Can Deer & Cattle Be Treated the Same?

[Stringwacker]

Today, an interesting meeting took place in Mississippi where the state's wildlife agency seems to be stating that landowner rights may allow for the privitization of wildlife...a step toward a European system of management in which the rich has one standard...and everyone else has another. One must keep in mind that one of the 5 Commissioners that head the MDWFP has a rather large high fence enclosure so it's ironic if nothing else. What do you think of this?


Miss. officials take issue with deer pens
By SHELIA BYRD - Associated Press

JACKSON, Miss. -- The head of the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks said he'll seek an attorney general's opinion about the agency's regulation of high-fence enclosures for white-tail deer after being told the practice violates the law.

The agency adopted the regulation in 2008, but the Legislature has never passed a law allowing such enclosures, said Larry Richardson, an attorney with the state Senate.

"The law is plain, you'll be sued," Richardson said during a hearing Tuesday before the Senate Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks Committee.

Sam Polles, the agency's executive director, said he was never informed there was a problem with the regulation. He said an AG's opinion would be sought, and "we will abide by that determination."

An attorney general's opinion does not carry the weight of law but is designed to provide public entities a level of protection in court.

Committee Chairman Tommy Gollott, R-Biloxi, said lawmakers also are expected to address the issue next session.

Richardson said there have been several complaints about the enclosures, which cut off access to the white-tail deer. The public trust doctrine holds that all animals belong to the public, officials said.

Polles said it's also an issue of landowners' rights.

"If they want to throw up a high fence. The deer are in the fence. What regulation do we have there? We don't have the authority to take the fence down," Polles said during a heated exchange with Richardson.

Agency officials said there are about 120 licensed enclosures in the state, which are inspected each month to determine what's inside. The landowners are not allowed to charge, but agency officials said they suspect there are some who are charging for hunts.

Gollott said he believed there may be as many as 200 enclosures.

To receive a permit for the enclosure, a landowner must have 300 contiguous acres. The regulation allows for breeding pens.

Louie Miller, executive director of the Sierra Club of Mississippi, said his organization is considering a lawsuit.

"The department has turned a blind eye to this encroachment of these enclosures and the proliferation of these enclosures and that needs to stop," Miller said. "They're hiding behind this idea that this is all private property rights."

House Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks Committee Chairman Bo Eaton, D-Taylorsville, said all of the state's enclosure laws sunset next year. Eaton said a hearing on the issue was held in the House last month.

"If there's a lawsuit, we'll certainly wait on a court ruling," said Eaton.

Read more:       http://www.sunherald.com...white.html#ixzz1IgAb4GfR

[Don Stokes]

Mark, I think the concept of high fences sucks in general, but I can't argue the fact that a person has the right to do whatever he wishes with his own property. I can't see that if a landowner wants to high-fence his property that the State has a right to tell him what can happen inside the fence, as long as the game laws of the State are followed. How can access be being denied if it's private property? If he's selling hunts, that's a different matter altogether.

[Stringwacker]

Hi Don,

Unfortunately the article only scratches the surface of the issues at play here. At the heart of all of this is the American Public Trust Doctrine that states that the wildlife resource is collectively owned by all of us and individual states do not own the resource...they simply are entrusted by the public with the responsible management of our natural resources for the benefit of all.

In this case,the state allegedly is not only saying the landowner has the right to erect a fence...but also to 'own' that public resource that is imprisoned behind that fence. This would allow the landowner to buy and sell 'wild' deer for profit whether it be for breeding stock, hunts, horns, or food. It violates American wildlife doctrine and goes for beyond an issue of high fencing where the state still regulates the resource behind it.

In the end, there cannot be two forms of wildlife management in this country..one for the very wealthy and one for all others.

I think you know how AG opinions have went in this state and how they bring unexpected results that favors an increasingly radical wildlife agency.

In closing, I want to post a statement from someone I know very close to this battle of state government against state government. He has stated what I will not as he has first hand information. He attended the meeting yesterday and knows the full extent of what was discussed.

"On April 9, 2011 MWDF will meet at Commission Devinney Deer farm in Copiah County. They will discuss private landowner rights of enclosurers. MWDF has met with the Attorney General office to get approval for discussion of transferring ownership of whitetail deer that are presently held in enclosures on private propery to the landowner. They are trying to determine if they will be in violation of the Public Trust Doctrine. MDWF are trying to work out an agreement for the purchase and sale of these animals to the indiviuals who now own the enclosures. Contact your representatives and senators and Attorney G eneral Jim Hood and tell them NO!!! The Department of Wildlife will have a meeting on May 12, 2011 at 1:00 PM on Eastover DR in Jackson MS. This is at the main office of MDWF. Please attend to voice your opinion."

[Don Stokes]

Very scary, Mark. Nothing good can come of this. This would also be great ammunition for the anti-hunting lobby. Even if the enclosure was big enough to make "hunting" something approaching a challenge, the perception of the non-hunting public would undoubtedly be negative.

When I said "as long as the game laws of the State are followed" I was thinking of existing laws, not something new trumped up to benefit the super-wealthy.

[Mojostick]

Land owners don't have the blanket right to do whatever they want to/with their own property.

The worst thing about deer pens is, CWD is likley to follow them.

[Al Dente]

I am not to keen on the idea of high fences.  But this matter has multiple facets to it besides the issue of high fences.  Are the whitetailed deer living within the fenced in property once wild animals that happened to live there before the fence was erected, or were they purchased from a breeder and released onto the peoperty?  What is the intention of the owner of property?  Does he/she just want to keep the deer to watch, hunt, breed, urine farm, semen farm, etc..., or is the intention to start a hunting operation?  Are the deer healthy?  Have they been checked for diseases?  Is the fence just a deterrant for trespassers, or is its' intent to keep the deer captive?

I'm sure the State must have regs on the books about keeping animals in enclosures.  Regardless of the intent, there must be laws to follow.

When CWD broke in NYS, every whitetail breeder, farm, or business was visited by the DEC and Dept of Agriculture.  They were inspected and tested.  All importation of cervids was suspended from other states or provinces.

There has to be more to this.

[Stringwacker]

Hi Al,

I'm far from knowledgeable on high fence regulations and practices in the state. My involvement at the legislative level always is bowhunting oriented so i'm a little out of my comfort zone.

Missisisppi has no recognizable breeders market and deer cannot be imported within the state to my understanding. The practice of enclosures uses means three sides are erected and then through food plots or illegal baiting deer are enticed into the property and the fourth side is completed. The deer stock are 'native' deer.

Last legislative session a 'breeders' bill was established to allow the commercial trade of semen and breeder stock. Part of this regulation was for the existing enclosures to "de-populate" it's stock of native deer in exchange for  chipped breeder deer. The billed failed.

Meanwhile, a temporary bill passed in 2009 allowed a three year period to have the MDWFP regulate deer pens. Some members of the Senate feel that this granted power was abused and it was never intended to allow major high fence operations. The sunset is next year and the Senate appears unlikely to extend it. Thus we have a major development looming for fenced operations.

There is more underlying to this entire episode as is often the case in politics. When it was mentioned that the fences might have to be removed, the MDWFP (one Commisioner has a large high fenced enclosure) said they had no authority to do so. They often ask for Attorney General rulings which usually favor the MDWFP...yet the rulings often turn out to be a bit bizzare. The MDWFP basically stated that they would approach the issue from a landowner rights viewpoint which opens all sort of possibilities for public deer conversion. The agency has for quite sometime been accused of wanting a one season format with an elimination of archery season. This may very well be the catalyst that moves those plans forward. Bascially, the big picture is a battle to see if landowner rights trumps the dcades old wildlife management doctrine of public trust.

[Al Dente]

What is their logic to go to this system?  Privatizing the deer herd, and going to an open season, for what purpose?  Who will manage the herd logistics?  Health, number of permits issued, responsiblity for checking harvest totals.  This sounds like a can of worms.  We own our land, but who is to say what creatures live on that land from day to day, and to what end are we to go to maintain them?  We all know that deer move from bedding to feeding areas, sometimes crossing property lines, so who owns the deer?  I think they need to get their heads examined.  This makes no sense.

[Stringwacker]

Al its a very unique agency that is very radical in all it's approaches. Keep in mind, this agency defined 'primitive weapons' (means muzzleloaders to most people) as single shot centerfire rifles...the first wildlife agency in America to do so). The wildlife agency issues no tags, creates no verifiable harvest data, has no real zoning except for antler regs (three zones), and allows an 88 day either sex rifle season from the worst property in the state to the best. It's a one size fits all approach. They call bow seasons 'exclusive' like it's a dirty word and issues "e-blast' unsolicited emails that number 35,000 at a time to have the public 'sell' their idea's to the legislature.

Lastly, their motivation may be in my second post from my good friend who works in the Senate:

"MDWFP are trying to work out an agreement for the purchase and sale of these animals to the indiviuals who now own the enclosures"    

Surprise...the motivation might be revenue creation in that the MDWFP will sell "THEIR" deer to the high fence landowner who has 'their' deer in his pen. It's a new scheme to make money perhaps? Also to move away from those dirty 'exclusive' archery seasons and provide landowners the 'opportunity' to hunt with their weapon of choice through the year. Weapon of choice doesn't mean crossbow...it means firearms!

As you can tell...I'm a bit ticked off.

