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

Deer Study Committee Meeting 10/28

Fishbonker

Life Member
The third meeting of the Iowa Deer Study Committee was held today. Sitting in the gallery and keeping my mouth shut is the hardest thing I have ever done. I understand and respect the process but there are lots of questions I would like to ask at the time for my own clarity because I’m a little slower than most. I will add personal comments on some of the topics that are my “spin” and not necessarily the view of the committee.

Still lots of information gathering. There seemed to be a consensus that there isn’t enough information on the cost to farmers from wildlife damage to crops. The DNR sited what I believe is the only study conducted on wildlife damage to crops. It was done in 1993 on corn only and the Committee felt the study was outdated and didn’t give a clear picture of the cost to producers today. PERSONAL COMMENT: Seems to me the data could be extrapolated to today’s estimated herd size and the estimated cost of a bushel of corn. The study seemed to go to length to differentiate between corn lost to deer, birds and “others”. What it didn’t do and any study done today would have to take into consideration how much of the crop was lost to turkeys when it is planted and not just the weight of the ear or stalks missing an ear. If anybody wants to read the study shoot me a PM with your email and I’ll send you the file. If you have insomnia, this study will cure it.

Disease transmission from deer to livestock and deer to human was discussed. PERSONAL COMMENT: I believe this wasn’t a “hot button” topic for the Committee because they asked very few questions on it. I think the take home message was livestock pose more of a threat to deer than deer do to livestock.

The positive impact on the Iowa economy was discussed. Deer provide two different revenue streams in Iowa, hunters (consumptive) and lookers (nonconsumptive). Resident and non resident deer hunters pumped 231.7 million dollars into the Iowa economy and lookers added another 199.4 million. Senator Black questioned the financial input by the lookers (does seem kinda high) but bottom line is wildlife watchers spend money too. It was felt by some that hunter input was actually higher than reported because of underreporting prehunt activities such as scouting and hanging stands. PERSONAL COMMENT: There was the usual rhetoric from some of the Committee about lost revenue from the cap on non resident hunters and the inability of non resident land owners and resident land owners families not being able to hunt every year. I can hear it now, “This is my second cousin on my wife’s side, Billy Jim, who’s up from (pick a State) to hunt with us” and he is no more related than me and Bret Favre.

Funding sources for the DNR were covered again today. A break down of where the money comes from was given. A discussion of the proposed permanent funding amendment was held. Rep Reyhons and Sen Black provided input.

A new, to me, term came up today “Cultural Carrying Capacity”. Much like the deer carrying capacity of a piece of ground, it is the combination of how many deer are too many for farmers and industry suffering loss and how few are too few for hunters and nonconsumpives. The crux of the theory is finding that area of deer density per mile that is acceptable to both. There was a very complex graph that was used to illustrate the theory but it makes sense. The theory is, as I recall, survey driven and not so much hard numbers, but interesting just the same.

Urban deer hunts were discussed. The history and results were given. PERSONAL COMMENT: I think the Committee was satisfied by the efforts of urban task forces but some urban licenses were going unsold. This is a piece of the puzzle I haven’t given much thought to, but it is a valuable method of adjusting the cultural carrying capacity but reducing car deer accidents in urban areas. It was interesting to note that urban deer don’t live as long on the average as their rural brothers, mainly due to auto accidents.

Access to land for hunters was discussed. Randy (Elkhunter) presented numbers from the survey he conducted and some of you supplied data for. One Committee member related his own experience with moving “to the country” and enjoying watching deer and not letting hunters on his ground. That lasted for about five years until they ate all his bushes, now he allows hunters. PERSONAL COMMENT: I think this will be discussed more at the next meeting. It was hard for me to get a good handle on what the Committee was thinking on this one. It is, in my opinion, a pivotal issue in increasing NR tags, transferable LOT and more tags for bigger land owners. Randy did a great job putting this info together on short notice, thanks to everyone who sent in their numbers. There was also discussion if there was anyway to compare the amount of leased and/or NR land owners and the loss of ground in a given county. Some of the southern counties had the biggest hunter displacement and the Committee wanted to know if there was a correlation between NR leasing and land ownership. I think somebody in the DNR was gonna check and see if there was a way to come up with that, but as I recall that may not be possible.

The goal of this Committee is to build a consensus. The moderator wrote up 5 “working statements” that she wanted to know if there was consensus for on the Committee. She provided sticky notes to put on a board under the statement with suggestions to change any wording. She also provided black sticky notes to signify the statement was absolutely unacceptable. The statements were:

1. The goal presently used by the DNR to reduce the herd to the 1990’s level is appropriate. That said, the deer herd is still too large and there is some support from the Committee to reduce the herd more quickly if possible.

Nobody “blackballed” this one but there were suggestions that ‘90s levels were not right and the DNR statistics show the herd declining in some areas and should be within the target size by 2010 so there is no need to reduce the herd any quicker.

2. The methods being used to reduce the herd size – tying numbers of Antlerless tags to areas of high deer sizes – are appropriate.

One note said in crease NR tags and let NR landowners hunt every year.

3. The hunting seasons and current license system are being used appropriately to manage the deer herd size.

Same note as above and one to make the November season a week long.


4. The Hush program is a good tool, although it needs to be updated to reflect costs more accurately.

Comments that more funding Is needed from agencys being served by HUSH ie the legislature.

5. The social factors used to determine the herd size now – balancing opinions of landowners, hunters, and public is fine, but incomplete. Landowner opinions should be subdivided in surveys to separate opinions of producer/farmer, recreational landowner, and woodland owners. [What balance should be sought?]

The only comment I remember on this one is weight the producer/farmer’s opinion 60%, recreational land owner 30% and woodland owners 10%. There was another suggestion that “Landowners” should be replaced by “Iowans”.

The wording in these five topics are by no means written in stone. I think 2-3-4 will be written pretty much the way they are. 1-5 are tossups.

That is about all I remember. It is still too early to tell for sure what is going to happen. I think the “money guys” are gonna push for an increase in NR tags. To them I would say wait until the amendment passes or fails in 2010, which indecently is the year the deer herd should be with in the target size.

Randy, if I left anything out or have something wrong please correct me. It was very hard for me to hear at times because I sat by the air return for the furnace.

There was consensus that Willie Suchy makes great lasagna. It is worth drivin to these meetings just for lunch.

Any questions let me know.

The ‘Bonker
 
Thanks for the report Bonker! I'm not sure I like where this is going but at least it won't be a surprise.

As a landowner there is little any rules or regulations, comittees or otherwise can do to change the way I manage deer on my own land.

I don't see anything in all of this changing the way neighboring landowners (Res. and NR) manage (or not) deer on their land

The losers in the end will be the average Joe Iowa deer hunter....just a matter of time.... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
 
I am average Joe, not the plumber, but Iowa deer hunter. Most of this stuff scares the crap out of me. Thanks for the report.
 
Another follow up, during the breakout sessions the folks in the gallery talk amongst ourselves. (Talk amongst yourselves, I'm feeling a bit verklempt) The guy from FOI and the guy from the FB always seem to have there heads together. Yesterday they were going over a spread sheet that I really wanted to take a look at but I just wasn't sneaky enough to get it done. That is the alliance that makes me "a bit verklempt". Who knows, maybe if I’da been a little more forward and asked to see it they would have shown me.

I did an informal shoe survey yesterday and determined if a person is wearing a pair of loafers with tassels they belong on a golf course not in a meeting about hunting deer in Iowa.

The 'Bonker
 
hoofline.gif



Thanks Tom for taking the time to attend this meeting and write a meeting update for us. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif

We may not be able to attend these meetings, and for those that can attend they can’t give any input. Does this sound like a democracy to you? /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif

There is nothing stopping us from contacting Senator Black and letting him know how we feel about his committee selling the resident Iowa deer hunter out!

Dennis Black: dennis.black@legis.state.ia.us


hoofline.gif


Would you like more information about becoming a PMA or Life Member? >>>>>Details Here!<<<<< Join now and you are automatically entered into the 2008 Big Buck Contest!

11.jpg

Iowa's number one resource for the whitetail deer. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
 
Bonker pretty much nailed everything.

Not crazy about non committee members not being able to speak, but the upside is FB & FOI can't put their 2 cents in either.One committee member thought FB should be able to make comments since the two producers(farmers) on committee weren't there.Said NO WAY, not going to start that BS.

Finals results from committee will be presented to legislature sometime in Jan.That's when public can put the heat on their legislators and we will. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Next meeting is about depradation program, I'm sure this is where we hear what FB wants(transferable tags to anyone)

We seem to be getting our points across, but there are about a dozen self serving agendas sitting at the table.I'm sure gloves will come off at last meeting.
 
Bonker thanks very much for attending and updating us here. I read this yesterday and stewed about a reply and then didn't sleep well last night. Part of your report talked about the economic part of this issue to the State. I can't believe that these people are missing that whole big picture, and as much as I dislike translating this to a money issue, they are about to throw away millions and millions of dollars. If they reduce the deer herd to the levels of the mid 1990s won't that also reduce the income to the same levels. In 2007 334,444 hunters bought 389,163 licenses and according to the committee brought in $231,700,000.00 dollars. If you do the math that is $692.80 per hunter. In 1995 there were 177,441 licenses issued, and at the same $692.80 that equal $122,931,124.00, meaning a net loss of $108,771,678.00 of income to the State. Just the loss to the IDNR in license sales means a loss of $4,239,081.00. How can the IDNR or the rest of us afford those kinds of losses in a faltering economy.

Another economic issue will be the decline of land values. If we reduce the deer hunting harvests and licencing to mid 90s levels, wouldn't it follow that the price of recreational (rough non-farm-able) ground would fall back to approximately that level? In 1996 I tried to buy the 100 acres next to my farm and could not bid more than $600.00 per acre and lost out to $650.00 an acre. That same ground would sell today for $2000.00 to $2500.00 per acre, mostly due to rush by NR and residents who don't live on the land , who want land to hunt on and manage "THEIR" deer herd. If we cut the State's deer herd to 170,000 animals and the resulting harvest to maybe 75,000 like the mid 90's then how many people will be willing to pay premium prices for land to hunt where they have only about a 25% chance of harvesting a deer. What happens to the county property tax income when land values drop by maybe $2,000.00 an acre? Along with that, what happens to the city dweller who would then have to make up the tax dollar short fall to keep schools, and roads, and other services going?

How many of us are willing to sacrifice the hunting we have now so that we can roll back time to the mid 90's? Lets look at a little history, supplied by the IDNR site in the status of Iowa wildlife section. In 1994 (mid 90's) we got the first ever state wide licenses. In 1995 the 1st shotgun season in only 36 counties were any sex, with the remaining 63 counties being bucks only. Then in the 2nd shotgun season for the first week 74 counties were bucks only. Why do you thing that was? In 1997 they gave us state wide any sex licenses for both gun shotgun seasons. From 1992 to 1998 bow hunters could get a "Bonus" antler less tag for $25.00 just as long as they didn't buy any gun licenses and were in the bonus zone counties. 2001 brought along bonus antler less tags in every county and you could also buy a gun license. I could not find any specific date when the DNR started selling NR licenses, but I did find that in 2001 they sold a total of only 7500 total NR licenses, with 4917 going to gun hunters and 2583 to bow hunters. In 2007 they issued a total of 15258 licenses to NRs, 6000 any sex and 9258 antler less tags. In the mid 90's did we even issue any NR license, and are we going to roll that back along with the herd population and the resulting harvest numbers? What will that cost the DNR?

They talked about more funding for the HUSH program and where to get the money. With dramatic herd reductions and harvest rates of 1/2 of what they are now, I question why we even need a HUSH program. If we still sell almost as many licenses and cut the harvest in half and we are currently at a 38% success ratio, that means that only around 20% of the hunters will harvest any deer at all and I don't think many of those successful hunters will want to give away their deer.

On to the social factor. With more and more loss of habitat acres and more people moving into the country there is naturally more contact issues. We seem to get a lot of input on this issue from the insurance companies but I am not sure why we allow it. According to the DNR site in 1994 there were 10,438 deer killed by vehicles but in 2001 that only went up to 13,100, then in 2005 to 14,364 and finally in 2007 back down to 13,730. The charts list this stuff as killed per billion miles driven and even though our number of cars and the miles driven have almost doubled since 1988 the deer killed per billion in 2007 was only 720 and in 1988 it was 707 and in 1996 (mid 90's) it was 748, so what is the insurance companies case and why are our premiums way higher than 1996?

There is lots more I can put in this post , but I will close with one last point. Our seasons and licenses policies aren't being used appropriately to manage our deer herd. If the goal is 170,000 deer, as shown on the IDNR graph, then we are over harvesting our deer and especially the does. Consider this, for 2008 there are 123,950 antler less tags available but only 77 counties even have a quota, meaning there are no antler less tags in 22 counties. In 1999 the state wide harvest was only 121,635. Why should we have that many tags even available when they haven't sold out for years now and the harvest and success ratios continues to drop considerably? In 1994 the entire harvest was only 87,231 so if we really want to go back to that level, why would we want 145% of the entire harvest for antler less only, which at a success ratio of 50% means that we would kill 62000 does with these antler less tags besides those any sex tags that are used for does in 2007? The more I study the info on the IDNR site, the more I am becoming convinced that the DNR knows all of this, but wants some one else to point it out and push the issue, so that they don't upset their delicate balance with the legislators. If that is the case , or even if it isn't, any DNR personnel, please feel free to use any thing I have put in this or any other post on this critical issue. Thanks for reading again, and I hope I have set forth some additional facts that might sway some here and on this Deer Committee.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fishbonker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I did an informal shoe survey yesterday and determined if a person is wearing a pair of loafers with tassels they belong on a golf course not in a meeting about hunting deer in Iowa.</div></div>

That is freaking hilarious and oh-so-true.

Nice job bird-dogging this thing 'Bonker. You are going to have to be explicit when you see others (us) need to take action on something.
 
I had heard recently that Senator Mark Zieman, who happens to be our rep from good ole NE Iowa, was a member of the Deer Study Committee. I sent him an email about a week ago regarding what the "average Joe" deer hunters in Iowa are up against. He did respond that he is aware of many of the forces at play in this issue (although he did not offer his own opinion...)

It will be interesting to say the least to find out the results of the study and if any "beneficial" changes will be made. Unfortunatley, I think the average deer hunter in Iowa will end up with the shortest straw. Zieman's ties to Farm Bureau concern me a little more now that he is on this study committee. Zieman is the same man who called Iowa public employees "bottom feeders" and has raked in over $1.5 million in ag subsidies. When asked about the subsidy payments his reply was "I know how to work the system." Hmmm....
 
I'm assuming that the Committee will at somepoint make reccomendations to both the IDNR and Legislators because they won't by themselves have the power to actually change anything.

It appears to me that perhaps 90% of the committee wants less deer and sees financial gain from freeing up NR tags even though the two contradict themselves.

More NR tags = less deer killed overall(no offense to NR hunters or landowners)

Until an actual bill is submitted after the first of the year (I can hardly wait... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif ) it seems all we can do is be aware and be ready to be heard by our legislators.

Beyond that I expect the IDNR will continue to increase antlerless tags in problem areas until they do not sell out and then they do whatever they can to try to attract hunters interest with "new ideas" such as a longer TG season, longer/more HP rifle seasons, etc.etc., all of which will be a moot point to a hunter with no place to hunt.

Other then Randy (Iowa Bowhunters Assc.)speaking out on our behalf, no one on that committee wants to see or understand the implications.

If NR landowners are allowed to get tags every year, receational land prices will skyrocket and even more land will be off limits and deer populations uncontrollable.

A great many people stand to profit from that and greed trumps all other common sense logic........ /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dbltree</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Other then Randy (Iowa Bowhunters Assc.)speaking out on our behalf, no one on that committee wants to see or understand the implications.

If NR landowners are allowed to get tags every year, receational land prices will skyrocket and even more land will be off limits and deer populations uncontrollable.

A great many people stand to profit from that and greed trumps all other common sense logic........ /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
</div></div>

There it is. Three sentences that completely summarize a seemingly complicated issue. Right there is the truth folks.
 
There are a couple of committee members who seem to be on the same wave length as Randy and the IBA. One of them is representing the Iowa Sportsman’s Alliance and I believe she is from PF. Another gentleman, I’m not sure whom he represents, seems to agree with what I think are the core issues and he is not afraid to ask questions and give his opinions. There are several who I can tell want to do the right thing, they just aren’t sure what the right thing is. These will be the “swing votes”.

One of the things that bothers me about the process is the small group discussions. The Committee breaks up into small groups to focus and identify issues and solutions. If there is a member of the “opposition” in that small group that is very vocal and over bearing, the small group results are skewed. I am no expert at this stuff and I could be totally wrong. The moderator tries to be sure the small groups are not the same people from break out session to break out session so no one person can dominate a group, session after session after session.

One huge disappointment to me is the lack of representation from Whitetails Unlimited. Randy if you read this PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE correct me if I am wrong I don’t want to cast aspersions, but I think Whitetails Unlimited was offered a seat on the Committee and couldn’t come up with a representative. I am not a member of WU, but if I was I think I’d be asking some questions. Then again, who knows what their opinion would have been.

Bowmaker, thanks for not shooting the messenger. I can not disagree with the numbers. I think the money guys are perhaps looking for a quick buck “on their watch” and are not really concerned with who or what comes after them. If the current occupant of the Governor’s Mansion can show a net increase in revenue, who cares how they did it and when he is up for re-election he can point to the increase in revenue and beat his chest. Short term thinking versus long term thinking. Raising the NR tags etc etc etc puts a lot of money in the coffers but may increase the rate of decrease in the herd and hasten the drop in sales of both resident and NR tags. The one thing that bothers me is how do we distinguish between the “IDNR” and the guys I have met that work for the IDNR and seem to have the Iowa hunter at heart? Budget vs. Biology.

The ‘Bonker
 
Couple points

This committee will make RECOMMENDATIONS to the legislature, with Sen Black & Rep Rayhon as committee members it will have a deinitely will carry some weight.

We have two allies Andrea Evelsizer with Pheasants Forever and Kurt, his last name slips my mind (very commom lately) but he is with County Conservation Boards. Both will speak their minds.

Whitetails Unlimited had a seat on committee and sent no one. They don't want to get political /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif If we don't get political we'll need another group called Whitetails Unhuntable .They have people from all walks of life on their local chapters.(Hunters to Outfitters) and are trying to walk a fine line keeping everyone happy.


There is a conflict within the DNR on deer and budget and I'll leave it at that for now.

Sad to say but a lot of what happens at next two meetings and final report will be about a money grab, not what's best for the deer herd and Iowa but how can my group make $$$$.

It will be another busy year at the Statehouse
 
Top Bottom