence until after an appeal is resolved.

Dethloff was charged after neighbors called North Dakota Game and Fish in February 2010. Game wardens found some dead deer in plain sight and others buried in snow.

Dethloff, who was fined $200 in 1997 for shooting 56 deer, said Game and Fish wardens knew he was shooting deer to protect his feed supplies but did nothing about it. However, Game and Fish wardens said they had no evidence of Dethloff shooting deer until February 2010, though a Bismarck-area warden said she regularly stopped to check in with the Dethloffs since the 1997 case.

After the 1997 case, Game and Fish gave Dethloff materials to fence in a hay yard, but he and his daughter, Julie, said the yard would have been too small so they tried to use the materials in other ways to keep deer out. After the February incident, Game and Fish gave the Dethloffs items designed to scare deer by making noise, but Julie Dethloff said they only worked for a few days before deer caught on, and neighbors called the sheriff's department over the noise created by them..

The Dethloffs said they offered over the years to haul the deer to Game and Fish land or kill and process deer on their land and donate the meat to people in need.

Haskell said he was sentencing Dethloff to serve time in jail due to his previous conviction for the same thing, the "sheer number" of animals killed and the fact that the deer were killed and left to rot.

Haskell had ruled earlier that Dethloff could not use the defense of protecting his land and feed from deer as the offenses were "strict liability" crimes in which the state only had to prove that Dethloff had shot the deer. His attorney, Daniel Oster, has indicated that is what will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

"I'm certainly not unsympathetic to landowners who have these issues," the judge said


----------



## Norm70 (Aug 26, 2005)

this is tough issue. the guys that have 300 plus deer in there feedlot( i 300 b/c of where i bowhunted over xmas break. i stopped counting at 300) that would take a significant chunk of change out of a persons pocket. the G and F i am sure does what they can in a few places, but back in the winter of 97(when my family was still farming) deer took out about 1/3 of our main siledge pile. dad never shot one, but he did hit 2 during a blizzard that year. the game and fish was called they brought a total of 3 bales to the farm that winter. don't think that diverted them.

maybe nd needs to start thinking about giving permits out, like they do for geese??? I dunno.

By the way i don't know this guy, and have no idea what his story is other than what i read in the post.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

http://gf.nd.gov/multimedia/pubs/deer-depredation.html

vs MN

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/livingwith_w ... index.html
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/habit ... amage.html

vs SD

http://www.southdakotahunting.com/commu ... tion-hunts

(Links are broken under wildlife management.)
http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/private-land/technical.aspx

Seems like ND is behind the 8 ball is not allowing out of season control.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

The problem with this is that there are a lot of issues on both sides. While issuing depradation type permits one has to consider that the deer may be migrating from some distance to feed at that site. Killing them off could have a significant impact on a regional population. While the fences the G&F provide may not be large enough the property owner may just have to bite the bullet and dig in his own pocket to make it bigger. The G&F tries to manage herds the best they can but they can't completely control wild animals and it's not in the best interest of game management to eliminate them. Unfortunatly for the property owner it's just another "cost of doing business".

FWIW Building a fence around his feedlot probably wouldn't cost him as much as his attorney fees are going to...................


----------



## Flockshots92 (Jan 4, 2010)

Here is my take on this whole thing so take it for what it's worth.....Being a farmer and rancher myself I to bust my butt to put up a "winters worth" of bales. Now with this hard winter and all the snow, the deer have been getting into the bale stacks where they eat, tear up, and use them for a nice cozy bathroom. Now someone please answer this one for me, the game and fish gets to monitor who shoots them all fall, and they get all the financial benefits from the deer with licensing and etc. Now here comes winter and the deer are all starving and where are they now? I don't think its fair that I feed them all year they get any benefits that possibly exist from them and then I am not allowed to protect my own cattle feed???? I'm sorry if this sounds silly to people but someone else give me your thoughts......


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Flockshot, Deer depredation is just another "act of god" consequence that you have to live with when you choose to farm or ranch. It's no different than a hail storm in July or draught all summer. It seems different because you feel you can fix the problem with a handful of bullets. Farming and ranching come with inherent risks. Unfortunately those risks are often higher than in other vocations. I do have to ask if you have ever had to sell part of a herd off because of deer depredation? How bout anyone else? This is an honest question not trying to start a fight.

It seems that with all the deer depredation problems out there next fall there will be no posted signs around for deer season.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

swift said:


> It seems that with all the deer depredation problems out there next fall there will be no posted signs around for deer season.


 :thumb: :thumb:


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

in sd you get your name on a list then the gfp calls when some deer need to be shot have not done it but guess it is better than gut shooting them and letting them run off to die. just waiting for a call and i will do my part now if they had it so you could just donate the meat the .308 with a can and about 300 yds could do some damage


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

The link between 'posted land' and depredation is a tenuous one at best.In most situations the dep problems aren't with deer that spend the majority of time on that land.They come from land around for miles-land owned by others(State included)that now don't share in the 'hit' taken by only a few.Its a cutesy,simplistic,knee jerk response that does nothing for the problem.As 'sportsman',if we want deer we should bear the cost of feeding them with the landowners.Not what 'Sportsmen' like to hear and will likely generate more worthless,unhelpful 'farmer/landowner' rhetoric,but sometimes the truth hurts.
I'd like to hear why deer hunters shouldn't share in the 'hit'.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Because they do not own the land. When I can walk onto your land without asking then I should also share in the "hit" that you speak of. I agree that land owners and farmers know that this is something that will happen. Not saying it is fair or just, but these deer didn't just show up this year! You know that they are about. Unless I am mistaken, game & fish will help build a fence, or at least provide materials for it if there is depradation. I have a land owner that I have hunted on his land and I have been in contact with him about helping out with spreading and delivering bales. I also have some land where I have exclusive permission and I am feeding the deer myself. True sportsman almost always will help out on land where they have permission to hunt. Hopefully the guys that hunt your land will help out with whatever you need!! :wink:


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Are they the landowners deer then?If they are yours,why should he feed those beyond normal carrying capacity?And please spare me the silly 'act of god' stuff.An act of god is something beyond human control.Obviously deer aren't and could,in fact,be eradicated.
True Sportsmen help deer anywhere,not just where they hunt.And ducks.And pheasants.And....
As do almost all Sportsmans Orgs and groups.


----------



## Flockshots92 (Jan 4, 2010)

Yes I have had to downsize heards before and if you are against that then you have to go ahead and buy extra hay to make it through the winter. Especially in North Dakota winters are harder making a bigger push of deer to farm yards.....its not uncommon to see 100-300 deer at one farmstead. I don't see why more people dont agree with things such as the Game and Fish starting their own "food stations"or bait piles as we ******** call em. I want to hear what you guys think is the perfect solution........


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Duckp.......Have you built a fence?? Does SD game and fish help with that?? 
I should come to SD to help out with your deer depredation problems?? I guess I do not understand that logic. Usually people will help out where they can. I have belonged to several wildlife clubs off and on throughout the years. I have also helped wildlife get through the winters. But why should I help out someone in Minot when I am from Fargo? I have offered to help out where I hunt, but certainly you cannot expect me to help out the entire state or another state!!!???? That is just ridiculous!!


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Nope no fence.I'll feed if I have to or ask the State or local groups to help-and they will.And,I'll help others who have to carry 'your' deer if necessary.
As to 'ridiculous',do you belong to DU,PF,RMEF?Deer Hunting Orgs?Think about it.
Oh well,maybe all those Orgs are ridiculous.If you don't care about deer or people in Minot-or anywhere except where you hunt,I sincerely wish you'd hunt more places than you do.
Good hunting.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

So how much of this feeding is going against the natural sustainability of mother nature?

Maybe mr. Lier can speak on that topic.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Where did I say that they were MY deer. I do not remember saying that. Sorry!!
Also, I was one of the founding members of Delta in Fargo. I have belonged to Delta, DU, and PF throughout the years. I do contribute to many outdoor causes. I simply cannot expect to help out every deer depredation problem that crops up. It makes no sense for me to help out everyone. Sorry if that bothers you, but I would think that people should help out where they can. I simply do not have the financial means nor do I have the time to help out the entire state or the region for that mattter.
If mny business has some down time this winter can I count on you to help out?????? :wink:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is another way to look at it...

Should the state re-emburse insurance companies for every deer auto claim? It is the same thing insurance companies are losing $$ because of deer auto hits. Or should the people who get into the deer auto collision get their deductibles paid for by the state?

Now I am no way anti-farmer or anything like this. But is was stated before.... you are doing a business and the deer deprivation on your hay, even on crops. It is a risk in that business you are doing. It is a known risk. Sorry to put it bluntly but it is a fact. Other businesses don't get paid back by the state because of wildlife with in its borders. Why should farmers? The state is trying to help with building of fences. That is great. You don't see them helping out other business like that do you?


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

Wow...funny you don't hear about the G&F's door being busted in during the hunting season by landowners begging for deer to be shot when there are any number of people more than willing to help curb a problem herd. Come to think of it, that list of landowners the G&F possesses who are willing to let people on and hunt is surprisingly short....wonder why?!? :roll:


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Glad to hear you contribute to many causes.Great,congrats.I do as well as all who hunt should.You could contribute to this one as well-not by sending $$ as you seem to suggest I was urging(I'm not)but just by thinking it through a bit and realizing the importance of the issue.'Feeding' the peoples deer is a reality I think most farmers/ranchers/landowners accept-most happy to do it.That is,feeding the normal 'carrying capacity' of their land.They don't,for the most part,accept the obligation to feed all the deer in their area that congregate on their land but come from other lands.And,why should they?And,the argument it should be a double whammy cause they should also therefore open their lands to hunters if they don't want to is what's truly ridiculous.Opening their land when the deer don't reside there in the fall anyway ought to obviously be a silly proposition.
Hunters want more deer but many refuse to accept the 'costs'.They either don't understand the concept of 'carrying capacity' or,worse,don't care as long as they get more deer or at least maintain the herd at present levels.Thats historical and its been there a long time-but times they are a changing as Dylan used to sing.Population growth,land development(all types but particularly increased amounts of land going into Ag production)are changing 'carrying capacity' significantly.(black earth isn't CRP and security cover).If we as hunters want more deer etc,we must accept more costs for deer -and other wildlife populations IMO.Putting costs such as these on farmers/ranchers/landowners is shortsighted at best.
Good hunting.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

here's an interesting concept.

If a farmer/rancher gets assistance for depredation, the next year they are required to allow for PLOTS. They obviously are congregating there for a reason.

Do the neighbors have better protection on their feed or stocks? Yes, I understand the concept that deer congregate in the winter, yes I understand that deer migrate and have a range.

So if deer are coming together for groups of 100-300, that would mean with ND having a typical density of ~ 15 deer per sq mile, they would be emptying an area of about 8 to 20 sq mile. Considering a section is 36 sq mile, that's only from 4-5 miles away they are attracted.

so if that one person is having an issue, it's likely his neighbors are too. So how are they faring?

You want the goose, you pay the gander.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> If a farmer/rancher gets assistance for depredation, the next year they are required to allow for PLOTS. They obviously are congregating there for a reason.


Now that is a great idea. But the PLOTS would have to be pay free for the farmer. He can't double dip by getting assistance with the deprivation and then getting paid by PLOTS.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Farmer J,
Lots of landowners do enter PLOTS.Here in SoDak the new CREP program is getting great land open and thats all great-the future of meaningful hunting depends on 'opportunity' for hunters and thats a fact.
On the other hand,when someone has increasing depredation cause neighboring lands no longer 'carry' deer,guess what?There are a number of more realistic options for the landowner-like selling hunts to a few and making more $$ than having every T,Dick and Harry trouncing across his land.Yet this thread will ignore reality and soon will likely get into how landowners shouldn't lease or shouldn't 'outfit' or shouldn't sell hunts or....
Talk is cheap,talk can be mindless,hunting in the long run isn't going to be either.
Oh well,I've had my days so why worry I guess.
Good hunting all.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

Chuck Smith said:


> > If a farmer/rancher gets assistance for depredation, the next year they are required to allow for PLOTS. They obviously are congregating there for a reason.
> 
> 
> Now that is a great idea. But the PLOTS would have to be pay free for the farmer. He can't double dip by getting assistance with the deprivation and then getting paid by PLOTS.


The depredation assistance would BE his pay.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift, I do not believe the Acts of God you compare deer numbers to are controled in large part by the management of a govt agency.

As was pointed out deer travel from many miles away and are not soley residents of posted land owned by the rancher. What has not been addressed is the fallacy that hay yards are the answer. There are numerous issues regarding hay yards that people do not realize. The one I will mention follows. Regardless of wether hay is put into a fenced enclosure for storage, it has to be taken out and fed to livestock on a daily basis. At this time in instances of large deer numbers congregating, the deer will feed right amoungst the cattle. In reality this is as much an issue as the depredation and distruction of feed supplies with much more significant consequences.

In 2005 the G&F management goals were to have a deer population that 100,000 tags could maintain this was up substantially from what it had been during the previous decades when it sat around 75,000. From their website the 2010 management goals states they are targeting a deer herd that can be maintained by 125,000 tags over the next 5 year period. It would be hard to argue against the fact that the G&F management policy has been to increase the states deer herd over what it was in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's. From their website it states hunter interest as one of the three criterias in setting these goals along with public tolerance and depredation claims. In states such as Wi. Mi. and Mn. this hunter interest caused these respective game agencies to greatly increase the populations of deer in their states, and all three have seen the consequences. Here in ND we are lossing what many consider critical habitat in CRP acres and yet the G&F are increasing the management goals of the deer population over what they were 5 years ago by almost 25% and almost 50% from what it was ten years ago. How do they not think these kinds of incidents will not continue to happen as more deer live in less habitat?

There are two sides to every story, this one is no different. Unless you have directly experienced these kinds of issues or have delt with the G&F directly in regards to them you will not have an understanding of what is involved. I will be the first on to admit I do not know all the "facts" regarding this incident. Nor do I condone simply shooting and leaving deer lay. But I can tell you from having over 500 deer in our yard one winter in the late 90's ( only 2 quarters of land were posted anywhere around our ranch that year and years previous) that unlesss you have experienced it you will not understand the frustration that arises.

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/killing_of_deer?app_p=1 This is a link to this story on FBO that provides some more insight.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

gst said:


> In 2005 the G&F management goals were to have a deer population that 100,000 tags could maintain this was up substantially from what it had been during the previous decades when it sat around 75,000. From their website the 2010 management goals states they are targeting a deer herd that can be maintained by 125,000 tags over the next 5 year period. It would be hard to argue against the fact that the G&F management policy has been to increase the states deer herd over what it was in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's.


It could also be theorized that this hike in "management goals" could have come after the realization that there isn't a whole hell of a lot they can do to "control" the herd when conditions are right for it to get much much higher than management goals. Kind of a "if we cant bring it down to where we want it, we'll up our numbers to match more closely where it wants to be at".


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Gentlemen,
I suspect all here are well intentioned Sportsmen.All are interested in hunting and wildlife whether as a landowner or not.As hunters I urge everyone to consider looking outside the box a bit.
Why?I say its absolutely necessary to preserve huntings future.
If you doubt that,ask yourself just how have the old traditional approaches worked?Ha.I've had the privilege of hunting in your State for about 30 years.Its nigh impossible to fathom the changes I've observed.Posted land?Leased land just for hunting?Large tracts controlled by Outfitters?Fee hunting?All almost unheard of back then.
If hunters vs landowners remains the mindset,look around and think of the consequences.In disputes over land use between those forces who will win?Ha,if you think hunters will,you are part of the ongoing problem,not the new thinkers with cooperation and solutions.Fight and have more posting,leases,Outfitters,Fee hunting.Cooperate,spend $$ now and save later and insure future hunting for all.
Am I an alarmist?Perhaps but look back,hows it been going?Not good.
I've had my life of hunting thank god so its really not my war anymore but I see a very dismal future when prevailing attitudes put landowners and hunters at odds.
One final point.Your State is one of the last that has retained any vestige of the old time landowner ethic and attitude of letting any reasonable person hunt.Its changing rapidly with 2 factors propelling it more than anything in my view.An aging landowner base that had certain beliefs and the deadly duo of $$ and info.The new generation of landowners are taking over and for many reasons they have different values and needs.Ignore them and NoDak will very,VERY quickly become like the vast majority of other States where free hunting is nigh non-existent.
God I hope that doesn't happen but the downward spiral is accelerating while you pee and moan at each other.
Good hunting.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

barebackjack said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> > In 2005 the G&F management goals were to have a deer population that 100,000 tags could maintain this was up substantially from what it had been during the previous decades when it sat around 75,000. From their website the 2010 management goals states they are targeting a deer herd that can be maintained by 125,000 tags over the next 5 year period. It would be hard to argue against the fact that the G&F management policy has been to increase the states deer herd over what it was in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's.
> ...


bbj, it appears that is the position the G&F is taking in conversations they are having with certain groups. But it somewhat seems like a throw in the towel approach that admits their management stratagies of the past have not worked. If that is indeed the case, how can people then be blamed for taking matters into their own hands if the "professionals" and their management processes can not lower numbers to what their scienctific biologically based management plan says the population needs to be at or if they are not willing to work in these individual cases to actively lower numbers in ways they are not doing that may indeed work to control or lower numbers? As I said, it is not about providing hay yards, a hay yard is like putting a band aid on a broken arm, it does not deal with the problem, which in some localized instances is simply too many deer. Hopefully ND G&F will change their policies and will begin to understand much like every state surrounding us and the two provinces to the north, that there are indeed instances where depredation tags/hunts are necessary and will work towards figuring out a method whereby they may be used to everyones benefit.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

gst,

You make excellent points. There is no easy answer to the management issue. Especially in this day and age of widespread land restrictions. You cannot expect the G&F to "control" the herd when their primary management tool, "hunting", is hobbled by land access issues. If hunters cant access the deer, they cant very well "control" them.

As per the original issue of this landowner taking matters "into his own hands". I will never fault a person protecting their property and livelihood from deer, or whatever else when they have taken REASONABLE avenues of control as well. If said landowner had already taken steps OTHER THAN slinging lead in a helter skelter sort of fashion, than I dont think anyone would really have much of an issue with it. And quite frankly, it doesnt sound like he made much effort prior to shooting. But when said landowner seemingly makes NO effort to further protect his investment other than a half hearted attempt, and resorts to a tactic that seemingly is intended to "send a message" rather than really solve the problem, I think that is when people take notice. Had he built a reasonable fence from materials supplied to him, or even out of his own pocket, and was still having a problem, than shooting would be a reasonable approach if other control attempts failed. But, considering he went straight to shooting (which quite honestly seems like it was more entertainment for him than a true control measure), well than, I dont have much sympathy for the guy at all.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Ill also say, ive heard that G&F really did go above and beyond in an attempt to work with this guy. It sounds as though no matter what the G&F did, this guy wasnt going to be happy with it. You just cant please some people.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

barebackjack said:


> Ill also say, ive heard that G&F really did go above and beyond in an attempt to work with this guy. It sounds as though no matter what the G&F did, this guy wasnt going to be happy with it. You just cant please some people.


bbj, Thanks, but keep in mind sometimes things aren't always as you heard. Some times it depends on whose doing the talking. :wink:

As to the G&F "controling the deer herds" as I have said, it is not an easy task. Where the issue arises is often times the rancher merely wants the G&F too use some sort of option in some cases of a depredation hunt/tag system to lower numbers and up to this point the G&F have ADAMENTLY refused to do so outside of one extended does only season back in the 90's. And that was less of a depredation response than because of weather tags had not been filled. In our case we got people to come in that we knew and trusted to be shooting center fire rifles in our backyards and shot dozens of deer during this season. It helped significantly the following year. Bringing in measures such as blood powder, flashing lights, and motion controled sirens are simply a waste of time as they do not work and I think everyone involved knows they do not work, but I guess they are an attempt to "work with the individual" as is often stated.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

"I'd like to hear why deer hunters shouldn't share in the 'hit'."
"Glad to hear you contribute to many causes.Great,congrats.I do as well as all who hunt should."

When are you going to start contributing to this site? Do you expect those of us who are supporting members to foot the bill for you? You seem to use this site plenty, but don't support it. oke: :rollin: :rollin:

I am just messing with you, don't take it seriously. I just saw the quotes and saw you are listed as guest and it was kinda funny. Now that I look at it, a great many of you folks are only listed as guest. Get on the ball people!!!


