teeroy
Life Member
i read this in last saturday's register, and contacted the author and got his permission to post his article online.
this is the entire article that was submitted to the des moines register.
mike kalkwarf of otley is a county conservation park ranger
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The deer debate has been brought up many times in the last few years and recently with the DNR facing budget deficits it has escalated from primarily a management issue to an overwhelmingly financial issue. As a professional in the conservation field and a lifelong Iowa resident and outdoorsman, I would like to offer my perspective. Deer hunting and deer management in this state, like many things, is a much more complex issue than most seem to realize. To begin with, there are two very different types of deer hunting in the state. One is for antlerless deer, which are often hunted for population management and putting venison in the freezer. The other is for antlered deer, and in Iowa that means trophy bucks, and is more of the recreational side of deer hunting.
The buck hunting in this state is the reason that non-residents from all over the country are willing to come here and pay top dollar to hunt and is what will be adversely affected by increasing the non-resident tag quota. A lot of people are quick to try to compare Iowa to its neighbors and make our regulations more like theirs. They seem to forget what separates us from them, and it is those differences that make our state “the” great place to hunt trophy caliber bucks. It is no secret that Iowa charges a premium for non-residents to come here and hunt. When you average out all of our neighbors non-resident deer hunting fees you quickly see the difference. They average $240.00 for a non resident deer hunt while Iowa charges $415.00. How can such a price difference exist? It is one thing and one thing only, bucks. The three main things that separate Iowa from its neighbors are:
The timing of our firearms seasons. We don’t hunt our deer during the rut when the bucks are most vulnerable.
Our method of take. We don’t shoot deer with rifles during the gun seasons or use crossbows during the archery seasons.
We limit the number of hunters. We have caps on non-residents and we spread out resident hunters among a limited number of season choices.
What would happen in the state of Iowa if we start to alter the things that have separated us? A change in any one of the above policies can and will drastically alter the face of deer hunting in this state. An increase in nonresidents will do a few things. It will increase the pressure on bucks, not on the deer herd. Non-residents come here for one reason, buck hunting. The more pressure you put on that limited resource, the more its quality will diminish. There has also been a lot of talk about the amount of money they will bring into the state. That is a fact, they will bring in money, and that money will come in the form of land purchases and leasing from big money land owners and outfitters. The more and more land they lock up, the more the average Iowa resident AND non-resident hunter will be displaced, pushed into Iowa’s very small resource that is public hunting. This will also create more deer “sanctuaries” compounding the issue of deer populations in the state as well.
We don’t have to look far for an example. Illinois is the closest comparison in both available deer habitat and regulations. The thing that they do very different is allow a very high quota on non-resident deer hunters, one that they have slowly increased over the years to bring in more revenue for the state. What has happened over there? You have to pay in order to play. The only non-residents that bother are those that are willing to shell out big bucks to hunt and the resident hunter has been pushed aside, compounding their deer population issues and disenfranchising the resident hunter.
Now what about the deer population question in Iowa, the other half of the deer debate. Right now we have the proper mechanisms in place to take care of the issue by reducing the antlerless deer. The cities and parks can use the population management zone system and the farmers can use the depredation program to effectively reduce the deer herd in problem areas. As far as making it more effective, simple economics 101 has the answer. The depredation tags are already sold at a reduced cost and the price must be reduced accordingly in the counties and management areas that are not selling out. With these two systems in place the only areas that will have problems are those not willing to help themselves.
What is the solution to the DNR’s budget woes? Economics 101 again gives the “no-brainer” answer. About 12,000 non-residents applied for 6,000 tags, wouldn’t a price increase be in order? Also, I as a resident would gladly pay extra for my antlered (recreational) hunting tags. But, I will only gladly pay as long as the quality of Iowa’s deer herd is maintained just as the non-resident hunter will pay for quality. Major changes to our regulations as they exist will impact the quality and with that the deer hunter dollar will fade, just as it did with the pheasant hunter dollar. There is also a host of other recreational users, they are the hikers, wildlife watchers, horse riders, geocachers, etc; the list goes on and on. Why is it that the hunters and anglers are the only ones paying the bill? An increase in fees shouldn’t just be for one select group of outdoor users it should be spread out among all who benefit, and that after all, is the entire state.
</div></div>
this is the entire article that was submitted to the des moines register.
mike kalkwarf of otley is a county conservation park ranger
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The deer debate has been brought up many times in the last few years and recently with the DNR facing budget deficits it has escalated from primarily a management issue to an overwhelmingly financial issue. As a professional in the conservation field and a lifelong Iowa resident and outdoorsman, I would like to offer my perspective. Deer hunting and deer management in this state, like many things, is a much more complex issue than most seem to realize. To begin with, there are two very different types of deer hunting in the state. One is for antlerless deer, which are often hunted for population management and putting venison in the freezer. The other is for antlered deer, and in Iowa that means trophy bucks, and is more of the recreational side of deer hunting.
The buck hunting in this state is the reason that non-residents from all over the country are willing to come here and pay top dollar to hunt and is what will be adversely affected by increasing the non-resident tag quota. A lot of people are quick to try to compare Iowa to its neighbors and make our regulations more like theirs. They seem to forget what separates us from them, and it is those differences that make our state “the” great place to hunt trophy caliber bucks. It is no secret that Iowa charges a premium for non-residents to come here and hunt. When you average out all of our neighbors non-resident deer hunting fees you quickly see the difference. They average $240.00 for a non resident deer hunt while Iowa charges $415.00. How can such a price difference exist? It is one thing and one thing only, bucks. The three main things that separate Iowa from its neighbors are:
The timing of our firearms seasons. We don’t hunt our deer during the rut when the bucks are most vulnerable.
Our method of take. We don’t shoot deer with rifles during the gun seasons or use crossbows during the archery seasons.
We limit the number of hunters. We have caps on non-residents and we spread out resident hunters among a limited number of season choices.
What would happen in the state of Iowa if we start to alter the things that have separated us? A change in any one of the above policies can and will drastically alter the face of deer hunting in this state. An increase in nonresidents will do a few things. It will increase the pressure on bucks, not on the deer herd. Non-residents come here for one reason, buck hunting. The more pressure you put on that limited resource, the more its quality will diminish. There has also been a lot of talk about the amount of money they will bring into the state. That is a fact, they will bring in money, and that money will come in the form of land purchases and leasing from big money land owners and outfitters. The more and more land they lock up, the more the average Iowa resident AND non-resident hunter will be displaced, pushed into Iowa’s very small resource that is public hunting. This will also create more deer “sanctuaries” compounding the issue of deer populations in the state as well.
We don’t have to look far for an example. Illinois is the closest comparison in both available deer habitat and regulations. The thing that they do very different is allow a very high quota on non-resident deer hunters, one that they have slowly increased over the years to bring in more revenue for the state. What has happened over there? You have to pay in order to play. The only non-residents that bother are those that are willing to shell out big bucks to hunt and the resident hunter has been pushed aside, compounding their deer population issues and disenfranchising the resident hunter.
Now what about the deer population question in Iowa, the other half of the deer debate. Right now we have the proper mechanisms in place to take care of the issue by reducing the antlerless deer. The cities and parks can use the population management zone system and the farmers can use the depredation program to effectively reduce the deer herd in problem areas. As far as making it more effective, simple economics 101 has the answer. The depredation tags are already sold at a reduced cost and the price must be reduced accordingly in the counties and management areas that are not selling out. With these two systems in place the only areas that will have problems are those not willing to help themselves.
What is the solution to the DNR’s budget woes? Economics 101 again gives the “no-brainer” answer. About 12,000 non-residents applied for 6,000 tags, wouldn’t a price increase be in order? Also, I as a resident would gladly pay extra for my antlered (recreational) hunting tags. But, I will only gladly pay as long as the quality of Iowa’s deer herd is maintained just as the non-resident hunter will pay for quality. Major changes to our regulations as they exist will impact the quality and with that the deer hunter dollar will fade, just as it did with the pheasant hunter dollar. There is also a host of other recreational users, they are the hikers, wildlife watchers, horse riders, geocachers, etc; the list goes on and on. Why is it that the hunters and anglers are the only ones paying the bill? An increase in fees shouldn’t just be for one select group of outdoor users it should be spread out among all who benefit, and that after all, is the entire state.
</div></div>
