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

Options for 2006?

[ QUOTE ]
The stakeholders most involved are farmers, insurance industry, DNR, and hunters. Another business school lesson is leverage in negotiations- right now I feel like hunters have an advantage. There will never be enough deer killed for the insurance industry as long as there is a vehicle/deer collision in Iowa. Maybe our counter to the "lost" revenue on lower priced anterless tags should be that the insurance industry cover the lost revenue. No matter what happens, if hunters fail to reduce doe numbers- what is their next best option? If you can't sell 10,000 extra tags or whatever the number- you aren't going to sell more the next year unless the price comes down. I think they need us more than we need them right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pharmer, the only hole I see in your logic is the NR. The insurance companies would rather the DNR drop quotas and let more NRs in to hunt with temptation tags than pay for the loss of revenue. Therefore the insurace companies have the leverage because they know the general attitude about quotas.

The 'Bonker
 
Something that I don't like is the fact that I have to buy a any sex tag to shotgun hunt. For me I always shoot a couple of does during shotgun season, but I also want to be able to have a shot at a buck with my muzzleloader. I myself would be willing to pay the price of an any sex tag for a doe tag that way I could still shoot a buck during late muzzleloader. Does anyone else feel this way, or is it just me?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Something that I don't like is the fact that I have to buy a any sex tag to shotgun hunt. For me I always shoot a couple of does during shotgun season, but I also want to be able to have a shot at a buck with my muzzleloader. I myself would be willing to pay the price of an any sex tag for a doe tag that way I could still shoot a buck during late muzzleloader. Does anyone else feel this way, or is it just me?

[/ QUOTE ] You can hunt shotgun season you just have to hunt second season and shoot does only.
 
I would like to see your first doe license regardless of season be full price then any additional doe licenses in any season be at the reduced rate. I have heard from some guys that will not buy extra licenses for additional seasons for that reason.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see your first doe license regardless of season be full price then any additional doe licenses in any season be at the reduced rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean? that is how it is now. $27 is still too much for the first doe tag
 
[ QUOTE ]
(1)Doe tags should be good for all seasons.
(2)Decrease price of doe tags


[/ QUOTE ]

These seem to be two popular items.

Under the current licensing structure I personally don't want to buy an anysex shotgun tag, I like the late season tag. However I would definitely consider filling a Doe tag with my muzz if I had a convenient day during shotgun seasons!
 
This idea is less about the law and regulations and more about how about groups that party hunt operate. We have asked everyone who hunts with us to buy a doe tag (or two or three). We will be taking at least 16 does out of the area we hunt. We would be much more apt to take numerous does with bow, shotgun and muzzleloader if the price was $10 per or something more manageable.
 
[ QUOTE ]
what do you mean?
cloud.gif
cloud.gif


[/ QUOTE ] My mistake. Your right I just got back from purchasing doe tags for 2nd shotgun and your right they are just $12.00 since I already paid for doe bow tags. I am also in favor of the doe tags being good for all seasons.
 
Bonker- I know it is dangerous to argue logic with you.
smile.gif
Now- that said, the DNR is a stakeholder that has to implement the changes as well. There are lots of unintended consequences to think about if they screw over resident hunters. NR are a factor as well but... drop quotas and issue lots of NR tags, what happens? At least possible scenarios include- more land purchased by NR or leased that will reduce access for resident hunters. The biologists can fight it out but how are you going to reduce the herd numbers unless you concentrate on does? NR hunters for the most part can whack does at home cheaper and not have to worry about processing/transporting meat home. I also wonder just how much slack the NR can take up? Does anyone think that they will come here and harvest 50,000 does no matter how little it costs? If so, I'll have whatever they are smoking(just kidding). As you can tell, I don't know exactly where the real leverage is except that I know NR don't vote in Iowa, most residents don't have any sympathy for the insurance industry, the average deer/vehicle collision cost is $1600 so 625 accidents avoided saves the industry $1 million, the most deer are hit where the most miles are driven- how many deer need to be harvested to reduce the collision number by 625?, the NE and southern areas of the state have less people to start with to harvest deer, if 2 years went by with a greatly reduced doe harvest- it may take 20 years to get back to current numbers.
 
I agree with a lot of things said on here. We have some very smart hunters and managers on this forum and I hope they get heard. Here are a few of the points I'd like to see get done.

1) lower the doe tag prices. Offset this by increasing the price of NR tags and maybe a little increase in res. any sex tag.
The tag prices should only be lowered in the counties that don't sell out. The counties that do sell out every year you could maybe even increase the price of those tags or keep the same. But definetaly lower price in southern tiers.

2) make doe tags good year round for any season.

3) give some sort of incentive for deer to be shot in the southern counties.

4) open up the state preserves for hunting. They are sanctuaries for deer and they all know where to run.

5)DO NOT increase NR
 
I agree with a lot of things said on here. We have some very smart hunters and managers on this forum and I hope they get heard. Here are a few of the points I'd like to see get done.

1) lower the doe tag prices. Offset this by increasing the price of NR tags and maybe a little increase in res. any sex tag.
The tag prices should only be lowered in the counties that don't sell out. The counties that do sell out every year you could maybe even increase the price of those tags or keep the same. But definetaly lower price in southern tiers.

2) make doe tags good year round for any season.

3) give some sort of incentive for deer to be shot in the southern counties.

4) open up the state preserves for hunting. They are sanctuaries for deer and they all know where to run.

5)DO NOT increase NR tags. Like it was said they will not help control the doe problem. With that said they should be allowed to shoot more does. Any sex tag = 2 doe tags. I wouldn't mind seeing NR tags also being earn a buck by shooting a doe. The NR's are going to come every year and fill the NR quota. why not make them shoot a doe first. This will not hurt anything.

6)Don't listen to the insurance companies. If it were up to them every deer would be killed off.

The biggest problems I see have been hunting the unhuntable grounds. On my property this year I have very few deer. I could practicly name the ones I do have on the property. If I went and drove around though to the properties where there is no hunting there are tons of deer ion the fields. Then all I here about is the over population of deer we have over there when I have only a handful of deer staying on my property. There has to be some kind of incentive for the owners of these properties to shoot deer on their property or let me hunt.

I can only do so much on my property and I really don't want to shoot does on my property because I don't think I have enough. I need access to the other properties. Now i know you can't help much with that but that is the problem I see for myself.

Last of all trust the resident hunters and do everything to keep them on your side. The deer population will live and die with them literally. If you let them control the state we can get the deer population under control but it will take time so be patient.
 
I'm all for lowering the cost of antlerless tags at least in the areas where needed most.

Allowing the tags to be used in any season would also be helpful.
(make "antlerless tags" good from Oct. 1st to Jan. 29th...good for any season open at the time...)??

I wouldn't mind paying more for anydeer tags if antlerless were much cheaper.

Most hunters that I know already take one or more does...some may never take a buck, so I'm not sure that "taking a doe first" would change anything. During shotgun season in many cases 90 to 95% of the deer taken are antlerless and after the first 2 days most people are done for the year. Many of the people posting here are serious, season long hunters...but in general most are not. It's a one weekend event.

I notice that there is often little interest in late season hunting when weather is often bitter and most have already filled tags during shotgun season.
I am very against the HP rifle season...it's dangerous and a temptation for "truck window" hunting!

In my opinion (for what its worth) large amounts of land have been purchased and leased for deer hunting in SE Iowa. NO ONE that I know of, that owns or manages these tracts of land will allow access for hunting antlerless deer. They are unwilling to take a chance on people shooting a buck that has already dropped it's horns by the late season. Quite frankly no matter how many tags are offered or even if they are free...in most cases it will all be for naught.

You have few people in these counties and little access so I think many of the proposals are "barking up the wrong tree" so to speak.
In the past 10 years I have watched the quality of bucks slowly decline and the poaching steadly increase in our area.
I believe that NR antlerless tags are an open invitation to take bucks illegally as can be seen by the few that have been caught the past few years. (if you think they are paying $200 plus to shoot does....)
I think NR antlerless tags should ONLY be available for late season antlerless hunting only. This would eliminate the temptation to violate!

I wish I had more answers to serious problems...but I do appreciate being offered the chance to express my opinion on the subject.
 
The only option that will be considered is what Farm Bureau wants. Who has been advocating using rifles in Iowa the last few years, and look at what we're starting this year, rifle hunting.

AGS
 
First off, thanks for the chance to voice our opinions on this. There are several good ones already that I agree with and others that I do not. This is a tough one since in my opinion, most of this subject is politically driven and has little to do with biology or Iowa's hunting heritage.

1. Lower prices I am all for, especially in the target areas. If it is about killing more does, this should help some. If it is about revenue, lower the prices later in the season. After Thanksgiving weekend, lower the price to $5. After January 1st, lower them to $1 to sell tags, cover costs, shoot some does.

2. Increased bag limit to one doe and one buck could devestate the population in the areas that are at or below the target populations. That, I am against unless the antlerless is county specific and part of the quotas.

3. Earn a buck I am stongly against. Again, some counties don't need this. How do you enforce? When you check me with my buck, all I do it tell you "yes sir, Mr. Game Warden, I already filled my doe tag."

4. Opening day of 1st season shotgun is doe only? No way! It was just a couple of years ago that the first season hunters couldn't even get a doe tag. They get 5 days and you want to take one of them away from them for doe only? And they educate all of the deer on day one with no chance to take Mr. Big on day one?

5. Kill a doe last year to earn a buck this year would be OK but for all counties or target counties? How do you enforce?

6. Deer season on Sept 1st? I might be the minority here but I don't like it. Save September for the youth season. We already have a very good and long season and I have my doubts as to this helping to accomplish the goal of killing more does.

7. Offer additional county specific either sex tags. Where do we go? Public ground? Wipe out the does AND the bucks at the places that access is allowed?

8. A reward for killing a doe is the same as #1. Just a different way for lowering the prices. If the goal is to kill more does, go for it, especially in the target areas.

9. Lottery for either sex? No way! Loss of revenue. Fewer bucks AND does killed. Remember the lottery from years past? That was for an either sex tag too but if you didn't get an either sex, your tag was BUCK ONLY!


Now more of my opinions.

1. Blake said it best. Land access, is the problem in many areas. You might give away the tags with a 365 day season and still never have your goal met.

2. Why is the hunter expected to thin the herd and pay for it too? Revenue driven is a big part of this whole thing. Let the insurance industry pay for HUSH or to help lower the cost of our tags. Let the Farm Bureau coordinate the efforts of lining up willing hunters with land owners wanting the herd thinned.

3. Resident antlerless tag = resident temptation tag. Same as the NR antlerless tag that so many of us hate.

4. Antlerless only tags good for all seasons? No way! Increases the risk of them being used as a temptation tag. Allows legal party hunting during both shotgun seasons (I can hunt with my doe tag but let my partner tag my buck with his either sex tag). You might as well just have one shotgun season. Let all shotgun hunters hunt both seasons. I think all antlerless tags should be season specific but I do think all unfilled antlerless tags should also be valid during the special late antlerless only season. That could increase the success rate of the doe harvest.

5. Like Limb Chicken mentioned, how about landowner incentives in turn for access?

6. Education!!!! The hunters, landowners, car drivers, non-hunting public, politicians all need it. Also, we need factual info such as the fact that the deer/car collisions per miles driven are NOT higher than in years past. More deer are hit by cars because there are more cars and miles driven.

7. Who says there are too many deer and how many it too many? Where is the majority of the road kills at? I-80? It isn't even in the targeted area.

8. Doe only in the bottom two tiers? No way! This would decrease not only the buck only harvest but also the doe harvest since some hunters will shoot a doe while buck hunting but won't go out if it is doe only.

9. Like teeroy says, quit trying to manage the herd, and run it as a business. If it is the herd that you are worried about, quit worrying about the revenue before it is too late.

10. I don't like the rifle use (safety issues that might haunt the DNR's decision before the end of the year and "can of worms" best left unopened), nor do I like the November shotgun season.
 
Thanks for asking our opinion. Most of these have been covered, but here are my thoughts.

1) Make the doe tags valid for any open season. If the goal is to kill does, why make a shotgun doe tag invalid once the shotgun season is over. Allow it to be used for bow or late muzzleloader.

2) Allow party hunting with doe tags (only) in bow and muzzleloader seasons. I hunt with a buddy and my son during bow season in different counties. We have to guess who is going to get shots at does and in which counties. If the goal is to reduce the herd, who cares if my tag goes on my son's doe. This would also increase the number of does we take in late muzzleloader as my father, 2 sons and I, hunt only for does. Once again, we have to guess who is going to get the shots. In the past my father has had unfilled tags, while my son had shooting opportunities after he had already filled his 3 doe tags.

3) Create multi-county tags. Allow me to select at least 2 counties to use the tag. I know you want to target certain areas, but maybe a doe tag could be valid for the entire 2 rows of southern counties. I mainly hunt 3 counties, so if my doe tags were valid for any of these 3 and for any open season, nearly all of them would get filled. As it is now, I'm sure some doe tags won't get used.

4) Reduce the cost of doe tags and don't nail me for $27 on the first one. This hits me 3 times (me and both sons), so I end up paying $81 to take 3 does. This cuts down on how many additinal tags I can by.

5) I'd also suggest making it illegal to shoot a deer you don't have a tag for. If you have an either sex tag, you can kill a buck and tag it. You can also kill a doe and have someone else tag it with a doe only. If you have a doe only, you can ONLY kill does. This would be tough to enforce, but would help stop the use of doe tags as a way to hunt for bucks.

Good luck in sorting this out.
 
[ QUOTE ]
1) lower the doe tag prices. Offset this by increasing the price of NR tags and maybe a little increase in res. any sex tag.


[/ QUOTE ]

the fact that more tags will be sold, should cover revenue issues. in my county, about 1/2 of last years tags were sold. to remedy the situation, an extra 200+ tags were allotted to our county. (!?!?!?!!?) how in the hell they think that will make a difference, is beyond me. loss of revenue is going to occur when people get sick to death of these retarded rule changes, and spend less and less time in the field. pricing mr. everyman hunter out of the sport is not going to lower herd #'s
 
For 2006...

1)Move the youth season forward to September 1st.

2)Have an early antlerless season on September 15th in target areas only.

3)All antlerless tags sold after the early September 15th season should be good for all seasons. (Regardless of price.)

4)Dissolve rifles and extended late seasons from Iowa.

There is no clear way to micro-manage the deer herd. Obviously the "population problem" is happening in areas with restricted hunter access to land.

The "population problem" is most certainly only a "problem" for those with major financial interest.

Hunters are certainly the best tool the insurance companies have in their box.

Which state has the best way of determining the yearly deer population growth/decline, and how are they going about it?

How hard would it be to give each hunter in the state a registration number. Require an end of the season report to be filed from each hunter.
confused.gif
 
Willie,

Are you sorry you asked yet?

Access and incentives to hunt in problem areas seems to be the recurring theme here.

To encourage more doe harvest in these areas, provide the following incentives to hunters:

1. Free or reduced price licenses in target areas.

2. Extended early muzzleloader season (concurrent with bow season) in target areas.

3. If Farm Bureau and other insurance companies want more deer harvested, let them fund check stations. If a hunter checks three does from target areas, he gets a BONUS either-sex tag.

Now for the access issues:
1. Open all state and county parks in target areas for at least limited hunting

2. Don't pay for crop damages unless the farmer is willing to allow antlerless access.

3. In target areas, provide landowners a number of antlerless tags based on acreage. These tags could be used by the landowner or sold with the landowner keeping the money. (This gives them control over who hunts and gives them a little financial boost).

One last possibility I'd like to throw out is a little out there, but I think we need to try to be creative here.

Recuit hunters and insurance company support for a doe elimination program for overpopulated areas. The program could be done at the county level or an area of several counties.

Resident hunters pay a fee ($25 which helps fund the program)and go through a "certification" program, but no additional license fees would be required. Certification includes proficiency shooting test, rules education, and meeting with landowner(s).

DNR works with landowners to have a designated team of certified hunters take out a targeted number of does from the property within a designated time period (2-3 weeks?). Landowner receives a bounty fee for each doe harvested. Hunters would have option to keep meat or donate to HUSH.

Hunters get increased hunting opportunities and chance to harvest several does for a flat $25 fee.

Landowner restricts access to all but DNR certified hunters and gets bounty fees.

DNR takes proactive approach to targeting problem areas and providing more hunting opportunities.

Insurance companies get more bang for their $$ by actually reducing deer numbers in areas that need it most.

Sorry if I rambled. Keep the ideas coming!
 
I don't know how I over looked this post until now, but I did. I just ranted on another post about cost and numbers of doe tags and when they should be valid and most here have put forth the same views. What I would like to address is the whole numbers thing. When we first learned about this year's season changes I asked the question "Who says we have too many deer and why do we need to reduce them to 1980s levels". You tried to answer but really it wasn't a very good answer, pretty vage. I live in Davis county next to a large public hunting area, and I have said for several years that I don't see the number of deer that I did 10 years ago. Last year I think I had 9 or 10 tags total and was able to fill only 4. Even though I was hunting the same areas that the year before I was able to fill 8 tags. I never had a good shot opprotunity after the 1st shotgun season even though I hunted late muzzle and bow and the bonous season. I just didn't see many deer. This year so far with bow and early muzzle loader I have only been able to spend about 24 hours total in a tree, but I have only seen 6 deer and I am sure 2 of those were repeats. I am not a lazy or bad deer hunter and haven't spent a lot of time yet because of bird hunting but I haven't seen many deer. I feel that because of my hunting and neighbors hunting and the lack of many crop fields arround the area that there just aren't many deer here. Then along comes all the extra doe tags this year, 3000 up from 2000 last year, and where are all the nonlocal hunters going to be hunting does? Right next door on the public area where the deer are already getting scarce instead of any other area with limited access and lots of deer. I don't disagree that there are areas with too many deer but not right here so what good does it do to make more tags available, when you couldn't fill the old quota, with no access except to grounds where the deer population is already low and chances for success is low. You can' loose revenue by not selling tags that nobody wants just as you can't create revenue selling tags nobody wants to buy.

As a biologist I'm sure you understand the theroy that reducing populations can and often will lead to increased reproduction. In patricular I have read that part of the problem with coyote populations is if many are killed by us and if there is abundate food supplies the reproduction goes up to meet the food supplies, with increased litter sizes and sometimes even multiple litters. My point is that I wonder if that will or even could be happening with the deer. According to the DNR even with record kills the last several years we aren't reducing the herd. How can that be? Either your numbers are flawed or there is something else happening. Too many "safe zones" that increase population or could it just be a perception that has been created that there are too many deer? With more housing developments in deer habitat there are more deer sightings and interactions which leads some to believe there are too many deer even if the numbers haven't increased much. Like some one else said there are more cars being driven more miles than ever before so there are more deer accidents, but there are more accidents period because of the increased cars and miles. If we kill the deer back to 1980 levels what then? The herd managed to grow even with the fairly intense hunting pressure and good access to hunting grounds. What will keep the numbers down as hunter numbers decline because of no place to hunt and the escalating costs of deer hunting? If the deer population explodes again how will you control it with out the hunters that have been driven away?

I know that I don't have many answers and I do really appreciate your asking what we think here. I would like to see some forum type meetings to look at some out of the box ideas and not rely strictly on increasing seasons and tags just to increase revenues. One last thing. KEEP RIFLE DEER HUNTING OUT OF IOWA!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom