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

Yepsen's article

Open question...

Did we begin to have a deer over-population problem before OR after we allowed NR deer licenses?

When I first started deer hunting in the early 80's I seem to remember having to specify a zone for a shotgun tag and no one ever talked about too many deer. Lots has changed in a relatively short 20 year period.

While there are admittedly many other variables to consider, there is also NO science to support that more NR licenses will in any way reduce the deer population. To the contrary, deer populations may well increase with more NR licenses issued. My personal opinion is that there will be no decrease, and likely an increase, in overall populations since no one can deny that almost all NR's would come to Iowa to hunt a buck, not a doe. One thing I would definitely support is a "free" or low cost doe tag, or two, with each successful NR applicant.

The spooky thing about these deer population posts, editorials and articles is how gullible and under-informed the people are that write for our major news outlets. They really seem to be little more than shills for special interest groups with PR firms and lobbying power. Does anyone actually still research a story and get both sides and understand what they are writing about before "meeting their deadlines"?
 
Here is the email I sent in....

David,

As an avid outdoor enthusiast, wildlife artist and bowhunter I read your opinion piece with great interest. You bring up many interesting points. About 15 years ago I ran across a whitetail management philosophy which I think you would find quite interesting.

The management philosophy is called Quality Deer Management or (QDM). The goal is to use hunting as a management tool to maintain a deer herd at a population level which is in balance with not only the habitat but also the social needs of the people. It usually involves the protection of young bucks and the harvest of an adequate number of does to keep the deer herd at a level acceptable to landowners and farmers. The result can be a healthy deer herd with roughly an equal number of does and bucks of all ages that hunters and non-hunters alike can appreciate. Sportsmen are a critical part in maintaining that balance. QDM and modern deer management provide the philosophy, program and knowledge to guide us there.

A well managed, balanced deer herd will be a great resource for Iowa. Our current DNR staff understands QDM and is on the correct path. For the first time we now have a county by county antlerless deer tag allotment system to direct the harvest where needed. We also have a HUSH program to take in the additional harvest and put it to good use feeding the needy. As you say it won’t happen immediately. The DNR just needs a little more time for their plan to take full effect to achieve the balance we need.

For more information on QDM check their website at www.qdma.com.

I hope this information proves helpful.

Sincerely,
Larry Zach
 
I too have been writing back and forth with Mr. Yepsen.

Remember don't get into a shouting match, just inundate him with facts and politely make your points.

Pupster
 
Old Buck,

You definately had more discipline in your reply than I did. I did however reply to his response to me with some constructive , responsible solutions which have been previously discussed on this site.
 
I like to start on a positive note. That way you don't burn bridges before you even try to cross them.
grin.gif
If that fails there are always other strategies.
 
I waited a few days to cool down before I wrote him. Here's what I sent:

Mr. Yepson,

From reading your opinion piece in Sunday's paper, you've obviously spent a good deal of time recently with lobbyists for the insurance industry.

Unless I'm mistaking your ideas as sarcasm, you make a number of recommendations that at the very least are ridiculous and border on reckless and dangerous.

If memory serves, your paper carried a number of front page stories a year or so ago on the accidental shooting death of a coyote hunter in Crawford County. The hunter was struck by a bullet from a high-powered rifle fired by another member of his party from a substantial (1/4 to 1/2-mile or more away) distance. The stories didn't focus so much on the tragedy of the incident, but instead on afixing blame to the particular hunter who fired the lethal shot.

The number of coyote hunters compared to the number of deer hunters in Iowa is extremely small. Yet the incident above demonstrates how unsuitable Iowa's relatively flat and open terrain is for using high-powered rifles. I can't even begin to imagine how many similar accidents would happen during lengthy rifle deer seasons with thousands more hunters afield.

The problem with deer in Iowa is not the number of hunters but hunter access to land where deer are perceived to be the biggest problem ... metro and suburban areas where urban sprawl is taking place. Developments sprout up overnight on what was farm land. The clusters of new homes bring with them a huge increase in the number of vehicles on the road. Wildlife continues to use these areas and established travel corridors with the added bonus of not having to elude hunters since these areas are now off limits. Without hunting pressure, the number of deer explodes. Combine that with the increase in vehicles/miles driven, and it's no wonder you have more accidents.

The state of Iowa is not alone. Urban sprawl is a nationwide phenomenon and deer, being the adaptable creatures that they are, have used these "hunter-less" buffer zones around cities to great benefit.

You suggested bringing in more out-of-state hunters to help solve the problem. Given the cost of non-resident licenses, most NR hunters will balk at taking a doe, holding out instead for a trophy buck. These same hunters (or the outfitters that serve them) wind up leasing vast tracts of land. This further limits hunting access for Iowa hunters. And since these hunters are primarily taking bucks, it only hinders trying reduce the state's deer herd. Reducing the herd requires harvesting does.

Iowa's hunters are responding. A record number (more than 72,000) of antlerless only licenses were sold this past season. More than 800 hunters, myself included, signed up with the DNR's Hunter Referral Registry, a database of hunters willing to take does that landowners with deer problems could access. I think the final results of the 2004 season will show that a greater number of deer were taken, primarily by Iowa hunters.

Could regulations be eased? Yes. But the kind of reckless abandonment of regulations and wholesale slaughter you seem to be condoning will do nothing but cause greater tension between hunting groups and the public and potentially damage a valuable natural resource that for the most part has been wonderfully managed. Promoting more and longer urban hunts that harvest does will accomplish much more. And if handled well by both municipalities and hunting groups, urban hunting will bolster the image of hunting as sport, recreation, and a vital service in the eyes of the public.

Insurance companies aren't losing money over the deer problem. Those costs are being passed on to policy holders through higher premiums. When deer numbers do begin to drop, it will be interesting to see if those premiums likewise drop. I'm not holding my breath.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I waited a few days to cool down before I wrote him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Threebeards, I would like to know what you were thinking after you first read the editorial……………..well maybe not, this is a family oriented site.
smirk.gif
grin.gif
 
Many thanks to all of you that have taken the time to enlighten the grab it and run type of media that is ruining this world.
beerchug.gif
 
Good Job Three Beards! Now if we could get like 50 more people to send one just like that!
 
Thanks guys!

I actually got a response back from Mr. Yepsen. Of course, I couldn't let him have the last word, so I've included both his message and my reply.

Received from David Yepsen 1/28/05:
Kerry:
Thanks for our note. According to the Iowa Farm Bureau, hunting accidents are no higher in rifle states than in shotgun states. Most accidents involve
mishandling the weapon. A rifle season in certain areas of the state at certain
times is done elsewhere and could be done here.
If a rifle season were so dangerous, why is the Farm Bureau, whose members live in rural Iowa, supporting the idea?
As I said in the piece, we don't regulate the deer population for the benefit of hunters. We regulate it for the public interest.
Best,
David.


My response:

David,

Thanks for your reply. The rifle season was just one aspect of my message. Probably more important was the point that deer are the biggest problem in urban sprawl areas that are generally off-limits to hunting. You suggest "The state should make it easier for cities to allow sharpshooters and bow hunters to take deer inside city limits" and certainly this would help in the areas where the problem is the worst. But to hold an all-out-war on deer, with few restrictions, would only make it easier for poachers like those arrested Decatur County to ply their trade.

I would suggest that rather than look Iowa's deer as "pests," we consider them a valuable natural resource that needs to be MANAGED FOR THE LONG TERM (not just regulated) for the overall public interest. It took a long time for the populations to reach this level and the solution shouldn't be a knee-jerk approach to "head out whenever ... with whatever weapons ... and take as many of these animals as (our) hearts desire." We shouldn't squander a natural resource it's taken several decades to build just because soccer moms in the new development on the edge of town have been running into them with their SUVs. I would say that drivers need to bear some responsibility as well by driving more defensively, especially during the fall mating season and in areas where deer are concentrated.

As for the Farm Bureau, they can call themselves whatever they like but they are an insurance company. They have far more to gain by reducing the total number of car-deer accidents (especially without a corresponding drop in rates) than they would on the off chance of paying out benefits to a policy holder injured or killed in a hunting-related shooting accident. And I'm sure there are actuarial tables that support this.

If the Farm Bureau is serious about wanting to reduce the number of deer, thenit should be encouraging or subsidizing, through lower premiums, their farmer policyholders ("members") who open their land to hunters who will harvest does. Or limit crop damage payments for those who don't allow hunting. The DNR's 2004 Hunter Referral Registry of more than 800 hunters was vastly underutilized. Hunters can't take deer if they can't access the land and farmers can't complain about depredation, yet keep hunters out.

This is a complex issue and Iowa's hunters certainly have a stake in the matter. But I don't think that the Farm Bureau is pushing this out of a sense of duty to the public interest either. It's dollars, pure and simple and the deer had better get out of the way!
 
Well done Threebeards

Keep hammering away about the ACCESS issue,with NO ACCESS there is NO MANAGEMENT, the legislators are finally starting to see the light.
 
3 BEARDS - that is the exact same responce that I got! Then the last one will say, thanks for the info. and thats it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom