Lately all I read and hear from both sides are how many does we kill like that is the only qdm tool we use. It makes me sad to here, I shot 10 does, how many did you shoot? I do understand that the buck to doe ratio needs to be in check some what. But, it seems to me that a lot of us are decimating our deer herd to keep the amount of n/r tags in check. I do understand the need for both. I have done a lot of private land management for deer [with out a degree] over many years. I have read many articles and books on this and try to put these ideas into action. Some of the results that I have found do not go along with what the state and other groups lead us to believe. I feel there is a whole lot more to qdm than just filling doe tags. I have my own ideas but would like to here yours on why the need to take so many does in your area...thanks
Fishbonker
Life Member
Some people kill does because the deer population has been deemed out of control in their particular area and/or the owner of the land wants the deer population reduced in their area to reduce crop damage.
Some people kill does to try and establish a proper deer gender ratio in hopes of growing bigger bucks.
Some municipalities have special deer hunts to reduce the number of car/deer collisions.
Some State parks are sponsoring special hunts to try and save the foliage in the park.
The Iowa DNR was tasked with reducing the herd from current numbers to mid 1990's numbers. We are but humble minions willing to do their bidding and we have been doing it so well that several counties will see their antlerless tags reduced this year.
To suggest does are being killed to keep the non-resident deer tag quota the same is kinda, well, maybe a little too big a paradigm shift for me to grasp.
The 'Bonker
Some people kill does to try and establish a proper deer gender ratio in hopes of growing bigger bucks.
Some municipalities have special deer hunts to reduce the number of car/deer collisions.
Some State parks are sponsoring special hunts to try and save the foliage in the park.
The Iowa DNR was tasked with reducing the herd from current numbers to mid 1990's numbers. We are but humble minions willing to do their bidding and we have been doing it so well that several counties will see their antlerless tags reduced this year.
To suggest does are being killed to keep the non-resident deer tag quota the same is kinda, well, maybe a little too big a paradigm shift for me to grasp.
The 'Bonker
moosehunter
PMA Member
The last few years I've shot lots of does. I don't even keep track of how many. But the thought of shooting them to keep the NR tags in check never once entered my mind. Mostly I've been knockin them down because it makes the land owner happy. If he know's I'm doing my best to help him with does I guess I would like to think he will limit hunters on his property to me.
Also, it's just good practice.........
Also, it's just good practice.........
ElkHunter
Life Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The thought of shooting them to keep the NR tags in check never once entered my mind. Mostly I've been knockin them down because it makes the land owner happy. </div></div>
Can't say that thought has ever crossed my mind sitting in the stand, drawing down on some backstrap. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
Good eating and keeps the farmer happy. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
Can't say that thought has ever crossed my mind sitting in the stand, drawing down on some backstrap. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
Good eating and keeps the farmer happy. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
I can't believe that any of us really harvest does to help keep the NR tags down , at least partly because the NR total tags including doe tags don't sell out. As for my opinion on the over harvesting of does and our shrinking deer population, just read some of my posts. I have been preaching for a few years now. For example in 2007 there were 52134 bucks, 75073 does and 16846 button bucks mistaken for does. That gave a antlered buck harvest of 52 percent. In 2006 there were 58653 bucks, 77946 does, and 13953 buttons. In 2008 there were 49677 bucks, 74758 does, and 15726 buttons killed. I think the trend is easy to see. In the quest to reduce populations and kill more does a higher percentage of the harvest is made up of button bucks that never have the chance to grow and our antlered buck harvest is shrinking much faster than the population is. I can't find any numbers on total licenses sold for 2008, but in 2005 there were 391864 licenses issued and 377525 in 2006 and 366006 in 2007. That trend leads me to believe that there were probably around 360,000 licensed for 2008. That means that for a total of 360,000 licensed there were only 49677 antlered bucks harvested which is only 13 percent of the total licenses. The total harvest was 142194, so the 49677 bucks only represent 35 percent. In 2006 that percentage was 39%, in 2007 it was 37% and in 2008 it was 35%. What does all this tell us? That by buying into this "Kill as many does as possible" mantra we are rapidly reducing our over all buck harvest and greatly reducing our "trophy" harvest. If we continue to reduce populations and harvest to mid 90's levels or even 80's levels like I heard at one time that means that we will reduce our overall harvest to around 80,000 total deer. If the antlered buck rate continues to drop at about the same rate that means that we will soon be at about 30% bucks and 30% of 80,000 deer is only 24,000 bucks. We currently sell more archery any sex tags than that, so what does that tell you?
I love having extra tags in my pocket. If I could no longer get an anysex tag I would still hunt just as hard and sincere as ever. I enjoy the preperation, the hunt, the gutting, dragging.....food on the table, every last bit of the process. Having these extra antlerless tags available has allowed me to hunt and have the option of killing each time I go out. It's been a blast and has helped me become a better hunter.
So I guess I look at the antlerless tags more so as a benefit to myself. I do realize the management end of this and will be adjusting my hunts next year to areas that need more does killed. I feel that keeping the numbers in check is the right thing to do. They shouldn't be thick as rats and getting slaughtered on the roads at a high rate.
Me personally killing antlerless deer to keep NR tags down, never crossed my mind until you posted this thread. I do agree that it has been good for residents to show they can manage the heard themselves.
I would personally be dissappointed if I had to go back to shooting just one deer per season. I'm pretty thankfull for these opportunities.
So I guess I look at the antlerless tags more so as a benefit to myself. I do realize the management end of this and will be adjusting my hunts next year to areas that need more does killed. I feel that keeping the numbers in check is the right thing to do. They shouldn't be thick as rats and getting slaughtered on the roads at a high rate.
Me personally killing antlerless deer to keep NR tags down, never crossed my mind until you posted this thread. I do agree that it has been good for residents to show they can manage the heard themselves.
I would personally be dissappointed if I had to go back to shooting just one deer per season. I'm pretty thankfull for these opportunities.