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Savage,
Good point and I've thought of it many times.I'm just curious why the vast majority of websites are free-and have much less advertising.No doubt I use the forum and no doubt I benefit but there's something about paying to use cyber space that troubles me.
Kind of like fee hunting although here I've elected to participate so...I'll rethink it although the 'why' and the 'need' for a fee troubles me.
Don't want to sideline this thread so maybe I'll just ask Chris on my own.Of course I'd be the first to admit its none of my dam business how or why he runs his business-but that type consideration rarely stops me. :lol:


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

You wouldn't be paying to use it, you are already using it. You would be making a contribution to a site you use and like and get good info from. More like a donation not a fee.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Savage,
Oh I understand.Like I said it troubles me from both sides.Just sent a PM to Chris and e-mails to a few others-here and elsewhere.
Good time to force myself to decide so will wait for responses,do some internet research,discuss the issue with friends that have websites,and make a personal decision.If necessary,I'll take out a loan and join.Do you pay or volunteer your $$ on the other sites you frequent?Lonely world the internet-without guests.
In the meantime ignore my contributions-or just deduct a few bucks from their value.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Yes, I am a member of every site like this that I use on a regular basis. I guess all the firearm and hunting info is worth a few bucks a year. Plus I have meet some really good people from the sites.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Well good for you.I visit about 50 gun,bow,and fishing sites regularly and this is the only one I know with a $$$ membership.I hope you understand its not the $$,at least for me.Ask Al Gore who invented the internet,its beauty and intrinsic value is the free dissemination of info and ideas.
Enough here for me but I will tell you what I decide in a PM down the road-or I guess my posts will tell what I decided eventually anyways.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

It seems that since the state has a management tool in place for deer. And that management tool is being compromised by individuals prohibiting/excluding the management tool form working via disallowing access to the animals to be managed. So the states leading cattlemens orgs should post a position statement reauesting their members allow access during hunting season to the animals that are such a detriment to their business. I understand this would not give permission but it would show a commitment to the management tool that is currently in place.

I also think a modified depredation system should be considered like SD has. The doe only season reopens Jan 1-9 each year. Understand that each of the deer this person kills in Jan and Feb is really two or three deer since the majority are pregnant does that are shot. Kill 200 pregnant does and you just decimated 300-400 deer from the surrounding area.

another analogy to this is. If I started a tent business along a beach and each fall a hurricane wiped me out should I look for the Govt to bail me out? It's the same thing here if you ranch in deer country and deer yard in your hay yards then but up a fence to prevent them from getting in or live with it. Fence the feed lots too. Fence anything you need to to protect your investments. You have that right but nobody has the right to indescriminatly kill the deer to save their own profits.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Does this mean I get to shoot all the deer that eat the corn and pumpkins in our garden???

Or can I get G&F to pay for a fence for me?


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

There was a comment that eluded to the thought that the G&F was getting "rich" of deer licenses. That is hardly the case. these days $10 will barely cover the costs of processing paperwork and the other $10 likely goes directly to the management end such as surveys, disease testing and etc.

Feed yards are a tough issue. For management purposes feed yards are NOT desirable. That is one of the reasons why the G&F does not make efforts to provide them. The G&F would love for deer NOT to use farmers feed yards either but is is something they cannot control. Not because of farmers complaints but because of management issues. You want to measure a ranges carrying capacity at it's lowest point, which is the winter. Any deer that makes it through the winter is almost assured of making it through the rest of the year. Over time feed lots can temporarily suppliment a winter ranges carrying capacity to the point that the natural foods in that winter range and the summer range may begin to suffer. When that happens the winter range degrades even more. And I think most can see where that may lead.

Another issue with a G&F sponsored feed yards is where does one put it? Remember..... deer need a varied diet to survive. They can and will die of starvation just eating hay. Often the reason hay yards are attractive is because they are adjacent to other food sources, limited as they may be. We may not see them using those other sources but rest assured they are. If the G&F puts a feed yard in some random spot that does not guarantee it's success. I can think of a couple hay yard that I know of where there is a significant deer population yet that populations appears to migrate to better feeding areas and not use them or at least not heavily.

I'd love to say the G&F manages deer with the sole benefit of the deer as a goal but we all know that pressure from hunters prohibits them from managing in a manner that is a sole benefit to the deer. And rest assured if deer numbers were reduced to a truely managable number the hunters would be screaming and the farmers who are also hunters would be standing right beside them.

Many of us see it as "the cost of doing business "as a farmer. When you look back in history ND never had many deer before the white man showed up. The habitat didn't accomodate them. Farming changed that and in a manner farmers made thier own problem.. oke:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> It
> . another analogy to this is. If I started a tent business along a beach and each fall a hurricane wiped me out should I look for the Govt to bail me out? It's the same thing here if you ranch in deer country and deer yard in your hay yards then but up a fence to prevent them from getting in or live with it. Fence the feed lots too. Fence anything you need to to protect your investments. You have that right but nobody has the right to indescriminatly kill the deer to save their own profits.


swift what you do not seem to realize in your analogies is the "acts of God" such as the hurricaine you use are not "managed" by a govt agency. When this govt agency does not use all the avalible management techniques such as the doe only late season/depredation tags you suggest are avalible to them there is a direct impact and who is responsible? This individual was not asking to be "bailed out" merely to be able to deal with an issue the agency charged with dealing with it would not.



swift said:


> It seems that since the state has a management tool in place for deer. And that management tool is being compromised by individuals prohibiting/excluding the management tool form working via disallowing access to the animals to be managed. So the states leading cattlemens orgs should post a position statement reauesting their members allow access during hunting season to the animals that are such a detriment to their business. I understand this would not give permission but it would show a commitment to the management tool that is currently in place. .


As I alluded to bbj comments regarding the tag numbers simply being raised because that is how many deer there really are, this agency has basically admitted in their "managing" the deer numbers to the lower levels having failed. So what is the person who deals with the negative aspect of this failure left to do when the agency that admits failing to lower numbers will not work with the individuals to accomplish this? Most depredation issues would dissappear if the G&F were willing to work with individuals to lower numbers. The states cattlemans orgs have been proactively working with the G&F to develope programs that will actually succeed not fail as a part of their management programs if reducing numbers is therir true goal. They encourage the use of all appropriate programs such as the pairing of landowners with hunters program as well as the doe only late season herd reduction hunts in specific areas. But until this agency is willing to use the programs such as you and our states cattle orgs mention that other states as well as ranchers know work to reduce depredation issues as well as deer numbers there has been no "committment" by the agency in charge to aleviate the problem with real actual workable means.

As to fencing everywhere cattle are fed, a significant portion of cattle are fed outside of a feedlot enviroment. Stop and think of what would be necessary for your suggestion to be realistic. .


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

GST....

Should insurance companies be asking the state for re-embursements because of deer auto claims? Should insurance companies or even people with auto insurance be asking for $$ from the state to pay deductibles? Like you mentioned it is a state managed resource which is causing claims? If management was better or if the ND-DOT would put up fences to save from deer auto claims. They would have just as much right as a rancher who is asking the same or to give tools to help deprivation. Should anyone who has auto insurance be able to just stop along a road and shoot a deer to help prevent a claim? This sounds rediculous but it is the same lines. A lively hood (insurance industry, rate hikes, etc) is being affect by deer auto claims.

Like I mentioned before......ranching and farming is a business with risks. This is one of the risks a farmer/rancher is having to deal with. It is that simple.

Again I am not anti-farmer or anything like that. But this shows where people want something done for free or elevate a risk that is associated with the business. I am in real estate....should I sue the goverment for the mess they caused in the banking industry? They are effecting my income stream and it is regulated? Sounds crazy correct....but it is along the same lines here.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Chuck, I got into this debate merely to point out there are two sides to every issue and unless one has directly experienced them both, one might not have as good a handle on it as they think. I can not speak for every rancher out there, but myself and many that I know are not looking for reimbursement or payment, but for the agency charged with managing this resource to work with those of us that are affected in an effecient manner that directly addresses the problem rather than using bandaid methods that do not. If they can not or will not then at what point does one have the ability to deal with it directly themselves?

Sportsman only need to look to neighboring and closeby states and provinces to see the direct results of too many deer spending significant amounts of time in proximaty to one another and other livestock to realize that a depredation program that effectively reduces numbers rather than just deals with damage would in the long run be beneficial to them as well. Or you can sit back and let the govt sharpshooters irradicate a deer herd as a response to a disease issue.

This is an issue that if sportsmen look at from a "big picture" perspective they should realize that effective tools such as specific depredation seasons or tags should be used in manners that benefit them, the rancher, and the future of the states deer herd.


----------



## fesnthunner (Mar 16, 2009)

I for one couldn't see myself wanting to shoot a would be pregnant doe during January as is suggested for depredation tags. It just doesn't seem right. IMO Maybe as a last, and I mean last resort. If you have too many deer the G&F has a tool, the hunter. And now you say the deer are not here in the fall, well they are on your neighbors land and it can not be beneficial to them to have so many deer either. Landowners should be willing to help neighboring landowners out also, talk to one another and open up your region to hunters, lots of fine citizens looking for land access. I know the deer are moving onto your posted land, because I chased them from the unposted public land. So I have an unfilled deer tag and you have too many deer. Hmmmmmm


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

It seems that the answer from the sportsman is take down your signs and we will gladly help to reduce your depredation issues.

From the rancher (atleast the one on here) the management tool doesn't work so I have a right to handle it myself, regardless if my own actions and my neighbors actions directly prevent the tool from working.

Building a tent business in hurricane alley and ranching or farming in deer country are a very close analogy. As has been stated the management tool is not working due to the fact the tools (hunters) cannot get access to the animals.

I find this topic quite humorous because it's only been a few weeks since there were folks whining about the lack of deer available and how the G&F has shot down the herd to dismal numbers.
I guess there are still plenty of deer to cause problems so the obvious answer must be there were not enough deer accessible during deer season. Which leads us back to the posted signs as the reason the management tool isn't working.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Gst...



> Sportsman only need to look to neighboring and closeby states and provinces to see the direct results of too many deer spending significant amounts of time in proximaty to one another and other livestock to realize that a depredation program that effectively reduces numbers rather than just deals with damage would in the long run be beneficial to them as well. Or you can sit back and let the govt sharpshooters irradicate a deer herd as a response to a disease issue.


Great point!

Swift makes a good point about the access as well. Now i am not saying the NO Hunting or Tresspassing posters. But if the rancher does not allow hunting on his property or only a select number of hunters.

Here is a story.... I got into a discussion with a farmer a few years ago about this same issue. But it was not hay it was standing crops. This farmer was complaining to a Game Warden that I was talking too. He came right up and butted into our conversation to vent. Which is fine. Everyone has that right. But then I was discussing with him does he allow hunting on his property. He said NO. I asked do you allow your relatives to hunt...again a NO. Then I say how can it be the DNR's fault because in that area that the farmer lives allows one person to take up to 5 deer with 4 of them being anterless. I told him the tools are in place to help reduce the herd on your land. Plus I mentioned the land owners tags that the DNR gives free of charge to the rancher if they allow access onto your land. He went off on how hunting is inhumane, etc. I said well you are reaping what you sew and you are wasting the time of this Officer. It is your fault for the size of deer herd. They will go where there is food and safety. You are growing the food and allowing the safety.

In this case of the rancher and hay....if the rancher or even his neighbors don't allow hunting. Then it is their fault for not allowing a management tool to work to help control the herd.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

swift said:


> It seems that the answer from the sportsman is take down your signs and we will gladly help to reduce your depredation issues.
> 
> From the rancher (atleast the one on here) the management tool doesn't work so I have a right to handle it myself, regardless if my own actions and my neighbors actions directly prevent the tool from working.
> 
> ...


Haha, you called hunters tools.


----------



## Bagman (Oct 17, 2002)

Im not a rancher so I will just ask, wouldnt a few big farm/ranch dogs be able to deter these deer from entering a feedlot? Seems like a better way than shooting large numbers of deer. :sniper:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

fesnthunner said:


> I for one couldn't see myself wanting to shoot a would be pregnant doe during January as is suggested for depredation tags. It just doesn't seem right. IMO Maybe as a last, and I mean last resort.


Is a doe any more or less pregnant the last week in Nov during season then it is in Jan? :wink:



swift said:


> It seems that the answer from the sportsman is take down your signs and we will gladly help to reduce your depredation issues.
> 
> From the rancher (atleast the one on here) the management tool doesn't work so I have a right to handle it myself, regardless if my own actions and my neighbors actions directly prevent the tool from working.
> 
> ...


Swift instead of realizing that many of these ranchers allow hunting and post little if any land,( I just had a conversation with one last nite that post nothing and has over 150 deer in his yard) or that the deer in these hay yards come from far more than just what land the affected rancher may control and contribute something worthwhile, you choose to once again make this personal and turn it to the hunter versus the landowner.

As to the management tool not working because the hunter can not access the deer, what has happpened to the hunter success rates the last few years here in ND? Apparently hunters must be accessing the deer somehow.

As to comparing your "hurricane alley" tent business to ranching in ND, when you ranch in ND you are not choosing to operate in "deer country", EVERYWHERE is "deer country", but not EVERYWHERE is a "hurricane alley" you choose to start your tent business in. :wink: .

To those that say simply take down the posted signs answer this honestly, given what most all of us have seen take place during deer season, do you really want people you have no clue about wandering around with high powered rifles in what amounts to your back yard? And please do not site the 440 yards law, 440 yards is nothing with a rifle.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Chuck, a while back in a thread about this I commented on a program I beleived would work and be beneficial to all where by if a rancher had a deer problem, they could go to the G&F and thru a process much like our gratis tag receive help. For every (for use as an example)say 10 depredation tags he was given he would have to list a quarter of land they owned or controled on the application that would be open to public hunting the following year possibly up to a limt based on the individual situation. This land would have to be identified by a sign designating it as such. It would be relatively easy for the G&F to check the legal discriptions of land as they are protroling to make sure the landowner compied. These tags would be ikllegal to sell or receive a "renumeration for" The G&F would show they are willing to address the problem, the landowner could choose to help solve his problem in a manner that would open lands to hunters who would benefit. There were still hunters that disagreed and were opposed to this in that thread if I recall. Some were concerned these tags would be "traded" for things such as oil changes. :eyeroll:

There are ways to deal with this if agencies/people want to that will not result in a rancher reaching the frustration point where incidents like the one that started this post happen.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Bagman said:


> Im not a rancher so I will just ask, wouldnt a few big farm/ranch dogs be able to deter these deer from entering a feedlot? Seems like a better way than shooting large numbers of deer. :sniper:


Simply, no. Beside I beleive you can be charged if your dogs are "harassing" wildlife.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> .
> 
> From the rancher (atleast the one on here) the management tool doesn't work so I have a right to handle it myself, regardless if my own actions and my neighbors actions directly prevent the tool from working. .


Swift, please indicate where I have ever stated I have the "right" to handle it myself. Also please indicate your knowledge of where "my own actions" "directly prevent the tool from working".

It seems turning over a new leaf in the holiday spirit has gone the way of the ghost of Christmas!


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> But it somewhat seems like a throw in the towel approach that admits their management stratagies of the past have not worked. If that is indeed the case, *how can people then be blamed for taking matters into their own hands *if the "professionals" and their management processes can not lower numbers to what their scienctific biologically based management plan says the population needs to be at or if they are not willing to work in these individual cases to actively lower numbers in ways they are not doing that may indeed work to control or lower numbers?


Nothing personal just stating what I read. You cannot deny your above statement condones shooting.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> Nothing personal just stating what I read. You cannot deny your above statement condones shooting.


I take it back you will deny it.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Swift, that is damn funny!!!!! :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> Nothing personal just stating what I read. You cannot deny your above statement condones shooting.


Nothing personal?  okay then, I bet everyone buys that claim. :roll:



gst said:


> There are two sides to every story, this one is no different. Unless you have directly experienced these kinds of issues or have delt with the G&F directly in regards to them you will not have an understanding of what is involved. I will be the first on to admit I do not know all the "facts" regarding this incident. Nor do I condone simply shooting and leaving deer lay. But I can tell you from having over 500 deer in our yard one winter in the late 90's ( only 2 quarters of land were posted anywhere around our ranch that year and years previous) that unlesss you have experienced it you will not understand the frustration that arises.
> .


Swift, from earlier in the debate, note the statement "NOR DO I CONDONE SIMPLY SHOOTING AND LEAVING DEER LAY." I do not know how much more black and white, in simple, direct English I could state it. Apparently you never "read" that part. :wink:



swift said:


> From the rancher (atleast the one on here) the management tool doesn't work so I have a right to handle it myself, regardless if my own actions and my neighbors actions directly prevent the tool from working.


Now once again, given what was clearly stated earlier in the debate, if you can please point out where I state as you claim in the above statement you made that I claim I have a "right" to handle it myself, note the italacized word "right", or where my "statement condones shooting" . :eyeroll:

Yet once again another thread that started out with some good debate discussing an issue has turned into what it so often does.
But hey it's nothing personal right????? :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Chuck, a while back in a thread about this I commented on a program I beleived would work and be beneficial to all where by if a rancher had a deer problem, they could go to the G&F and thru a process much like our gratis tag receive help. For every (for use as an example)say 10 depredation tags he was given he would have to list a quarter of land they owned or controled on the application that would be open to public hunting the following year possibly up to a limt based on the individual situation. This land would have to be identified by a sign designating it as such. It would be relatively easy for the G&F to check the legal discriptions of land as they are protroling to make sure the landowner compied. These tags would be ikllegal to sell or receive a "renumeration for" The G&F would show they are willing to address the problem, the landowner could choose to help solve his problem in a manner that would open lands to hunters who would benefit. There were still hunters that disagreed and were opposed to this in that thread if I recall. Some were concerned these tags would be "traded" for things such as oil changes. :eyeroll:


This is a system like i mentioned in my home state called as "land owner tags" which are used during the deer season. What the farmer or rancher does is apply for these. They are given to the farmer free of charge. All they have to do is open up 40 acres of land for public use. The location of this land is published in a book with the land owners name and contact info. The hunters need to still contact the land owner so he knows who is on his land. This is a good program and a win/win for all. It opens up land and also help the deer problem.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Some guys, farmers and hunters, are quick to jump on the G&F for not properly managing the herd but I think they are confusing management with control. Keep in mind that we are dealing with wild/free roaming animals. While we can do a fair job of managing numbers we cannot control movement. That is where the problem often occurs relating to feed yards. Should a farmer be allowed to erradicate most of the deer from a 25 sq mile area around his farm because they congregate there in the winter? In the winter you may end up with 90% of the deer using 5-10% of their range. The rest of the year one hardly notices they are there so I'm not sure that warrants "wiping them out" where they congregate for a few months. I place part of the blame on comercialization of deer hunting. Many farmers are now just as interested in saving that/those trophy bucks on their land for themselves as we would be. To the point that they don't even want to let someone hunt does on their property at the risk it may drive those trophies off. I'm seeing this more the case than denied access from antihunters or bad experiences with hunters. I can respect them for that, sadly in some cases you can't have you cake and eat it to and what we are talking about is the result. For those that put their business before bragging rights they won't have as big a problem. As for the others they will just keep complaining as they will always see the deer numbers as too low or too high with nothing in between.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

I agree dakotashooter, I would still like to hear a position statement on deer management form the stockmans assoc. It seems this is something they should have an opinion on.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift, the NDSA has engaged the G&F to come up with workable solutions that will not only benefit the rancher, but the sportman as well in increased opportunities to harvest deer thru an effective workable depredation program that deals directly with the localized site specific overpopulation of deer. This is being done not only to protect the cattle industry from disease issues but the states deer herd as well and in essense the state's sportsmen's opportunities. It appears at long last there will be a bill to address this. Even as a nonresident, hopefully you will support this opportunity to protect the states deer herd from disease issues associated with overpopulations in close contact with livestock and the opportunity it will give the states hunters to come onto private lands and harvest deer rather than leaving them to starve.


----------



## bodatx2 (Mar 29, 2006)

I believe most does are not pregnant until the rut, and where I hunt most of the rifle season is near over by the time it starts. So yeah, I believe more does are pregnant in January than during rifle season. As far as a single deer being more pregnant, well this is not a thread for that. But I believe pregnant is pregnant. And I do not think we should shoot deer in January unless every effort has been made to control numbers during season. IMO


----------



## jacketshen (May 10, 2011)

I think each coin has two sides ,that's all

Spam edited by Plainsman


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Spam deleted


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Three spam posts deleted. Sorry if you wanted to buy vitamins from another planet.


----------

