Landowners could keep deer parts under permit

Summary#

A-5688 would amend New Jersey’s R.S. 23:4-42, the law on taking deer outside ordinary hunting rules. It would let certain people with a deer depredation permit keep antlers, venison, and hides from deer taken under that permit; the bill’s stated goal is to encourage participation and reduce wasted carcasses and crop damage. It is introduced, not law; if enacted, it would take effect immediately.

  • The landowner or lessee of qualifying cultivated land, or their authorized agent, could harvest antlers, venison, and hides from a deer taken under the permit.
  • The permit must be issued by the Division; an agent must carry it and have it countersigned by the owner or lessee.
  • If the deer is not harvested, its carcass remains the Division’s property, and the Division may remove and dispose of it as it directs.
  • The bill keeps the existing limits on where a permit applies: land under cultivation, defined by the bill to include certain pasture or crop land seeded or in use within the prior 12 months. The Division may require evidence of deer damage within the prior 12 months before issuing a permit.
  • At an owner’s or lessee’s request, the permit period must include February and March.

What it means for you#

  • Landowners, lessees, and their authorized agents: If they have the required permit, they could keep those parts of a deer they take under it. This is permission, not a requirement to harvest the deer.
  • Other hunters: The bill does not extend this permission to hunters without the specified permit, or change ordinary hunting limits for them.
  • The Division: It would retain authority over carcasses that permit holders do not harvest, including their removal and disposal.
  • Taxpayers and the public: The bill does not directly change taxes, create a public benefit, or require the Division to issue permits in every case.

Money#

No cost estimate is available in the supplied material.

  • The bill does not state a new fee, provide an appropriation, or estimate staffing or administrative costs.
  • The Division’s existing carcass-removal and disposal role would remain when a permit holder does not harvest the deer; any cost change is not stated.

What is unclear#

  • The parent statute was not supplied, so the bill’s description of existing law could not be independently checked against the current statute.
  • The bill does not set rules for how harvested antlers, venison, or hides may be used, shared, or sold.
  • It does not explain what evidence of deer damage the Division may require or how it would assess that evidence.
  • It does not set out handling or reporting requirements for harvested deer, or explain how those details would interact with other rules.
  • No publicly available information in the supplied material estimates how many permits or deer may be affected.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to give permit holders a reason to participate in controlling deer that damage cultivated land.
  • Allowing people to use antlers, venison, and hides could reduce the number of carcasses left for the Division to remove and dispose of.
  • The permission is limited to deer taken under permits for qualifying land, rather than changing rules for all hunters.

Case against#

  • Harvesting is optional, so the bill does not ensure fewer carcasses will be left for the Division to handle.
  • The bill does not explain how harvested parts may be distributed or sold, or what handling rules apply.
  • The Division may require evidence of recent deer damage, but the bill does not explain what evidence would satisfy that condition or how the decision would be made.