My apologies.

[wjs]

Hello to all!

First let me say that I understand your frustration with the proposed changes in the deer season. I apologize for this and understand that some of you may believe we (the DNR) were trying to sneak these changes through. What I will try to explain with this post is the time frame under which the decisions were made and why the decisions were made without much warning.

Back in January, I projected, based upon a 25,550 increase in the number of deer licenses issued that we would kill about 200,000 deer (199,550 to be exact) during the 2004/2005 season. This was about 17,000 more than in 2003. Most of the increase should have been from an increase in the number of antlerless licenses issued (+20,000 licenses) with the net result of an increase in the doe kill of about 12,300.

The aerial deer surveys conducted in January and February were down a little over 10% on those routes that were flown in both years. So my initial reaction, the one the DNR presented at our public hearings and the one I presented to the IBA and other groups was that I was optimistic that we were headed in the right direction. But I tried to always caution that my final recommendations would depend upon the results from the harvest and spotlight surveys.

So in late April, when I received the final harvest estimate the total kill added up to 194,512 , an increase of about 11,500 deer, but the estimated number of does in the harvest increased by only 7,400. Which is nearly 5,000 short of what I had anticipated. Also by that time I had received most of the results from the spring spotlight surveys. Unfortunately the number of deer sighted had stayed about the same on routes run in both years. All of a sudden I was a whole lot less optimistic.

After breaking the data down for each of our 20 wildlife management units the data suggested 3 things:
First, the data suggests that in some areas of northern Iowa deer numbers may be close to our goal (about where we were in 1997).
Second, in those counties where the antlerless quotas were increased in 2004 (and had sold out) the data suggested that we would reach our goal after the 2006 season if the number of does killed stays about the same for the next 2 years.
Lastly, the data suggested the current kill would at best keep deer numbers from increasing and that we would need to increase the number of does killed substantially to reach our goal in those counties where the antlerless licenses did not sell out.

It took me approximately 3 weeks to analyze the data and reach the above conclusions. I presented these results to others in the Wildlife Bureau on May 23rd . Everyone there agreed that if we went ahead with the proposed rule as it was written then it was very likely that we would not kill enough does, especially in those counties where the antlerless quotas have not sold out. Yes we did consider that the HUSH program would be expanded (and it will help) but we did not feel confident that enough extra does would be killed. (we had 1900 deer donated in 2004 in 55 counties). So ultimately we decided that we needed to take action this fall. Unfortunately that also meant we had little time to inform you and the rest of the public about the reasons for the change and why we choose the options we did. I tried to explain in the previous post why we choose the 2 options we did. I know not everyone agrees with those choices and I respect and value your thoughts and opinions.

I know that by acting without having more discussion we opened ourselves to the (justified) criticism that we were trying to “sneak this in the backdoor”. That is not however the way I like to do business and that was not our intentions. So again I apologize for the frustration many of you are feeling. I hope however that despite this “setback” we can continue to work together in the future on the challenges of managing Iowa’s deer resource. This is very important to me because I also know that it is only with your input, support and help that we can continue to have what I feel is one of the best deer programs in the country.

wjs

 

[Shredder]

We appreciate the explanation you have for us...really, it did seem that things were done to avoid the publics knowledge. My main concern in the long run, will this be a routine annual season and will it be expanded in the future? The way the state has run its seasons in the past is about the only reason the state has its trophy deer...changes to the recent seasons and methods IMHO will only lower the trophy potential of the state and not address the "problem" in question. My only question back would be...If this does not seem to change the current population in the areas of interest, what does the DNR plan to do in the future to meet it's goal?

 

[Jdubs]

wjs,

Shredder asked my question. I would assume this remedy is on a year to year basis, right? Based on the doe harvest. But if it does not work, what are some of the ideas or suggestions to harvest enough does? I hope it is not an expanded rifle season to cover the shotgun seasons. Has this been considered?

 

[IA ML'r]

WJS, I sincerely apreciate the job you're doing managing the herd and the hunters in this state. Only through the DNR's efforts to grow the herd for the last 80 years do we have a problem with "too many deer" in parts of the state. I agree with increasing doe harvest opportunity in the ways you have thus far. Long held traditions of "bucks only even if they're baskets" needed to build the herd die hard even in the light of the obvious need to now reduce or maintain the herd in the various parts of the state. Posting on this board is far above and beyond the call and I apreciate that as well.

Now,
Once and for all, I know it's not in the written proposal to the NRC but are shotguns a legal method of take for the late November antlerless season?

 

[Stump Shooter]

Maybe I should keep my nose out of this becaue I'm a NR, but I will ask anyway.

WJS,

If the doe population is the issue here, was it or has it ever been brought up to allow NR's the opporunity to buy a doe tag along with their any-sex tag at a very reasonable rate($30-$40 or under) to help out the herd?? Because to be totally honest...for the roughly $325 that I'm plunking down on a tag(with all fees included), I'm going to wait until the last 3 min of the very last day I'm going to hunt to fill it with a doe. If I do at all. Either I shot a very good buck or I'll eat some tag soup. In the grand scheme of things, this type of hunting is kind of counter productive to what the Iowa DNR would like to see happen. If I understand everything correctly. In my eyes if this is a possibility, you have to keep the extra doe tags at a cheap price or not many will buy them. It wouldn't have to be a state wide thing, but only in zones/areas that you deem "over populated".

Allowing NR's to buy a very reasonable "extra" doe tag accomplishes two different things.
1)Brings even more $$ into the state from NR's even if the tag is filled or not.
2)If the tag is filled, it's helping out the state's deer herd by taking out a doe.

I have no idea how many NR's hunt deer in Iowa, but let's just say there's 25,000. At $25 for an extra doe tag for each person, that's $625,000 more $$ coming into the state. All for helping out with a proposed doe problem.

Thanks,
Xtec

 

[Ghost]

NO RIFLE SEASONS IN IOWA!

It is not so much that I fear what is currently proposed...but where it will lead in the future.

I hope this is not the first chip off a piece of flint that is the making of a real nice arrowhead...

I can't see how anyone concerned about Iowa's deer hunting future could possibly see this as a good move.

I have lived most of my life 5 minutes from the Missery border.

More rifles in Iowa will be more poaching in Iowa, you will see...mark my word.

 

[houston]

So are Hi-Powers still in the equasion, to my understanding? If so, that will be the poison to Iowas demise!

 

[Ghost]

Houston we have a problem!

Yes, there is a late January "doe only" high-power season proposed.

And I have found enough sheds in January to tell you that the 5 percent shed buck kill number will be going up!

 

[moosehunter]

WJS

I echo the others with thanks for your explaination. I'm also concerned with the expansion of a rifle season. I understand there are isolated pockets of higher than prefered deer numbers and the need to reduce those numbers to sustain a healthy population. But I'm extremely dissapointed the DNR chose a rifle season to remedy this situation. I also think short term data (the survey) is at best, a questionable method for taking such an extreme measure. Legislators getting getting heavey pressure from the insurance industry no dought played a role in this somewhere. They didn't give up after the final drafts of the deer bill were voted on.

I believe the DNR for the most part has done a good job helping manage Iowa's deer herd. But some of that has been just dumb luck. Fourty some years ago when the shotgun season dates were set at the first 2 weeks of December, odds are the first thought would be "that license sales might be better if the season would fall between Thanksgiving and Christamas", rather than "it's better to have the breeding season over with before opening day of shotgun season." Either way it worked out good for Iowa hunters and mature bucks. And the "shotgun only" season was prefered out of saftey concerns. But shotgun's only has been a bonus also because those deer are not getting killed at 200 or 300 yards.

My guess is there will be many that buy the rifle tag and the deer numbers will drop in those area's. Meaning that the program is a success. Now let's expand it to more area's the next year. Then a year or 2 after that we could have a limited state wide rifle season. See why most of us are upset.

It's pretty hard to take something away from people after they been givin it.

 

[Blaster]

I agree with you Ghost. You have your cross hairs on a doe 300 yrds away, and that buck of a life time walks into the piture! Most of us would know better, but there are people out there that couldn't resist.

 

[Palmated]

WJS, in your routes where you had little impact on the herds did you take in to consideration the amount of leased land for outfitters? Did you do any research on the landowners and the amount of land they allow to be hunted rather than leased. I think you could give out as many doe tags you want in certain area's and it still won't control the doe pop. because if you can't get on the land you can't kill the does. In my area of Guthrie County you have several acres of land either leased or owned by outfitters. Not only that you have Lake Panorama and Springbrook State park that harbor deer. If you can't hunt them you can't kill them is the only thing I can say. My group of hunters killed over 30 deer combined in all the seasons available last year and just about every year. We try control our area population but have more and more land getting gobbled up by outfitters. If you can get the access to the land you can control the population. Also give out the doe tags as free or even 5 dollars a tag would help get rid of the left overs.

 

[Ghost]

[ QUOTE ]
WJS- So we talked about and decided to propose the high power season mainly because we feel it would be effective in generating interest in killing some more does. We would restrict this to the southern 2 tiers of counties and it would take place during an extension of the late January season.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be nice to live in wonderland and think that the majority of deer hunters in this state were concerned about the positive identification of the sex of deer they were about to squeeze the trigger on.

Take your average Iowa group of ten deer hunters that take to the timber to push some deer for the special "extended" doe season. Eight of the ten guys ran to the "gun shop" to purchase a new rifle sometime in December because the group had decided to participate in the new rifle season.

This group did not seek out a special area that has a bad overpopulation problem, but they hunt where they always have and the land which they have access to.

Off they go..... No antlers on the head,...well their dead!

 

[duckaholic]

Thanks for the explanation! I still do not agree with the 2 new seasons.
I am going to share a piece of information here-- My father lives down the road from Richard Bishop. When he asked Mr. Bishop about this topic his response was ".. we have to find a way to make money on these deer". Enough said!

I don't have a problem paying for tags and in return getting better managment and more state land.
I guess more than anything I am curious of this: I know a few other states offer free tags in areas that need thinning. If all you did was up the tags and kept the pricing the same and still got results, emagine what offering some free tags to hunters, farmers, landowners might do.
I have a hard time believing that this is the only way to get the job done. All I see is $$$$$.

These new seasons kind of make a guy nervous. I can see it upping the poaching in the state, more guys will be killing(not getting out of there pickups when they knock one down at 800 yrds like MO) not hunting, more commercialized hunting pressure, the future of trophy hunting in general. There's alot that raises the hair on my kneck when I think of this.

Once again, thanks for the explanation and the time. I don't mean to bash on you at all. I guess we'll see what the future has in store!

 

[kbgibby]

To take Palmated's thoughts a bit further, if down the road, aerial and other surveys continue to show heavy concentrations in "huntable" areas, where access is limited, how about assessing a penalty or levy a tax? In other words, if people are creating deer sanctuaries through greed (outfitters), misguided management (landowners/leasers), or stupidity (animal rightists), they need to be the ones paying for the damage caused by "their" excess deer. The insurance industry obviously carries a great deal of clout in this state so why not get them to help go after these problem areas. You've offered the carrot with the Hunter registry and other options, maybe it's time to also get out the stick.

This still doesn't address the urban problem, although municipalities might be encouraged to allow more bowhunting.

 

[loneranger]

Just wanted to add my two cents to what wjs said. As hunters we have to look at the reality of the situation today. It is important that we write,email, call in our positions to the legislators and powers over us, but let's face it. The wildlife is a Political football. Politicians have to answer to many constituants. Considering the entire population of Iowa, what percentage are deer hunters? How many people see deer as just a nuisance, in the way of their commute to work? For those that Farm as their livelihood, what are deer? Big rats with horns I heard one say. The majority of the Population do not see deer the way we do. Who do you think the Politicians and those appointed by them will listen to? This is the reality of the situation. We all know it,we have all commented on it. All we can to is make our voice heard, among the masses. At least it gives you a good feeling inside to know you tried to make your feelings heard.

 

[Ghost]

[ QUOTE ]
Moosehunter: I'm also concerned with the expansion of a rifle season. I understand there are isolated pockets of higher than prefered deer numbers and the need to reduce those numbers to sustain a healthy population. But I'm extremely dissapointed the DNR chose a rifle season to remedy this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perry this has nothing to do with herd health and the carrying capacity of the land here in Iowa.

Certain groups with a lot of money have a very low tollerance for deer. These groups stand to profit greatly from reducing the deer numbers in the state.

When is the last time anyone on the site has found a pile of deer that just couldn't make it through the winter due to over population and died of starvation.

 

[jkratz5]

Thanks for the explanation wjs, I do have to say that I was extremely disappointed to see the rifle seasons added. I stand with the others in believing that this is a door that we never wanted to see cracked open because undoubtedly it will probably be pushed wide open with open rifle seasons on all deer sometime in our lifetimes. I just feel that there were so many different ways to control the heard than to add rifle seasons into the equation. You mentioned the HUSH increase and how that was considered, and how only 1900 deer were donated last year, but there are many very populated areas in the state with the closest donation point 100 miles away, like it was in Iowa City and Cedar Rapids last year. I could have easily taken somewhere in the vicinity of 20 does myself last year, but didn't have enough people including myself to eat the meat and without a close donation point I was forced to only take a couple.

Additionally, I am not one to complain about paying for tags, but if the goal is to decrease the deer population hand out some anterless tags for cheap, maybe even free, and in a few years time you would indeed see a decrease in the number of does. Finally, in these overpopulated areas, especially those run by outfitters, I think a push for doe harvest, maybe even a demand for doe harvest on these areas should be imposed. There is no reason that the outfitters couldn't allow management hunts late in the year for free on their land so that the appropriate amount of does are harvested annually.

I don't mean to offend anyone, and really appreciate you coming onto the site to give an explanation for the DNRs actions. I applaud the DNRs efforts in managing the deer population and for creating a habitat like no other in the United States, I just hope that current actions do not destroy what we have.

 

[moosehunter]

I respectfully disagree with ya Ghost.

Herd health has to be a factor. Not many will ever die of starvation, but with CWD on the horizon a high population in concentrated areas are at risk. Just ask the people in Iowa county in Wisconsin. But I do agree with you on the money issue. It would be better for the DNR budget to sell a bunch of rifle tags at $25.00 or $11.00 or whatever, than to sell extra shotgun, bow, or muzzleloader tags at say a buck or two. Both would achieve the same short term results but the rifle option most likely be a long term nightmare for the rest of us.

 

[Ghost]

I respectfully agree with ya Moose!

CWD that is...although I'm not certain over population is the cause of CWD.

It is a fact that an outbreak of CWD will effect more animals and spread more rapidly in areas of overpopulation.

 

[Ghost]