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

Localized Seasons (thoughts, ideas)

turtlshell

turtlshell

PMA Member
With all the talk of the deer population, problems with the lack of harvest (or reporting) I've got a question I'd like to toss out there for you guys.

Iowa is unique in the fact that gun hunting isn't allowed during the rut. Arguably the most important regulation helping the state maintain its status as the BIG BUCK state. The seasons setup is a bowhunters dream, and I was introduced to bowhunting 10 years ago. Still somewhat of a 'newbie', even I have witnessed a dramatic change in the number of bowhunters, I can't imagine what some of you with 20, 30 (+) years of bowhunting experience have seen.

I assume most people utilize bowhunting (I included) as an opportunity to harvest a buck of a lifetime. With that thought in mind it's possible that localized overharvest of bucks has resulted in the increased population. Each bowhunter has their own opinion on what makes a trophy and the prestige of shooting a buck (regardless of size) has the whole macho-manly thing to go with it...as opposed to shooting a doe.

In other states various regulations and seasons have been tried to see their affects on localized populations. Take Princeton County, MO for example. A couple of years ago they implemented a rule that says all bucks taken must have 8 points. A friend that lives in that county has informed me that he has started to see some benefits from that rule. More bucks, and some larger racks. Other states have gone with the "earn a buck" rule (Wisconsin if I'm not mistaken, at least parts of it anyway).

I hunt in eastern Iowa and have noticed over the past 5 years a dramatic increase number of does. Especially where I hunt.

Kudos to the IDNR for realizing there is potential for the increased bowhuters possibly throwing the population ratio out of whack, they initated the County Quota antlerless tags. The only problem I have seen with these quota tags is that has been implemented on a state-wide basis. My uncle lives in Everly, IA and they were perhaps too efficient in filling these antlerless tags the past two years. He says there is a huge decrease in total deer population up there...which is why this year the DNR changed the county-quota tags statewide.

I think an the next step for Iowa, in managing deer, should be to try a localized approach. Take a handfull of counties with a known population problem and implement a DOE ONLY rule or an Earn a Buck rule. This way the whole state wouldn't be affected one way or another and the majority of the state would hunt with the "standard" deer regulations. It would allow the BIOLOGISTS to actually use their education in a specific Research Approach in the selected trial-counties.

What are your thoughts about a localized trial like this?

The main problem I see is, once the rule is initiated, how would it be reabsorbed into the standard rules?
 
Is a County Quota too broad? Should some of the counties be broken up into additional zones and tags sold accordingly?
 
It looks like you've definitely put some thought into this. I agree that some areas have been overhunted and some have not. Localized hunts I think are the answer. I am also a bowhunter, but I don't believe bowhunters have made anywhere near the impact as shotgunners, which I also hunt. A lot of bowhunters that I know wait most of the year to take a chance at a buck that's bigger than what they have hanging on the wall. Quite a few never fill their tags because of this mentality. I do agree with a lot of what your saying.
 
Bowman, you're from Scott County. I'm sure you understand the population problem.

Just drive I-80 between Davenport and Iowa City around November.

I agree more deer are taken by shotgun than bow. BUT I'm saying over the past 10 years the number of bowhunters has increase more than the number of gun hunters. I don't have the actual statistics, (just making a guess) but I don't think I'm too far off...

Now you got me thinking about it from a different angle though. If the trial was to only affect a few counties, and was limited to gun hunters only...the bow hunter numbers could possibly jump up that much more in those counties.

Another thing the DNR may wish to consider about the Quota Tags (as I said in a different post), is to issue them as a Combo (gun/bow) tag.

If they want X amount of antlerless deer taken from a county and person buys 5 antlerless bow tags and only fills 2 of them, 3 tags have affectively been wasted. Mulitply that by a handful of hunters and Qutoa tags lose some of their intended affect.
 
We have a Doe Only gun season just after thanksgiving and before the regular gun season here in Iowa...but I don't think it's been the most affective solution. At least not where I hunt.
 
You bring up some very good points.

I have always thought that there needs to be more of a "localized" management solution to the deer problem.

There are counties all across Iowa that have virtually no timber in one corner of the county, but quite a bit in the opposite corner. It is obvious that more deer need to be killed in certain areas, but I don't see how throwing tons of doe tags to the "county quota" as helping as much as what many think. There needs to be more micromanagemnt than that. Then this leads right into the whole "sanctuary" issue. There are large continous areas in my county that will grow huge amounts of deer....due to hunters not being able to go in and hunt them.

All you have to do is get online and check to see how many deer have been checked in. There certainly aren't very many does that have been killed in my county as of right now (if you want to put your faith in those numbers....I know ALL the deer killed have probably not been registered)

Although Missouri has their rifle season during the rut, they are doing some things right. I rifle hunt down there on family ground and have to abide by the county wide "4 points to a side rule". At least 29 counties in N, NW, NC, NE and Central Mo have this county wide antler restriction. But the thing that really appeals to me is that they have micromanaged their large state hunting areas as well. You can look up and see that many different public areas have varying regulations. For example I know of several areas that allow NO doe tags to be used during the rifle and bow season. This is in an area that they are actually trying to grow the population. The bottom line is this....Mo is trying to micromanage their herd and it is working in my opinion.

Now I know that IA doesn't have huge amounts of public land, but we could use the same "micormanagement" approach to specific sections or areas of certain counties, or possibly grouped county areas.
Wow....this post ended up being alot longer than intended! /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
 
I think if they really wanted deer harvest numbers to go up then lower tag costs. I think it would be great if they gave anyone who purchased a anysex tag a free doe tag to go along with it. If they want deer numbers down, who cares what county the doe is shot at. That would put a extra hundred thousand plus tags out there. Then get rid of this $27 dollar doe tag for your first doe. Make the price low enough people don't think twice about buying them. I am not complaining, I have bought hundreds of dollars worth of tags this year, but the problem is alot of people wont buy them.

I talked to a guy tonight that said there is approx 90 deer out in his field every night. I asked him if they planned on shooting a bunch of does because his county still has a ton of tags. He simply replied, If I don't have my buck the last evening I will shoot a doe because it is ridiculous to have to pay $27 for the first tag and then $12 for the next. I would go broke if I tried to control the deer herd. He'd love to shoot every doe he sees but won't pay the price to do it. I honestly don't blame him.

Then on the flip side, I hunt the ammunition plant in middletown. When I first started hunting there 6 years ago there was tons of deer. They then wanted to increase the number of does shot and you could pretty much shoot as many as you wanted if you bought the tags. The place is pretty much earn a buck because you have to shoot a doe first. Well the first couple of years were great there was tons of does to shoot. Well every year there was progressively less does and now its to the point where it is hard to even find a doe. There is very few mature does on this place. A big doe is 90lbs in there. So now you have very few does and you need to kill one so you shoot the first one you see. Half the time it is a button buck. Now you are progressively taking down your buck population as well. So I guess what I am getting at is I have seen the localized approach and I hope to god Iowa as a whole doesnt get that way.

I also think alot more deer would get shot in some of the bigger public areas if there was a good way to get them out. Why not during the late doe season let 4-wheelers in on access roads only to retrieve deer? Last night I hunted a big piece of public ground and had over 40 deer walk by. I could of slaughtered tons of big does, and I would love to do it, don't get me wrong, but there is no way I could get them out of there. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif this one is long too, sorry.
 
So LIV, are you saying that you are cheap AND lazy? /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JNRBRONC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So LIV, are you saying that you are cheap AND lazy? /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div> I don't think he's cheap but he is as lazy as me, I'm not going to bust my ass to get a doe out of public land. I don't know about 4 wheelers going in either, I guess if you could enforce it to the roads it wouldn't be so bad but you know it would never be that way.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LIV4RUT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think if they really wanted deer harvest numbers to go up then lower tag costs. </div></div>

I disagree! The cost is not the issue, but I have a solution that will sell more tags, lower the cost per license, and increase revenue.

Wisconsin implemented several years ago. When you purchase your License (Gun/Bow/Muzzy) you receive 1 any sex tag and 2 doe tags. The cost would obviously go up. If you had to pay for these license's now, it would cost you $66.00 ($27 + $27 + $12). They could offer the 3 for 1 tag at $55.00. That would be an $11.00 savings and you would still be able to harvest 3 deer.

Now, for those of you that say it's all about the $$$$$$$, just think of all the "Trophy Hunters" that would only purchase 1 Any Sex License to shoot a trophy buck. Now they would purchase this 3 for 1 tag and spend $55.00 instead of $27.00 (a difference of $28.00 added to the License fund). Also, these "Trophy Hunters" that would never purchase a doe tag now have 2 and could harvest up to 2 does that they would never think of doing otherwise. Granted, there will always be those that have too big of ego to shoot a doe, but most hunters understand herd management and would help out.

This system would increase the harvest of more deer and also increase the revenue for the State. The only issue would be the quota's per county and how to manage the license sales - vs - harvest.
 
I still say that the population problems are directly related to access problems. Just take a look at the counties that have the population problems and they are the counties with the most habitat, most NR landowners, most leased acres, most outfitters and therefore the most limited access. I heard we have nothing to worry about because the IDNR has the answer...more NR tags!!! /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Sounds like LIV thinks that the does in the ammunition plant are now what needs being protected. Let me ask a question relating to what LIV mentioned about with the earn a buck in the ammunition plant. If you owned land and had to shoot a doe before you could fill your buck tags would you start protecting your doe herd to help increase your chances of being able shoot a doe with less difficulty? What if you were a NR landowner and had only 7 days to come and hunt. I know if I was a NR landowner I would protect my doe herd so I could fill that tag the first morning of my 7 day hunt. What if you were an outfitter and your hunters had to earn a buck. Wouldn't you protect your does to allow your hunters the opportunity at a buck so they would want to re-book with you. Could you imagine a client paying $3,000.00 and taking 7-10 vacation days to sit in a stand waiting to kill a doe so the can earn a buck tag and the opportunity never presents itself. I would hate to see Iowa go to earn a buck because I think it may ultimately have the opposite affect leading to more doe sanctuaries. If we did go to earn a buck how would we regulate it during the shotgun season? One guy can kill all does for everyone in his party. So essentially one guy gets to earn a buck tag for all the other guys? I personally think the regulations are confusing enough and that the county level is enough micromanagement. Now having said that is this extra shotgun season this weekend open to just first season hunters or both first and second season? What about unfilled landowner shotgun tags? Is it antlerless only or can they harvest bucks? Is my bow tag good until Jan 10th or the 13th? Is my muzzleloader tag good to the 13th?
 
I like SGS's idea. This has worked well in Wisconsin in areas that don't need herd reduction as much as we do in NE Iowa. Face it, most guys don't like to eat tag soup. When you give tags away, trophy buck hunters turn in to doe hunters. I know 2 or 3 WI guys that never shot does before until these tags were given to them.
 
I also agree with SGS idea. It's simple and revenue would'nt be affected for the DNR. I'm sure some number cruncher could figure out the "correct price" so the end result would be the same. This would spread out the cost of those doe tags to EVERY hunter, whether they wanted to participate in herd management or not. Here's the catch. I've been trying to sell a price increase on any sex tags for years to my legislators. IT WON'T pass in Des Moines. There are so many who would scream that the tags are too high priced already. I've heard people say tags should be free or not required at all and that the DNR should be abolished. How do you sell this idea to them? THEY PROBABLY CALL THEIR LEGISLATORS MORE THAN HUNTERS DO. Hint Hint.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> THEY PROBABLY CALL THEIR LEGISLATORS MORE THAN HUNTERS DO. Hint Hint. </div></div>

Good Point.

LIV, I think it totally matters where the DOES are shot. There's no way CLAY county has as many deer as JOHNSON county. The habitat difference is immense. On the flip side, there's no way Johnson county has as much Waterfowl as CLAY county.

It doesn't do the whole state much good to have some counties busting their butts and filling as many doe tags as possible if other counties aren't even selling all their qutoa tags.

I agree that price is a problem, but I've paid it for the last two years. I'm getting a little frustrated though knowing that I'm spending more and more...and even shooting a few more DOES each year, but the local herd is growing faster than the "local hunter mentality" can keep up with. BASICALLY translating into, something more drastic has to be initated to get the local hunters in my county to harvest more does.
 
Its not really the price that bothers me at all for myself. I would pay any price to be able to hunt. I don't think the price affects many people on this site. I would say most of us are the die hards out there, but we are not the majority of the people in the state. Half the guys only hunt a couple weekends of the year. I think since the shotgun hunters kill the bulk of the deer, maybe they should get some kind of break on the tags.

Part of the problem with trying to localize it in certain areas is if you had the choice to hunt 2 counties and it came down to cerro gordo or allmakee which one would you pick. A couple ditches out in a cornfield or beautiful rolling timber that just screams big buck? How many people do you know making the trip each fall to southern iowa or northern iowa? I know tons of people that do. I know there are alot of counties out there that just isn't appealing to go to and I am sure many others will feel the same year and there will be a deer problem.
 
I hate to throw rocks at anyone's ideas because at least some folks have them. I don't have a real good answer, but 2 things I do disagree with. First is the earn a buck thing. It would be almost impossible to implement and control during our short shotgun seasons. It just isn't practible to think that a group of hunters would interupt their drives to haul does into a check station, which would be the only way to do that, wait to be checked in and fill out the information forms before they would be handed a buck tag. Just as impractical is the thought that a deer hunter, any deer hunter, with a 175" buck standing at 10 yards along with 3 does is going to shoot a doe first and take it in to get a tag to go back and try for the buck, and I don't think we should put someone in that position. Because of the difference in season lengths this type of restriction would have to be more effective for bow hunters, but I doubt that it would be well recieved after the outcry about this special extension season. It would also not be very effective simply because there aren't nearly the numbers of deer killed by bow hunters as opposed to shotgun hunters.

Second issue is license prices. The current difference between the first and second doe tags is $15.00. Many of us pay more than that for a 5 pack of fancy slugs or 1 carbon arrow, or a mechanical broadhead. It costs more for the gas to go hunting than that $15.00 so how can that be any kind of a hinderance to buying doe tags. If we make some thing to cheap it really does become worthless and I can see people buying up extra tags because they are cheap but then not putting forth the effort to fill all of them because they really aren't out much money any way. Price ISN'T the reason that Davis County still has 1200 doe tags left and Van Buren has almost 1500 left. Do you really think that if those tags were $6.00 instead that they would be sold out? Access is a big problem along with hunter attitudes about shooting does in general and "Why should I spend my time, money, and effort just on a lousy old doe". Some one already said that he wouldn't bust his butt just to drag a doe off public ground, but would he drag a skinny little ole 8 pointer, my words not his. This is an attitude that I see quite a bit. A co-worker hunted during the 1st shotgun season and his group shot 14 bucks and 3 does and I am sure that that happened more than with just that group. More hunters than we want to admit believe that they just gotta shoot their buck every year.

I also don't believe that we can micro-manage at a smaller level than counties. Where do we draw the lines? How can people from outside the area reconize those lines. People are already upset that they can't hunt in one county because that county had sold out of tags and they don't have a place to hunt in the next county. How upset would they be if each farm on either side could get tags but the one in the middle couldn't?

I am also still waiting for some real numbers for the deer population in Iowa and conformation that this excess doe harvest is good for us at all. I also have heard the stories about the Burlington Amunition Plant and what has happened to their deer herd and I can very easily see the same thing happening on a state wide basis if we continue to buy into the idea that we need to kill more does realizing that we are removing 3 or 4 deer from next years population. For those of you who are buck hunters that means at least 1 and maybe 2 bucks are removed with that 1 doe harvest. The goal of all this extra doe harvest is to take us back to a population level of 1980. According to the DNR harvest records in 1986 there were only a little over 46,000 deer harvested as opposed to 211,000 in 2005 and 155,000 in 2006. Where do you want your deer hunting opprotunities to go?
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Where do you want your deer hunting opprotunities to go? </div></div>

I'd like mine opportunities to move back towards what they were 10 years ago, which is a larger number of "quality" bucks...instead of fields and fields of DOES.

The hypothesis math on a deer herd isn't exactly rocket science. Let's just say one buck can breed 50 does. Each doe averages twins. Without factoring in any kind of hunting or mortality rate that's an increase of 100. Now toss into that equation the people that would rather shoot any kind of buck rather than a doe and it's not hard to see that the population "swing" is going towards an increase. Perhaps why I've seen the group of 7 does explode over the past three years into a group of 25 at my dad's place.

There are loads of DOES where I hunt...and by me and my hunting partners taking between 6 & 10 a year, we're still fighting an uphill battle. Especially when you factor in that all the surrounding neighbors are taking double the bucks that we are taking DOES. Where is the line going to be drawn on a population that is increasing exponentially. Not to metion the lack of QDM. There are so many does that even the little fork horns are spreading their genetics at 1.5 years...not exactly the "natural way of things."

The local farmers are completely fed up. One guy has a field that he yielded 205 bushel/acre on...the same corn and similar soils (CSR) on the creek line I hunt yielded him 145 bushel/acre. With $4 corn, he's affectively losing $205/acre due to crop damage. The same guy has now been given 70 depredation tags for 2008. SO instead of buying up a ton of doe tags next year, maybe I'll just start filling some of his 70 tags and we'll do eachother a favor.

I agree about the earn a buck tag system...it would have to be implemented by the bow hunters. I'm pretty sure this is how WI did it this year also.
 
here is my idea in alot of the city deer hunts the top people that shoot the most does earn an extra buck tag.i only archery hunt so if i shoot ten or fifteen does in my county or a number the state specifies i could get an extra buck tag for next season.i would go for that as would alot of hunters.i dont think it would work without a check station in my county to cut the ear off or everyone could turn my deer in and just switch tags.i dont care about the price of tags i would pay 120 dollars or more to shoot another buck as would most alot of bowhunters would shoot more does if there was an incentive.
just my thoughts
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I also have heard the stories about the Burlington Amunition Plant and what has happened to their deer herd </div></div>

Their problem may be due to a lack of GOALS. What was their overall goal when they started the program? As the harvests come in, you may need to modify the goals. It sounds to me that the ammunition plant let a "leaky-faucet" drip too long without shutting it off. They put in a buck only rule and in a few years the hunting will be stellar, and then a few years after that (when the forget to readjust their buck only goals to include does) they'll be back to square one.

I hope the IDNR stays proactive in their efforts to "manage" our deer herd. There is quite the herd-shift from county to county, which is why I think state-wide rules may need to be re-worked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom