Wow, that's an interesting article. I'm not sure how I would rule. I can see the landowner's point of view but, if there are methods already in place to handle the problem, I'm not sure he is right.

I hope you keep us updated on this case.

As a farm owner, I can see this guy's point of view. It is his land, crops, and livelihood. He has the right to protect that. This guty is not killing thousands or even hundreds of deer. I've seen what deer can do to a farm. with the giant deer population, there should be more people like Mr. Kelly.

I agree with Hunter. Of course, I haven't seen the fine print of this 1915 Iowa Supreme Court decision, but I suppose I'd be inclined to rule against Mr. Kelly, with a caveat that the DNR work harder or even adopt a new program to better meet the needs of landowners in regard to nuisance deer. (Ideally, a program that allows bowhunters to come in and kill does.)

i think he is right. not like it is someone elses property or public property. i live in iowa and i have seen the population out there and it is huge, one hurd of deer can do major damage to crops. so i think he shouldnt get fined

I am not a hunter & love the majestic animals. Isn't there scents to keep the deers away. And if he has to kill a deer why not keep his mouth shut and get on with his life.I didn't hear of a neighbor complaint or report. I think he only wants to draw attention to himself.

I'm an attorney, and while I'd have to research the Iowa cases and statutes a little more, I'd say this guy is probably SOL as far as the law goes on this. There are numerous cases in every state that are outdated because of new laws that have subsequently been enacted. The fact that this case still exists could mean nothing more than the issue has never made it before an appellate court since that original case.

But, having said that, this would be a great case for jury nullification. I'd bet his odds of acquittal would be pretty good in a jury trial! Unfortunately, an acquittal is not going to solve the problem or resolve the issue, as the state can't appeal an acquittal. The only way this is going before an appeals court where any kind of legal precedent could be set is if Mr. Kelly loses his trial. Maybe he knows that and that's what he's hoping for. It's just going to be an expensive process for him.

Weren't DNR's set up to protect wildlife when at the turn of the century, there were hardly any deer? Well mission accomplished! They're back. I can remember my father talking about hunting deer in Mississippi when he was a boy and not even seeing a deer during the entire season (1940's).
My point is that I think wildlife agencies, while necessary, need to be reigned in somewhat. Most every "game warden" I have ever met is over-zealous and rude. There are exceptions of course but it seems the ratio is 80:20 in favor of the A**holes. I have never been cited in my life but it's not because they sure as hell didn't try. Just doing there job my ass.
Maybe state wildlife agencies should teach some manners. I have never met a Highway Patrolman who wasn't courteous and I've had LOTS of speeding tickets.
So to the man in Iowa, I say shootem all because they'll make more.

Plain and simple, I think deer hunting regulations need to be loosened extensively. I live in the suburbs of St. Louis, and ridiculous doesn't come close. The farm that I hunt is just outside city limits, and during a pre-season scout we counted 80 deer in a 700-acre field, only nine were antlered, and only 4 of those were mature.
I can go jogging down my road, pass a doe standing five yards away, and then pass her heading back, and she'll never flick an ear. Reeking carcasses are commonplace on highways.
Early in the previous century we had a problem with over-predation, now we have a problem with under.
Missouri has been moving in the right direction. Establishing a mid October and December antlerless only gun seasons on top of the regular seasons helps, but with the rate of growth and the still relatively low numbers of does harvested, maybe an extension of seasons needs to be implemented. Let's start the seasons earlier in the summer, or permit night hunting, or maybe earn a buck.
All I know is that this bow season I shot a baby doe that weighed in less than 60 lbs with the guts in it, and my cousin shot one that was tiny compared to that. Babies are not supposed to be that small, now matter how late they were born.

I support Mr. Kelly. I too suffer lots of tree & crop damage. I easily lose an acre of corn every year. At 200 bu/acre and corn bringing well over $3/bu -- that's in excess of $600. I am an avid deer hunter, but can only obtain 1 free landowners license without going through a lot of red tape. My wife and son have to pay for their tags. Even with land in two separate counties, and after "feeding" dozens of deer all year long -- all I get is one "free" tag.

When I was a young kid (a long time ago) and was about 10 (1960?). In the period of about 2-3 years while working with him in daily shifts, my sister and I planted 5200 blue spruce trees on his 44 acre lot. The deer ate the tops off of every little tree'ling'. Shoot 'em! It's your property and they could be costing you money. I'd vote for the hunter.