Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Options for 2006?

Silvertip makes ALOT of excellent points.Many I was going to bring up.Please reread his post.


I would say that you should get a program in place that gives accurate information as to what the REAL deer population and harvest statistics are. As you have stated on here before WJS you really don't have an accurate number as to what the deer population is overall. I have seen less deer this year than ever, and absolutely dread the upcoming doe season. Now, here we are before the new seasons are even taking place looking for changes for next year. I am sure that whatever the changes are, we will all know about them after the fact, just like this year. Many of us already argued that these new season for '05 would not have the desired effect, and now you are implying that they may not obtain your herd reduction goals before the sun has even set on them. Are you looking for new seasons/regs. in addition to the new ones this year, or are you looking for suggestions for next year to take the place of this years changes? I realize that you are just doing some brain storming and trying to get some ideas from us. I do appreciate very much the fact that you take the time to keep us informed, and I hope that you are sincere in your efforts to have us involved. It seems to me that it would be a lot better to have a doe season in Sept. vs. Jan. You would get a lot more hunters willing to be out then and there would be no question as to whether you were shooting at a buck that had shed out. The percentage of bucks shot now in the late season does absolutely no good for population control. Seems that you could have a doe season in Sept. and sell lots of tags. Folks are chomping at the bit to get in the field at that time. Being able to hit those green bean fields before the acorns drop would make it pretty darn easy to put the hammer on some does. Raising the prices won't reduce the deer herd. For $27 you should get an any sex tag and an antlerless tag. Then be able to buy antlerless tags for $12 after that.
 
As a non-resident I can only give you a couple views -- Increase the non-resident price by $25 and include an antlerless specific tag witht the anysex tag. Nonresidents will shoot does if they have the tag. Four of us did not draw in Iowa this year so we hunted in Missouri and shot 1 buck and 3 does. I admit it will probably not have much effect due to the limited non resident tags but it would help some. Management needs to get up to date. While Pa. is not ideal it offers a better antlerless solution. PA sells 900,000 doe tags a year by management zone and they all sell out. Resident cost is $5.50 per tag so is very afforrdable for everyone. In areas where access is limited and there are alot of deer there are virtually unlimited tags available so that the hunters with the access can get all the doe tags they want to shoot as many a they want. May be overly simplified but the same could be done in Iowa and the laws of supply and demand should rule. Decrease your cost, increasing demand and provide the supply.
 
Forgot to mention - those PA doe tags are good in all seasons - so as long as I have an general gun tag, archery tag and muzzleloader tag - I can shoot the doe in any season I have the general tag for. In essence I can shoot a doe anytime from Oct 1 - Jan 31 so increases the opportunity to hunt and the opportunity to be successful.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Forgot to mention - those PA doe tags are good in all seasons - so as long as I have an general gun tag, archery tag and muzzleloader tag - I can shoot the doe in any season I have the general tag for. In essence I can shoot a doe anytime from Oct 1 - Jan 31 so increases the opportunity to hunt and the opportunity to be successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here in Nebraska, those tags are called "Seasons Choice Antlerless." If you have one, you can take an antlerless deer during the open season of your choice (archery, rifle, muzzleloader, or January late firearm).
 
First off the option of forcing hunters to shoot a doe first before a buck will never work because it can't be enforced without a lot of expense not to mention hunter opposition. If you want to get people out hunting does more then the licenses need to be cheaper as in selling a license that is good for a buck and doe for the $27 and then selling the extra tags for say $5 or $8. Also make the doe tags good for any season with any weapon with maybe an earlier Sept. season for does only. Those southern counties are always going to be a problem with overpopulation since there is no access to 1000's of acres where the does have little or no hunting pressure. I know of areas here in Jackson County that can't be hunted and I would gladly go there and shoot does if I could. It seems to me you think your going to fail already in reducing the numbers this year and that the second late Jan. doe season and Nov. season were a grasp at straws. I think it was a bad idea in late Jan. as do most here since there will be many antlerless bucks shot then. Well enough of my rant on that.
crazy.gif
Bottom line is cheaper licenses and more hunter time in the field will be the things that get the does killed.
 
WE CANT FORGET
Hunters as a management tool leaves the very end control up to the hunters. Its in our best intrest to manage our hunting areas to meet our goals not BIG INSURANCE, or BIG Business`s

The DNR can make all kinds of rules but with out the hunting community buying in its all for nothing anyway....

I fear the hunting community will continue to do its own thing .... until the DNR gets control and gets BIG INSURANCE and big poltics out of its decsion making process`s

And gets back to whats best for the states wildlife resources not big business`s pocket book.
 
I agree with silvertip, I live and hunt in a couple of those southern tier counties and I haven't seen close to as many deer as I seen last season or before and nothing has changed on the property that I hunt. Personally, I feel that Iowa needs to keep better statistics on the number of deer that are harvested by hunters each season. I am from western Nebraska and was back to rifle hunt this year. There you have to check in your deer for all seasons. This is done simply by going to the sherriffs office and the clerk or officer in side asks you the sex, county of kill and takes a tag outside and places it on the animal. No DNR involved except on the weekends of the rifle season when they are there to collect lymph nodes to test for CWD. The people who check in the deer have to be there anyways so there is no extra cost. To me this seems simple enough and wouldn't bother me to drive the 20 miles to the sheriff's office to check in a deer. I also agree that an anterless season from September 15 to September 30th would be a great way to get some extra does killed by those that can't wait to get out there. If you want a season that is earn a buck make it the late muzzleloader season as the does are bred for the most part and you would taking out up to three deer with taking of one pregnant doe. Thanks for the opportunity to voice our opinions on this problem.
 
I agree with many of the posts that a multifaceted approach is needed for this issue. One of the things I learned in business school is to try to identify the stakeholders in an issue. Obviously, the Iowa Farm Bureau and the Insurance Industry are two very powerful stakeholders in regards to this topic. They have a very strong ($$) lobbying position. I think that with the right approach, they should see fit to earmark some of their lobbying budget to fund a program that gives landowners in the problematic areas incentives to open their properties to hunters (ACCESS!!). They might even be able to launch a PR campaign in the problematic areas with mailings from their databases. As a state agency, I am not sure if the DNR can be a conduit for such a program, but at least they should be able to be a facilitator. It would be a win/win situation for all parties involved. If it was my job to address this situation, this would be a path I vigorously pursued.
 
First I want to thank Willie for coming on here and asking for our opinions.

I would agree with the lower antlerless prices. I also agree (although others may not) that either-sex tag prices should be raised while antlerless tag prices are reduced. The requirement to purchase an either sex tag before buying an antlerless tag should be eliminated as alot of hunters dont buy more than one license anyway. I believe raising either-sex tag prices would offset the loss of income from cheaper antlerless tags, however it would even out for those individuals who purchase multiple tags. This would help put the incentive on antlerless deer while helping out the quality of bucks by allowing meat hunters to purchase only antlerless tags at a much lower price than a "buck" tag. I can think of several people off hand that would jump at that chance, but who typically shoot a buck by coincidence and just throw the rack away. That doesnt help population numbers or buck quality at all.

I realize that raising any-sex tag prices is never popular, but if done in conjunction with lower antlerless prices it seems the overall cost would balance out while putting the emphasis on does.

As for hunting does in the southern part of the state, we used to do that. However, now that we have antlerless tags for our own county there is no incentive to travel down there and we get less nagging from the wives about being gone. Kind of catch-22 there. Until there are no antlerless tags up here, or free tags down there, I dont expect we will go back down and take on the extra expense of travel. I know thats not an answer, but it is the reality of the situation and I would guess it is the same for many others.
 
DNR - doesn't want to lose revenue, and i don't have a problem with that.

hunter - doesn't want to pay more / higher fees

well, i think the answer to both questions is more tags, at lower cost.
 
WJS...let me go lock the back door and get a good nights rest...I'm going to have to sleep on this one.
grin.gif


Need to get a deer shot with my bow tomorrow before the shotguns hit the timber on Friday morning.
grin.gif
 
i know LOTS of people not willing to pay the same $$$ for antlerless tags. lower doe tag prices = sell more tags, should put too much of a damper on precious revenue. maybe the DNR needs to find other revenue sources (% of sales tax, as opposed to budget set by legislature) and quit trying to manage the herd, and run it as a business.
 
I have lived in the Southern Iowa since the beginning of the modern day deer season and I have seen many changes in the deer regulations over those years. I spend a good deal of time every year talking with farmers, landowners, and deer hunters.

Access for deer hunters on private properties in the Southern Counties is shrinking annually at an alarming rate. Prime hunting properties are being leased or purchased by both resident and nonresident deer hunters. In recent years Iowa has seen the commercialization of deer hunting by “outfitters” who are also leasing or purchasing these prime hunting properties. In some cases these prime properties are selling or leasing for more than the actual agricultural value of the property. These individuals or corporations are not interested in harvesting antlerless deer; they all want that “Big Iowa Buck”.

In some cases, the Iowa DNR and other government and local entities are financing a good deal of these purchased and leased properties through habitat enhancement incentive programs.

