Deer Numbers

[LYON]

One thing that I have really taken note of this year is that while many people on sites like this one have lamented the lower deer numbers all season and many have commented on the need to reduce doe harvest...I have also listened to several other deer hunters conversations that don't for a minute plan on slowing down on doe harvest at all.

I attribute this to the people that frequent sites like this one as more in tune with population trends and caring about the resource in a completely different way than many other hunters. I don't say this to put others down, but I think it is important to realize that there is a huge difference in attitude and opinions between "serious" deer hunters, like those that frequent this site, and "regular" deer hunters, who will often buy as many tags as they can and shoot as many deer as they can.

I don't think we will solve the problem by people voluntarily restricting doe harvest, there are just too many people who will shoot as many as they can, the problem will have to be solved by reducing/eliminating the tags.

This is right on. Someone said in a different thread about this same subject that if there were only ten deer left in the state, there would be a group that would shoot them.

I Personally think this mater is two-fold. #1 and by far the most important is lobbying the powers that be to make the correct choice for the herd. #2 is to spread the word to the masses any way we can. I've had conversations about this very subject with a few guys that are weekend warriors. By the time I am done on my soap box they seem to understand where I'm coming from and agree that doe harvest need to stop (in most areas) or we aren't going to have any deer to hunt.

So, for what its worth. Here are my suggestions.
- make a petition to be signed by all who will and sent to DSM to let them know where we stand.
- draft a letter (email) that come July or august next year each and every one of us who cares can email to every one of our hunting friends and post on our Facebook walls and ask that the emails be forwarded and Facebook posts be shared. This is a letter addressed to the hunters of Iowa. It would be explaining the situation that most of them have seen but may not realize THEY HAVE THE POWER TO FIX IT. There will obviously be people who won't care and that's why the more important issue is in DSM. BUT I think getting a letter spread around like that would really make a lot of people stop and think about what they are doing.

 

[hoosierhunter]

Here's another thought about the doe tags. I'm from out of state so I'm not sure if this would work or not. Iowa issues a set number of antler less tags per county. Do you think it would be possible to start a campaign of hunters to each purchase an antler less tag that they will not fill?

If you got the word out you might be able to buy up 25-50% of the alloyed tags knowing they won't be filled.... I know it's not the ideal answer in the long run, but unthinking might send a clear message to people in charge about how strongly the hunting community feels about what is happening.

 

[Altiman94]

I know this is an older thread and we have plenty of heated threads on the very same topic but I just don't think the only issue is that the DNR needs to be able to make the quota changes themselves. THey were the ones who initially recommended the numbers be decreased, allowed antler less tags to be used on public land also, and opened the 'holiday' and 'shed buck' season that everyone harps about. So giving all the power to the DNR might not be the end all. Since they don't have the ability to change the quota without the .gov approval they use that as their scape goat now when we should have been paring back deer tag numbers 7 years ago. (much before that power was taken away).

I also strongly feel that we never needed to reduce deer #'s on public ground. We don't have a large amount of land available and it's already over hunted regardless of allowing extra tags. I would venture a guess that a good majority of people not buying tags were likely hunting public land. Due to the huge reduction in deer #'s, they chose to spend their time doing other things.

With fewer hunters buying fishing and hunting licenses there's going to be more pressure on the DNR to find ways to fund it's operations.

We need sensible quotas from county to county and also look at the statewide tag going to buck only. You would have a lot better handle on the # of does harvested in each area if you did that.

 

[fletch920]

I know this is an older thread and we have plenty of heated threads on the very same topic but I just don't think the only issue is that the DNR needs to be able to make the quota changes themselves. THey were the ones who initially recommended the numbers be decreased, allowed antler less tags to be used on public land also, and opened the 'holiday' and 'shed buck' season that everyone harps about. So giving all the power to the DNR might not be the end all. Since they don't have the ability to change the quota without the .gov approval they use that as their scape goat now when we should have been paring back deer tag numbers 7 years ago. (much before that power was taken away).

I also strongly feel that we never needed to reduce deer #'s on public ground. We don't have a large amount of land available and it's already over hunted regardless of allowing extra tags. I would venture a guess that a good majority of people not buying tags were likely hunting public land. Due to the huge reduction in deer #'s, they chose to spend their time doing other things.

With fewer hunters buying fishing and hunting licenses there's going to be more pressure on the DNR to find ways to fund it's operations.

We need sensible quotas from county to county and also look at the statewide tag going to buck only. You would have a lot better handle on the # of does harvested in each area if you did that.

The DNR did what was expected of them at the time under that guise that they would retain the power if they controlled the exploding population. They did what made the most sense for rapidly getting the numbers back to a "satisfactory" level. In the middle of the process, the Governor changed the game. Simple as that. The deer numbers were in fact exploding. There is no arguing that. The DNR did not recommend the decrease, they implemented the change that would rapidly bring about the decrease that was pushed on them. The DNR has full-time staff dedicated to the study of the Iowa deer herd and its management. Who better to make the decisions? If they were allowed to do their job the last several years, we would not be in this mess.