S.B. 0685 Deer damage permits

[Tallbear]

SB 0685 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0685)
Natural resources; hunting; issuance of deer damage shooting permits; limit number of authorized shooters. Amends sec. 40114 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.40114).
Last Action: 1/19/2012 referred to Committee on Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation

[Tallbear]

Standing Committee Meeting

Agriculture, Rep. Kevin Daley, Chair

Date: 02/29/2012

Time: 9:00 AM

Place: 307 House Office Building, Lansing, MI

Agenda:
For testimony:

SB 685 (Proos) Natural resources; hunting; issuance of deer damage shooting permits; limit number of authorized shooters.

[Cackler]

I have to ask, what is the purpose of limiting the shooters when the point is to reduce the number of deer?

[langenc]

Many of those getting crop permits have already reduced the number of shooters by not allow hunting on the property.

[Tallbear]

SB 0685 of 2011 (PA 0065 of 2012) (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0685)
Natural resources; hunting; issuance of deer damage shooting permits; modify requirements for issuance and limit number of authorized shooters. Amends sec. 40114 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.40114).
Last Action: 3/28/2012 ASSIGNED PA 0065'12 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT

[pkuptruck]

Many of those getting crop permits have already reduced the number of shooters by not allow hunting on the property.

this...

should have ANY farmer with "crop damage" automatically put into a lottery type system, for single weekend, and/or Mon-Fri single use permits for hunters that apply..

[Tallbear]

SB 0685 of 2011 (PA 0065 of 2012) (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0685)
Natural resources; hunting; deer damage shooting permits; modify requirements for issuance and limit number of authorized shooters. Amends sec. 40114 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.40114).
Last Action: 3/28/2012 ASSIGNED PA 0065'12 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT

[langenc]

this...

should have ANY farmer with "crop damage" automatically put into a lottery type system, for single weekend, and/or Mon-Fri single use permits for hunters that apply..


Absolutely yes. If they have crop damage then allowing hunting should be mandatory==read that a couple times and see just how dumb that sounds.

As it is now come Oct/Nov NO HUNTING signs are up. And crop damage permits are 'requested'. If no hunting-no permits is my position.

[DP425]

Absolutely yes. If they have crop damage then allowing hunting should be mandatory==read that a couple times and see just how dumb that sounds.

As it is now come Oct/Nov NO HUNTING signs are up. And crop damage permits are 'requested'. If no hunting-no permits is my position.



I strongly disagree- you're trampling all over property owner's rights with this POV. The trespass laws in our state as it is are an abomination to owner's rights. Why should a farmer be FORCED to allow the public at large hunt his property to get damage permits? There are a decent number of hunters who are just straight up dangerous in their actions, do not care about someone's property, what they do with it or the condition its left in. This is an individual rights issue here- when a person owns property, they should not be required to let the public at large make use of their property for any purpose, let alone to be able to control destructive animals.

[langenc]

I strongly disagree- you're trampling all over property owner's rights with this POV. The trespass laws in our state as it is are an abomination to owner's rights. Why should a farmer be FORCED to allow the public at large hunt his property to get damage permits? There are a decent number of hunters who are just straight up dangerous in their actions, do not care about someone's property, what they do with it or the condition its left in. This is an individual rights issue here- when a person owns property, they should not be required to let the public at large make use of their property for any purpose, let alone to be able to control destructive animals.


I didnt say he had to let in every helen, Jane and Bill.

If he wants croip permits he must allow hunters. Those deer belong to all. I dont believe he should have to feed em, but he dont own em either. They are not cows, pigs or chickens.

[DP425]

I didnt say he had to let in every helen, Jane and Bill.

If he wants croip permits he must allow hunters. Those deer belong to all. I dont believe he should have to feed em, but he dont own em either. They are not cows, pigs or chickens.


I think you miss the point- no one said they are HIS deer- but it IS HIS property. What you propose is to essentially hold his right to keeping persons off his property hostage.

I really hate hunters who feel they have the right to hunt anyone's property they choose because the property owner doesn't own the deer.


If the farmer wants to put up no trespassing signs and no hunting signs, then take the deer with his sons, that is 100% his right to do as he OWNS the property. If you want the deer on it, better figure out how to get them to leave his property.



Just another case of one individual feeling their rights are more important than / trump that of another. The law is pretty clear on this- when property is correctly posted, your right to hunt, to even chase injured deer... ends at the property line. Why should the property owner have to give up his rights to posted private property to ensure wildlife does not damage his crops?

[DP425]

I didnt say he had to let in every helen, Jane and Bill.



No, you just agreed that a public lottery hunt be forced upon the farmer and his private property...