The State of Iowa has a number State Parks and preserves in Southern Iowa and throughout the state. Most of these parks or preserves don’t allow deer hunting, and if they do, it is on very limited bases. Add to that that there is also a good number of County preserves and parks. Most of them don’t allow any deer hunting.

When the firearms start going off this November and December, every deer in a 10 mile radius heads for these leased/purchased deer sanctuaries. Many property owners bordering these sanctuaries are having deer population/damage problems.

Motorist traveling near these sanctuaries are experiencing an increase in deer/auto accidents. Insurance companies are paying out a good deal of money annually to cover these deer/auto accidents. Yet, the insurance industry was unwilling to help fund the HUSH Program and left the funding to deer hunters.

The deer population in the lower two county tiers in Iowa is a complex problem. One that in my opinion will require educating the State of Iowa, all property owners, and deer hunters re: the need and means to harvest more antlerless deer. If deer hunters can not gain access to hunt state, county, and private property the deer population will continue to grow through out Southern Iowa.

Ron Wyllie
Page County
 
I like the idea of being able to fill the doe tags in any season.Say someone buys a doe tag for the upcoming 3 day season and dont fill that tag.The Dnr has gotton the money but the tag isnt filled and never will be.If doe tags could be good for any season at least there is a chance they might get filled.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Forgot to mention - those PA doe tags are good in all seasons - so as long as I have an general gun tag, archery tag and muzzleloader tag - I can shoot the doe in any season I have the general tag for. In essence I can shoot a doe anytime from Oct 1 - Jan 31 so increases the opportunity to hunt and the opportunity to be successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here in Nebraska, those tags are called "Seasons Choice Antlerless." If you have one, you can take an antlerless deer during the open season of your choice (archery, rifle, muzzleloader, or January late firearm).

[/ QUOTE ]

This would, in my opinion, be the best solution. May reduce revenues for the State, but it would for sure reduce the doe herd. What is the OVERALL goal? Decrease the doe herd or increase revenue?

The 'Bonker
 
(1)Doe tags should be good for all seasons.
(2)Decrease price of doe tags
(3)Educate the public on progress
(4)Insurance companies don't mind spending a big bundle of money voicing their opinion that there are too many deer and they should all be killed. Perhaps the insurance companies should be given some options on how to better spend there money to satisfy there needs for herd reduction. Loss/lack of revenue is a recurring issue in this post. If the insurance companies want the herd reduced then why not have them fund some of the programs previously mentioned. Insurance companies want the herd reduced but the hunters have to pay for it. Doesn't make sense to me. How many tags could be purchased for the average amount they pay out for one auto/deer collision. It seems to me that their money would be better spent by investing in herd reduction rather than just screaming about it.
 
Lower cost doe tags. $5 more for your any sex tag. Doe tags good for any season you hold a regular tag for. Open this 3 day doe season to NR's. My brother is home for Turkey Day and we were going to hunt does until I found out he couldn't get one! He was willing to pay $50.50 for a doe tag and was turned away! Makes no sense to me and you have three less hunters killing does this weekend. Move the late doe seasons up to the beginning of the Fall to encourage participation & eliminate shed buck kills. Also like the idea of cheaper doe tags for youth. I've spent my $54 for my son's tags and he would hunt forever if I kept supplying the tags. Maggs.
 
[ QUOTE ]
(1)Doe tags should be good for all seasons.
(2)Decrease price of doe tags

[/ QUOTE ]

definately what NEEDS to be done, but the legislature and DNR won't allow it, because, if you don't fill your tag, then you HAVE to buy another. they are perfectly happy having us buy 7 tags, and filling 3-4

they need to decide if they are in the tag selling business, or wanting to effectivly manage the deer herd
 
[ QUOTE ]
If you want a season that is earn a buck make it the late muzzleloader season as the does are bred for the most part and you would taking out up to three deer with taking of one pregnant doe.

[/ QUOTE ] I have to disagree with making the earn a buck late season muzzleloader because it is hard enough to get onto deer then as it is after they have been shot at countless times. It also makes no difference whether you shoot a doe after or before she has been bred for the year as it serves the same purpose if she's pregnant or not.
 
The stakeholders most involved are farmers, insurance industry, DNR, and hunters. Another business school lesson is leverage in negotiations- right now I feel like hunters have an advantage. There will never be enough deer killed for the insurance industry as long as there is a vehicle/deer collision in Iowa. Maybe our counter to the "lost" revenue on lower priced anterless tags should be that the insurance industry cover the lost revenue. No matter what happens, if hunters fail to reduce doe numbers- what is their next best option? If you can't sell 10,000 extra tags or whatever the number- you aren't going to sell more the next year unless the price comes down. I think they need us more than we need them right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom