Low Deer #'s, Bad Regs, Call to ACTION!! CONTACT INFO, etc
Bill Hartzell
New Member
I have also sent an e-mail. No response as well.. Just fyi
To add a little bit, random thoughts tonight....
Brandstad will NEVER understand the ramifications of all this. I'd love to have 10 respectful minutes in his office to explain reality from ONE of many folks who "get it" and grasp the structure, geography, land ownership and deer-dynamics of this state. Yes, apparently he doesn't think the DNR does understand either though & he grasps it better than the DNR or most of the hunting community.
Simply, think of this.....
The 2 worst areas for deer collisions & damage are NOT going to be greatly effected by decimating the "OVER-ALL" deer numbers: 1) Deer in city areas, parks (also high human population/traffic), sanctuaries, etc, etc. ----- The solution for this area will have to be UNIQUELY dealt with on EACH occasion- example: city bow hunts, park hunts, upping doe tags for city limits, certain hunts in "sanctuaries", etc. 2) Huge land owners. Some don't have desire, time, care, effort, knowledge, understanding, etc, etc, etc to control their land. This is NOT just hunters tying up big pieces, this could be the old-coot that doesn't want anyone hunting his 500 acres OR it could be some long-haired, maggot infested, natural-fibers, granola-eating, vegetarian Lib with a Prius & Obama sticker at the modern/trendy farm-house that won't let any hunting go on. Or it could be a few guys owning a piece and just not getting enough does taken. Well- those areas are NOT going to be greatly affected in any case with these regulations. Plan B for those areas need to be thought of (I have many ideas but for length of post, I'll move on) and this is not hardly going to dent that problem, whole different animal and they are tossing most the state in the crapper to make a small dent in something that's out of their league or needs a very unique solution in its unique circumstance. Like the 50 square miles in/around des moines- filled with deer and bow only- the late rifle season ain't doing SQUAT here- same with about 20 other cities I can think of that uniquely are responsible and have their own unique plan.
LAST... What you're seeing my friends is the DNR & Government looking at AVERAGES, that's right AVERAGES!!!!! May be by county, may be by the state level. BUT- why this is important..... you might have the 20% of landowners holding 150 deer per square mile - over-run with deer..... But- you decimate the 80% of AVERAGE areas of Iowa to 12 deer per square mile (and I firmly believe both those examples exist!!!)..... Well my friends, you now find that by decimating or eliminating deer on the AVERAGE 80% of the ground, that is how they get their final AVERAGE figure that goes to the capital and the bottom line for DNR. If folks wanted to get so low on low many deer they'd allow- it literally could mean figures of the 20% having tons of deer & the other 80% having no deer or close to it - that would get them "acceptible averages". See what I mean????? I could go on about this and probably have some more insight and rambling I could do BUT... BOTTOM LINE: the main problem areas are NOT being affected greatly by all this- we still have all the city/suburb deer & sanctuary/giant landowner deer causing most the problems (IMO) and eliminating all the deer in all the other "average" areas has little effect. They are not going about this right.
EMAIL in response to their 1st generic form response- don't let them get away with not hearing you out & responding to YOUR specifics YOU took time to prepare and that are reasonable. They work for you. CALL the 1st page # as well, want to hear from you!!!!!!!
Last, you better get all this contact info, emails, postings, ph #'s to all your non-I.W. hunter buddies. We're the MINORITY and there's so many folks that need to get into the loop on this and make a difference, pass the info on!!
Brandstad will NEVER understand the ramifications of all this. I'd love to have 10 respectful minutes in his office to explain reality from ONE of many folks who "get it" and grasp the structure, geography, land ownership and deer-dynamics of this state. Yes, apparently he doesn't think the DNR does understand either though & he grasps it better than the DNR or most of the hunting community.
Simply, think of this.....
The 2 worst areas for deer collisions & damage are NOT going to be greatly effected by decimating the "OVER-ALL" deer numbers: 1) Deer in city areas, parks (also high human population/traffic), sanctuaries, etc, etc. ----- The solution for this area will have to be UNIQUELY dealt with on EACH occasion- example: city bow hunts, park hunts, upping doe tags for city limits, certain hunts in "sanctuaries", etc. 2) Huge land owners. Some don't have desire, time, care, effort, knowledge, understanding, etc, etc, etc to control their land. This is NOT just hunters tying up big pieces, this could be the old-coot that doesn't want anyone hunting his 500 acres OR it could be some long-haired, maggot infested, natural-fibers, granola-eating, vegetarian Lib with a Prius & Obama sticker at the modern/trendy farm-house that won't let any hunting go on. Or it could be a few guys owning a piece and just not getting enough does taken. Well- those areas are NOT going to be greatly affected in any case with these regulations. Plan B for those areas need to be thought of (I have many ideas but for length of post, I'll move on) and this is not hardly going to dent that problem, whole different animal and they are tossing most the state in the crapper to make a small dent in something that's out of their league or needs a very unique solution in its unique circumstance. Like the 50 square miles in/around des moines- filled with deer and bow only- the late rifle season ain't doing SQUAT here- same with about 20 other cities I can think of that uniquely are responsible and have their own unique plan.
LAST... What you're seeing my friends is the DNR & Government looking at AVERAGES, that's right AVERAGES!!!!! May be by county, may be by the state level. BUT- why this is important..... you might have the 20% of landowners holding 150 deer per square mile - over-run with deer..... But- you decimate the 80% of AVERAGE areas of Iowa to 12 deer per square mile (and I firmly believe both those examples exist!!!)..... Well my friends, you now find that by decimating or eliminating deer on the AVERAGE 80% of the ground, that is how they get their final AVERAGE figure that goes to the capital and the bottom line for DNR. If folks wanted to get so low on low many deer they'd allow- it literally could mean figures of the 20% having tons of deer & the other 80% having no deer or close to it - that would get them "acceptible averages". See what I mean????? I could go on about this and probably have some more insight and rambling I could do BUT... BOTTOM LINE: the main problem areas are NOT being affected greatly by all this- we still have all the city/suburb deer & sanctuary/giant landowner deer causing most the problems (IMO) and eliminating all the deer in all the other "average" areas has little effect. They are not going about this right.
EMAIL in response to their 1st generic form response- don't let them get away with not hearing you out & responding to YOUR specifics YOU took time to prepare and that are reasonable. They work for you. CALL the 1st page # as well, want to hear from you!!!!!!!
Last, you better get all this contact info, emails, postings, ph #'s to all your non-I.W. hunter buddies. We're the MINORITY and there's so many folks that need to get into the loop on this and make a difference, pass the info on!!
Last edited:
flugge
Well-Known Member
You know, I hate to bring this up, but I had an interesting conversation with a farmer this weekend. He told me that every deer should be shot, as they do nothing but destroy everything, and they take the lives of people. I asked him what he meant by that, and he said he knew 3 people that were killed on the roads by deer accidents, all 3 were on motorcycles, and it was a span of 25 years this has happened. But he still thinks every deer should get shot, and he carries a hi power on his tractor and plucks off one every chance he gets he said. That is the stuff we are fighting, that is what sucks. We should get rid of every single drunk driver then I told him, as they take many lives, but he didnt agree with that..I just shut my mouth and left, but it just makes me realize that we are fighting a bunch of morons that have no clue...sorry, just my opinion..but thats how it is...
Accidents are sad, of all types. Sorry- driving a motorcycle is EXTREMELY dangerous.... Traffic, cars pulling out, DRIVING IN DEER COUNTRY AT DARK, cars not seeing you, etc. That's why folks call them "organ donors". It's sad BUT folks have to understand how dangerous that is and accept some level of risk. Compare that # to regular traffic deaths though from just vehicle collisions with motorcycles- no comparison. Let's get rid of all guns. Let's get rid of all medications with any side effects. Let's get rid of vehicles & motorcycles- people are being killed! Let's get rid of squirrels... I've heard of people swerving for squirrels and hitting trees- running off road. Heck, we better get rid of every tree along any road for 100 yards along road- folks hit those you know!!! Let's turn to government to solve all these problems, eradicate everything that could be dangerous- who cares about the balancing of the positives. Let's get rid of any hazard that exists period.
Deer will never be eradicated obviously. In fact, the DNR or Brandstad will never reduce the pocket areas a whole ton with their existing plan.
Deer damage is severely exaggerated by guys like that farmer IMO.
Last, there's a minority group like these guys out there, I hear them on occasion and they are the ones making the noise at FB. How about ALL these guys offer up their NAMES & NUMBERS & PROPERTY ADDRESSES so folks can get respectful access to all their land to eradicate all their deer??!?!???!? Then, these minority groups will have few deer and shut the heck up. Why don't I think they'll do that? Instead, they want to enforce their desires on the rest of the state, turning everyone else's ground into crap. COME ON FB- let's hear from these guys and open their ground up for access to folks to take care of the deer....
Deer will never be eradicated obviously. In fact, the DNR or Brandstad will never reduce the pocket areas a whole ton with their existing plan.
Deer damage is severely exaggerated by guys like that farmer IMO.
Last, there's a minority group like these guys out there, I hear them on occasion and they are the ones making the noise at FB. How about ALL these guys offer up their NAMES & NUMBERS & PROPERTY ADDRESSES so folks can get respectful access to all their land to eradicate all their deer??!?!???!? Then, these minority groups will have few deer and shut the heck up. Why don't I think they'll do that? Instead, they want to enforce their desires on the rest of the state, turning everyone else's ground into crap. COME ON FB- let's hear from these guys and open their ground up for access to folks to take care of the deer....
Last edited:
