This probably isn't a good subject to bring up in a public forum, but here goes.

I do agricultural damage deer control. It's not a job or business and I get no monetary compensation of any kind. The farmers I 'serve' aren't relatives, associates or close friends. Ag damage control is simply an opportunity to do something I love to do and live to do - hunting - on a year 'round basis. Nothing more and nothing less. What I jokingly refer to as my second job has allowed me to spend more time afield, and kill more deer, than a good hunter could do in several lifetimes. (No, I don't consider myself as all that good of a hunter.)

In my home state of Wisconsin, shooting deer under the ag damage control program is done in much the same manner as during the regular hunting season. Laws regarding licensing, shooting hours, tagging, registration, permitted weapons and such are the same as during the normal firearm season. The only real difference is that only antlerless deer may be shot and, of course, the season dates. There is no night shooting, no suppressed rifles, no 'shoot them and let them rot.' I field dress every deer and make sure they are put to good use. It sounds like good fun but not so much when there are 8 deer on the ground at 9:00 pm on a 90 degree August night.

The ethical dilemma is that I am being pressured to fill some tags as soon as possible. For maximum efficiency, now is the best time to do it. The crops are emerging and it makes the most sense to shoot the deer before they can do too much damage to the new growth. But the does have recently given birth and the fawns are too small to travel with their mothers. If a doe comes into range there's no way of knowing, for sure, if she's a yearling without a fawn, a dry doe or a new mother with youngsters hidden in the brush. I have no problem with killing deer but can't bring myself to causally inflict a lingering death of dehydration and starvation on a totally dependent fawn.

This is an issue because I volunteered to fill the tags. The farmer is depending on me to do what I said I would do. And yes, there is a bit of vanity involved, I want to keep my reputation as someone who can "get the job done." (A lot of people say they want to shoot ag damage deer but aren't willing to put the time and effort into following through. Or they shoot just one deer and quit.) My friend, and partner in this endeavor, makes fun of my reluctance. He brings up the obvious "Bambi syndrome" argument and asks if I would have the same problem with killing a mother rat with dependent young. The difference is that, as a hunter, I see deer as worthy quarry. I have great respect for them. Deer are not vermin to be thoughtlessly exterminated. Maybe I'd see things differently if it were my crops being eaten but they are not.

So what do I do? Put the tender feelings aside and just fill the tags (hoping the does I shoot have no young but taking the chance that they might) or just tell the farmer to find someone else to do it? (And risk the chance of "losing the account.") On another forum I asked an Englishman who was a professional deer manager for his opinion and his reply was a cryptic "no one ever forced me do anything I didn't want to do."

quote:

"no one ever forced me do anything I didn't want to do."

Sorry, I do not see anything cryptic in that response. You either carry out the job you volunteered for, or you don't and lose the ability.

Anytime you kill a doe, you kill fawns, either the fawns they have or the fawns they could have. When I do the late season cow elk hunts in Colorado, those cows are carrying fetuses that are as big if not bigger than a new born white tail fawn.

I have two choices, either keep going on such hunts, or stop.

Seems like you have reached a crossroads in your life and only you can decide how you want to address the issue.

Living in Wisconsin, I've shot does in mid-July, and the damn fawns won't leave the scene. I didn't like it, so I know exactly what your going through.

Me, I stopped doing the Ag-Tag hunts and that was one of the main reasons. On the other side of the equation, if you don't, someone else will.

Good luck.

If you don't like the idea, don't do it.

I wouldn't. Generally speaking I have no interest in hunting and shooting the ladies. When duck hunting I target drakes, when moose hunting its big bulls only. Deer for me are a "Bucks Only" proposition. Geese are impossible to tell, but there seems to be plenty and well,.....in the hand they all look like ganders to me. I don't mind killing hen salmon as up here there seems to be more than enough.

I don't need to kill anything, I like to hunt and prefer to eat wild game. If I need to do a bunch of shooting I've plenty of inanimate targets around. In Alaska, some predator control involves finding dens and killing everything in it. Not my idea of fun. Of course we know in Africa "culling" elephants involves killing an entire herd, calves and all. Not for me.

If someone else wants to, let 'em do it.

Tough way for a fawn to die
waiting for a doe that never
comes back.
Do the fawns count against the quota?

I would not do it. I just don't have it in me. I would feel like crap about it.

quote:

Originally posted by delloro:
I would not do it. I just don't have it in me. I would feel like crap about it.

Me neither and the thought of what ravenr mentioned makes me sick thinking about it! At least wait a week or two until the fawn is out and about and shoot it too so it dies a humane death, rather than letting it starve.

If it bothers you, as it obviously does, I would fulfill my obligations (word) to the current farmer and quit doing it anymore at this time of the year.

Just to add fuel to your angst fire, there are essentially no "dry" does. They all have fawns...the only reason they would be "dry" is that they have lost their fawn to disease or predation.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

"no one ever forced me do anything I didn't want to do."

Sorry, I do not see anything cryptic in that response. You either carry out the job you volunteered for, or you don't and lose the ability.

Anytime you kill a doe, you kill fawns, either the fawns they have or the fawns they could have. When I do the late season cow elk hunts in Colorado, those cows are carrying fetuses that are as big if not bigger than a new born white tail fawn.

I have two choices, either keep going on such hunts, or stop.

Seems like you have reached a crossroads in your life and only you can decide how you want to address the issue.

I think there is a big difference between shooting a doe that will have a future fawn and starving one to death. I don't shoot coyotes in the spring when they have pups, as I can't stomach starving an animal to death. A clean kill is something else.

As he said, if you don't feel comfortable, don't do it. You can either make it a little slower by picking the does, or do whatever is right.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
If it bothers you, as it obviously does, I would fulfill my obligations (word) to the current farmer and quit doing it anymore at this time of the year.

Just to add fuel to your angst fire, there are essentially no "dry" does. They all have fawns...the only reason they would be "dry" is that they have lost their fawn to disease or predation.

That is a pretty ridiculous comment! There are "dry" does that have passed their fawn bearing years and others that have not been bred and have no fawns in a particular year, as well as ones that may have had a fawn that didn't make it due to predation, etc. The only way to be close to 100% on whether one has a fawn or not is to wait a few weeks until the vast majority of does in an area have given birth and the fawns are old enough to be traveling right next to their mother all the time.

In real life, the odds of a fawn starving to death is minimal, predators take more fawns than ever starve, same holds true with any young animals.

As I said, No One IS FORCED to participate in these type programs, either do not get involved in the first place or if it is playing on an individuals conscience that much, get out of the program.

I do find it odd how as to how or why so many hunters like to refer to themselves as true "Conservationists", when in reality, true conservationists comprehend the idea that animals, particularly white tail deer can/will and do have the ability to reproduce themselves as to become detrimental not only to themselves but all of the other species of wildlife in any given region.

These programs are incorporated in an effort to manage overall herd numbers. Anyone getting involved with such programs, KNOWS, going in what is expected of them to be a participant

If a person begins having a problem with the concept, leave the program, it is really quite simple. These type programs are necessary to keep deer from destroying the habitat in any given area, thereby placing every species in that area in danger of starving to death.

The darker side is, if the states can not get enough sportsmen to join the programs and help with herd management, professionals will be hired and they will not be operating under the same thought processes.

Try explaining your ethics issue to the land owner and explain you'd be willing to take out both the doe and fawn just a bit later. It never hurts to openly communicate with a landowner when you are being ethical.

quote:

Originally posted by Topgun 30-06:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
If it bothers you, as it obviously does, I would fulfill my obligations (word) to the current farmer and quit doing it anymore at this time of the year.

Just to add fuel to your angst fire, there are essentially no "dry" does. They all have fawns...the only reason they would be "dry" is that they have lost their fawn to disease or predation.

That is a pretty ridiculous comment! There are "dry" does that have passed their fawn bearing years and others that have not been bred and have no fawns in a particular year, as well as ones that may have had a fawn that didn't make it due to predation, etc. The only way to be close to 100% on whether one has a fawn or not is to wait a few weeks until the vast majority of does in an area have given birth and the fawns are old enough to be traveling right next to their mother all the time.

Try to stick to something you know, whatever that might be......there are numerous studies on deer that show that there are nearly ZERO dry (meaning did not have a fawn) does....just for example, from Clemson Univ.(bold emphasis mine)......

quote:

Many people believe that deer populations contain a high proportion of old barren does and that this fact can be used as a justification for harvesting antlerless deer. Antlerless deer harvests can be justified for a number of reasons, but this is not one of them. Does that have never produced fawns or have stopped producing entirely are almost nonexistent. Furthermore, when barren does are found, it is almost always a result of some physiological malfunction rather than age. Obviously, there is a limit to the age at which does remain productive, but very few individuals reach such an advanced age. The effect of these few individuals is essentially insignificant to the productivity of the population.

I think the issue at hand is a Doe who does or doesn't have a fawn that particular year.

What is extracted out of the Clemson University study doesn't seem to refer to Does in a particular year.

It seems to reference that Does usually don't become old enough to stop producing and the likelihood of a Doe never having produced is almost non existent.

I don't see anything in the excerpt that references the probability of a Doe in a particular year being barren.

Perhaps a link to the entire study would be helpful.

It seems pretty straight forward to me. Either you do the job as outlined or you hang it up.
I have little brief for folks that want the job but then want to change things to suit themselves. Maybe you should have explained your dilemma to the land owner before taking the job.
What you are doing isn't hunting; it's killing. While most folks understand that it is a needed thing, don't confuse the two.

quote:

...there are numerous studies on deer that show that there are nearly ZERO dry (meaning did not have a fawn) does....just for example, from Clemson Univ.(bold emphasis mine)......

From a 1965 publication, authored by James G. Teer, Texas Deer Herd Management, Problems and Principles, bulletin #44 from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department on page #43!

Barren does, deer that have NEVER produced a fawn, or stopped producing entirely, are almost Non-Existent.

The results from a study that was undertaken in the Edwards Plateau, where the reproductive tracts, uteri and ovaries, of 3000 plus female deer were examined, and only THREE of the samples had abnormalities or diseases that could have prevented reproduction, and one of those was a hermaphrodite.

Yes, that study and the research obtained is from circa 1965, but I really do not believe white tails basic biology has changed over that period of time.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
I think the issue at hand is a Doe who does or doesn't have a fawn that particular year.

What is extracted out of the Clemson University study doesn't seem to refer to Does in a particular year.

It seems to reference that Does usually don't become old enough to stop producing and the likelihood of a Doe never having produced is almost non existent.

I don't see anything in the excerpt that references the probability of a Doe in a particular year being barren.

Perhaps a link to the entire study would be helpful.

I love it when some dufus posts a little ditty like that out of a large text and takes it out of context to suit their purpose and that is exactly what was done in this case. There is always an occasional doe in an area that either doesn't get bred, aborts for some reason, or loses it's fawn due to an accident or predation. Using the term "barren" that means one that has never had a fawn is really not what I was referring to, so sorry for the possibly incorrect terminology when I was really referring to one that just didn't have a fawn that year. There are not many does that make it enough years to not have a fawn. It will probably be a very small number just as the little ditty this dufus posted stated and my statement didn't say the number was large. It's still true that unless you wait until all the does should have their fawns at their side that you can't be 100% sure it's a dry doe or not. It's also true that what the OP is doing isn't hunting, but the end result of what he's doing is still the same. A fawn is either going to starve to death or get taken by a predator if it's up looking for it's mother before it has a good chance to escape predators. I just prefer that fawn be shot and die instantly than to think about the other lingering way it could happen like ravenr mentioned.

Doing a little research seems to indicate the following:

"barren" is used to indicate a female incapable of reproducing as opposed to one that has not been impregnated/reproduced that year.

The pregnancy rate of whitetail deer seems to be between 60% to 80% and it depends on deer density and other habitat factors.

Both the Clemson and Texas information are referencing deer that are incapable of producing as opposed to deer that didn't produce in any given year.

The OP's concern is about what is the likelihood that he shoots a Doe in June and it has a fawn that he can't see. Given the data available, I would say it is something slightly less than 60% to 80%. Some Does will have aborted, had still births, and some fawns will have already been taken by predators.

I understand wanting to shoot them this time of year as the cover grows up to where you can't
see them or get the numbers required.
It's a tough thing and I wouldn't want to.
Just wouldn't want to answer for it

Does anyone believe that the agent that produced these results had an ethical dilemma on its hands?



Many of todays top wildlife biologists, mammalogists and conservationists across America view white tail deer and the impact they have on the habitat a lot differently than "Sport" hunters do. Many of those folks openly refer to white tails as "Americas Largest Rodent".

White tails are one of the most highly adaptable/aggressive and prolific, non-rodent animals on the North American continent. They expand their range into every available piece of habitat oft times to the detriment of native species already living there, prime example is their encroachment into mule deer range in the west, and mule deer cannot out compete white tails.

From my research into programs such as the Ag culling and others, while it can and does raise issues with some folks, the most effective way to control overall numbers is to take out the females that are either fixing to have young or have newly born or recently born young on the ground, allowing natural vectors to take care of the fawns/calves.

It is a personal choice situation and if a person has trouble with the concept or develops a problem over time with such a program they should either never get involved or if they are involved, leave the program. I just have a problem with trying to equate ethics into the picture.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Does anyone believe that the agent that produced these results had an ethical dilemma on its hands?



Many of todays top wildlife biologists, mammalogists and conservationists across America view white tail deer and the impact they have on the habitat a lot differently than "Sport" hunters do. Many of those folks openly refer to white tails as "Americas Largest Rodent".

White tails are one of the most highly adaptable/aggressive and prolific, non-rodent animals on the North American continent. They expand their range into every available piece of habitat oft times to the detriment of native species already living there, prime example is their encroachment into mule deer range in the west, and mule deer cannot out compete white tails.

From my research into programs such as the Ag culling and others, while it can and does raise issues with some folks, the most effective way to control overall numbers is to take out the females that are either fixing to have young or have newly born or recently born young on the ground, allowing natural vectors to take care of the fawns/calves.

It is a personal choice situation and if a person has trouble with the concept or develops a problem over time with such a program they should either never get involved or if they are involved, leave the program. I just have a problem with trying to equate ethics into the picture.

First off, I think your question is rather simplistic since we all know animals can't think, but rather are acting on instinct. I also don't believe anyone is disagreeing with you and your statements CHC. IMHO this is also not a case of ethics, but just a situation where some would rather see an animal die quickly at their hands, rather than to perish like the one in that picture you posted. Mother Nature is cruel and if we can play a part in it and make it a little easier if an animal has to die, some of us are saying that we would rather do it that way. The result is the same in that a bunch of animals are taken from the herd so that the habitat can better support what's left.

quote:

So what do I do? Put the tender feelings aside and just fill the tags (hoping the does I shoot have no young but taking the chance that they might) or just tell the farmer to find someone else to do it? (And risk the chance of "losing the account.") On another forum I asked an Englishman who was a professional deer manager for his opinion and his reply was a cryptic "no one ever forced me do anything I didn't want to do."

Answer: Talk to your Customer, the farmer, explain yourself transparently, listen to his answer, decide then on the essential question to us all "how then shall I live?" The battle none of us can win is the one against our own Conscience.
Best regards,

quote:

the pregnancy rate of whitetail deer seems to be between 60% to 80% and it depends on deer density and other habitat factors.

In Texas, the whitetail pregnancy rate is over 90% given good range conditions, and that study of over 2000 does was not controlled for age (meaning very young does (later year birth dates) who would not necessarily breed the first year were counted) so for full breeding age does it would be higher.

An Ohio study of mature does showed a pregnancy rate of 96-100%.

I don't know where you get your 60-80% number since you didn't reference the whole study or the source.

BigasanElk, it has not been my intention to offend or make light of your position on this matter. I personally do not know if I could or would volunteer for such a program.

Probably many of the other responders are in that same boat. On the surface to be involved in such a program sounds like a good way to gain a lot of experience/knowledge both from a hunting standpoint and understanding white tail behavior.

Personally and others mileage will vary, I believe that when a hunter reaches the point that they do not feel at least a slight twinge of remorse when killing something, they may need to take time and re-evaluate their thoughts and feelings about their role in the scheme of things.

I am not talking about hand wringing/crying ones eyes out. I am referring to that tiny little twinge most folks I know and have talked to get at the moment they make the decision to take the shot. That little unsaid prayer for a good clean kill with as minimal suffering on the part of the game as possible.

Possibly or probably at this point in time in your life getting out of the program is something you need to do.

I would hate to tell you how many does and fawns and turkey I have killed incidental to cutting hay or harvesting corn.If the meat is being donated to a food bank,I would not worry about shooting them.If it bothers you to shoot them.DONT!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
BigasanElk, it has not been my intention to offend or make light of your position on this matter. I personally do not know if I could or would volunteer for such a program.

Probably many of the other responders are in that same boat. On the surface to be involved in such a program sounds like a good way to gain a lot of experience/knowledge both from a hunting standpoint and understanding white tail behavior.

Personally and others mileage will vary, I believe that when a hunter reaches the point that they do not feel at least a slight twinge of remorse when killing something, they may need to take time and re-evaluate their thoughts and feelings about their role in the scheme of things.

I am not talking about hand wringing/crying ones eyes out. I am referring to that tiny little twinge most folks I know and have talked to get at the moment they make the decision to take the shot. That little unsaid prayer for a good clean kill with as minimal suffering on the part of the game as possible.

Possibly or probably at this point in time in your life getting out of the program is something you need to do.

Excellent post CHC and I couldn't have said it any better! Kudos man!!!

The data comes from two studies. One in Ohio and one in Missouri.

The MO and OH study analyzed pregnancy rate of whitetail deer - fawns, yearlings, and adults.

Note: A fawn impregnated in the fall will be 1 year old the following June, a yearling impregnated in the fall will be 2 yrs old the following June. Of course anything 3 years old in June would have been considered an adult (2.5+ yr) in the fall when impregnated.

Given this is a depredation hunt and the OP's statement:

"I have no problem with killing deer but can't bring myself to causally inflict a lingering death of dehydration and starvation on a totally dependent fawn."

It is safe to assume that the OP would shoot a 1 year old, 2 year old, or 3+ year old doe.

Each study segregated their population: MO by region of the state and OH by farmland versus hill country.

The minimum pregnancy rate observed for fawns (which would then be a 1 year old in June) was 21% in MO and 51% in OH, the weighted average between the two was 35%.

The maximum pregnancy rate for adults (3+ yrs old in June) was 100% in MO (small sample size though only 10 animals for that particular region of MO) and 97% in OH, the weighted average between the two was 94%.

The weighted average for all 3469 deer between the two studies was 72%. I simply rounded that to 70% and quoted a range between 60%-80% because the study only covers two states.

Additionally, since all pregnancies do not go to term and not all fawns survive and WI is not OH or MO (or TX obviously) and a) WI generally has harsher winters than MO and OH, b) results would be different every year based on feed and weather, and c) WI has the impact of wolves I stated the range was slightly less than 60%-80% as opposed to singling out a particular statistic.


https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bits...4_164.pdf?sequence=1

http://extension.missouri.edu/p/g9479

I am stunned...STUNNED to see actual data, comprehension of that data, and reasonable judgement being applied on the internet! Another option here, and one not everyone will be comfortable with is A) take the number of deer to be killed B) calculate the statistically likely number of fawns 3) Subtract B from A and 4) Shoot that number of does. Done.

quote:

The weighted average for all 3469 deer between the two studies was 72%. I simply rounded that to 70% and quoted a range between 60%-80%.

Except your "weighted" average does not take into account that fawns are at best 15% of the doe population. Which means that in Ohio, using your charts, the actual average pregnancy rate for all WT does would be over 92%. In Missouri it would be 83.3% BUT they are sampling road killed animals and that sample may well include very young fawns that would not be of breeding age yet. I'd quit rounding if I were you.

In fact, if you use your charts, and without going to the trouble of figuring the exact number, for each doe the opening poster kills, he is leaving 1.5 or more fawns to starve.

What is the source of the data that fawns are at best 15% of the doe population? I can't find that statistic in any study.

The data in the reports (MO and OH) regarding pregnancy rates has them at 36.5% combined for those study groups. MO = 35% OH = 47%.

Two additional study groups in the OH report shows female fawns relative to total females and the % of fawns is right at 39% in both groups. See Table 3.

Alternatively, assuming:

100 does with a national average recruitment rate of 83% recruitment (i.e offspring per doe reaching 6 mos) and 50% female births. We now have a rut population (Oct-Nov)of 141 (100+( 83/2)) females of which 41 are fawns or 29%.

http://www.qdma.com/articles/t...ty-of-doebuck-ratios

Adjusting the calculations to reduce the fawn % from 36.5% to 29%, the percentage of pregnant does in the spring is 75% for the populations sampled. Splitting the difference between the two, the percentage of pregnant does in the spring is 73.5%. Increasing the percentage of fawns to 39% consistent with Table 3 of the OH study brings the percentage of pregnant does to 70%. All three %s within the range of 60%-80%.

CHC is right
Deal with it
And difference between killing and hunting? Dead deer on both occasions, just difference in strategy
Do it or someone else will
We are predators after all

I really appreciate the thoughtful responses. And I'm somewhat suprised that everyone here seems to understand the need for, and objective of, the deer control program. Unfortunately, not all of the locals do. As you might expect, I've become something of a pariah. I could tell all kinds of stories about how some of the farmer's neighbors react, up to and including taking shots at me! What my so-called fellow hunters don't understand is the ag damage control program allows the deer population to be controlled where it's a problem. It's amazing how concentrated the deer population can be. For example, there are 2 farms, back to back neighbors, that comprise about 700 acres in total. Over a 3 year period, myself and a friend shot 422 deer on these properties. That's just 2 guys and just the ag tags. It doesn't count the regular season hunters (bow and gun) nor does it count others who filled ag tags. The deer that were shot were absolute runts - 3 year old does that weighed 60 - 70 lbs. Yet, if you went only a mile or so to the west there were few deer to be seen.

I'm not picking on Randall here but I wanted to respond to his post in particular because he brings up some good points.

quote:

BigasanElk, it has not been my intention to offend or make light of your position on this matter. I personally do not know if I could or would volunteer for such a program.

Absolutely no offence taken! I can understand anyone's reluctance to participate in such a program.

Probably many of the other responders are in that same boat. On the surface to be involved in such a program sounds like a good way to gain a lot of experience/knowledge both from a hunting standpoint and understanding white tail behavior.

It's been a fantastic learning experience. What I've learned, mostly, is that I still have so much to learn about hunting and deer behaviour. There are lots of guys who say they'd like to do this sort of thing but not so many of them are serious and willing / able to follow through.

Personally and others mileage will vary, I believe that when a hunter reaches the point that they do not feel at least a slight twinge of remorse when killing something, they may need to take time and re-evaluate their thoughts and feelings about their role in the scheme of things.

I am not talking about hand wringing/crying ones eyes out. I am referring to that tiny little twinge most folks I know and have talked to get at the moment they make the decision to take the shot. That little unsaid prayer for a good clean kill with as minimal suffering on the part of the game as possible.

I absolutely agree. And I'm happy to say that even though I've shot over 500 deer I'm not even close to the point of feeling no remorse. In fact, I believe I'm even more remorseful as time goes on. I thank the deer and apologize for any pain or fear that it may have experienced. There is a tinge of pity for the hungry deer who's life I just took, simply because she stepped over an imaginary property line. I's been a spiritual rollercoaster. One moment I ask myself "what the hell are you doing this for" and the next moment I think "the Good Lord gave me an unusually strong hunting urge. Then He provided with me a great opportunity and useful outlet for that urge. Life is good."

Possibly or probably at this point in time in your life getting out of the program is something you need to do.

Luckily I'm not yet at that point. Not yet. The ag damage control program is my only real chance to be a successful deer hunter in this part of Wisconsin. It's also the only way I can spend enough time afield. Our rifle season lasts only 9 days and a bum shoulder makes shooting a bow impossible.

No one in my family, or circle of close friends, are hunters nor are any of them farmers or landowners. Hunting on public land where I live is a joke and a total waste of time. In some places hunting on public land is practically begging for the Darwin award.

I don't even have the option of paying for access to a good place to hunt because there is no such thing as hunting clubs or leases like you have in Texas. The simple fact is, at least for me, deer may as well be on the moon because I don't have the right last name. It's been 5 years since I last shot a deer during regular season. Over the last 2 years I made an offer of $250 to shoot a doe or $100 per point to shoot a buck during the regular season. There were no takers and this was with landowners whom I've known for decades.

quote:

The ethical dilemma is that I am being pressured to fill some tags as soon as possible. For maximum efficiency, now is the best time to do it. The crops are emerging and it makes the most sense to shoot the deer before they can do too much damage to the new growth. But the does have recently given birth and the fawns are too small to travel with their mothers. If a doe comes into range there's no way of knowing, for sure, if she's a yearling without a fawn, a dry doe or a new mother with youngsters hidden in the brush. I have no problem with killing deer but can't bring myself to causally inflict a lingering death of dehydration and starvation on a totally dependent fawn.

AS I see it you are not being casual about the issue at all. Your efforts may or may not contribute to the death of a young animal. It affects you - GOOD! That shows there is nothing wanton or careless in your actions. The job will be done and I would rather have someone with a conscience doing it than someone who does it without thinking.

It may not make you feel any better but deer are prey animals. Their life is one of surviving for another day. They feed other animals first and then we hunt them - some for food some for trophies. I am a food hunter and I don't always shoot the first animal that I see. I recognize the animal that is willing to be food for me - hard to explain but that is how I feel when I hunt.

Do your job - you are good at it and you are ethical.

I personally find it unethical and repulsive to kill does in the summer when they have dependant fawns. I would not do it for any reason. Period.

When I was a working state conservation officer I refused to issue summer crop depredation permits to shoot does to any farmer/landowner that did not do his best to kill enough deer in legal deer season to protect crops in the summer.

quote:

Originally posted by DTala:
I personally find it unethical and repulsive to kill does in the summer when they have dependant fawns. I would not do it for any reason. Period.

When I was a working state conservation officer I refused to issue summer crop depredation permits to shoot does to any farmer/landowner that did not do his best to kill enough deer in legal deer season to protect crops in the summer.

This brings up a very good point, so I'll ask the OP this question. If these two farms are back to back with all these deer on them and you say you can go a couple miles away and there are very few, why don't they have you or hunters shoot as many during the Fall deer season exactly like DTala stated, rather than doing it when fawns can't make it on their own if their mother gets shot. This whole deal where farmers get these permits and/or money for crop damage when they won't allow legal hunters on their land sucks and they should either have to do that or take the crop loss as a part of doing business.

I don't view your response as picking on me at all.

I am in a unique position. I work for a friend that I have known for 40+ years and all Lora and I are interested in and kill are does.

My boss and his children hunt bucks, but that does not interest either myself or Lora, we are after the meat.

As I said, I do not know that I would be willing to get involved in such a program that you are in, but because you are having the thoughts you are having, maybe it is time that you re-evaluate your involvement.

quote:

Luckily I'm not yet at that point. Not yet. The ag damage control program is my only real chance to be a successful deer hunter in this part of Wisconsin. It's also the only way I can spend enough time afield. Our rifle season lasts only 9 days and a bum shoulder makes shooting a bow impossible.

No one in my family, or circle of close friends, are hunters nor are any of them farmers or landowners. Hunting on public land where I live is a joke and a total waste of time. In some places hunting on public land is practically begging for the Darwin award.

I don't even have the option of paying for access to a good place to hunt because there is no such thing as hunting clubs or leases like you have in Texas. The simple fact is, at least for me, deer may as well be on the moon because I don't have the right last name. It's been 5 years since I last shot a deer during regular season. Over the last 2 years I made an offer of $250 to shoot a doe or $100 per point to shoot a buck during the regular season. There were no takers and this was with landowners whom I've known for decades.

I realize we're a long ways apart, but if you'd like to come hunt a nice buck on my place for free, just PM me. Because of family considerations, I don't want you coming during the Thanksgiving or Christmas holidays. I realize this may make it difficult for you, but we do have some nice deer, not like the ones you have up there, but nice deer. Our main rut is basically the week before and leading up to Thanksgiving, starting roughly 20 Nov. You can hunt them anyway you prefer, but if you want to be successful, a stand is by far your best choice.

Depending on when you're here, and how lucky you are, it is quite likely you will kill some hogs.

Our rifle deer season typically starts the first Sat of Nov and runs until about the second week of Jan.

Wow, I may be the only one on this thread that would shoot the does and not give a second thought to whether or not there were fawns involved. As I see it, these deer are pests, not at all unlike the hogs in Texas, or prairie dogs in Wyoming. It is just good management, pure and simple, to take a large number of these out of the herd. If you do not, then you are simply perpetuating your ability to do this for years, because the fawns that do not die will just replace the deer you were supposed to shoot, leaving a zero sum gain. You have not helped the situation you volunteered to help solve. Like CHC said, these fawns will probably die from predators before they starve anyway.

The only drawback to me would be cleaning that many deer. If they can be donated, problem solved.

Unfortunately culling is part of good management..Most fawns would survive if the culling operation is properly set up to give them time to grow a little, summer fawns tend to survive all but preditors. If not then the fawns of shot does should be shot also, and all meat utilized. Utilization is of ultimate importance.

Some states however do not cull, then open seasons to all of the species and let hunters shoot them. this works in Idaho and most states and fawns during the hunting seasons are well developed and near weaning age.

Most important is deer that are not controlled to there enviorment, become inbred and over populate then they eat themselves out forage, and starvation creates desease and basically destroys the whole herd including the fawns. Nature is a littlel harder on animals than man as a matter of fact, mama nature is a cruel bitch.

There is no difference in fawns, does and bucks except in the mind of the shooter..Game management is not for the weak of heart for sure, but it is essential regardless.

I grew up on a big west Texas ranch and deer were far and few between coming out of the big depression, drought and poaching by hungry ranchers and towns folks and a lack of preditor control took its toll..Later on game management and controlled hunting was established mostly because it created a large income for ranchers and on that same ranch today its not uncommon to see 15 to 25 bucks a day and half of those bucks are mature or close to mature. Today on that ranch the game department issues about 20 to 30 doe permits to be shot during the season..

If you have a dilemma then let someone else do the killing, someone will I assure you. I have done a lot of culling in my life both here and abroad..It does not bother me as its a necessary evil if you wish to call it that, I call it preservation of the species.

Atkinson makes some great points. Add to the over browsing, the diseases that arise like the recent Blue/Black Tongue Disease that wiped out a good portion of the herds in Northeast Kansas - Southeast Nebraska and some in Missouri.

Nebraska tried a hunter type option two years ago by adding a "Earn-a-Buck"whereby you could not check a buck until you had checked a doe. The area hunters went nuts, and it was changed back the next year. The state said it was working, but public pressure won out over good management. I know it did not completely work, simply because the herds were too large as a whole. The hunters were shooting does, but a lot of them would shoot the buck first and wait days to put the doe in the truck because they would get thinned out in an area quickly. The buck was wasted, in some cases. I only had doe tags, and as luck would have it, that year, I saw 30 bucks and they all seemed to be chasing those one or two same does. Never got a shot. Blue Tongue took care of that and on the same ridge/valley where I had seen all the bucks the year before, I saw a total of three deer in a week. Thinning may have helped that.