Whose Deer Are They Anyway?
by Tim Smith
A recent e-mailer wanted to know why this department doesn’t pay for deer damage to vehicles but will collect fines for the wildlife code violations pertaining to deer. They felt that we claim ownership of deer when it pays us but not when it would cost us. In reality, we never claim ownership of deer. Fines for wildlife violations go to the county in which the violation occurred, not to the Conservation Department.
Deer and other wildlife are the property of all Missourians; they are a natural resource of the state. In 1936, Missourians passed an amendment to the Missouri constitution creating the non-political Conservation Commission. The public made it clear, with their vote, that they wanted an end to the poorly regulated harvest of wildlife that had led to the near elimination of deer and turkey in the state. The Department’s authority to regulate wildlife today issues from that constitutional mandate of 1936 to restore and manage wildlife resources for the people of Missouri.
Because the Department does not own wildlife or control their movements, we are not responsible for the damages caused by wildlife. It’s not the same situation as when a cow escapes its fenced enclosure and is hit by a vehicle. That cow is a farmer’s private property. The farmer is responsible for controlling that animal’s movements, and he is liable for damages that it causes when he loses control of it.
Please take extra precautions to avoid deer/vehicle collisions at this time of the year. Deer are on the move due to the rut, the deer’s breeding season, and are more likely to cross roads frequently. Some deer/vehicle collisions are unavoidable but you can minimize your risks by keeping a sharp eye out for roadside deer, especially at dawn and dusk. If you see a deer, slow down safely and watch for additional deer that may have initially been outside your field of view. Don’t swerve to avoid a deer, if you cannot do so safely.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
My insurance company tells me the three reasons rates are high are theft,uninsured motorist,and vehicle deer collisions. They also tell me if I don’t smoke, get married, and over 25 years of age my rates will drop. I say if you deer hunt and are sucessfull in harvesting a deer your rates should drop with each deer you put in the freezer. When I suggested this they ended the conversation very quickly. What do you think?
November 20th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
After reading “whose deer” you do not leave much choice. I have crops that were severely damaged this year by herds of deer. Conservation agents were present, they policed the area protecting the deer, not my crops. Farming is my livelyhood, soybeans are worth over $10.00 @ bushel today. The agents never cared to tell me of the damage; but now, the crops are harvested, the deer back safely in USDA privately held wetlands[weed patches] or other restricted CAs, We fed the deer with our crops now, MDC makes the money. I do not want to kill the deer unless forced to, So, does MDC evade this issue?
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:58 am
Darrell:
I think if I were head of an insurance company, I would also end that conversation quickly.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:02 am
Mr. Whitener:
I’m not sure I understand your position. Conservation agents can grant special permits to landowners who have deer damaging their crops. But if you don’t want to kill the deer, then I’m not sure what solution would work. I don’t think we are evading the issue of deer damaging crops.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I’m on Claude Whitener’s side. The deer (and turkey’s, and every other animal) clearly live and survive on 90% of private property in the state. This may appear to be out of left field for people that don’t own land or farm, but I say that those deer belong to the people who essentially raise and support them. There is not a piece of public property for 20 miles around my farm, and, knowing how my neighbors also feel about deer damage why can’t the landowners decide how to manage the population? Why don’t they own those deer? The answer IS money. Seriously, how long now have people in NEMO been able to buy as many antlerless permits as they wish. If the MDC really puts no limit on deer tags then they clearly wish for there to be fewer deer. Give the control back to the people and everyone will be happy.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
The deer have been very active where I live lately, especially at night. Keep your eyes open and when you see one deer, there usually are more.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Tim, Conservation agents should be the people to destroy nusiance deer, not the landwoner nor farmer. I want to put the responsiblity where it belongs at MDC. If I were to go out and kill fifty deer next summer, my action would affect many people,i.e., archery hunters, gun hunters, a hugh hunting club owned by an out-of-State entity, who, by the way, invites many out of state hunters and employees to hunt deer[several thousand acres USDA private wetlands]Also taxidermists and sporting goods locally, may be affected, don’t believe I would be too popular either, if I were to destroy the deer!
November 26th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I really think that with all the deer tags available there shouldnt be a problem with too many deer. the problem is you hear all these farmers and land owners complaining about deer damaging their crops,but when you ask to hunt they wont let you. so i dont really wanna hear them complaining about deer populations. There are plenty of honorable law abidding citizens out there begging for a place to hunt while your crops are being damaged.
November 26th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
On this page:
http://mdc.mo.gov/nathis/mammals/deer/seasons.htm
You mention that hormone levels in deer are impacted upon by changes in the length of the days. I am fascinated because as a researcher into hormones in humans I would love to find out if this also works in humans.
Thank you for the info – I will now start my research.
November 28th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Mother Natrue..We do allow deer hunting, most want to take big bucks. However, would you want to stand in a 300acre open flat soybean field and allow ten or fifteen hunters to open up with high-powered rifles shooting across in each direction? This area[soybean fields] borders two miles of USDA privately held wetland, shoot a deer in this area is an offense, hunting open fields with no cover is a bad situation.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
The central issue here is not if MDC is actually responsible for the damage caused by deer/vehicle collisions, but if they DONT shoulder any responsibility, why do they regulate the ability of the “people of Missouri” to harvest deer. Every time a citizen questions MDC they turn to the fact that in 1936 Missourians passed an amendment creating a “non-political” Conservation Commission. I have two issues with that: The first is the idea that the Commission is non-political-its about as non-political as getting appointed to lead one of our State’s departments, which is VERY political, and if they tell you different they are lying through their teeth. The second issue is the idea that MDC is currently being run as it was envisioned in 1936. Does anyone really believe that the blatant over regulation of every aspect of our outdoors lifestyle was what those folks had in mind over 70 years ago when they voted for the creation of MDC?
Don’t misunderstand me, I firmly believe that regulations are necessary, but not to the extent that MDC has taken them to.
WesP states that he believes farmers(landowners?) should be able to decide how to manage their population, and he is absolutely right. If my money and my sweat feed those deer, I should have the ability to eat them whenever I want to, not when MDC says it’s OK.
Whoever said that its all about the money is absolutely correct as well-take the four point restriction into account, as it is the most glaring example. Why do we NEED a four point restriction? Answer: We don’t. It is in place so that Missouri can build a better reputation as a “Monster Buck” state like some parts of Illinois, Iowa and Kansas, therefore drawing out of state hunters and the money they bring to the table. No matter that I had four bucks pass me on opening morning, but I couldn’t put that meat in the freezer because they were six points or smaller. Again, it is over-regulation to mesh with the ethos of the current crop of wildlife scientists and environmentalists at MDC, not the wants and/or needs of the people od Missouri, who according to this blog, own the wildlife of our state. It seems to me that this is another spin doctor effort to conceal the truth, which is that MDC is going to do what MDC wants regardless of what “the people” want….because they can, and we let them get away with it.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I have found farmers to be the best source of information and hunting grounds. They don’t all eat venison but I’ve found they all eat fish and a little generousity and kindness does wonders for granting hunting permission. The really slick farmers are leasing their properties to hunters to suppliment their incomes. I had a farmer tell me this year that the deer in the area was his becaused he raised them off of his crops. A true perspective that I never really had considered before.
December 1st, 2009 at 5:29 am
If the deer are not owned by the conservation department then how can an agent seize shed antlers found on private property. Shed antlers should belong to who ever finds them. Just find a set of record anlers and watch how fast an agent comes and gets them from you.
December 1st, 2009 at 5:40 am
“In reality, we never claim ownership of deer.”
What “under the law the ownership of wildlife is vested with the state”
http://missouriwhitetails.com/archives/monarch_story.htm
Has this law been changed? I cannot find the answer