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

Management Decisions

m_kat

m_kat

Member
This is a e-mail I sent out to Mr. Dale Garner, Bureau Chief of the division of wildlife. I normally stay pretty quiet and mind my own buisness but guns during november and rifles have no place in Iowa. Not having those two things here is what has made our state such a great place to hunt. This proposal has nothing to do with herd management and is nothing more than a way for them to make more money while making the insurance companies happy. Tell me what you guys think.




Mr. Dale Garner,


An issue has come to my attention that I would like to address. Recently a few local papers printed a story about a proposed antlerless November gun hunt and a late season antlerless rifle hunt. I must say that I thought it was a misprint or taken out of context, but after looking into it I found that it was an actual proposal. I have talked to a number of concerned sportsmen and they all share my opinion that both proposals would be a mistake for a wide variety of obvious reasons.

It seems to me that the DNR is playing politics with the deer herd and not focusing on the management issues. Will these proposals really do any good for the deer herd? It seems to me that they will do no more than become an enforcement nightmare.

If the DNR is really concerned about the deer population, reducing the states doe herd should be the main focus. If it is the main objective of the state’s then why are the tags selling for 26-10 dollars each, wouldn’t they be more utilized if they were cheaper? Another question refers to the free landowner tags. Is there any real reason for them to be any-sex? What argument would there be to expand the free tag allotment for landowners and make them all doe only, if reducing the herd was the real issue at hand?

I must say that I have always been proud to live in this state. The DNR has done an excellent job in managing our resources and I believe that the resources should continue to be the main focus in the management decisions. I realize that this is a broad issue with many factors. Just a few questions I would like to pose. A response would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time,
 
Why do nso many treat the DNR like they're enron? It's not like they're taking home big bonus's for selling more licenses. You do realize that they USE THAT MONEY TO BUY PUBLIC HUNTING AREAS dont ya?

That said, m_kat I commend you on keeping the e-mail civil, I would suggest you all make sure to voice your concerns or approval to Jeff Vonk as well.
 
[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that they USE THAT MONEY TO BUY PUBLIC HUNTING AREAS dont ya?



[/ QUOTE ]

they do? where are all these acres and acres of public hunting that we have paid for all theses years?

there isn't any. if the DNR were self supported, say from a 1/8 cent tax, THEN maybe tag fees would be buying up some land. but as it is, with the legislature setting the DNR budget, tag fees are still paying the bills, instead of buying land. the majority of public use land is from private donations, or from groups like pheasants forever and ducks unlimited, kicking in money
 
teeroy, you understand the DNR budget issues and don't seem to be calling for more land aquisition, more access and more management(check stations) for lower license fees, you're not the target audience of that thought. There is land being bought with cash scraped from anywhere they can get it.

At the latest NRC meeting there were 2 aquisitions slated: 15-acres in Linn County, adjacent to the west side of Chain-O-Lakes Wildlife Management Area.
and:
an 82.7-acre parcel southeast
of Belle Plaine in Iowa County.

in May there was:
58-acres in Winnebago County.
588-acres Hamilton County
6-acres in Bremer County
0.5-acre in Clinton County

Sure very little of the money comes directly from license fees but if they weren't there these purchases wouldn't be happening.
 
i do see a need for more public land in iowa, especially in those "problem" areas in the south. iowa has the least amount of public land available, but has the majority of hunting. but as long as the legislature sets, the pilliages the DNR budget, that money will be damn hard to come by. if we had a fully self supported DNR, we could have land for hunting, ATV use, and parks. every county could have their own conservation officer, and parks would be well staffed and maintained
 
If im not mistaken i remember voting at the booth marking my ballot not to allow the raiding of Natural Resource money in one of the past elections.Guess it did not pass.Maybe it should be put up to vote again in the next election.
Take a look at how many acres of public hunting land is available in Van Buren county sometime,aint no shortage of public hunting land there and it is the highest doe population of all the countys.
I have no problem with a high power rifle season,it wont be in my hunten county,at least not yet.I will be more than happy to go south a county and shoot a couple of those pesky does in January.
grin.gif
 
IA ML'r

It's not just a money issue.
I was just trying to pose a couple simple questions in hope that he would respond.
The political side of this has gotten way out of hand, quick knee jerk reactions like those that are occuring are going to end up as a huge problem for future hunters.

Another note, I can't believe no one has brought up the land owner tag issue. Why has the number of any-sex tags doubled in the last five years to over 70,000? That many more landowners? If the concern is truly the deer herd, there should be no argument with making them all antlerless only and turn more of the herd management over to those that are realy impacted with over population, the landowners.
 
m_kat,

That's at least part of the problem we currently have ... landowners who've created their own little sanctuaries where access is limited and the only deer taken are "trophy" bucks. And the rest of us are paying the consequences.
Urban sprawl also put deer in front of commuter traffic that wasn't there a year ago. And the insurance companies end up driving the management bus!
If you want to put responsibility on the landowner (and raise $$$ at the same time), start levying fines against land owners who allow their deer (doe) numbers to rise above a certain density threshold.
 
I'm completely stunned there's not widespread hunter objection to these new seasons!

If I were a resident I'd be on the phone with my legislator right now. A January antlerless rifle season alone decimated north central Kansas deer populations over the last few years. I saw the damage. Add to that 3 gun rut days!? Holy cow. The best deer state in the country will be just another deer state. No question about that.

I have news for you. Once any gun season gets voted in, it will never, never, never go away. That is because there are so many gun hunters that cry foul to their legislators when something is taken away from them. It is true. That is the problem all us crappy management states have. I've even talked to directors about this. The only hope us long gun-rut states have is antler restrictions & one buck rules, which have marginal support with gunners. These methods are inferior to Iowa's current limitations on guns.

What a shame.
frown.gif
frown.gif
 
Or mandate high fences on "deer farms" over a certain size within a set range of traffic corridors???
 
if the state of iowa really wanted to do something for southern iowa deer herd make all tenyear and and all woods that are in forest preserve, public hunting ! bet that would help out the deer population
grin.gif
 
Holy Cow, I can't beleive this topic went to public land, wow- that's really a tiny part of the issue. These laws are really going to screw up Iowa deer hunting. Think about how this is going to effect what Iowa has had for deer hunting and not things like $, public hunting, etc...
Iowa's greatest threats- Overkilling the deer heard (happened in everywhere from Kansas to Michigan in certain areas), it will simply start in pockets and the huge land owners will continue to have too many deer.
Non-residents- I can't drive 1 mile without going past a piece of land bought by non-residents- your access to land tougher every year? More buck tags will = more NR buying/leasing land.
More guns, more guns during rut, more opportunities to blast bucks, oh no. I don't see any improvements to buck quality from any of the laws being looked at.
That's just a few of my thoughts.
crazy.gif
 
Maybe instead of all of us complaining we sould take the new seasons for what they are,more days available to hunt deer.I caint see anything wrong with that.
So it may be a little harder to get that old buck we hold out for in a couple of years,so what.That makes it that much more of a challenge to obtain and will be more statisfyen in the end.
I use to have access to some land right next to a state park.At one time you could see a herd of 100+ deer feeding in the field in the evenings.That aint no joke.It werent even safe to drive the roads at night by my house.The DNR allowed doe hunting there and it was just amazing at how many deer were taken out of that small 300 acre park.Lets just say if you see 100 theres at least 300 or more.Took a couple of hunting seasons but that herd has been reduced considerbly.It got a lot tougher trying to get a decent buck in the place i hunted but when i did i felt better than when it ever did.Less does that breed the less numbers of male fawns that will grow into mature bucks.Thats a given.
The area i hunt now days you would be lucky to ever get a buck over 140 to 150.Is this bad,no.Deer is deer,no matter how big yours is someone has one bigger it seems.They say you cant eat the antlers and how many do you need?
I say lets try to enjoy these new seasons instead of worrying about if its gonna be tougher to get a big buck.
Remember half the fun in hunting is just getting there,any thing is possible untill you giver up for the day.
smirk.gif
 
I think there are some folks here that simply do not understand the ramifications of these 2 new seasons. It's understandable if you have never hunted in a state that implemented them, especially the late antlerless. However, I guarantee you.....you will come to regret your opinion. And you will regret you didn't do something to fight this when you had the chance.

I know. I saw what they did in north central Kansas. A resource wasted, and gone forever. The gun hunters never give back a season when they get it. Politicians will bow to their numbers.
 
I think our trophys are what we make them.I know very well what happens when your hunting ground is reduced to 1/8 the size of herd it was a couple of years ago.Take advantage of what hunting days you have,someday you may not be able to hunt at all.
 
"I think our trophys are what we make them."

Exactly. That is why Iowa resident hunters should get on the phone to their legislators & DNR and protect what they have, rather than simply taking advantage of whatever seasons politicians decide to throw out there. One can be can take part in the decision making, as well as hunt come fall. Sitting on one's hands is a bad option.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Took a couple of hunting seasons but that herd has been reduced considerbly

[/ QUOTE ]

that was the best point of your post, buckknife. we have inceased the doe harvest every year. in a couple more years, we may have gotten the herd to a more "rspectable" level. but the insurance companies forced the DNR to lower herds NOW. common sense is to take the numbers down gradually, so as not to over harvest the deer. but with new tag quotas, seasons, weapons, and guns closer to the rut, an overharvest of our deer herd very well could happen this year. ghosts "joke" very well could come true. this could be the last year of iowa's top quality hunting
 
I dont think the bonus sesaons are gonna have much effect on the deer population,most people already have a freezer full of deer well before they open.
The 3 day season is the one to worry about.The shotgun seasons are when most of the deer are taken in the state.Thats when the most tags are sold probably and that is where the money is at for the state.Trophy hunters are the minority when it comes to the money.I can see bow season shrinking considerable in the next few years,and i dont think there is anything we can do about it.
Personally i would like to see these seasons........
Sept,Oct,November-bow season
December-shotgun
January-muzzleloader
One buck tag for $26 good for anyone of the seasons and $26 lisance good for as many does as you want to shoot in all of these seasons.
Wont happen though cause there wouldnt be enough money in it for the state.
We as bow hunters have had it pretty good for some time now,there is nuthin wrong with giving gun hunters more time in the field to injoy their hunting pleasures.
I bow hunt and shotgun hunt and muzzle loader hunt,and yes im gonna hunt with a high power rifle if i get a chance to,probably will only get one tag for that rifle season anyway.My freezer will be full by then anyways.
You fellers can raise a rukas if you want but on the other end you have people that dont hunt that have their new car totaled out by a deer.I think there voice is being heard also.
A friend lost there 14 year old daughter in a deer vehical accident last year.What are we going to say to them about a 3 day season or a bonus season?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom