nannyslayer
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
I hit a squirrel with my bike once. I didn't go down but I sure messed up the fender bad.
[/ QUOTE ]
Their not talkin about huffys pharmer.
I hit a squirrel with my bike once. I didn't go down but I sure messed up the fender bad.
[/ QUOTE ]
Their not talkin about huffys pharmer.
turtlshell
PMA Member
[ QUOTE ]
I just wish MO would follow their lead and move our dang gun season.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hear ya on that one. I never understood why you'd allow rifle hunting during the rut. Doesn't make much sense to me.
I know there are a few counties in MO that have point restrictions and the guys I know that hunt those areas have actually seen better quality bucks over the past year or two. Mercer County specifically is where I know of because a good buddy owns land near Princeton.
I just wish MO would follow their lead and move our dang gun season.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hear ya on that one. I never understood why you'd allow rifle hunting during the rut. Doesn't make much sense to me.
I know there are a few counties in MO that have point restrictions and the guys I know that hunt those areas have actually seen better quality bucks over the past year or two. Mercer County specifically is where I know of because a good buddy owns land near Princeton.
letemgrow
PMA Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just wish MO would follow their lead and move our dang gun season.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hear ya on that one. I never understood why you'd allow rifle hunting during the rut. Doesn't make much sense to me.
I know there are a few counties in MO that have point restrictions and the guys I know that hunt those areas have actually seen better quality bucks over the past year or two. Mercer County specifically is where I know of because a good buddy owns land near Princeton.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is where I own land in Mercer County, but mine is up north of Mercer......about 2 miles from the Iowa line. We have some good deer no doubt, but not as many as you guys have.
[ QUOTE ]
I just wish MO would follow their lead and move our dang gun season.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hear ya on that one. I never understood why you'd allow rifle hunting during the rut. Doesn't make much sense to me.
I know there are a few counties in MO that have point restrictions and the guys I know that hunt those areas have actually seen better quality bucks over the past year or two. Mercer County specifically is where I know of because a good buddy owns land near Princeton.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is where I own land in Mercer County, but mine is up north of Mercer......about 2 miles from the Iowa line. We have some good deer no doubt, but not as many as you guys have.
I would be willing to bet you that you have just as many "good" deer as the guy with a farm 2 miles into Iowa, but I have heard talk of a border fence to keep illegal aliens out. I would be more intrested in seeing the opinions of those who actually live and hunt in the hugh quota counties. I live in Davis county and have said for a couple of years that the population is down to way down arround my farm from what it was in 1995. I have read and heard that the DNR's goal is a population comparable to pre 1980 levels. I can't remember exactly, but I think that was about the time they did away with the anual drawing and started granting 1 license to anyone who applied. The tag was still subject to zones and most were still "bucks only" with an anysex tag being the most hoped for. How many on here want to return to those wonderful days of yesteryear?
As for the insurance companies, I question most of their stats. Where I live in the county I must drive 5 miles of gravel road and 5 miles of rual blacktop twice daily 6 days a week. In the 15 years of doing that I have seen exactly 1 deer hit by a vehicle and that was one I hit. There have been a few hit each year on the more major highways that I drive, but then there is more traffic and most are in or near towns or cities. There are undoubtly more deer-car accidents but there are more cars as well as deer, so should we reduce the car population to pre 1980 levels? I don't have any actual facts to back me up but I beleive that there has been just as much of an increase in car-car accidents or single car accidents as the deer accident increase simply because there are more cars driving more miles.
I think that many of these quotas are very much overkill. I also believe that in many cases we overstate or exgarate the number of does in an area. I truly don't mean to pick on any or call anyone a lair honestly, but the one comment about being able to kill 60 does on a 250 acre farm and not putting a dent in the population as I see it is one such overstatment. If you remove 1/4 of any population you would greatly affect it for some time. At that rate that farm would hold 240 does or almost 1 doe per acre not to even mention the bucks, and I have never seen any where like that. I truely feel that our current "over population" problem is one of preception rather than actual fact and these kind of misstatements just enhance that perception. I have 140 acres and hunt part of the bordering public hunting area for a total of about 400 acres. The very best years have seen harvests of 14 or 15 deer, between family, friends, and myself from this 400 acres. The last two years we have strugled to average 5 or 6 even with all the increased tags and seasons and this by experienced knowledgable hunters.
As for the insurance companies, I question most of their stats. Where I live in the county I must drive 5 miles of gravel road and 5 miles of rual blacktop twice daily 6 days a week. In the 15 years of doing that I have seen exactly 1 deer hit by a vehicle and that was one I hit. There have been a few hit each year on the more major highways that I drive, but then there is more traffic and most are in or near towns or cities. There are undoubtly more deer-car accidents but there are more cars as well as deer, so should we reduce the car population to pre 1980 levels? I don't have any actual facts to back me up but I beleive that there has been just as much of an increase in car-car accidents or single car accidents as the deer accident increase simply because there are more cars driving more miles.
I think that many of these quotas are very much overkill. I also believe that in many cases we overstate or exgarate the number of does in an area. I truly don't mean to pick on any or call anyone a lair honestly, but the one comment about being able to kill 60 does on a 250 acre farm and not putting a dent in the population as I see it is one such overstatment. If you remove 1/4 of any population you would greatly affect it for some time. At that rate that farm would hold 240 does or almost 1 doe per acre not to even mention the bucks, and I have never seen any where like that. I truely feel that our current "over population" problem is one of preception rather than actual fact and these kind of misstatements just enhance that perception. I have 140 acres and hunt part of the bordering public hunting area for a total of about 400 acres. The very best years have seen harvests of 14 or 15 deer, between family, friends, and myself from this 400 acres. The last two years we have strugled to average 5 or 6 even with all the increased tags and seasons and this by experienced knowledgable hunters.
J_Barton
Member
There was a similar post a few weeks ago. The counties with the 5000+ antlerless tags have one major problem- ACCESS, or lack of it. Many farms have been purchased or leased for rack hunting. Few people understand the time and commitment it takes to maintain a healthy herd on a decent size piece of ground. If a couple of guys have lone control over 200-1000 acres in Clayton Co. for example, are they willing to sacrifice many days of buck hunting to harvest 10-40 mature does per year ? or will they allow a large group of shotgun hunters to drive out their land and do the same in a couple weekends (unlikely) ??
All this said, there's still farms in these counties that are getting hammered because the hunters have lost ACCESS to other land they hunted for years.
All this said, there's still farms in these counties that are getting hammered because the hunters have lost ACCESS to other land they hunted for years.
turtlshell
PMA Member
Statistics can fit any argument so naturally the insurance company will skew them to prove their point.
The doe quota boils down to herd size, number of hunters, and hunter success rates.
Personally I'd love to see the deer herd back to what it was in my area in the late 80's. That probably wouldn't be a good thing for the entire state, but I know what it would do for me and the area I hunt. I'd certainly rather see less deer than be forced to "earn a buck" because the population is way out of ratio.
Deer have the ability to RIGHT a wrong ratio more effectively than we do as hunters...meaning if we over-harvest they'll bounce back.
If the counties with 5000 doe tags end up harvesting too many does, the DNR won't issue as many extra tags next year. Gotta have faith in the system. I think Willie Suchy knows what he's doing.
The doe quota boils down to herd size, number of hunters, and hunter success rates.
Personally I'd love to see the deer herd back to what it was in my area in the late 80's. That probably wouldn't be a good thing for the entire state, but I know what it would do for me and the area I hunt. I'd certainly rather see less deer than be forced to "earn a buck" because the population is way out of ratio.
Deer have the ability to RIGHT a wrong ratio more effectively than we do as hunters...meaning if we over-harvest they'll bounce back.
If the counties with 5000 doe tags end up harvesting too many does, the DNR won't issue as many extra tags next year. Gotta have faith in the system. I think Willie Suchy knows what he's doing.
THA4
A Few Steps Ahead Of You
[ QUOTE ]
Gotta have faith in the system. I think Willie Suchy knows what he's doing.
[/ QUOTE ]
i can promise you he does. one of the smartest guys in the DNR. The man is a whitetail encyclopedia!!
other than that, im pulling out of this arguement.....
im not interested in being proven right wrong or whatever. its obvious i have an uneducated opinion. so ill respecfully bow out.
may the debate continue
Gotta have faith in the system. I think Willie Suchy knows what he's doing.
[/ QUOTE ]
i can promise you he does. one of the smartest guys in the DNR. The man is a whitetail encyclopedia!!
other than that, im pulling out of this arguement.....
im not interested in being proven right wrong or whatever. its obvious i have an uneducated opinion. so ill respecfully bow out.
may the debate continue
letemgrow
PMA Member
[ QUOTE ]
I would be willing to bet you that you have just as many "good" deer as the guy with a farm 2 miles into Iowa, but I have heard talk of a border fence to keep illegal aliens out.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wish we had as many, but from what I see we don't. I can go over the line to a few bean field MAYBE 2 miles over the line and see several good bucks and some booners ta boot.
I see the same top ends in MO, but just not as many. I can think of many more booners coming from across the line by friends than what gets taken in my home state.
I would be willing to bet you that you have just as many "good" deer as the guy with a farm 2 miles into Iowa, but I have heard talk of a border fence to keep illegal aliens out.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wish we had as many, but from what I see we don't. I can go over the line to a few bean field MAYBE 2 miles over the line and see several good bucks and some booners ta boot.
I see the same top ends in MO, but just not as many. I can think of many more booners coming from across the line by friends than what gets taken in my home state.
wegner36
New Member
[ 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 ]
there is a certain amount of ignorance here in the fact the high deer numbers also means crop damage for farmers.and i do believe that iowa is def. the land of the farmers...don't get me wrong i wouldn't want to see a drop in deer numbers but we don't need to be crazy and say that the population should be allowed to get off the charts. proper heard management is all we need nothing excessive in either direction.
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 ]
there is a certain amount of ignorance here in the fact the high deer numbers also means crop damage for farmers.and i do believe that iowa is def. the land of the farmers...don't get me wrong i wouldn't want to see a drop in deer numbers but we don't need to be crazy and say that the population should be allowed to get off the charts. proper heard management is all we need nothing excessive in either direction.