[langenc]

No, you just agreed that a public lottery hunt be forced upon the farmer and his private property...


Ever hunt CRP--open to hunting with the OWNERS restrictions--where to park, where to hunt, hours one can hunt and who can hunt-at least the places I went worked that way. Maybe the OWNERS where I was hunting were not following CRP rules--several yrs ago.

[DP425]

Ever hunt CRP--open to hunting with the OWNERS restrictions--where to park, where to hunt, hours one can hunt and who can hunt-at least the places I went worked that way. Maybe the OWNERS where I was hunting were not following CRP rules--several yrs ago.


"Landowners enrolled in CRP may also be eligible for additional payments through the DNR's Hunter Access Program (HAP). HAP pays landowners to allow public hunting access to their property. The DNR has administered an access program for hunters since 1979; however, there has been a significant decline in acres enrolled. The DNR is devoting time and resources through a grant that was recently received to double the number of acres enrolled in HAP in the next few years." (http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10371_10402-253338--,00.html)

CRP hunting is on land that the DNR essentially leases for hunting purposes for the public. This is not the same as damage permits. As a matter of fact, CRP hunting has little to nothing to do with damage permits and isn't even relevant to the subject.

[langenc]

It is relevant to say that the farmer can control who hunts, when they hunt, where on the prop they hunt and where they park. They would have to talk with Mr Farmer to get the permit not just walk onto the prop from the adjoining road.

I believe the DNR would agree-no permit=NO HUNT for each participant.

[DP425]

It is relevant to say that the farmer can control who hunts, when they hunt, where on the prop they hunt and where they park. They would have to talk with Mr Farmer to get the permit not just walk onto the prop from the adjoining road.

I believe the DNR would agree-no permit=NO HUNT for each participant.


I'm really having a difficult time following where you are going with this. First you say that you agree, if a hunter wants damage permits, he should have to allow the state to conduct an open hunt, by lottery on his property... which means he has no input on who hunts.

Then you start talking about CRP hunts... which have absolutely nothing to do with damage permits

And now this above- Where you say the farmer is able to control who hunts, when and where they hunt and where they park... but that again sounds like it's talking about CRP hunts... which are not damage permits.

I'm not sure if I'm the only one tracking this, but if not, is anyone else able to follow this track of reasoning? I feel like either you are leaving out a couple key parts of your thought process that would allow me to see how I get to point "c" from point "a"... or that I'm just not getting it.

[Flash-hider]

A farmer can authorize up to 15 shooters once a permit is granted. This gives the farmer the control on who he wants on his property. If it's all his relatives-so be it. If it's his employee's- so be it. If it's his neighbors-so be it. It's his property and he's entered into an agreement with the State to reduce to amount of deer damage and the State let's him decided who he will have do it.

[DP425]

A farmer can authorize up to 15 shooters once a permit is granted. This gives the farmer the control on who he wants on his property. If it's all his relatives-so be it. If it's his employee's- so be it. If it's his neighbors-so be it. It's his property and he's entered into an agreement with the State to reduce to amount of deer damage and the State let's him decided who he will have do it.

Okay- I get this. And I see it appears langenc was pretty much saying that in his last post


But then we go back and I see this:




this...
Many of those getting crop permits have already reduced the number of shooters by not allow hunting on the property.

this...

should have ANY farmer with "crop damage" automatically put into a lottery type system, for single weekend, and/or Mon-Fri single use permits for hunters that apply..

Absolutely yes. If they have crop damage then allowing hunting should be mandatory==read that a couple times and see just how dumb that sounds.

As it is now come Oct/Nov NO HUNTING signs are up. And crop damage permits are 'requested'. If no hunting-no permits is my position.

It looks to me like this went from:
"The farmers don't allow hunters on their property."

-to-

"If farmers want crop damage permits, they should allow public hunting- even better, a lottery type system for hunters to enter."

-to-

"Farmers give out crop damage permits to whoever they want, no one is forcing them to allow anyone to hunt their land."


I don't know, I guess I'm just not seeing how we got to where we are now in this conversation from where we started?

[langenc]

I never used the word LOTTERY!!!

Owner gets permits IF he allows hunters on prop. NO HUNTING signs = no permits. Hunter talks w/ owner to get permit. I dont know when permit is needed so Im not addressing that well. Permit needed to be attached to carcass, I suspect.

Owner says where you hunt, how many hunters, where they park, when they hunt (before noon only, perhaps), no hunting when combining corn etc etc-SIMILAR to the CONTROLS I have seen on CRP hunting land. Maybe your farmer was different.

No sneaking in over the back fence to 'hunt'.

[DP425]

Okay- I was under the impression you were agreeing with the lottery suggestion; sounds like a misunderstanding.