gundog870
Premium Platinum Member
I agree 100% on the deer herd as a whole taking a beating. Most of my farms back home, the "resident" deer herd is 40-50% of what is was 5 years ago and even the farmers agree (which says a lot). However, some of the farms I am hunting now are out of control. There was a night on opening weekend where 32 deer funneled under me to a hayfield.
BUT as a WHOLE I think out deer herd is hurting.
BUT as a WHOLE I think out deer herd is hurting.
jjohnson
Well-Known Member
shadowpeople
Active Member
This is the point and time in which hunters should be contacting their legislators (i.e.: Brandstad) and voicing their opinion on his decision to overrule the recommendation of our professional natural resource managers. Remember, we as hunters are not an "organization or company" like a Farm Bureau or State Farm which can pay to have lobbyists at all times down at the capitol making their opinion heard. Does Whitetails Unlimited support lobbyists like DU does? I have no idea.
I for one used to see 10 to 15 deer per sit about 4-5 years ago. At this point, I have gone a few hunts without seeing deer at all. I know just by observations at night, there are WAY fewer deer than there were a few years ago. But, I can't figure out why the county in which I bowhunt, still has one of the highest antlerless tag quotas in Iowa. Granted, I'm only one guy with an opinion and observation but I know of many other hunters in the area who feel the same way.
There is no Win-Win solution with hunters vs. farm bureau or insurance companies in general when it comes to the deer population debate. If it were up to them, there wouldn't be deer in the state of Iowa. The squeaky wheel gets the grease or so they say, so we as hunters need to be speaking up so our legislators know that there are residents whom are concerned about our deer population.
I for one used to see 10 to 15 deer per sit about 4-5 years ago. At this point, I have gone a few hunts without seeing deer at all. I know just by observations at night, there are WAY fewer deer than there were a few years ago. But, I can't figure out why the county in which I bowhunt, still has one of the highest antlerless tag quotas in Iowa. Granted, I'm only one guy with an opinion and observation but I know of many other hunters in the area who feel the same way.
There is no Win-Win solution with hunters vs. farm bureau or insurance companies in general when it comes to the deer population debate. If it were up to them, there wouldn't be deer in the state of Iowa. The squeaky wheel gets the grease or so they say, so we as hunters need to be speaking up so our legislators know that there are residents whom are concerned about our deer population.
Last edited:
dedgeez
death from above
Sorry boys, but I think it's out of the DNR's hands at this point. Branstad trumped the DNR's decision last year to reduce doe tags. The DNR feels that our deer herd is about where they want it overall and proposed to greatly reduce the tags in many counties. This was not supported by Branstad and when I spoke with him at the town hall meeting in Cresco, it was clear that "our" deer are "his" revenue earning resource and he is going to take full advantage of that "resource". Keep ranting, but unless we manage the herd ourselves, it will not get done.
THA4
A Few Steps Ahead Of You
A blanket statement cannot cover the entire state.... Some spots are showing lesser numbers, for sure! Those spots should reduce the amount of antlerless harvest. Other spots are still loaded too heavy with does and further harvest is required. There is no other way around it. I hunt numerous farms and some are at carrying capacity while others are way over. I am hunting a place that has a 63 acre bean field that sustained $2,200 in damage/loss... do the math...
there are hotspots that still need to be addressed, you just can't make a single blanket statement for the entire state because it just isn't true.
there are hotspots that still need to be addressed, you just can't make a single blanket statement for the entire state because it just isn't true.
THA4
A Few Steps Ahead Of You
That is exactly what would happen.... verbatim
BJohnson
Well-Known Member
Thomas,
I agree but with a slightly different slant. I will continue to buy an anterless tag each year but will most likely not fill it. That way the revenue stream will not suffer for the DNR but the herd will hopefully not be hurt quite so bad.
I know that many will say that is stupid but I am willing to spend a little more money to do what I can to (1) NOT give the Gov. an excuse to increase tags but (2) try not to pressure the herd so badly.
Don't really know what else to do so that's my plan. I realize however for some this is economically not a good option.
I agree but with a slightly different slant. I will continue to buy an anterless tag each year but will most likely not fill it. That way the revenue stream will not suffer for the DNR but the herd will hopefully not be hurt quite so bad.
I know that many will say that is stupid but I am willing to spend a little more money to do what I can to (1) NOT give the Gov. an excuse to increase tags but (2) try not to pressure the herd so badly.
Don't really know what else to do so that's my plan. I realize however for some this is economically not a good option.
Will non residents pay 600+ to come hunt a state where the deer numbers are not that great anymore....It wouldnt take long for word to get out that the numbers of deer are down, translating that to mean the number of trophy bucks are way down as well.
Then the government and the hunter is in a lose lose situation. No one comes to IA to shoot does anyway.
We already have proof of this as They didn't sell out all the Non Resident any sex tags in the north central and northwest parts of the state. Ask your self why that is
Then the government and the hunter is in a lose lose situation. No one comes to IA to shoot does anyway.
We already have proof of this as They didn't sell out all the Non Resident any sex tags in the north central and northwest parts of the state. Ask your self why that is
Last edited:
I bet I could make a blanket statement don't shoot hen pheasants and everyone would agree....deer disperse just like any other animal, it depends on food cover and pressure from hunters, predators etc. It will take a joint effort at this point to the fix the problem that may already be too late to stop.
Thank god for hotspots and for people who lock up land, because that is what is keeping any good deer numbers left. If all the neighbors of a place like that shot tons of does, what happens to the overall herd. The neighbors hunting suffers and the lock downed places also end up with a lower deer population.
Thank god for hotspots and for people who lock up land, because that is what is keeping any good deer numbers left. If all the neighbors of a place like that shot tons of does, what happens to the overall herd. The neighbors hunting suffers and the lock downed places also end up with a lower deer population.
letemgrow
PMA Member
Understanding deer reproduction rates/biology is what some people really need to do, they think if you get unlimited tags, it means there are unlimited deer to shoot.
That goes on down here in MO and some areas have had sharp population drops from the unlimited antlerless tags. A little observation goes a long ways to not over-harvesting deer.
Something else to ponder, if the deer numbers drop significantly in IA, so will the number of mature bucks. This could lead to more young bucks getting taken for those that have to kill a buck which means even fewer mature bucks in the future.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
Does
I think unlimited doe tags usually leads to poplulation highs and then lows. It happened in areas of MN. I personally like the bonus tag situation, 1 + 1. Now to say quit shooting does everywhere, that is just not possible.
I understand there are areas of low deer numbers, same thing in MN, we have counties with too many deer, and some counties that have fewer deer than total tags allowed??
My farm in Ringgold County, IA had 30-40 deer (mostly does)on it in the late season and that was 80 acres, plus the neighbors 120 acres. C'mon that is asking for some doe harvest.
My new farm in Warren County, I have not taken an inventory yet, but I know I will have to shoot does. Where is Skip on this topic, Skip???
I think unlimited doe tags usually leads to poplulation highs and then lows. It happened in areas of MN. I personally like the bonus tag situation, 1 + 1. Now to say quit shooting does everywhere, that is just not possible.
I understand there are areas of low deer numbers, same thing in MN, we have counties with too many deer, and some counties that have fewer deer than total tags allowed??
My farm in Ringgold County, IA had 30-40 deer (mostly does)on it in the late season and that was 80 acres, plus the neighbors 120 acres. C'mon that is asking for some doe harvest.
My new farm in Warren County, I have not taken an inventory yet, but I know I will have to shoot does. Where is Skip on this topic, Skip???
dedgeez
death from above
You beat me to it! :way: You should be monitoring your deer herd all year. This is exactly the reasoning that alot of the "misinformed" weekend warriors are going by. Not to beat a dead horse, but at the meeting last year with the governor this is one of the points that was brought up by a farmer attending the meeting. He said " I had 50 deer in my fields last January" rah rah rah. It was impossible trying to explain to him that deer herd up in the winter and go to where the food sources are. He didn't understand this and it was literally like talking to a wall.
Ignorance is what is hurting not only our deer herd, but us as hunters. Like letemgo stated, there is a mentality with alot of the orange army that if there was 1 deer left in the whole state and they had a tag, they would push that sombitch out and kill it. Like I said earlier, we need to police ourselves if we want to get anywhere.
Jeez, it's not even March yet and the legislative talks are already firing up. I love it