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?
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?