76°
forecast

Hunters will aim to reduce deer numbers in Suffolk park

Posted to: News Outdoor Recreation Outdoors Suffolk

SUFFOLK

Three or four days a week, Robert Taylor III finishes his farm work, grabs his rifle and sets out to defend his crops.

Deer patrol, he calls it.

The animals are thick in and around Lone Star Lakes, a city park that is partly leased for farming. So thick, he said, that he and his assistants have taken out more than 100 of them over the years.

"They'll eat everything you plant if you don't," he said.

Reinforcements are coming. This fall, the city will close the park to the public and open it to hunters.

As many as 16 hunters a day will be allowed deep into Lone Star Lakes on six dates in November.

The city hopes they will thin the deer population more effectively than farmers have been able to do with permits that let them protect their fields most of the year.

For years, the forested 1,094-acre park and its 11 lakes have provided a refuge from which deer can venture and forage adjoining fields.

"That's the breeding ground. We're the feeding ground," said Philip Edwards, one of three farmers who lease park land for crops.

The deer may have reached the biological limit of what the park can support, as evidenced by spots where vegetation has been stripped up to 4 feet high, said Glen Askins, regional wildlife biologist for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.

The crop damage, meanwhile, is measured in the thousands of dollars. To get an idea of how quickly it can accumulate, assume an acre of soybeans will bring in $360. Then consider that deer can "completely destroy acres after acres of beans," Edwards said.

"Deer damage just costs us a tremendous amount of money in a year's time," he said.

Farmers who lease land at Lone Star Lakes have been able to use year-round damage control permits to kill deer in those fields since 2007. That helps the farmers but doesn't have much of an impact on the larger problem in the park, Askins said.

The permits also lead to a lot of wasted meat, Taylor said. Time-strapped farmers shoot many deer in hot weather, when the meat goes bad fast, he said.

So the conservationist in Taylor is thrilled to see the fall hunt happen.

"I can't tell you how many deer we've killed over the years on damage permits, but it's disgusting," he said.

City Councilman Joe Barlow said he pushed for the hunt, partly to stem that waste of meat. His borough covers the park, and his son leases some of the city land there for farming.

John Ruggiero, park ranger sergeant, said he has sought a fall hunt for years. Studies had to be done, he said, as well as consultation with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.

Ruggiero said it will provide a rare opportunity for local hunters. "Unless you're a member of a hunt club or own your own land, you just don't hunt in Suffolk because everything is privately owned," he said.

The hunt will be split into four days for shotguns and muzzleloaders, two days for archers. A total of 188 hunters applied for one or both hunts. The application deadline was Aug. 28.

The idea won't be popular with everybody, Taylor said. The heavy deer population is a draw for some.

Joan Odom, who lives near the park, said last week that she was unaware of the upcoming hunt. She said the city should have done a better job of informing residents about it.

"It's real shocking. It really is," she said. "You'd think you'd get a little more advance notice."

Next door, her mother-in-law, Betty Odom, said she was fine with the hunt. She's counted as many as 29 deer at one time in the field outside her home, although this spring marked the first time they hadn't eaten her azaleas.

Dave Forster, (757) 222-5563, dave.forster@pilotonline.com

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.

Watch.Dog

Gee, thanks a lot, I needed your kind words.

Ouch!

Yikes, nine thumbs down on my comment. Sorry if I again was too outspoken. I come from a long line of hunters and as a child shared the living room with deer heads and family room with a big stuffed rockfish. Guess it just doesn't work for me. I still think there had to be a better way to trim deer numbers.

Nine down.......

.....is a good thing. It means you touched a nerve in a lot of people who probably see the truth in it. They resent you because you pointed out a truth they did not see. Good job, keep up the good work.

Starvation and Habitat loss

I am a nature lover, and was once against deer population control hunts, until I was in Princeton New Jersey...When you see malnourished deer walking down a sidewalk , in February, skin sagging and ribs showing, you have to wonder if leaving them to suffer is the right thing...Its a situation where they've run out of habitat, they had eaten themselves, and other animals out of house and home, and Princeton had to hire marksmen, as well as use a contraceptive for control...Whats worse, thin a herd so that the rest can live a healthy life, or leave them to die slowly, and painfully.....I applaud the city...

Grab your guns...

Surely there is a more humane way to protect crops than unleashing hunters on unsuspecting deer. Fencing is one possible solution, or purchasing plants deer find unsavory due to smell or taste, or having blaring music and/or lights... but heck, hunters would then have to find some other excuse for skulking through the woods in their camouflaged makeup and attire schlepping their weapons in so-called defense of their domain.

Deer are not stupid

If you've ever been around deer, you would know they are very smart and even crafty animals. They can clear eight, even ten foot fences. If there are any sort of breaks in a fence, they will wiggle through them. Anti-deer fences that actually work are very expensive and are only cost effective on small tracts of land.

Sounds and flashing lights? You'll drive them off once or twice that way then they'll figure out the noises and flashing lights aren't any threat to them. Scents work the same way: once they see there aren't any of the predators the scents represent, they ignore them. The only things they can't ignore are bullets and fast moving vehicles.

Grab your guns?

I'm not sure when the last time you put a fence up was, but I know for a fact that it is very costly, especially when you have 1200 acres to fence in. Deer population management and hunting has been around for thousands of years as well. As far as purchasing plants that deer will not eat, the deer will learn to eat it as they have with cotton. If you think they do not eat cotton plants I can surely show you where they do. Deer coming into a field and eating crops is no different than some stranger coming into your house and stealing your hard earned money and food. Kill Permits and hunting is the only way that farmers can control the amount of damage done to their crops. I apologize if I have offended anyone but these are facts.

600 hunters

Hunting is actually a job. Man/woman goes out to get food for their family. That is a good thing.

Deer are overpopulating an area. They eat up all the vegetation so as not to have a healthy environment for other deer. That is a bad thing.

Let the hunters hunt the overabundance of deer (good) so that the remaining deer can be healthy (good).

Peta (bad)

So much "irony" so little time........

We cannot advocate violence or attacks here in the comments section(one of the rules)but the whole article is about advocating violence/attacks against deer. Is that not "irony"? Robert Taylor III can have a "kill permit" to use a gun against(unarmed)deer to protect his crops and yet citizens do not have the right to use a gun to protect their property from a thief; further do not have the right to protect themselves against an attacker unless the attacker has a weapon; it just wouldn't be fair. Is that not "irony"? I am guessing that Mr. Taylor's family has lived on the property three generations (being the third Taylor--150 years giving him the benefit of the doubt)and yet the Deer families have been on that land for thousands of years. The deer don't have guns to defend their land so the Taylor's can claim ownership because they are more violent. Is that not "irony" as well? The truly ironic thing is that man caused all of this by using his violence against the predators which kept the deer in check. Man is the true irony here and we need to bring back the predators to keep him(Man)in check. Now where can a real predator get a "kill permit"?

The courts don't see it that way

If you look at the decisions local judges have made when firearms have been used to protect property and property owners, you'd see a clear pattern favoring gun owners.

As for the idea of bringing back natural predators, just look what has happened in Idaho, Montana and parts of Washington State: in just a few years, wolves have turned from going after elk and deer to attacking sheep and cattle, costing ranchers thousands of dollars a year. Wolves have even threatened hunters challenging them over their kills. The wolf repopulation program has turned into a nightmare in western states. We don't need to repeat that kind of mistake here.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

More articles from: News rss feed    Outdoor Recreation rss feed    Outdoors rss feed   



Toolbox