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

Localized Seasons (thoughts, ideas)

I don't mind the tag costs or they way they are set up. I only want to hunt Does, so giving me a buck tag is a waste.

I do think they should micro-manage the herds. You could say that the Deprevation tags are a way to do that. Linn County has some pretty unique territory as Cedar Rapids sits smack dab in the middle of it. Dividing it into Township's would be pretty simple.
linn_county_township.jpg


The public ground near me is 1500 acres along the river. On the south end is 500 acres of open ground and marsh/wetland, then 500 acres of woods (a preserve, no hunting), and on the north end 500 acres of woods that you can hunt. Well, were do you think all the deer hang out, yep, the preserve where you cant hunt them.

Based on the traffic I see on the whole property, there are only a dozen or so deer in this 1500 acres. Second Season shotgun harvested half of those, so now its really slim pickings.

However, there was a motorcyclist who died after he hit a deer in this area in July 2007.http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/8392027.html
Even at that ultra low number of deer, accidents are still going to happen.
 
I used to live in WI. The earn-a-buck system goes for both archery and gun hunters and it isn't statewide. Each year its in different areas and typically they let you know the year before if it will be happening and let you shoot a doe then to earn a buck tag for the following year. Before they do an earn a buck year, they typically have that area in what is called a T-zone, where there are more antlerless tags available and they have extra antlerless seasons. You can also shoot a doe in the archery season to earn a buck tag for the gun season, or in one of the early antlerless seasons. When I was up there, you didn't have to have the doe registered before killing a buck either, you could should a doe opening morning and then kill a buck right afterwards. I was not a fan of the system, but I'll admit that it definitely helped the deer herd in the area that I hunted. Saw a good decrease in does and the following year we saw an increase in racked bucks.
 
I love the idea of earn a buck...

ALSO The price of doe tags does affect some of us.... I bought 3 doe tags this year in one county. Only filled one so far. Than started chasing a big buck in another county. Hunted there almost daily and if I could of afforded it I could of bought more doe tags and filld them.


For the record i do like how this debate is going. keep it up.
 
Ok here is may take on the things in your response. My question to you is where do we draw the line on an exponentially DECREASING population. According to the DNR numbers on their deer harvest charts, in 1997 there were about 70,000 bucks and about 50,000 does killed from a population of about 300,000 deer. In the early 2000s the population kind of peaked at a little over 400,000 animals. In 2005 there were about 120,000 does and about 85,000 bucks killed from a population that was again around 300,000. This means that we killed almost twice as many deer in 2005 from a herd that was already on the decrease. My whole questions is how long can we continue to kill over half or the available deer population with an especially harsh treatment of those who must replenish the population. How far can we push the envelope until we run the risk of the entire population crashing. People say that that can't happen but WHAT IF we kill 150,000 deer from a 300,000 population in the fall and that is a very harsh winter with lots of winter kill. Now we throw in a bout of Blue Tongue in the spring that hits SE Iowa and we loose 25% of the remaining deer with very little fawn production because does in the later stages of pregnancy have very low immune systems. Now we have a population that is under 115,000 with few if any fawns for replacements. I am not trying to present a Doomsday prediction but it really isn't so far fetched is it?

One problem with your example of the 50 does and 1 buck is this. Mother Nature allows does to have twins for several reasons. A very high percentage of the twins are 1 male and 1 female. I have never seen a fawn mortality study done in Iowa but I have seen them from other states and many of them run as high as 45 or 50 percent of fawns don't make it through their first winter. Hunting pressure, predation, farm equipment and auto accidents all account for dead fawns. So using some conservative figures lets say those 50 does have 100 fawns that only 60 live till next spring. Of those 60 about 30 are bucks so now we have 30 doe fawns and the 50 original does except that about 1/2 of them were killed that fall so now we have 25 originals and 30 new ones along with about 30 new bucks. Where has this taken us except to have 30 more of this year class of bucks out there. The 1.5 year olds can also spread the same genetics that the 4 year old buck can. Genetics don't change with age.

Now for your farmer friend who is fed up over lost crop income. I have to assume that the acres that produce the 145 bushels have been planted for a number of years and have yielded the same 145 bushel if yield lose is due to deer, of which the population was much higher 5 years ago when corn was 2.25 per bushel. Even if we consider the fact that deer do much of the damage, we all should know that other wildlife do considerable damage as well. If we killed all the deer there would still be crop loss to wildlife. Now if the yield is 145 bushel the price of corn has no impact on yield. At $2.25 5 years ago he made about $327 per acre but that was when the deer population was over 400,000. Now at $4.00 a bushel he makes 580 per acre and the deer population in going down to under 300,000 so his production might actually increase. All that means to me that he has not lost anything but is actually making $253 more per acre than he was when he planted the same acres and harvested the same 145 bushels 5 years ago. That looks like an increase of over 55% to me. I also know that his costs have increased some what but so have mine in the auto business and I would be tickled with a 50% increase over 5 years ago.

I fully realize that there are a lot of deer in some places and I don't mean to make light of it but I think we have just become so used to it that we think what we have been taught to think over the last few years. That is that we must kill does and as many of them as we can but having seen the effects of that around my farm and the adjacent public ground I am starting to question that process, just like some of you are questioning it. I don't have a good answer but wish I did but I do believe that our deer numbers are going down and in some cases drastically down. I don't think we will ever reach the balance that is best for everyone. Farmers have complaining about deer damage to crops way back in the 1970s, but they would at least let people hunt with out asking for a lease or a trespass fee. Insurance companies have complained about their accident ratio also, but in Iowa they have to be able to prove a 50% claim to premium dollar ratio so anything gets passed onto us the consumer, and when was the last time your insurance rates really went down? The way I see I am going to pay the same amount for food and car insurance and other things if we have lots of deer to hunt or not so my vote is lets have plenty of deer and go hunt them and keep the harvest rate at about 50% an enjoy ourselves while we and our children can!
 
I believe the key is hunter education regarding deer management across the state. This will not have an immediate effect but it will help to sustain our long term goals. I believe the DNR, IBA, IW members and other organizations should focus their efforts on educating the overall hunting population on the positive impacts that managing our deer herds have.

Education around the positive impacts of shooting does and letting small bucks pass will help sustain our goals as hunters and conservationists. As this practice becomes more wide spread we all win with a healthier herd, stronger buck to doe ratio, older age class of bucks and more opportunity for the future generation of hunters.

With this type of education hunters will have the information to ultimately take a lead role in making local decisions on how many deer/does should be taken in their area.

Remember each time you pull the trigger you are making a deer management decision ... hunters are the managers of our deer herd - the DNR provides regulations, enforcement, direction, opportunities and etc to assist our goals with deer management.

Oh - I really think the idea of bundling tags for hunters is something we should look into as a strong possibility as option for increased revenue and additional doe harvests vs increasing NR tags.
 
I was just looking at the harvest data and it appears that we are shooting .94 does for every buck shot. That's a major problem since we are shooting more bucks than does in the state. It is going to be a tough struggle to get those numbers turned around until we are shooting 2-3-4 does for every buck.
 
I may get bashed for this, but, in my opinion, the NR that draws a buck tag, and is already coming to Iowa to hunt, should be able to purchase doe tags at the same price that a resident does. I know that alot of NR don't come to Iowa to hunt doe's, but for instance, my dad is coming up next week. He has 1 anysex and 1 doe. He would love to shoot more than 1 doe, but he can't buy an extra doe tag. I don't see where this would run into a problem. 1 or 2 extra doe tags for the NR would help, IMO. Take a hunter who comes to Iowa to kill a buck, and he tags out the first morning of a 5-7 day hunt. The NR hunter has one doe tag to fill, and with the remaining days left, would more than likely buy another doe tag or two to keep hunting. I most certainly would if I was hunting another state, and I was in the position. I know that probably only 10% of the NR hunters would take advantage to it, but non the less, more does would get harvested.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bowmaker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 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. More hunters than we want to admit believe that they just gotta shoot their buck every year.
</div></div>

You're right I did say I wouldn't bust my ass to drag a doe 2 miles out of the Public ground, but I didn't say I would shoot a skinny little 8 pt. either as anyone who knows me would tell you, so don't even insinuate it. I would however shoot 10 does on Public land if you want to drag them out for me.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: turtL</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <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.
</div></div>
In the 7 or 8 years I've bowhunted in there it has always been shoot a doe first and we were also encouraged to only shoot older bucks (which is fine). We had to shoot a doe for each season we hunted also, well it doesn't take too many years of that to start eliminating the doe population. For any of you that think your missing the boat by not hunting there, think again, it isn't like it used to be and you haven't seen hunting pressure until you hunted there. I see Iowa deer hunting heading in the same direction.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> My question to you is where do we draw the line on an exponentially DECREASING population. </div></div>
This is the whole point to the thread. The statewide numbers may be going down, but does that mean that all counties are experiencing the same thing? I don't happen to think so. As I said earlier, once a decrease is noticed (after the actions have taken affect) the rules must change too.

We can't just have a rule carved in stone and assume it's the way to go. The management plan must be flexible to allow compensation for the changing population. G6, it sounds like you've lived this with the ammunition plant.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The 1.5 year olds can also spread the same genetics that the 4 year old buck can. Genetics don't change with age. </div></div>
Good point about the genetics not changing, but at the same time in a better buck to doe ratio it's unlikely that 1.5 year old buck would earn the right to breed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I am not trying to present a Doomsday prediction but it really isn't so far fetched is it? </div></div>
That scenario is possible and I trust the DNR would curb our hunting regs/season promptly and appropriately. TO bring the herd numbers back up, limit tags and take bucks only...not too much different than what happened during the 80's.
 
The 1.5 year old buck may have so called inferior genetics, but because no big bucks with the desired genetics (big racks) are there to chase the inferior buck away, the inferior buck passes along his genes, which creates more inferior bucks.

So, with an ideal buck to doe ratio, only the superior bucks, with the more desired and larger racks, would pass along their genes. The lesser bucks with smaller racks, would not; unless they grow a few years and have their own large racks, or grow up and still have inferior racks, in which case they wouldn't be as likely to pass along their genes as they are at a disadvantage in fighting and competing to breed.

As far as micromanaging goes, the DNR doesn't have the manpower or the funding to do much more micromanaging, IMO. A county-wide basis is about as far as it can go. Already though, there are several hunts that focus on smaller areas. Many city hunts, zones, and parks all have hunts. These hunts don't cover lands though with NR landowners, or landowners who won't allow hunting. In those cases, it may be impossible to manage the herds.

On public land, it is quite difficult to retrieve deer for long distances. I hunt a lot of public land, and if I shoot a deer that I need to drag out a long ways, the first call I make is to a buddy who I will then owe a case of a respectable beer. And I would do the same for a friend of mine who needed some hauling done. It woudl certainly be nice to use those access trails, but opening them up to ATV's would certainly be chaotic, and the power would be abused by hunters as well as avid riders. Not to mention, destroy good habitat. Part of the beauty of public land is that you can walk in to some out of the way nook, and never see another person the entire season. I wouldn't want that ruined by ATV use.

The doomsday scenario layed out before us could certainly happen, but not at the numbers the population is currently at. If the numbers do start getting very low in some areas, it is our responsibility as hunters to then NOT shoot does. It is also our responsibility to make some phone calls and write emails to DNR officials to voice our concerns.

I love this thread. Keep up the good comments!
 
First of all none of us can tell what genitics a 1.5 year old buck has, good or bad. A 4.5 year old buck has exactly the same genes as he had at 1.5 years, and just because he has big horns doesn't mean he is geniticly superior. If we get ourselves down to a 1 to 1 or even 1 to 2 buck doe ratio that means there will be increased competation and many more bucks of high quality that are fighting for does will die from fighting and stress so the little 1.5 year olds are still doing some breeding. With wild deer I am not very sure about much of this genitics stuff because there is absolutly no control of any kind. Not only is it possible by proabable that a 3.5 year old buck living in the same home area is breeding his mother, sisters, and daughters so what does that do for genitics?

My whole point with some of my comments about population is that we don't really know what the population is much less what it is in specific areas. How can we then know how many does, or bucks for that matter, should be remove from an area. I have personally never seen 100 deer in a field, but I don't doubt that some of you have, but that sighting doesn't always mean that there is a too high population. Those 100 deer could have been drawn there by a food source that pulled them from 5 or 6 miles away and 100 deer in 5 square miles is not overpopulated. I really do believe there are much more specefic population numbers and even a break down of the buck to doe ratio, but for some reason we aren't being given those numbers. I know that this population thing isn't an exact science and is difficult to estimate but there must be some viable numbers out there to justify the actual number of extra doe tags for some counties rather than just someone's guess after having seen a bunch of deer in a field at almost dark.
 
This whole doe killing thing is really starting to worry me as well. Unfortunately the mentality with alot of hunters is shoot as many deer as you can. That mentality will stick with them until they start seeing far less deer.

The point I am trying to make is that people just have killing deer on the brain and until someone says stop and look what has happened to the deer population they will continue doing it.

I have hunted many different areas in the state especially across the southern tiers. My deer sightings in alot of those areas are down. Now either there are alot more nocturnal deer or they just aren't there. Some areas i hunt, I now refuse to shoot does because the population is not that great compared to the habitat and food around there. Others could certainly stand to have deer taken off it and i do.

I really appreciate what the DNR does for our state. It's why we have the great hunting that we do. But unfortunatly they are staring at the numbers way to hard. Saying that we have to kill this many deer. What were there numbers off his shotgun season when they decided on a extended season? 10,000? i bet there were 10,000 deer laying dead in the woods just from being mortally wounded by shotgunners.

The deer numbers are down! Period! That's why the numbers aren't there!

Just like what was said. "you can't kill deer in sanctuaries"

The other reason shotgun numbers are probably down is because alot of guys aren't doing it anymore. I can't tell you how many people I know that refuse to shotgun hunt because of the fiasco it brings with it sometimes. They instead bowhunt or muzz hunt trying to stay away from the crowds. These are good hunters too who can shoot pretty good. It makes a difference in numbers when Billy Bob takes his place.

I just hope the DNR doesn't get carried away with this and try to use these lower deer numbers as an excuse to extend gun seasons in the future. Otherwise I might have to call in a few unfilled tags.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I know that this population thing isn't an exact science and is difficult to estimate but there must be some viable numbers out there to justify the actual number of extra doe tags for some counties rather than just someone's guess after having seen a bunch of deer in a field at almost dark. </div></div>

No one is guessing on what the number harvested should be. There is very good computer software that can have several different variables factored into it and then run a potential outcome for the next X (amount) of years...to predict a trend.

All our wildlife biologists attended college and part of their "core-class" for wildlife management includes running scenarios on these types of computer programs. I've taken these classes at ISU.

I think at the very least, the dnr needs to keep with the current program they have by managing the deer herd on a county level...but I'd like to see a different approach to some of the counties. Like Clayton and Van Buren...both counties were issued 5000(+) antlerless tags this year. Checking the harvest right now Clayton has 3665 antlerless deer taken while Van Buren only has 1529. Obviously one county is doing what the DNR wants and for the other the current regulations/tag system don't seem to be working.
 
From the DNR harvest report online.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Population Surveys
Three techniques are used to monitor deer population trends in Iowa. These are 1) an aerial survey conducted in January - March after the deer seasons are complete, 2) a spotlight survey conducted in April, and 3) a record of the number of deer killed on Iowa's rural highways throughout the year. All of these surveys correlate well with the reported harvest over the last 15 years and appear to provide reliable long-term trend indices. However, none of these surveys can be considered absolutely reliable predictors of annual changes in the population because of high variability in the survey conditions.
Deer populations for the state as a whole appear to have leveled off or declined in the past year after steadily increasing during the previous 3 to 4 years (Fig 1.7). All 3 surveys are still higher than they were during the last time deer numbers peaked in the late 1980’s (Table 1.9).
The aerial survey conducted after the 2005 hunting season (Jan-Mar 2006) was down about 18%. Conditions for this survey were marginal in much of the state. Only about 60% of the surveys were actually flown. Aerial counts have declined over the past 2 years but the decline this year may be due as much to the conditions as to actual declines in deer numbers. There has been a lot of variability in counts on individual areas. </div></div>

Even the DNR is stating they don't have reliable data because their survey techniques depend on weather. ONLY 60% of the aerial surveys were conducted...OF course there's going to be a decline...at least a decline reported anyway, it doesn't mean there actually is a decline in the population.

They even specify that there is "a lot of variability in counts on idividual areas"...so why not implement a management plan based on those findings, instead of a "blanket approach"?

I hope the bow hunter surveys result in some positive data that can be useful.
 
"No one is guessing on what the number harvested should be. There is very good computer software that can have several different variables factored into it and then run a potential outcome for the next X (amount) of years...to predict a trend."

I am not trying to beat a dead horse, really, and I can't figure how to make this thing just do a partial quote, but I would still like to see some real numbers. The DNR have to have some pretty specific numbers to feed this computer program and I have to assume that they would do this on a county by county basis. I believe in the DNR and have supported them greatly over the years so I am not just throwing rocks at them on this issue. Why don't they post some of these numbers in a form that we can understand on the web site pertaining to deer populations and harvest numbers and how they correlate and what their actual goals are? My personal view, and that of some others I have discussed this with, is that the population numbers are already lower than we think and that they, the DNR, want them much lower. I also am wondering if they are concerned that if the numbers are already much lower than we hunters would approve of, and we become aware of it, then they won't have as much hunter cooperation and participation in the doe extraction program that is being pressed on us. I just want some real data that I can use to make my own decisions as to how many deer, bucks or does, that I should be trying to harvest each year. It could easily be that my observations are scewed and there are way more deer that I think, but I want to see that myself rather than just being that I am not part of the soultion because I won't blindly follow and shoot 20 does each fall because the population needs it.

On the subject of doe harvest in Van Buren county I have a couple of comments. I don't know the exact number of acres but there is a lot of land that is tied up with NR owners and leases that have very few deer taken from them. Davis County is much the same but not quite as bad. It doesn't matter if the DNR issues 10,000 doe tags if there aren't hunters and places for them to hunt, and that is the case currently. My brother-in-law lives in Van Buren and our family group used to hunt several hundred acres there, but no longer. An "outfitter" leased much of the land we hunted and NR landowners bought some and some resident hunters that live in other parts of the state bought some. Our group would usually take 15 to maybe as high as 20 deer from these acres back in the mid 80's when there were only half as many deer. Now there might still be 20 deer taken from those acres but the deer population is doubled and many sanctuaries have been created, so what can be done. Our family group has fallen apart a couple of us shoot a couple of deer each with bow or shotgun but it just isn't the same and there isn't the acres or the children for us to hunt the old way. At my farm I haven't had any opprotunity so far to harvest a deer but I have 1 anysex tag and 4 anterless tags but it doesn't do any good if I can't find any deer to shoot, and believe me I have tried.
 
I kind of have to agree with the last post in regards to the college educated computer program savy people we have at the DNR. I work in an I.T. department and I also have a B.A. in Business Mgt. (which doesn't make me special by my own standards by any means) but I will tell you this. When it comes to using computed models for predicting whitetail population it is garbage in and garbage out. All it is a bunch of multiplication tables that factor in the best information we can give it. I'm getting tired of being fed scienfific explanations based on nonreliable statistics. When we find out that they only carried out 60% of the scheduled flights to count deer how much accuracy can their be? Granted they are trying to do the best with the information that they have and I give the credit for that but come on. Heck, I'm sure everyone at ENRON thought since it was large company full of educated college graduates that their retirements were locked away safely in some Excel speadsheet somewhere. Mistakes happen, and may be happening. Honestly, I would have far more faith in the DNR if I didn't see them kissing the bumper of insurance companies and worshiping the Farm Bureau. I heard someone say a farm bureau spokesperson was making statements about deer poplations in regards to the special seasons? I'm guessing the FB had more then 3 days to present their case to the DNR in this regards. The other thing that frustrates me is the fact that this so called "problem" creates a ton of revenue for the state. ( I only wish I had these kind of problems in my life!) Unfortunately for us sportsman the only funding the DNR receives is from us. So then if you oppose on further hunting opportunities it is rubbed in your face like a dog peeing on the floor. This kind of reminds me of how everyone really wants to ban smoking from everywhere and they want to tax the heck out of cigarettes to fund everything. What happens when everyone quits smoking and they lose that revenue? It's kind of like getting everyone to buy more tags, what happens when the deer are gone? Deer management for the sake of hunting should remove all concepts involving money and then you will see hunters happy. Until then enjoy the mess and keep supporting groups like the IBA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom