Usually when someone says, 'I don't want to make this personal', that's exactly what they are about to. I have much experience with some QDMA principles at work and feel that they are flawed. If you want to see more deer on your farm, killing does is not the answer. Sure parts of QDMA are good, such as planting more food for them, etc where it doesn't exist. But simply harvesting more deer and thinking you are 'balancing' out the population only hurts you in the long run.
Think about it, the only way for a buck to be born is by a doe. So if you kill all your does, eventually you run out of bucks. Get it?
I understand your 'do more research comment' and that's just a pass the buck type of reply. I've lived on 220 acres of private land where the adjacent land owner just laid into the does...guess what....hardly any deer left now. All kinds of food for them there, but the deer just don't exist. Great 'balance' there.
The DNR did recommend reducing our deer herd many years back, they just didnt get on the train fast enough to get us weened off those tags. It's my feeling that we never needed to reduce our herd in the first place. We weren't over any projected 'carrying capacity' and the hunting in our state is exceptional.
Sure the DNR has to deal with the governor to reduce tag numbers, but this should have been discussed many years ago rather than the last 3-4. When you act retroactively, you get crappy results.
Name me a few things that the DNR has managed well. They dont need .gov approval to manage our fish and don't seem to be excelling in that area. Forgive me for being selfish and wanting more deer, but I am a hunter after all.
We have more than enough food in IA without planting more food plots (not saying we shouldn't, but its the truth). We also have more than enough habitat to substain a high # of deer. Commercialization of hunting made us all think we need to plant food, run trail cameras, shoot big deer, and pummel our does.
I used the phrase, "I don't want to make this personal", only because I do not wish to participate in an online sand fight with you or anyone else. BUT, frankly I think the views/opinions you are promoting are incorrect and potentially do a disservice to the people or organizations that you refer to. Take it how you wish.
Some examples in your latest post that cause me to think you do not understand QDMA and/or the role of the Iowa DNR are:
"But simply harvesting more deer and thinking you are 'balancing' out the population only hurts you in the long run." To my understanding of QDMA, this is at best a gross over-simplification of their philosophy and actually I don't think this is an accurate representation of QDMA principles at all. QDMA advocates that the land manager take a reasonably accurate census of their land and the corresponding deer population and habitat and then set population targets and goals that the land can support, etc. It is not a "shoot 'em all" approach at all.
"So if you kill all your does, eventually you run out of bucks. Get it?" I have never seen or heard of anyone associated with QDMA advocate "killing all your does", that is just nonsense.
"I understand your 'do more research comment' and that's just a pass the buck type of reply." That was an attempt on my part to politely say to you that I don't think you know what you are talking about. Hopefully I was clearer this time.
"I've lived on 220 acres of private land where the adjacent land owner just laid into the does...guess what....hardly any deer left now." That your neighbor didn't show any restraint in harvest or apparent concern for the resource is hardly a testimony, positive or negative, on QDMA or the DNR.
"The DNR did recommend reducing our deer herd many years back, they just didnt get on the train fast enough to get us weened off those tags. It's my feeling that we never needed to reduce our herd in the first place. We weren't over any projected 'carrying capacity' and the hunting in our state is exceptional." and...
"Sure the DNR has to deal with the governor to reduce tag numbers, but this should have been discussed many years ago rather than the last 3-4. When you act retroactively, you get crappy results."
Again, I encourage you do some research here, as I recall prominent DNR managers strongly encouraging hunters to take more deer BEFORE they were in effect forced to introduce an almost unlimited number of tags and extra seasons. I believe it was Dale Garner, but I am not certain on that, that came out strongly and advised hunters to take more deer back when populations were very high and to do this in order to avoid a political situation like we have now. I seem to recall an urgent "call to action" even being published on the annual DNR season regulations brochure, in addition to other forms of communication by the DNR.
I think a fair and accurate examination of the DNR's role in the deer population changes over the past decade would reveal that they nailed it at every turn
and in advance of things actually happening the way that they did. For people to blame the DNR in this instance is bananas, they were more right than really anybody that I can think of.
I am saying that the DNR appropriately advised hunters to take more deer back when there were high populations AND the Farm Bureau and the insurance lobby was putting high heat on the political process. In effect, hunters as a group, didn't kill enough deer soon enough to pacify the political interests and then we got the super high number of tags and new seasons, etc. While the DNR may be the one publishing the regs, it sure wasn't the biologists talking. To blame the DNR for this, then or now, is to me an indication of a lack of understanding about what really happened.
After a few years of the very high harvest numbers though the people began to see that we couldn't just shoot them all and still have good hunting the next year. My recollection is that the DNR in at least two consecutive years recommended reductions in harvest quotas that were not accepted. In other words, the DNR recommendations were vetoed. To blame them then is folly.
"Name me a few things that the DNR has managed well. They dont need .gov approval to manage our fish and don't seem to be excelling in that area. Forgive me for being selfish and wanting more deer, but I am a hunter after all."
That's an easy one, thank you for teeing me up so nicely. 1. Turkeys - that there is even a season for these birds is a testament to the work of the DNR and other like agencies. I am old enough to remember a time where there were
no turkeys in Iowa, let alone a hunting season for them. I personally know multiple DNR employees that that sat in rudimentary blinds in the cold for hours on end waiting for a flock to come into the corn pile so they could trap some of them and then physically relocate them to build sustainable populations statewide. Shoot, they even got so good at this they traded surplus turkeys to other states to get... 2. Otters - which were released all across the state and where there were none, there are many now.
3. Canada geese - I grew up mainly as a pheasant and waterfowl hunter and back in the late 70's and throughout most of the 80's it was rare to even SEE geese while hunting, let alone ever shooting one of them. The DNR had a large role in re-establishing viable and huntable populations all across the state.
There are other examples I could cite too, but it really burns me when someone starts laying blame on the wrong party and/or person in a public forum like this one. The DNR, and also organizations like QDMA, are easy to blame, especially when there is a lack of actual understanding of the facts.
I think it is probably clear that you and I are not going to see eye to eye on this, but I am confident that others reading this dialogue and examining what has been written between us and what is a matter of public record, will come to a more accurate understanding of where the problems really stem from.
