Fletch NY

Deer contraception will NEVER be cost effective compared to someone who is willing to pay to do it or do it for free. Yes I said NEVER.

What will happen is these anti idiots will keep getting grants to do their studies, which will keep failing.Then the cost will be brought up and public meetings will be held and the contraceptive pushers will be told to go take a hike. The only places it would hold is in private areas where they get private backing to do it.

What scares me is that they get to do these test areas shootin God knows what into the deer. They could end up sterilizing the whole herd or making them unsafe for consumption. The drugs used could be transfered all through the ecosystem. What happens to an animal who eats a deer just shot with this stuff? What happens to a hunter who eats one of these deer? These are questions I would like to know.

skidder

why not just give more tags... what the frig... people are dumb....

Red Lion

If hunting is a plan that is already working, why are deer populations stillrising, why do biologists want more deer taken, and why is contraception even being considered?That would be a nice little box you put yourself in, me boy!

Red Lion

And when did "cost effective" ever mean "free" or no cost. Another box you you me boy!

hardcorehunter

http://www.iowadnr.com/wildlife/pdfs/06deerhunting.pdf

Scroll down to Dale Garner, head IA DNR.

Dr Andy

Deer populations are rising because of the out-dated mentality of not shooting does! Only recently have the doe only seasons started to produce results. I personally know several Hunters (gun) that will not shoot a doe! The ratios are out of whack in many areas. As for urban and suburban hunting with bows many of the members here feel it is too easy to kill these tame urban deer and don't want to hunt them prefering to drive into rural areas for a more rural hunt. Given a choice I'd rather not hear leafblowers and traffic when i hunt,but if we are unwilling to hunt inthese urban areas other methods must be developed to control the population. Lets do our part and hunt close to home whenever possible.

huntingdiva1

That was a long one to read. Anyway these are my thoughts on this issue for what it is worth. First of all, let's note that we are all hunters on this site. This being said we all have a responsibility to protect this amazing tradition. We all need to remember that weare a small percentage of America's population, I believe that percentage is something like 5%. It is our duty as hunters to be aware of issues that could effect our hunting tradition. As times have changed, we do not need to hunt for food anymore. This changes the climate dramatically, when speaking of non-hunters. Many people do not know anything about hunting and therefore have no understanding of how it effects our wildlife population. When you have about 95% of the population not hunting, it is cause for some concern. While the Pittman-Robertson act of 1937, did set down a awesome wildlife restoration and protection act by allotting 11% of arms, ammunition and archery sales and 10% of handgun sales to the restoration, rehabilitation, and improvement of wildlife habitat and management research. Also in 1970 it permitted funds to be used for hunter training and the maintenance of public ranges. Hunters and non-hunters both enjoy the fruits of these monies in our public wildlife areas. I say that hunters are an amazing group, we are the original conservationists! Most non-hunters do not have a clue how we help control healthy habits and populations for the animals we find so fascinating.We as hunters spend a good portion of our lives involved with wildlife management. Again, I say, every chance we get we need to further the education of the 95% of us that do not hunt. Only through education and communication will view points change. I know I personally use every chance I get to educate my female friends about why I hunt, and why it is important! Okay enough ranting, to the topic, I live in Iowa and have researched this topic some as I like to stay abreast of what is happening that could cause problems in the sport I love. I have found nothing that indicates that this is a plausible method of control. I am not staying that in upcoming years as medications become more advanced that this could become something to worry about in the future. From what I have researched the current situation is not suitable for birth control for deer to be a preferred method of population control. It is impractical due to cost and also the fact that every female deer in a location would have to be captured or darted and then re darted in subsequent booster shots to ensure effectiveness of the medications. Due to the extreme cost and personel needed to complete this task, I do not think it would be viable unless in a controlled and small area. I am not saying it could never happen, times change. I am saying that currently it is not viable. I am also saying that we as hunters need to stick together and stay abreast of topics that could alter the tradition of hunting that we all love.

GMMAT

I agree, hoytgirl.....and that means in EVERY STATE. We need to worry about what's going on in NJ, MI, etc.., etc..., etc...

Imagine gay marriage going to a vote in the US. Now UNDERSTAND that it's LEGAL in the US. Now imagine how many people DO NOT HUNT.

I'm not afraid.....but I'm DAMNED cautious and I am SURELY not boastful as to what I think our power as a group (didn't someone say 5%) is.

I hope contraceptives for deer never takes hold...................AGAIN.

huntingdiva1

I agree completely with you on that point. Just look at what has happened with gun control and rights in other countries! Now there is an industry with a ton of money backing it up! I know thattopic is a whole new can of worms, but, in comparison, it is similar. One must always watch and be active in what is happening around them, because change will always come knocking at ones door. And, I for one want to be aware of the issues and conditions of any given topic I find interest in.

ahunter55

I have responded to this earlier when I read the article.
Write/e-mail to Mr. Dale Garner Wildlife Bureau Chief of Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources. Go to Iowa dnr & you can send them the e-mail.
This is my letter & my opinion & suggesstions. We need others to give them good sound suggestions. I know everyone will not agree but we need to start somewhere. WRITE or E-MAIL If you truly want this to change.

Mr. Garner:
I recently read an article about the idea of birth control injection for our Iowa Whitetail. I am sure our DNR has done it's homework on this . I have been active in the Bowhunting Community for over 50 years now AND the general response from hunters is that 1-Does not work 2-very expensive 3-better alternatives for less $$$$.
EVERYONE "seems" to agree we need to reduce or at least control the growth of our Whitetail population. Persons with the suppossed knowledge of how to do this also agree it is in the control of the "DOE" portion of the herd.
Some of the suggesstions the hunting community feel are better are listed. We all know they will lean toward the hunter but we also know "THEY" are the ones really interested in the well being of the animal they want & love to hunt.

1-HAVE A "DOE" only season. The parks in our states & "In CITY Limit" special hunts do this. It "WORKS".
2-Let Bowhunters take DOES ONLY the last 2 weeks of Sept. with an affordable tag or tags good only until Oct. 1st. Then let them purchase the regular season either sex tags.
3-Give the Gun Hunters an extra day or two-FIRST DAY(or two)OF the season-DOE ONLY.. If you need to, ad the Doe tag to the either sex tag & make it for the FIRST DAY or something similar.
YES, it will increase the season BUT it will increase the DOE HARVEST-that is what is desired.
Hunters ARE the ones who can & will controll your Whitetail if given the encentive to take the Does.

I am sure your staff/Biologists ect. have considered several options but many in the hunting community wonder about the birth control idea.

Illinois seems to have the right idea-their tags consist of 1 either sex & 1 antlerless for a modest $25 resident fee. They may purchase a 2nd identical tag for another $25 with a maximum of 2 Bucks harvested the entire season. After that, they may purchase unlimited ANTLERLESS tags provided there are no specific rules in that particular county. I think this is a modest $10 each.
I am sure there are several better options floating around & you will never satisfy everyone. We have to keep the "What is the best" feasable IDEA to accomplish the "GOAL".
Thank you for your time,
A concerned resident.
John C. Law

Okay fellas-it's time to step up to the plate with your suggesstions.
DNR can always use a little help.