dbltree
Super Moderator
In principle I’m all for regulating outfitters and the idea that those that lease large amounts of land be forced to “manage” the deer on their lease, however I haven’t figured out exactly how these situations would be policed and enforced. Here are a few examples of what is going on in my area and the difficulties I see in regulating them.
A) Joe leases all hunting rights on 300 acres. He agrees to post NT signs and ask the farmer not to mention that it is leased but to just tell people he has family hunting it. Joe is a bowhunter, takes a few does, but for the most part the deer on his lease are “safe”.
There is plenty of this going on and no one is the wiser.
B) Sam and Fred lease several farms totaling over a thousand acres. They are die-hard bow hunters have no time or interest in taking does. The cost of the lease is high, so they decide to let several NR hunters hunt during 2nd shotgun season and ML season. They have met enough people at hunting shows etc. that they do not need to advertise. People suspect that the land is leased but the farmers, well paid for the hunting rights…are mum. Other then mature bucks no other deer are taken as Sam and Fred prefer to disturb these areas as little as possible.
C) So and So Outfitters lease 10,000 acres, advertise on the web and in magazines. They cannot hide their activities, however there is no way of proving how much land they actually lease. If a potential client calls, perhaps they have 30,000 acres, if a biologist in charge of making sure they follow a management plan calls on them…perhaps they have 300 acres.
This situation at least could be required to pay some type of fee and be susceptible to some regulation. Can they be forced to manage the deer herd? They could agree to take 100 does…but what if they only take 20. They would be well aware of the risks of letting hunters in who might take shed bucks upon which their livelihood depends.
Would any regulations lesson the amount of leased land and increase hunter opportunities? Could there be any real difference in the ability of the state to force any of these situations to control the deer herd?
I honestly do not have answers; I only know intense competition for the dollars that NR’s are willing to pay is only exacerbating the situation. Of course, many areas of the state do not have these problems. They have less cover and less deer, few NR’s and outfitters and in turn little if any competition for hunting ground. In most of southern Iowa though, there are fewer and fewer hunter opportunities and for the most part the deer herd is already becoming uncontrollable, simply because hunters have less access.
The above scenarios are why I feel it is so desperately important to limit NR quotas, although even with the current quota it too late around here. I am not looking for arguments, but real solutions…if there are any….
A) Joe leases all hunting rights on 300 acres. He agrees to post NT signs and ask the farmer not to mention that it is leased but to just tell people he has family hunting it. Joe is a bowhunter, takes a few does, but for the most part the deer on his lease are “safe”.
There is plenty of this going on and no one is the wiser.
B) Sam and Fred lease several farms totaling over a thousand acres. They are die-hard bow hunters have no time or interest in taking does. The cost of the lease is high, so they decide to let several NR hunters hunt during 2nd shotgun season and ML season. They have met enough people at hunting shows etc. that they do not need to advertise. People suspect that the land is leased but the farmers, well paid for the hunting rights…are mum. Other then mature bucks no other deer are taken as Sam and Fred prefer to disturb these areas as little as possible.
C) So and So Outfitters lease 10,000 acres, advertise on the web and in magazines. They cannot hide their activities, however there is no way of proving how much land they actually lease. If a potential client calls, perhaps they have 30,000 acres, if a biologist in charge of making sure they follow a management plan calls on them…perhaps they have 300 acres.
This situation at least could be required to pay some type of fee and be susceptible to some regulation. Can they be forced to manage the deer herd? They could agree to take 100 does…but what if they only take 20. They would be well aware of the risks of letting hunters in who might take shed bucks upon which their livelihood depends.
Would any regulations lesson the amount of leased land and increase hunter opportunities? Could there be any real difference in the ability of the state to force any of these situations to control the deer herd?
I honestly do not have answers; I only know intense competition for the dollars that NR’s are willing to pay is only exacerbating the situation. Of course, many areas of the state do not have these problems. They have less cover and less deer, few NR’s and outfitters and in turn little if any competition for hunting ground. In most of southern Iowa though, there are fewer and fewer hunter opportunities and for the most part the deer herd is already becoming uncontrollable, simply because hunters have less access.
The above scenarios are why I feel it is so desperately important to limit NR quotas, although even with the current quota it too late around here. I am not looking for arguments, but real solutions…if there are any….
