Jan 30, 2005 By Rod Schoener 7 min read

As hunters, most of us don’t see a group of deer standing in a field the same as the farmer who owns the field. Last Thursday I was invited to join a group of local farmers who hold an annual informal luncheon to discuss farming practices, productivity, crop choices, ways to increase revenue and the affect deer populations have on their operations.

None of the group of about a dozen farmers from the southern end of Fayette County were anti hunters. In fact, most enjoyed hunting, including deer hunting.

Their concerns were with the number of deer that concentrate in some of the areas they farm and the costs incurred to having large deer populations, which annually extract from $60 to $100 per acre in damage to their most lucrative cash crops – soybeans and corn. Think about it. A farmer who plants 1,000 acres is losing $60,000 to $100,000 of potential profit to deer damage.

I learned a lot from the group.

Unlike hunters, the farmers don’t’ hunt deer for two weeks; they have to live with them year round.

The future of deer hunting in Pennsylvania will definitely be shaped by what happens in the next few months and beyond.

Dr. Gary Alt’s deer management plan has either failed miserably or succeeded far beyond expectations, depending on what side of the fence you sit on.

Regardless, battle lines have been drawn, and just about everyone will, at some time, be forced to choose sides, hunters, conservationists, farmers, journalists and politicians.

Mostly, this column expresses the views of sportsmen I encounter, plus my own feelings on the subject, which have become somewhat jaded over the past couple of years.

The farmers who till land from Sycamore south to the state line raise 99 percent of the cash crops grown in that end of the county.

A couple of Westmoreland County Farmers joined the group for the meeting, and every person present was asked to comment on deer and deer damage.

I will not attempt to identify each speaker as everyone spoke, and comments were exchanged back and forth throughout the discussion and lunch.

The first to speak up said, “I have lots of deer damage. I have lots of deer. I don’t know if there is any more than there have been, but they have been there forever.”

Another farmer said, “There is plenty of deer damage. In my lifetime, it has gone from, when I was little, when you saw a deer you stopped the car and looked at it saying ‘wow! I haven’t seen a deer in years,’ to the way it is now, where its no big deal.

“There are always deer there. Most of us work outside all year, and they have become common. There is no shortage of them.”

“The third farmer to speak said, “I’ve got deer in my yard every day. We have as many deer as we’ve ever had. I think the deer are in spots. I’ve got farms where the brush goes for miles, maybe as much as 10 miles, and there are deer in there like rats. But we also have farms that the people don’t want anybody on for whatever reason. That accelerates the amount of deer that you have.”

I asked if the Game Commission needs to have better programs to help farmers deal with deer problems and received a and unanimous yes.

Does the “Red Tag” system work?

“It helps,” was the response.

Most of the group had at least some property in the Red Tag program and encouraged sportsmen to contact the Game Commission’s Southwest Region Office for a list of farms in the program, which will be starting up again in February.

The farmers explained that land that used to be open is now posted, saying they have to chase hunters out of their soybean fields and some even refuse to go.

That is indeed a sad situation for a sportsmen who reads the Digest he/she receives with their license should know that it is against the law to hunt in unharvested fields.

“There is always this tension between the farmer and the ‘sportsman.’ Sportsmen who earn the right to hunt on private land usually get it,” another speaker added.

At that point, another member of the group joined in saying, “My property is posted, but I issue 10 written permission slips a year. Many sportsmen are so disrespectful to your property, your animals and even you that you have no choice. I’ve never had a problem giving people permits who respect the property, but it will stay posted. I had a cow shot last year, and I’ve had my fence cut four or five times. I don’t need this. I would love for it to be hunted. I don’t want the deer there.”

“Another in the group said, “The sportsmen have to control their ranks. They are the ones who follow the if its brown its down philosophy and not try to fill all of their tags.”

All were in agreement that they enjoy seeing wildlife, They just don’t enjoy the financial burden it places on them.

I was asked what is an acceptable loss for farmers from deer, and I said, “I don’t think there is an acceptable loss.”

Some members of the group said they have deer all year round. They start eating alfalfa in the spring and summer, stay until the soybeans and corn come up and stick around until the crops are harvested in the fall.

“It a misconception to think the farmers want all of the deer killed,” one farmer said. ” We like to see animals. Most farmers hunt, and some are very avid hunters. We don’t want to bleed all our blood for the sportsmen.”

It was pointed out that some of the areas farmed will hardly produce anything because the deer are so plentiful, and other tracts hardly receive any deer damage at all.

The question was asked, “What would sportsmen pay to help feed the deer herd? That would be one way for them to look at it.

“We don’t want deer eliminated; we value all life, but we would like to see deer managed, where they don’t dig any deeper into our pockets.”

Farmers have to depend on fluctuating commodity prices to make and living, In very good years, a little deer damage is easier to overlook, but in bad years, even a little crop damage and loss can make a big difference in the family’s income.

Most members of the group weren’t very familiar with the DMAP program for farmers but said they would look into it and consider participating.

Most said they would welcome hunting on land they own, but they don’t have the right to grant people permission to hunt on farms they rent or lease, as often the landowner will not allow hunting.

They admitted there are places where you can’t farm because of the large number of deer, but they can’t control what others do with their land.

It is definitely a people problem.

When asked what could the state do to help the farmers’ plight, it was suggested that dropping antler restrictions would help, especially on private land.

The group was unanimous in saying it did not want Sunday hunting in Pennsylvania.

The consensus was that Sunday hunting would lead to more private land being posted than is already posted.

“Farmers have to be very diligent to protect their property and equipment during hunting season, driving from one parcel to another every day to be sure nothing has been damaged and all fences and gates are intact. They need a day of rest on Sunday.”

All agreed that that they are not the sportsmen’s enemy, but they can be their best ally..

The Pennsylvania Farm Bureau represents 26,000 farmers in the commonwealth. A Bureau spokesman said, “We have a huge struggle to get the Game Commission to listen to agricultural concerns. The Game Commission has to step up and seriously listen to farmer’s concerns.”

I listened to them, and I was enlightened.

Respect what they do, respect them and their lands for without them more than just deer hunting could disappear in Pennsylvania.

Rod Schoener is the Herald-Standard outdoor editor.