Balancing farming interests against deer hunting interests will always be the legislature's playground. Numbers count and acreage is one such measure. Were I a farmer, not a hunter, making a family living off of the (numbers count) acres of bean seed I paid for, scraped the ground bare to receive, fertilized, limed, planted, anticipated a financial wind-fall profit from, and the critters were eating it as fast as it germinated, I too would want eradication of the beasts to protect my blood, sweat, tears and financial interest in the crop.
Farmers supplementing financial crop damage losses through hunting lease income on properties less than but not equal to the legislatively proscribed minimum number of acres and expecting pro-rata results, i.e. less animals equals more crop, in a wild procreating deer population that is seasonal hunted in daylight hours is doomed to failure from the start. Legislation stipulates the minimum number of acres to "qualify" for tags, eradication hunts, and other "special interest". If the property is too small, the "favor" of the State's benevolence is not granted.
Eradication means HARD hunting; Game Commission permission/perhaps participation; minimum threshold numbers of required acreage; legal spotlighting; Summer hunts; Fall hunts; Winter hunts; Spring hunts; multiple hunters each hunt (10-20 isn't extreme). Who does this these days? The Game Commission (GC) knows. Certainly most Wildlife Biologists and GC LEO's have trained by participating in one or another of these hunts and not just for depredation. Teaching morphology and biology, studying diseases, and interests of like import are within the State's jurisdiction.
Being small sucks.