[Bryan Bondurant]

When I was a kid you could hunt anywhere you wanted to. There were very few places you could not hunt and that was mostly real close to farm houses. There have always been hunting clubs and deer camps but for the most part you could just drive out of town a few miles and find a place you could hunt without asking anyone, no problem.

Now every single acre of private land has purple paint up and down about every other tree in Arkansas. As a cowboy out west I saw direct landowner interference in a effort to lock private citizens out of public land. Now we see that larger land owners and fancy boys are trying to not only lock people out and off land but trying to lock the deer in.

This is a real funny place to be talking about this, here on a archery forum. There are just way to many "Sheriff Of Nottingham" type angles to the story. Its been my opinion for for the last twenty years that Game and Fish is set up to passify the poor with a few little hunting spots so they will stay off the big boys private hunting reserves. Now if the big boys want to fence in all the game and keep it to themselves they are in for a rude awakening.

If the United States cannot control our own border how does any small group believe they are gonna control any substantial tract of land? I can just see it now, one of the local bands of outlaws stealing a bunch of dogs, going out there and ripping down a hundred yards of fence, then turning the dogs loose for a turkey shoot.

No, they should not be fencing in deer. That said like with anything, there is a yen and yang, good and bad. In this case I believe the end result will not be what they are bargaining for, blowback.

[Al Dente]

Mark you are blowing my mind.  The hunting method does not matter, it is the fact that only those with a fenced in area will have access to hunt.  The availability of game will be based solely on the "fence" and nothing else.  This is a scary idea and a crazy one too.

[Don Stokes]

Our MS wildlife "managers" ultimately seem to want to open deer season in October and end it in January or February, with any method of killing them legal. Imagine the impact on sporting goods sales. They already completely ruined the market for muzzleloader sales by making single-shot modern rifles qualify as "primitive". Archery equipment will follow if they get their way. Some of their efforts were defeated last year, but they're not giving up.

The auto insurance lobby is strong. How many believe that our rates will go down if we pen up some of the deer and wipe out the rest by any hunting method for four months of continuous hunting, hmmm?

Mark, thanks for bringing this to light.

[Al Dente]

The issue of auto insurance was brought up here a few years ago.  The impact of deer/vehicle collisions on insurance premiums was discussed in NY and NJ.  They were proven to be unfounded.  I don't believe it, as do many hunters.  NJ alone has the highest car insurance in the nation, and over 60,000 deer/vehicle collisions a year.  Something stinks.

I feel for you guys.  I'm an east coast guy and my vision of the wide open west is diminishing with each post you guys put up.

They are proposing a modern version of market (hunting)killing.  Don't they realize the impacts of drastic herd reduction?  What other species are included in their vision, or is solely whitetails?  What will come of the predators that rely on the deer as a primary food source once their numbers are reduced?

[Stringwacker]

Don, I appreciate your comments. Hopefully, a new Governor along with some new legislative appointments will improve the situation a little more than what it is today. We can only hope! "Looks" like they will not back the special Attorney General created PW season any further back into the archery season this year. They said last week they didn't plan to...but you never know.

Al,
Mississippi is a beautiful state with lush green habitat. It's an environment that the deer flourish in. The deer dynamics here are different in that there are so many in comparison of number of hunters that the MDWFP feels within reason that the resource cannot not even be managed to a stable number...much less reduced. This is why the incredibly long gun seasons, no tags, appreviated archery seasons and ever thing else exist here. Seasons have been either sex and close to 80 days for many years here. I personally think that the herd is less than it was 10 years ago...but the archery success rate still hovers near 70% so obviously there is no shortage of deer. My main concern is the wildlife agency doesn't think creatively. It just extends gun days at the expense of special seasons...and never even tries to expand the season or daily bag limits. You would think increasing bag limits would be the 'first' thing that is done by a wildlife agency....not the last.

[Don Stokes]

Although last time I looked we could shoot three bucks and eight does here in MS (not sure I'm current on that- not a factor for me   ) we are limited to one doe per day. If overpopulation is such a problem, where's the sense in that?

[Stringwacker]

Three bucks and 5 doe (on the honor system) at the current time I think. The one doe a day is drawing much attention...a throw back law of decades past. Based on my discussions with the legislative officials, we may see doe limits removed in it's entirety. However, the wildlife agency wasn't the one who brought it up:)

[Don Stokes]

I remember the first doe days ever allowed in MS, in the late '60's if I remember correctly. The local game wardens were quoted afterward as saying that the deer population had been wiped out by the two doe days. It was one weekend in gun season. I killed two bucks on those two days, a spike and the biggest buck I've ever killed, a monster nontypical 10 pt. with a long drop tine.

We've come a long way, baby!