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 It was done in 1993 on corn only and the Committee felt the study was outdated and didn’t give a clear picture of the cost to producers today.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
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
