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

NRs kill higher percentage does than archers

OrionWhitetails

OrionWhitetails

New Member
Folks,

I promise some of you who are so adamantly opposed to non-residents will be surprised to learn that as a group, <u>non-resident deer hunters harvest a higher percentage of does and antlerless deer in their total deer harvest than do Iowa's own archery hunters!</u> This is no spin, it is fact as printed in the recent report given to the Iowa Legislature from the Iowa Deer Advisory Committee entitled "A Review Of Iowa's Deer Management Program."

From table 1, page 12 of this report...

Non-resident deer harvest included 47% does & 53% antlerless.
The harvest for resident archers was only 42% does & only 50% antlerless.

In my view, non-residents are doing a better job of helping to reduce deer numbers than Iowa's own bow hunters!
 
Most of the non resident deer hunters are located in the higher deer density areas of the state. Making it easier for them to fill both of there tags.


Id like to see the comparisions for each county, or nr hunting zone. I would be willing to bet that in the lower zones the residents have a much higher doe harvest percentage. In fact most people I know are way over 80% antlerless.


Either way, a 5 percent difference isnt a mind blowing number. In fact I would say they are statistically the same.
 
I sure hope the DNR gets a link up to this report soon. They only made 100 copies. Where did you get yours? On the table referenced it is true that NRs killed 47% does and 53% antlerless and bow hunters killed 42% does and 50% Antlerless. What you fail to mention is the graph in reference is for TOTAL NR does and antlerless and does not differentiate between NR archery and NR gun.

Looks like spin to me.

The 'Bonker
 
Well answer me this one, what was the total number of Resident archery hunters vs. Non-resident hunters? 5% don't mean squat if there are 10,000 more resident archery hunters, thus meaning that the 42% antlerless taken while archery hunting is more deer than the total deer taken by NR.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: OrionWhitetails</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

...you who are so adamantly opposed to non-residents...
</div></div>

Can't say as I've ever seen anyone here who fits that description. I do see many folks who would like to maintain our current practices in regard to management so that both residents and non-residents alike can continue enjoy the world class whitetail hunting we now have. It may surprise you to know that many non-residents have posted here feeling the same way due to experiences they've encountered in their own state or while hunting in others.
 
You can make statistics look however you want, but some common sense needs to be taken here..

We all know why you really want to come to Iowa, and it is not to shoot our does. Is it? You can do that wherever you want and your numbers are ridiculous.. Texas has more does per sq/mile than Iowa. Is that not because of ranches like the "King Ranch"?? Wait aren't you trying to establish a ranch of your own here in Iowa?? So how is that going to help our deer numbers?? Get it?

If we really need help so badly controlling our deer herd you would be applying for a job as a biologist.. Not as an Iowa Outfitter. Grrreeeeeddy.

If we want to play your statistics another way, it shows us that Iowa archers are better buck hunters than NRs because we know how to kill more bucks than NRs do, because that is how I can spin that information.. But thats not true. Your numbers can be made to say whatever so don't tell us we are not doing our part or that you can do it any better.
 
Another question to ask is how many bucks did N/R's holding antlerless-only shotgun tags actually shoot through group hunting... bet that brings the N/R percentage below the resident percentage.
 
If we were going to make comparisons, lets do apples to apples.
Archery tags to Archery tags


NONRESIDENTS:
In 2008 NR Archery hunters possessed 2100 any-deer licenses and 2100 antlerless-only licenses.
50% of the licenses in possession were antlerless-only

<span style="color: #FF0000">The reported harvest: 935 bucks and 346 does for a total of 1,281 reported deer

27% does - 73% bucks

29% antlerless </span>


<span style="color: #FF0000">Non res stats DO NOT take into account the gov. tags. I'm pretty sure they were 100% buck harvest </span>

RESIDENTS:
In 2008 Resident Paid Archery hunters possessed 49,953 any-deer licenses and 26,850 antlerless-only licenses.
35% of the licenses in possession were antlerless-only

<span style="color: #FF0000">The reported harvest: 11,400 bucks and 8,116 does for a total of 19,516 reported deer.

42% does - 58% bucks

50% antlerless </span>


A significantly higher percentage of NR licenses were antlerless-only, yet they harvested a significantly lower proportion of antlerless deer.

Nonresidents, as a group, are not in Iowa to harvest does during the archery season.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my view, non-residents are doing a better job of helping to reduce deer numbers than Iowa's own bow hunters! </div></div>




Now I know us IW'ers make up a small percentage of the total number of archery deer hunters in Iowa BUT let's all post how many does to bucks we've taken in, oh let's say, the last 3 years.

The Heart Surgeon: 20 antlerless 2 antlered
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A significantly higher percentage of NR licenses were antlerless-only, yet they harvested a significantly lower proportion of antlerless deer.
</div></div>


What the!? You mean we actually have numbers that prove these guys don't come here to manage our herd. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif Imagine that. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: River Bttm Boy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A significantly higher percentage of NR licenses were antlerless-only, yet they harvested a significantly lower proportion of antlerless deer.
</div></div>


What the!? You mean we actually have numbers that prove these guys don't come here to manage our herd. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif Imagine that. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif


</div></div>

Mickey, Do you have a rebuttal? Oh, didn't think so.....
 
While we are looking at the numbers for nr's killing does in the state of Iowa; I would like to know the numbers for nr's killing does on the King Ranch in Texas? What is the cost of killing a trophy doe on the King ranch? Or even to kill a doe on Mickey's land here in Iowa?
 
this guy is just trying to stir everything up.. let him say what he wants

your trying to compare NR hunters as a whole to archery hunters only? what a joke. if you want to compare NR doe kills in all seasons then compare that to resident doe kills in all seasons not just archery.

your stats showed archery alone wasnt far behind NR hunters and their guns

i would like to hear you try and rebuttal instead of these one line posts of yours
 
Nannyslayer,

Let's not compare apples to oranges. Instead, think what would happen if each group were issued the same total number of tags, NR's would kill more does & antlerless deer as group than archers based on the percentages in the table.
 
elkhunter,

You're still not comparing apples to apples in my mind (read my earlier post). And, if you object to what is stated in the table, then you should have said something at the meeting because I am simply passing on the facts that you yourself helped to provide to the Iowa Legislature!

As president of the IBA, why do you call yourself "elkhunter" by the way? In case you did not know, there are no free-ranging elk in Iowa that I know of? If you love elk hunting so much, why don't you move out west? In Iowa its whitetails or nothing... come on!

In my opinion, you represent the single most selfish group of elitists that I have ever come across in my life! You & your group oppose... (1) sharing your sacred 90-day bow season with youth & disabled firearms hunters, not to mention the 100,000+ shotgun hunters; (2) hunting with a crossbow during the archery season - why does weapon type matter if the effective range is the same?; (3) late season antlerless-only seasons; (4) late-season rifle seasons; (5) holiday seasons for non-residents; (6) any increase in the number of NR tags; (7) any special considerations for NR landowners; (8) party hunting during the shotgun seasons; (9) an expansion of the party hunting rule to the late muzzleloader season; (10) increasing resident hunting license fees; (11) shooting more does than bucks; (12) compensating landowners anything monetarily for hunting access; etc., etc.

IBA had been the ONLY deer hunting group in Iowa to have ANY representation at the Iowa legislature. As a result, your group single-handedly twisted everything that has been churned thru the Iowa legislature in your favor.

Well, not any more! As a direct result of your group's selfishness, we (Friends of Iowa Landowners & Sportsmen) were forced to hire our own lobbyist. You & your group are singly responsible for our organization - how does that make you feel?

I hope your wish comes true for the 100,000+ Iowa shotgun-deer hunters to finally join together and form an organization to represent themselves. If this happens, I guarantee they will also want to address: (1) the fact that Iowa has the shortest firearms deer season in the nation (5-day 1st season); (2) the lack of any opportunity to gun hunt during the rut; (3) the inability to use a high-powered rifle on a state-wide basis; etc., etc. Are you sure you want to go down this road?

I'm an avid DEER hunter. Because of this I hunt deer by whatever weapon is legal at the time. Unfortunately, as a teeenager growing up in northern Iowa, the only way I could hunt deer during the rut was to bow hunt. Because of your group, I was forced to take up bow hunting. I may have made my own decision to do this later, but your group gave me no choice - how selfish!

Mickey W. Hellickson

Proud board member of Friends of Iowa Landowners & Sportsmen & proud that I am not defined by my choice of weapon
 
#1, The disabled thing, on the face of it is fine. If we are talking about the same bill, this is in reference to a deputy that was paralyzed in the line of duty. The thing that is not right about it is the paralyzed hunter will get an extra either sex tag. #1a, the reason we have large whitetails in Iowa is because we don't let shotgun hunters hunt during the rut. Check out the quality of deer in the states that allow hunting with firearms during the rut.

#2, I am a crossbow hunter. IT ISN'T THE SAME. It takes skill and practice to use a "vertical" bow. With a crossbow I was on target and sighted in less than 5 shots.

#3, Sure there are more does killed than bucks during this season, but it may have been one of your bucks that wondered off the reservation.

#4, See #3 above.

#5, Do you mean the November season or the post regular season?

#6, We are trying to keep hunting sustainable, affordable and accessable for Iowans.

#7, See #6 above and I don't like people who try to change teh ground rules in my stadium.

#8, Party hunting is necessary for the control of the deer herd. Just like everything else though, it gets taken advantage of.

#9, Why ruin something that works? Most does are taken during S1 and S2. The late ML hunter wants to get away from the crowds during S1 and S2, not be a part of them.

#10 Hold the phone on that one. The IBA did a survey that was shared with the DNR, the governor and the legislature that our membership would indeed support an increase in licenses fees if they held the line on NR quotas and system of allocation. Ask you lobbyist if he received a copy.

#11, The IBA has never expressed a desire to see more bucks than does killed, well, not in modern times anyway. In fact I'll bet you a donut if we dug through the archives somewhere there would be a letter supporting the expansion of the herd through buck only harvests.

#12, Compensation is a model based on, what I believe, is a European model of hunting where the Crown owns the game and one must pay to kill it. I think that model died in American in around 1776, and how big a price tag can you put on "Make a Memory".

Second group of bullet points,

#1, I'd have to do some research, but are you saying that over all Iowa has the shortest season or that only S1 is shorter than any other season?

#2, See #1 in the first group of bullet points.

#3, I believe this is population density based. In the past, and I'm not sure if it is still true or not, Wisconsin had a high power zone and a shot gun only zone. We ain't the first. In regards to bucks, see #2 immediately above and #1a in the first set of bullet points.

Last paragraph: So we made you come to the dark side eh? Such is a pity. If you had been allowed to use a gun during the rut, see #2 immediately above and #1a in the first set of bullet points. Perhaps it is our own undoing in this instance. If you had indeed been allowed to use a gun you wouldn't be selling hunts for what you consider trophy whitetails at several thousand a pop. That’s right guys, it is all the IBA's fault. We encouraged big buck growth by holding the line on gun hunting in the rut so it could be exploited today. It was our founders grand scheme that in 2008 a few people would be making money off of deer and the rest of us would be sucking hind tit.

I may be go by Fishbonker, but I have never owned one, nor have I ever used one. What does that make me?

Tom Toycen a.k.a The 'Bonker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom