Options for 2006?

[wjs]

Hi to all!

I have been asked to come up with options for next year if this year's regulations do not produced the desired results. The goal is to reduce deer numbers by 25% from a year ago. We are probably ok in the northern 1/2 of the state but may need more does killed in the southern and northeastern part of the state. Here is a list of options that have been discussed along with some pros and cons.

I would like to solicit your input about these options and any others you might have.

Thanks you for your time.

wjs


Potential options to increase the deer kill.

1. Lower price of antlerless licenses.

Adv: We would probably sell more antlerless licenses if the first license cost less.
Disadv: Potential loss of revenue. Doesn't target counties where more deer need to be taken.

2. Change bag limit to 1 either sex deer and one antlerless deer.

Adv: Giving all hunters 2 licenses when the purchase an either sex tag allows all hunters to kill a doe and still hunt for a buck.
Disadv: Loss of revenue. Doesn't target counties where more deer need to be taken.

3. Require hunters to shoot an antlerless deer before they can shoot an antlered deer.

Adv: Should increase the number of does killed.
Disadv: Extremely unpopular with hunters. Difficult/impossible to actually enforce. If only done in some counties it may push hunters away from these counties.

4. Make opening day of first shotgun season antlerless only.

Adv: Should increase number of does killed.
Disadv: Unpopular with hunters. Enforcement problems but not as bad as for #3. If only done in some counties it may push hunters away from these counties.

5. Require hunters to kill a doe in previous year to be eligible for an either sex license in current year.

Adv: Forces hunters to kill a doe if they want to hunt antlered deer. Would encourage hunters to register their kill.
Disadv: Unpopular with hunters. Have to keep track of what hunters kill from year to year.

6. Open deer season on Sept 1 and let it run until Jan 31. Hunters can get 1 either sex tag and as many anlerless licenses as they want.

Adv: Might kill more deer but if not then it is because the hunters/landowners restricted the kill not the DNR.
Disadv: Hunters would probably kill fewer deer as they have a longer period and less incentive to kill their deer during any one season.

7. Offer additional county specific either sex tags (for late muzzleloader or bow season) to hunters who purchase an antlerless license for a county where the quota doesn’t fill. Could be used to encourage hunters go to those counties that don’t sell out their antlerless licenses.

Adv: Should get some hunters to come back out hunting. Could require hunters to kill the doe first before they can use the either sex license.
Disadv: Puts extra pressure on the buck segment which will lower the quality of the deer herd. If you use the earn a buck option have same problems with enforcement.

8. Give hunters a reward for killing an antlerless deer. For example, if you kill an antlerless deer this year, then next year your deer license costs $5 less.

Adv: Encourages hunters to kill does.
Disadv: Loss of revenue. Record keeping.

9. Have a lottery for either sex licenses.

Adv: Would limit the number of bucks killed.
Disadv: Might reduce deer kill if hunters don’t participate.

 

[JNRBRONC]

What about lowering the antlerless tag price in the counties where the additional pressure is needed? Also, what if antlerless tags were good for any open season? I have a Johnson Co. antlerless archery tag that I probably won't fill, but if it was valid late muzzleloader I would make more of an effort to fill it. I guess both my scenerios will somewhat reduce DNR revenues, though.

In regards to #9, I remember the lotto system when the DNR was trying to grow the herd back in the 70's and have wondered why a reverse lotto (fewer buck tags more doe tags) has not been discussed. In this situation, the license money is sent with the application so revenue shouldn't really suffer and then when the licenses are issued, the hunter makes the choice of filling an antlerless only or not hunting. This seems one of the fairest approaches in my opinion, as I feel right now the burden of harvesting does is being carried by a minority of the hunter population. Do you have data on this type of harvest breakdown? What percentage of hunters shoot only one deer? What percentage of this is bucks?
Would this lotto system be applied to all seasons or just shotgun? Would your odds of drawing a buck tag increase with number of seasons hunted?
Sorry, more questions than answers

 

[DOR]

You would have 5 less does on one farm if you allowed NR's to use archery depredation tags. If a NR draws a Anysex tag why make it hard for him to harvest does? Isn't the goal the opposite?

Thanks for asking the hunters their opinion.

 

[Limb Chicken]

Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

If the problems are in the bottom two tiers of counties, the fact remains that there are just fewer people down there and large tracts of land locked up and access is not available. Landowner incentives in turn for access?

I do like the early opening. I also like Randy's suggestion of lowering the antlerless price in the target areas.

 

[DOR]

I would love to see the lotto system for buck tags in MN, but I would bet that this route would not be popular with to many hunters. Ia might just need to be micromangaed a bit more to reach the desired outcomes in regards to population dynamics.

WJS,
I suspect you will get a large response from this post. Please take the information you get here and share it with those that make decisions. I guarantee the remarks here will be mostly well thought out and probably will make a lot of sense. Good luck to you. I don't envy your job, at least when it comes to this aspect of it.

 

[DOR]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

If the problems are in the bottom two tiers of counties, the fact remains that there are just fewer people down there and large tracts of land locked up and access is not available. Landowner incentives in turn for access?

I do like the early opening. I also like Randy's suggestion of lowering the antlerless price in the target areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

A walk in access program similar to Kansas would be very popular with hunters, while providing some incentive to the land owner if the funds could be found to start such a program!

 

[csheley]

The first 2 options both list "loss of revenue" as a disadvantage, but if hunters aren't purchasing the first anterless license because of cost, then there's already a loss of revenue. Go ahead and make the anterless tags $12 across the board, but raise the any-sex tag to $35 for residents. And, raise the out-of-state tag price too - the only reason guys are coming to Iowa to hunt deer is to bag a trophy and they will certainly pay a bit more for that privilege.

There will be those that disagree w/ me, but I feel the only deer you should put that any-sex tag on is a doe or a trophy in the first place.

Build some QDM into the new program too. Set up an antler restriction like so many western states do (elk for example).

Even if you try to enforce numbers 3, 4, 5, and 8, the increased cost of enforcement is a net loss to the state and I would think it would be best to come up w/ the best plan w/ the least cost.

I assume number 6 would be any weapon for that open season. I say NO to this too - it infringes on the integrity of the bow season.

Number 9 seems like a guarantee for lowering the deer harvest if guys are primarily concerned with harvesting a quality buck. No reason to be out shooting a doe if I can't shoot a buck too.

In regards to targeting specific counties for increased doe harvest, the problem there is access to private land. Most guys hunt in the county they live in and get access to lands from people they know. If landowners in those targeted counties want to increase the harvest, they need to grant access to people from outside of their county.

Colorado has the "Walk-In Access Program" that has landowners grant access to their private land. They publish an atlas of where the land is and where the borders are.

This would be a way of "inviting" out-of-county hunters in to harvest does.

 

[moosehunter]

Of all the options, I like #1 the best. Economics 101. Lower the price and sell more.

#5 is good. Can it be tied in with the electronic licensing system?

#6 is not a good option. SC for example has a very liberal and long season and they are over run with does and few quality bucks. I don't see where that would help any of us.

#9. We used to have a lottery of sorts for the shotgun season. I remember waiting impatiently for my tag in the mail to see if I got an antlerless only, or an anysex tag. Why did the state go away from that?

My own opinion is: keep it simple. This years centerfire rifle season really worries me and other bowhunters as you have seen on your other post's. There had to be a simpler way to reduce the herd than a centerfire rifle season. State lawmakers, hunters, IDNR, farmers, insurance companies. We all agree a reduction in does is the goal. But let's not make the mistakes other states make. Do what your doing here and talk to the hunters. We are the end user so to speak and are the resident experts. I would bet most bowhunters know as much or more about the deer herd in the area they hunt than just about anyone else.

 

[HighJumper]

Make the bonus antlerless valid for all seasons as mentioned and don't expect to get a 25% reduction in one year. Set reasonable goals! Communicate proactively to the public about the positive reductions happening in the deer heard and how the resident hunters have taken the call and are working with DNR to reach the stated goals. (have the goals been communicated) Head off some of the politics. Even with a 25% reduction in the herd we will still be seeing articles about deer running into SUV's in the DSM register. I am all peppered up now. Those big girls are going to pay this weekend!

 

[kbgibby]

It appears to be an ongoing problem in the same counties from year to year. Dropping price will help, but some counties will still have more than a thousand unsold licenses. You might have to give them away in these areas to get does harvested ... or maybe buy two and get the third one for free.

I think you need to do something to address the access issue for doe permits in areas where not enough does are harvested. How about granting an extra either sex license to landowners who open their property to doe only hunting after the close of second shotgun? Or how about extended muzzleloading seasons in southern two tiers? If you have limited access to scout, at least a muzzleloader improves your odds some.
Or give landowners with deer problems a set number of tags (based on acreage?) that they can distribute -- good for any season. Or they can sell them and keep the money. You've got to come up with some incentive (or penalty) to get more access.

 

[Rae]

I agree with just about everything anyone has said so far about this topic. The one thing I don't agree on is raising the any sex licence and lowering the antlerless licence. I would agree with lowering the antlerless licence. I think that if you raise prices anywhere to make revenue it should be for the out of state hunters. Iowa is known for it's large supply of large antlered deer, so make the people who want them that badly, pay for them. Don't make the people who live here, lose crops, have damaged tree farms, fence mutilation, car damage, etc pay more for the deer that they would already readily hunt. If it is that important that we shoot does then make the out of state licences be a doe only first policy and then send them a buck tag. I live close to the Army Ammuntion plant in Middletown, they have that policy and it works well due to the fact that they know they can kill a doe first day (which most of us can) and yet they can still hunt all season for the big buck. If it comes to shooting a doe first, then getting an any sex tag, then as hunters we need to make sure that the people we hunt with and around are following the rules..don't leave it up to already stressed law enforcement agencies to do all the work. If you need them use them but preach ethical hunting tactics.

I know that some of this was a little different subject, but if you are going to address a problem you have to look at all angles of it to solve it properly.

 

[Daver]

It seems as though my thoughts run along with several others here, but here goes anyway...

Sell the first antlerless only tag for $12 or $15, all subsequent antlerless tags are either $5 or $8. (Or make the first tag $25, good for two does, etc.) Personally, I will confess to passing up more than one doe this year with my bow so far because I thought, "that thing isn't worth $27." Now if I had a $10 tag in my pocket I guarantee there would be at least one fewer doe fawn running around right now. If the next tag was say... $8, well then there would very likely be a couple fewer yet for someone to run into. (BTW - there will be some "doe droppage" this weekend on my farm, so no one needs to flame me because I haven't shot any does yet.

)

Access - as mentioned by others too is a huge deal in SOME areas. There are more than a few prime habitats that I know of where people do not want to "screw up" the timber shooting does because they really want to maximize their chances at Mr. Big. I don't have a great solution here, unless maybe an incentive could be provided to landowners who let others hunt or otherwise keep the does in line themselves. Perhaps allow the "selfless"/doe shooting landowner to maintain the ability to get up to 3 anysex licenses per year. Conversely, penalize the "selfish"/non-doe shooting landowner by allowing only one anysex tag per year or charging them more for the anysex tags they do get or something. I know on my farm there are 3 or 4 does shot every year per 1 buck, but magically there are still tons of does around. I have to suspect not all of my neighbors are hitting the does like we are, but then again, I really don't know that for sure.

Raise the resident anysex to $35 and raise the NR anysex to $400. This could help offset any reduced revenue from cheaper antlerless tags.

Let antlerless tags be used during any legal season and weapon combination. In my case I am still sitting on a county specific antlerless bow tag that odds are good I will not fill because I am not sure how many bow hunts I will be able to squeeze in from here on out. Now I plan on taking my son(s) and some friends this weekend, but I will be more of guide than a hunter myself. So I am not likely to buy another specific antlerless tag for this weekend because I am not even sure I would be able to use it. However, if I could legally whack a doe this weekend with my muzzleloader and use my unspent antlerless bow tag, then I'd say there is 99% chance there is one less doe in the woods come Saturday. Ironically, if I could get an $8 tag for this weekend I would probably go for it and not to be concerned that I didn't get a chance to use it.

Charge very low amounts for youth, less than 18 years old, antlerless tags. Again from a personal point of view, I have already sprung for a $27 bow tag for my 13 year old, he's hunted once so far, and if I get him an antlerless tag for this weekend then I think I owe another $27, etc. Now my other son wants to go, age 11, but can only hunt one morning, so do I drop another $27 for a 3 hour hunt... I don't want to poor mouth it too much, but things can really add up fast for a family and the reality is the kids are not the ones knocking down the big bucks for the most part. They are thrilled shooting does, so let's make it easy for them. I say $5 antlerless tags for kids, unlimited number. BTW this would also help "recruit" young hunters to our sport.

Now along with any relaxation of the antlerless tag prices and uses, TRIPLE the fines for their misuse. Clearly, SOME people misuse the antlerless tags to pursue bucks. I say make it hurt big time if that is what they are doing. Who knows, maybe the revenue "loss" of cheaper antlerless tags can be MORE THAN offset be penalizing the cheaters.

Thanks for asking, sorry to ramble on.

 

[JNRBRONC]

The deer depredation program also needs changes, IMO. I had the area depredation officer out to survey damage on my farm. First, I would like to take issue with the criteria for tags to be issued. A farmer has to meet a minimum threshold of $1,000 damage. This may seem acceptable but it does not take into consideration the farm size. A $1,000 dollar loss on 250 acres is much more substantial than on 2,500 acres. There should be a monetary threshold and/or percentage of crop loss to make this fair. My farm qualified, but the paperwork bogged the whole process down. The depredation tags were only good for one season (early muzzleloader or first shotgun or late muzzleloader, etc.) and cost $11 each (which is the same as across the counter antlerless county quota tags after the first $27 license is purchased). My group opted to just buy tags across the counter as it was just plain easier! There were no forms to fill out and send in like there was with the depredation tags. Depredation tags should be valid antlerless any season, IMO. If access is an issue, which I believe it is in southern Iowa, you really need to get the landowners involved. Changing the way depredation tags are issued might help. The down side of our approach to this was that depredation tags do not count towards the county quota and by buying ours over the counter, we might have deprived someone else of the opportunity.

Thanks for letting me share my views on this topic.

 

[WI Shedhead]

Wisconsin has tried many of these type of proposals and they always end up getting back to 2 types of senarios. They have recognized that unless antlerless tags are CHEAP (as in free or $3 for a bonus tag) that they cannot get hunters to shoot extra deer. The other is that they force you to kill does (earn a buck) which is very unpopular but extremely effective.
I would bet my money you guys are looking at this in the future in some areas.

As an NR I find it ridiculous that I cannot help out a farmer and buy extra doe tags to fill my freezer. My family eats 6 deer a year and it doesn't make any darn difference to me what state they are from, they all taste the same.
In 2003 and 2004 I hunted the 1st shotgun season with a NR doe tag that I paid $258 for to keep my hunting privelges on a farm in NE Iowa. It would have been nice to shoot 5 does instead of the 1 doe I came home with because of the current laws.

WI Shedhead

FYI- I am for NR caps and against NR buck shotgun party hunting with antlerless tags. It defeats the purpose of this liscense as people are just using this as an extension of the shotgun buck season

 

[boacephus]

I agree with moose hunter.

I agree with option #1 I have bought 5 antlerless tags this year. I would have bought more if the price was cheaper.

Not sure which option it was but doe tags open for any season sounds good to me. I can see a loss of revenue though, if I had unfilled tags that I could still use that would limit my number of tags bought.

Number 5 sounds good also I wouldn't think it would be all that hard to track using the ELSI. No hunters wouldn't enjoy having to take a doe somewhere to check it in but you would get use to it. I grew up in WV where you got a transportation tag, then took it to a game checking station(conv store, bar, etc), it really isn't that bad, and would help keep better track of numbers harvested. Maybe get support from WU, they seem to have a largest doe contest in my area every year, maybe those bars involved could also be used as checking stations. Perhaps check in three does get one free doe tag or dollar off next years license for every doe harvested. Again tracking may be a con but just me quandering.

How about allowing a hunter to hunt both shotgun seasons but only one either sex tag, must choose which season. Add Early muzzleloader to that also. I hunted EM so I can not hunt either shotgun season. That is a loss of revenue and does harvested, I would love to still be able to hunt does during the shotgun seasons!! Yes I am hunting this weekend. I don't think guys shooting bucks during a shotgun season even though they don't have a either sex tag is an arguement, it happens now anyhow. I know of some parties that one guy has managed to fill everyones either sex tags.


I don't think any option that would limit a hunter to antlerless only is a good idea. If they don't get the buck tag they may not hunt at all.

It took me so long thinking on this one 5 others posted, lol.

I agree with daver also, make the fines stiffer. Not only monetary value to help offset loss of revenue but also, take their hunting previleges if you don't already. Take them for even minor infractions.

 

[River1]

Willie, thank you for coming here and asking our opinions!

My 2 cents.


Lowering the antlerless cost would be beneficial. Especially the initial tag.

Why not allow the antlerless tags which go unfilled in the early seasons to become valid for the late muzz and January hunt?

Or make the antlerless tags valid for any season.

We need better effort in limiting the coffee shop talk. It's apparent to me that the DNR needs to get more proactive with educating/communicating with the public on the issues we face. Most people haven't a clue what is exactly going on, including myself to an extent. Some of the things I hear the general public say in regard to the deer population issue is rediculous. A-lot of what I hear people say unnecessarily reflects poorly on the DNR. I can tell you my local paper has had extremely limited info on the issue.

With that, people need to know the fact that "access" is a MAJOR factor in the problems we face. Maybe the folks who don't allow hunting, limit access, or don't properly control the herd on their property, should be feel a bit more responsible.

 

[cornfield]

I would say that you should get a program in place that gives accurate information as to what the REAL deer population and harvest statistics are. As you have stated on here before WJS you really don't have an accurate number as to what the deer population is overall. I have seen less deer this year than ever, and absolutely dread the upcoming doe season. Now, here we are before the new seasons are even taking place looking for changes for next year. I am sure that whatever the changes are, we will all know about them after the fact, just like this year. Many of us already argued that these new season for '05 would not have the desired effect, and now you are implying that they may not obtain your herd reduction goals before the sun has even set on them. Are you looking for new seasons/regs. in addition to the new ones this year, or are you looking for suggestions for next year to take the place of this years changes? I realize that you are just doing some brain storming and trying to get some ideas from us. I do appreciate very much the fact that you take the time to keep us informed, and I hope that you are sincere in your efforts to have us involved. It seems to me that it would be a lot better to have a doe season in Sept. vs. Jan. You would get a lot more hunters willing to be out then and there would be no question as to whether you were shooting at a buck that had shed out. The percentage of bucks shot now in the late season does absolutely no good for population control. Seems that you could have a doe season in Sept. and sell lots of tags. Folks are chomping at the bit to get in the field at that time. Being able to hit those green bean fields before the acorns drop would make it pretty darn easy to put the hammer on some does. Raising the prices won't reduce the deer herd. For $27 you should get an any sex tag and an antlerless tag. Then be able to buy antlerless tags for $12 after that.

 

[tracker]

Why not make the FREE LANDOWNERS antlerless only for 1 or 2 years. You are not loosing any revenue because the tags are free, and you also reduce the doe herd.

 

[tracker]

Also increase the FREE LANDOWNERS from 1 either sex to 2 ANTLERLESS.

 

[Windwalker]

I hate giving up my buck tag but would love to see doe only in the bottom two tiers of countys. Its a win win thing . Two yrs of that hunting bucks would be great and the forced reduction of does would work too

Thanks