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

OVERKILL ????

miff007

miff007

New Member
I travel for a living and I make it a point to take different routes to look at terrain and look for deer etc. Some of the antlerless quotas this year seem excessive to me. Most of the overpopulation seems to be in those areas where no hunting is allowed (parks, refuges etc.) Other than that I think the herd is thin enough...

What do you guys think of the antlerless quotas especially Van Buren county @5000 tags, Clayton@ 5500 WOW...

Check page 5
 
Some of the quota's are not overkill.

Reason being especially in the southern half of the state, a lot is outfitters, some parks, or big name companies/hunters with ground (who dont like to kill a lot of does)

A lot of trophy hunting going on also for the most part.

But you will also see at the end of the year that most of those quota's will not be sold out.

Im sure a lot of the doe kills go unreported in the southern most counties. If you know what I mean.
 
I don't know about Clayton county, but I don't see 5000 as too many in Van Buren. There are still scads of deer out and about in that area.
 
how many of those counties will even sell out? my county used to be 1400 tags, they never came close to selling them all, so, in order to increase the doe kill.......they raised the quota????
wtf?

since many of these counties in the south don't sell their allotment of tags, why not slash the prices of the tags in the counties where they are trying to increase the harvest?
 
[ QUOTE ]
how many of those counties will even sell out? my county used to be 1400 tags, they never came close to selling them all, so, in order to increase the doe kill.......they raised the quota????
wtf?

since many of these counties in the south don't sell their allotment of tags, why not slash the prices of the tags in the counties where they are trying to increase the harvest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if they can show that Iowans aren't buying the tags it could be an excuse to up the NR tag quota? Not that I wanna open up that whole can of worms.

The 'Bonker
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how many of those counties will even sell out? my county used to be 1400 tags, they never came close to selling them all, so, in order to increase the doe kill.......they raised the quota????
wtf?

since many of these counties in the south don't sell their allotment of tags, why not slash the prices of the tags in the counties where they are trying to increase the harvest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if they can show that Iowans aren't buying the tags it could be an excuse to up the NR tag quota? Not that I wanna open up that whole can of worms.

The 'Bonker

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably exactly what's happening.
frown.gif

But I don't think I can afford to buy the remaining 500-1000 tags we won't sell. What do you do?
confused.gif
 
First off in Eastern Iowa where I hunt the quota dropped from 2000 to 1000 this year...they never had a problem selling all the tags...getting them filled however is another story. I certainly haven't seen a reduced number of deer around my area.

Luckily the county won't sell 1000 paid bow tags + the $27 first doe tag before Sept.15th, SO I should be able to score 5 or so extra doe tags come Sept.15th. I know I'll be doing it around 12:03 am though.

I can take a two mile drive around the area surrounding where I hunt on any given night and count three to five different groups of does in the 15-30 range. SO not really overkill where I hunt.

The problem is in years past a guy could go drop $200 and end up with 10 tags and then only use 3 of them. What a waste when there are probably 7 people who got screwed out of a tag that they would have used.

They wouldn't be trying to change a buck-to-doe ratio in those counties for any "TROPHY HUNTING" reasons would they?
crazy.gif
 
IMO when I lived in IA and many others' views; the deer population should be higher, not reduced. Insurance companies and city folks living in the burbs and having their bushes chewed on, are driving these decisions of lowering deer herds. As a hunter, how can there be too many deer? Overbrowsing in parks where no hunting is allowed is about the only case where deer need to be thinned.
I know hunters that have had it with the slaughtering of does just because the state is trying to appeal to the insurance companies' whining. I support these hunters that have said enough to slaughtering does.
 
[ QUOTE ]
IMO when I lived in IA and many others' views; the deer population should be higher, not reduced. Insurance companies and city folks living in the burbs and having their bushes chewed on, are driving these decisions of lowering deer herds. As a hunter, how can there be too many deer? Overbrowsing in parks where no hunting is allowed is about the only case where deer need to be thinned.
I know hunters that have had it with the slaughtering of does just because the state is trying to appeal to the insurance companies' whining. I support these hunters that have said enough to slaughtering does.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many motorcycle riders died this past weekend in Iowa from deer vs. motorcycle accidents? Three that I know of and maybe more. The three I know of were in Clayton county. Not to mention the other deer vs motorcycle accident that sent two more people to the hospital without life threatening but life changing injuries. So thats three motorcycle vs deer acidents in one county over one weekend.

You are a motorcycle enthusiast and you want the deer herd expanded? Better get a cow catcher for your bike, wear a helmet and have damn good healthcare/motorcycle/burial insruance.

The 'Bonker
 
I handled a deer vs motorcycle fatality back in March. A friend of mine hit one on his bike last summer, fortunately the only medical bills came from the Harley shop.


Both were near limited access, overpopulation areas.

Access it the biggest issue! IMO the DNR is doing a good job given it's situation.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO when I lived in IA and many others' views; the deer population should be higher, not reduced. Insurance companies and city folks living in the burbs and having their bushes chewed on, are driving these decisions of lowering deer herds. As a hunter, how can there be too many deer? Overbrowsing in parks where no hunting is allowed is about the only case where deer need to be thinned.
I know hunters that have had it with the slaughtering of does just because the state is trying to appeal to the insurance companies' whining. I support these hunters that have said enough to slaughtering does.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many motorcycle riders died this past weekend in Iowa from deer vs. motorcycle accidents? Three that I know of and maybe more. The three I know of were in Clayton county. Not to mention the other deer vs motorcycle accident that sent two more people to the hospital without life threatening but life changing injuries. So thats three motorcycle vs deer acidents in one county over one weekend.

You are a motorcycle enthusiast and you want the deer herd expanded? Better get a cow catcher for your bike, wear a helmet and have damn good healthcare/motorcycle/burial insruance.

The 'Bonker

[/ QUOTE ]
Hit one with my Harley 6 years ago while doing 60 mph at 11:00 pm at night. Laid it down, ended up in a ditch, and only had a severe sprained ankle(same damn one I broke this year). Not wearing a helmet either, but it was cool out and I had just put on my leathers. Not a mark on me. I changed my habit of riding at night. I still like high deer #ers. No ill feelings towards the deer.
 
[ QUOTE ]
IMO when I lived in IA and many others' views; the deer population should be higher, not reduced. Insurance companies and city folks living in the burbs and having their bushes chewed on, are driving these decisions of lowering deer herds. As a hunter, how can there be too many deer? Overbrowsing in parks where no hunting is allowed is about the only case where deer need to be thinned.
I know hunters that have had it with the slaughtering of does just because the state is trying to appeal to the insurance companies' whining. I support these hunters that have said enough to slaughtering does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just my opinion, I would say yes and no to this statement. In some counties the deer numbers are too high, and in others, they are too low. Remember that this is just my opinion. There has got to be a better way to help thin the doe herds down, especially in the area I hunt in. I do all I can, but I can't afford to buy 500 doe tags, nor do I have the time to fill them all.
 
I know plenty of people who didn't report their deer kills last year out of ignorance or just being lazy. And there are a lot of people who just shoot bucks. I think if everyone pitched in, took a couple of does (or fill as many tags as you want), and used the dnr reporting system it would help out more. Access to urban areas is still a problem but I think over time it will get better. Just my .02.
 
I know people in my county that reported their does (last minute use of anysex tag) for counties with higher quotas, just to try to keep our county quota higher. I guess it didn't work. As was said above I also know several that were not reported at all.

My opinion is the doe quota is realitive to where you hunt. It's not realistic to think that areas that are removed from Rivers and Creeks should have abundant numbers of deer. That's not the natural way of things. If you're from one of the northern counties that has very limited does tags or none at all, I'm betting you're wetlands and ample ducks and geese might have something to do with it.

You've got to remember, the whole state of IOWA is NOT the mecca of large deer...I'm lucky to be close to some good action and I can tell you that more deer where I hunt is the last dang thing we need.

Head over to eastern Iowa or NorthEast Iowa (or southern IA or SW) and ask a farmer how much he loses in crops to deer...and you think we need a larger population. I must disagree. In this case, more is NOT merrier.

I look forward to trying to change the buck to doe ratio in my neighborhood, getting good practice on does, and being able to share the meat through the HUSH program.
 
Something that might help is making the out of staters buy the doe tags they do. I mean when I do draw for my tag you can bet I will use my antlerless tag...........I mean I have to pay 100 bucks for it.

I don't think Iowa will increase NR tags though. They obviously are looking out for the in state people...........if they were not they would have already increased the tag numbers to NR's. I have to commend your guy's DNR for staying true to it's people.

You guys don't want to swap out your IA deer managers for MO deer managers by chance do ya
smile.gif
 
After having worked for the MO Dept of Conservation, and IDNR I can say heck no to your offer of a swap.

A larger herd, would probably result in more NR tags, but what would be the point of that? If the herd was larger the genetics would be diluted by allowing less dominant buck to do more breeding. To me that would be a large step in the wrong direction.

If IOWA is such a prime desination for a chance at a large whitetail buck it should be kept the way it it so that it's a priviledge to draw the tag.

I can't get an over the counter Elk tag for the prime spots in Wyoming as a non-resident...now it's almost becoming a lifetime thing with elk since you have to have so many points.
 
[ QUOTE ]
After having worked for the MO Dept of Conservation, and IDNR I can say heck no to your offer of a swap.

A larger herd, would probably result in more NR tags, but what would be the point of that? If the herd was larger the genetics would be diluted by allowing less dominant buck to do more breeding. To me that would be a large step in the wrong direction.

If IOWA is such a prime desination for a chance at a large whitetail buck it should be kept the way it it so that it's a priviledge to draw the tag.

I can't get an over the counter Elk tag for the prime spots in Wyoming as a non-resident...now it's almost becoming a lifetime thing with elk since you have to have so many points.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that would dilute the breeding those young bucks would carry just as good of genetics as mature bucks. My point being was MO does not manager for quality age structure. They are solely based on numbers harvested.

I think a larger herd would only mean more big mature bucks if manager properly. Obviously the herd can only get so big in any given area before they overstay their welcome.
 
[ QUOTE ]

If IOWA is such a prime desination for a chance at a large whitetail buck it should be kept the way it it so that it's a priviledge to draw the tag.

[/ QUOTE ]

They should keep it the way it is also up there. I just wish MO would follow their lead and move our dang gun season.
 
[ QUOTE ]
IMO when I lived in IA and many others' views; the deer population should be higher, not reduced. Insurance companies and city folks living in the burbs and having their bushes chewed on, are driving these decisions of lowering deer herds. As a hunter, how can there be too many deer? Overbrowsing in parks where no hunting is allowed is about the only case where deer need to be thinned.
I know hunters that have had it with the slaughtering of does just because the state is trying to appeal to the insurance companies' whining. I support these hunters that have said enough to slaughtering does.



[/ QUOTE ]

boone is NOT in one of the counties that is being discussed in the main point of this thread. the counties with high tag #s, and high deer numbers are the southern 2 tiers, and a few in the third. you cant' compare a county with a 500 antlerless quota to a county with over 2000. the herd, terrain, human population, and other factors are nowhere near the same
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom