OneCam
Well-Known Member
The 2005 Iowa Legislative sessions have begun and the possibilities of deer hunting regulation changes are a hot bed of controversy.
The insurance companies and local media have painted a picture for the general public that spins a story of gloom and doom concerning our deer herd and deer management practices. 'Too many deer', 'too few hunters', 'not enough non-resident tags' and excusing poaching are just of the few of their outside opinions.
I would like to discuss these topics from a Iowa sportsman's perspective;
· Insurance company's
· Reducing our herd
· Poaching
· Leasing and Land acquisitions
· DNR funding
· My suggestion
· And finally actions you should take
Insurance company's
The insurance companies are in business to make money and their current agenda is to reduce the deer population. We need to respect their agenda while at the same time we need to protect our hunting future. Their current solution to our reducing our deer herd is to increase the non-resident either sex tags while boasting increased DNR revenue, boosting local economy and decreasing poaching all at the same time.
Did you know that there is 2.3 million miles driven for each deer accident. Interestingly enough this number has remained steady over the past few years. Simply put - we are hitting more deer because we are driving more.
Reducing our herd
Are there to many deer? I think we can all agree that the state has seen an increase in our deer herd over the last few years and there are certainly areas that need dramatic reduction in the deer herd.
The key to reducing our deer population is to harvest does. Why ... harvesting 1 doe is essentially harvesting 3 deer (the doe and two fawns for the next year). So in essence harvesting 1 doe is the same as harvesting 3 bucks.
Resident hunters have purchased twice the number of antler-less tags in 2004, 70,000+ vs 34,000, as compared to 2003 yet the media stresses the fact that thousands of antler-less tags have not been sold. Since twice the number of license were sold you can safely assume twice the number of antler less deer have been harvested in one year. We did this all in one year and it's only going to get better. Why aren't we being congratulated?
Poaching
How do non-residents fall into the mix as far as reducing the deer herd? Well for close to $250 for an antler-less tag or should I say "temptation tag". Can we really rely on neighbors to significantly reduce the deer population? I don't think so.
Does allotting antler-less non-resident tags promote the temptation for poaching - recent news paper articles suggests the DNR and the media agree with this theory. So do I.
Non-Resident Increases
More Non Resident tags will increase demands on our privately held hunting lands resulting in more leased land and land acquisition, which negatively impacts the resident hunter.
More importantly in many instances the land managed through these leases or acquisitions creates a safe haven for deer and promotes undesirable deer populations. Therefore the argument can be made that increasing non-resident tags will eventually help to increase the deer herd.
DNR funding
There are countless solutions that could increase our DNR revenue. Until we take a close look at each it's hard to support a "quick fix" by allotting more NR tags.
This year the DNR is going to propose an increase of 2,000 non-resident either sex tags, which will generate an additional $620,000 in license revenue. By increasing the non-resident either sex allocation to 8,000 and allowing 2,500 non-resident antler-less/temptation tags we are in effect permitting 10,500 non-residents the opportunity to harvest bucks in our state.
Current DNR tag revenue from non-resident deer hunters is as follows:
* Bow and gun 6,000 tags @ $309.50 = $1,857,000
* 2,500 antler-less Tags @ $239.50 = $598,750
* Totaling $2,455,750
* Total including additional 2,000 tags = 3,074,750
My suggestion
One idea I have is to do away with the 2,500 non-resident antler-less/temptation tags and approve the increase of 2,000 either sex tags. Additionally increase the sale price of the tags by $80 and throw in an antler-less tag. With this plan we increase DNR funding, remove the threat of temptation poaching, increase the antler-less harvest all while decreasing the total number of non-resident deer hunters.
* Bow and Gun 8,000 tags @ $389.50 = $3,116,000
Again this proposal will have higher revenue, less non-resident hunters, more antler-less deer harvested (by providing both antler-less and either sex tag), less opportunity for poaching - it's win situation for all parties.
Actions you should take
Talk to your legislators, members of the House and Senate Natural Resource Committees. Be polite, respectful and to the point.
Go to this website to find your legislators
Iowa Legislature Website
Most importantly if you haven't already done so join the IBA because they are working every day to protect what you love.
The insurance companies and local media have painted a picture for the general public that spins a story of gloom and doom concerning our deer herd and deer management practices. 'Too many deer', 'too few hunters', 'not enough non-resident tags' and excusing poaching are just of the few of their outside opinions.
I would like to discuss these topics from a Iowa sportsman's perspective;
· Insurance company's
· Reducing our herd
· Poaching
· Leasing and Land acquisitions
· DNR funding
· My suggestion
· And finally actions you should take
Insurance company's
The insurance companies are in business to make money and their current agenda is to reduce the deer population. We need to respect their agenda while at the same time we need to protect our hunting future. Their current solution to our reducing our deer herd is to increase the non-resident either sex tags while boasting increased DNR revenue, boosting local economy and decreasing poaching all at the same time.
Did you know that there is 2.3 million miles driven for each deer accident. Interestingly enough this number has remained steady over the past few years. Simply put - we are hitting more deer because we are driving more.
Reducing our herd
Are there to many deer? I think we can all agree that the state has seen an increase in our deer herd over the last few years and there are certainly areas that need dramatic reduction in the deer herd.
The key to reducing our deer population is to harvest does. Why ... harvesting 1 doe is essentially harvesting 3 deer (the doe and two fawns for the next year). So in essence harvesting 1 doe is the same as harvesting 3 bucks.
Resident hunters have purchased twice the number of antler-less tags in 2004, 70,000+ vs 34,000, as compared to 2003 yet the media stresses the fact that thousands of antler-less tags have not been sold. Since twice the number of license were sold you can safely assume twice the number of antler less deer have been harvested in one year. We did this all in one year and it's only going to get better. Why aren't we being congratulated?
Poaching
How do non-residents fall into the mix as far as reducing the deer herd? Well for close to $250 for an antler-less tag or should I say "temptation tag". Can we really rely on neighbors to significantly reduce the deer population? I don't think so.
Does allotting antler-less non-resident tags promote the temptation for poaching - recent news paper articles suggests the DNR and the media agree with this theory. So do I.
Non-Resident Increases
More Non Resident tags will increase demands on our privately held hunting lands resulting in more leased land and land acquisition, which negatively impacts the resident hunter.
More importantly in many instances the land managed through these leases or acquisitions creates a safe haven for deer and promotes undesirable deer populations. Therefore the argument can be made that increasing non-resident tags will eventually help to increase the deer herd.
DNR funding
There are countless solutions that could increase our DNR revenue. Until we take a close look at each it's hard to support a "quick fix" by allotting more NR tags.
This year the DNR is going to propose an increase of 2,000 non-resident either sex tags, which will generate an additional $620,000 in license revenue. By increasing the non-resident either sex allocation to 8,000 and allowing 2,500 non-resident antler-less/temptation tags we are in effect permitting 10,500 non-residents the opportunity to harvest bucks in our state.
Current DNR tag revenue from non-resident deer hunters is as follows:
* Bow and gun 6,000 tags @ $309.50 = $1,857,000
* 2,500 antler-less Tags @ $239.50 = $598,750
* Totaling $2,455,750
* Total including additional 2,000 tags = 3,074,750
My suggestion
One idea I have is to do away with the 2,500 non-resident antler-less/temptation tags and approve the increase of 2,000 either sex tags. Additionally increase the sale price of the tags by $80 and throw in an antler-less tag. With this plan we increase DNR funding, remove the threat of temptation poaching, increase the antler-less harvest all while decreasing the total number of non-resident deer hunters.
* Bow and Gun 8,000 tags @ $389.50 = $3,116,000
Again this proposal will have higher revenue, less non-resident hunters, more antler-less deer harvested (by providing both antler-less and either sex tag), less opportunity for poaching - it's win situation for all parties.
Actions you should take
Talk to your legislators, members of the House and Senate Natural Resource Committees. Be polite, respectful and to the point.
Go to this website to find your legislators
Iowa Legislature Website
Most importantly if you haven't already done so join the IBA because they are working every day to protect what you love.
