Here is my response from Kenneth Herring. Suffice it to stay, but it looks like the DNR is determine on this issue.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Herring's own words in red
<span style="color: #FF0000">Hello John:
Thanks for taking time to write us on this important issue. As an avid deer hunter myself, I know your passion for the world class resource we have managed for here in Iowa .
I want to acknowledge your thoughts, and also give you our official position. I think you will find it helpful in understanding that we believe we can increase the quota of non residents while still maintaining our world class deer resource, and satisfying our resident hunters concerns. It may interest you to know that the current 10 zone system is a hold over when we used this same zone system to manage our resident hunters at a time when we were growing our whitetail herd. Never was this 10 zone system contemplated as a way to manage non resident hunters. So the current system has allowed a high concentration of non resident hunters in several counties. I know we can do better, but the longer we wait, the harder it becomes to make these changes.</span>
Here is our current position on this issue:
Iowa Department of Natural Resources Position/Approach to the
Non-Resident Any-Sex Deer License Quota
The Department is aware groups, such as The Friends of Iowa–Landowners and Sportsmen, are expressing concern about the limited number of non-resident (NR) licenses available in Iowa . The work of these groups is not new, however, observations have been made that they are getting more organized and they understand how to make changes legislatively. Over the past several years, there have been bills introduced by various legislators to address the issue of NR landowners getting first chance at the current quota of 6,000 NR licenses or to ensure that all NR landowners are guaranteed to get an any-sex deer license.
The Department's response to this issue has been to request that the legislature raise the current quota of 6,000 NR licenses by an additional 6,000. To date, the legislature has held tight to the current cap. The Department’s position has remained the same for the past 6 -7 years.
However, this year, the Department's approach has changed. Rather than seek a quota increase from the legislature, we seek the ability for the Department to set the NR quota rather than the legislature. We feel that the Department has expertise and experience in finding the appropriate balance in the different stakeholder perspectives as we do for virtually every other species of wildlife. For example, by increasing the number of zones for non-residents from the current 10 to 99 (to correspond with the number of Iowa counties) and restricting NR licenses between four seasons, it could actually reduce the concentration of NR hunters that recent harvest data suggests is occurring in a few counties. It is too early to tell if this approach will gain support in our legislative package.
The NR quota of 6,000 any-deer has received a lot of attention the past several years and the issue continues to be difficult and in some cases divisive. Many Iowa hunters continue to believe that NR hunters are to blame for the loss of their hunting opportunity. In some areas, this is now supported by deer harvest data. In other areas, Iowa hunters are purchasing land for recreation and are perhaps much of the cause for this shift in land available for hunting. Points to consider regarding a quota increase are that this will provide additional revenue to manage the resources and social and economic benefits would occur. Also, there is no biological evidence the wildlife population would be negatively affected.
Given the momentum of feelings on both sides of this issue, I believe that the current quota of 6,000 will eventually need to be increased. However I would not speculate as to when this may occur. Currently, the legislature has the sole authority on this matter. We have the opportunity to use our expertise and experience to proactively develop compromise that would address the concerns of our resident hunters while helping meet the needs of our nonresident hunters or to wait until the legislature makes the change.
Again, thanks for your thoughts.
Ken Herring
