This puts you in a category with Mississippi and Alabama.
Whoa!! That's hittin' below the belt right there, I think you must be lookin' for a throwdown!
![Big Grin :D :D]()
I'll have you know right now that I have all my teeth AND I am NOT married to one of my cousins!!
Getting back to my point...all I can say is that I could care less if the DNR moved the resident landowners back to two bucks per year like everyone else, it is a non-factor for me AND I do not see any real evidence that the three buck option is really impacting anything relating to our deer herd. However, there are several other factors that have a real impact on our deer populations and land access and I would prefer that we focus our attention on those items. Simply, major on the majors and minor on the minors.
Thinking back to a person I know well that has probably shot 150+ deer in the last 3 or 4 years here in Iowa, mainly attributable to the liberalized antlerless late season. Even while trying to be careful about it I know he has shot probably
at least a dozen shed or button bucks. Frankly, after shooting that many baldies, most of them at longer ranges with a rifle, I think he has done well not to shoot more sheds/buttons.
So while he has never purposely shot 3 antlered bucks in a year, he is a land owner too, he has been taking 5 or more bucks out of the pool every year. If I stand back and hold my head just right, I can see where that one guy right there is taking more bucks from a given county in a year than ALL THE REST OF COUNTY LANDOWNERS TAKING A THIRD BUCK added together. So again, all I am saying is that let's focus our energy on those items that actually are impacting us and the 3rd landowner buck isn't it. I am not arguing in favor, or against, the 3rd buck tag, I am just saying let's get things in the proper perspective as we try to analyze the situations.