View Full Version : turkey hunting harvest tag!
04-09-2001, 05:47 AM
Just wanted to let everyone know that we were told at are n.w.t.f banquet by a d.n.r official that you will not have to get a harvest tag for your bird after it is shot.
This was stopped at the statehouse not to long ago.If there is a d.n.r official using this board maybe they can answer the question's on this subject better then I can,I really do not know all the detail's on it.
04-10-2001, 08:46 AM
It's true. In the legislature's infinite wisdom they shot down the DNR's attempt to get more accurate and timely harvest data to better manage our wildlife resource.
They thought that the proposed ELSI check-in would put too much of a burden on hunters to find one of the 800 plus ELSI vendors scattered throughout the state to check-in their turkey. This also kills the deer check-in for this upcoming fall.
State Conservation Officer
I am in full agreement with BLind Sow. It is a shame that the ELSI check-in was shot down. It may not have been the best system for collecting data but it sure beats our sampling system in place now.
Does anyone know where the opposition came from? Surely it was not hunters and or conservationists? Who penned the opposition bill and who sponsored it? We need to get them OUT of our legislature.
My opinion is that it probably comes down to us not wanting to be told what to do or making a little more effort out of something we think is okay as it is.
I know myself that I personally have not supported this but am willing to change my pattern to accomodate the DNR if they think it is a good plan and bother to explain it to me. I know from attending public meetings with the DNR in the past that the majority of Iowa hunters are not in attendance. I would guess there are probably a lot of hunters out there that are less informed or concerned about the benefit of this info to the DNR that may have expressed their concerns about it. Just like the ratio of Iowa Bowhunters versus members of the IBA. What is it 10% or so?
04-15-2001, 08:29 AM
04-24-2001, 07:18 AM
Of the surrounding states, only South Dakota and Iowa have no big game check-in policy. I grew up in Minnesota and have successfully hunted turkeys in Missouri, where check-ins are required. It's no hassle whatsoever. Both MN and MO require you to bring thre animal into the check station, Iowa's proposal just required you to come in and fill out some info--you didn't need to bring the animal in. It would have been easy, much more acurate than the current system and would have given the DNR a lot of quality information.
There are certain people in our legislature that feel the DNR is a loose cannon and will object to just about anything the DNR proposes--whether it's a good idea or not, simply because it's the DNR.
Especially after the dove issue, some legislators are scrambling to make themselves look good to the hunters, so they think if they "stand up to the DNR" they can come home from Des Moines and tell us how they "fought against tough DNR restrictions that would merely hassle hunters." They think by pitting us against the DNR it will make them look good. It just goes to show how ignorant our legislature is when it comes to conservation management issues.
04-24-2001, 08:22 AM
It is tremendously unfortunate for sportsmen in Iowa that a real conflict has developed between the IDNR and legislators. Sportsmen and wildlife are the losers.
The IDNR has brought this upon themselves. The department has had the attitude that they do not have to answer to any citizen or legislative direction. I am not sure what started the fracas, but the deer population issue was one of the first that I am aware of.
I do not believe that legislators should attempt to micromanage animal populations. That is best left in the hands of professional biologists. However, these biologists should be receptive to citizen inputs. The perceived attitude that if you do not have a degree in animal biology your concerns are of no value does no good fostering the departments public relations.
04-24-2001, 08:28 AM
Great point.Hey guy's wether you thought this would be a hassle or not it would have been better in the long run for everybody.It would have given the D.N.R the info they needed to better manage the resource.We all need to stand together and believe in what are D.N.R is trying to do,I think they have proven themself's,look at what they have done so far and I think you will begin to relize how good we have it here at home.I just hunted turkey's in Arkansas and believe me I came home thanking the lord for our hunting here in Iowa.
Sorry to go on and on but I think we all need to quit questioning our guy's and back them up and believe in what there trying to do.Write your state rep and let him know what you think on the subject and where you stand.
04-24-2001, 10:46 AM
I guess I miss the importance of registering turkeys for Bio data. Turkeys are a pain in the butt and are everywhere. I see no way to even control there numbers, and there numbers will always be high. Tags are for the whole state so no zone control can be used. Why spend money doing this when we need that money to buy land. I don`t see the ELSI folks doing this for free. And as far as the 800 + ESLI systems, where are they, Wal-mart, sporting good store etc. I can not see myself dragging a dead turkey throught Wal-mart to have it checked. Most states that have check-in station have them at "Bob`s General store". Why waste the funds on a animal that will never be able to be controlled. The data will be a great source of finding out where the big ones are mostly shot, but I do not support creating hot spots myself. So, why do we need to report turkeys ?
04-24-2001, 12:34 PM
The following is the last portion of the weekly column I wrote for the Council Bluffs Daily Nonpareil dated April 19.
"The other week I reported that the new DNR rule requiring electronic reporting of turkey and deer taken by hunters was killed by a joint resolution of the Iowa House and Senate. Legislators drafted the resolution after reportedly receiving phone calls from Iowa hunters who thought the 48-hours reporting requirement and the fine for not reporting ($145 including court cost and surcharge) were unreasonable.
Compared to other states, Iowa's proposed reporting system was very lenient. For comparison sake, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Missouri require hunters to physically take deer and turkey to a check station to register the harvest. Nebraska requires checking deer, but not turkeys.
Iowa's proposed 48-hour registration rule would have been more liberal that any other state on turkeys - 3 of 4 states require checking the same day of kill, one state within 24 hours. For deer, Iowa was in the middle - two states require checking the same day or within 24 hours, three states require checking by the end of the season.
The total fine ($145) was within range of other states, and compared to some, was very low. In Illinois, failure to check a turkey had two options. If the individual plead guilty the fine was $75 plus court costs (for a total of at least $100) - but - if the individual plead not guilty and lost in court the fine could be up to $1500 plus they would forfeit the animal. In Wisconsin failure to tag a turkey is a $500 fine plus court cost and failure to check a tagged animal is $168.20. In some Canadian provinces failure to return the harvest survey card will result in the hunter not getting a license the following year.
The past several years has seen numerous bills introduced relating to deer and turkey. Most of them have related to the deer's and turkey's perceived overpopulation.
The DNR estimates the deer population by combining three sources: road kill statistics, late winter aerial surveys (done by wildlife biologists) and hunter postcard surveys.
Withoug reliable and timely information season setting is held back and becomes more guess work. Compared to other states, Iowa's electronic harvest report rule was not a hardship on the hunter.
The DNR needs a more timely and accurate method of recording deer and turkey harvest data to better manage our wildlife. The electronic system would have been a step in the right direction."
The postcard survey has a very poor return rate. There is a follow-up after several weeks to people who didn't return the first postcard mailing - and there is a third. All this takes time. After that time, then the numbers still have to be crunched and a proposed season set on incomplete data.
With the electronic check-in all the data would be in the computer 48 hours after the last day of the season for either deer or turkey. Plus the data would be from all the successful hunters, not just a random few as is now the case with the postcard survey.
As for the fine being too high. You can again thank the legislators. Last year they made a sweeping revision of fines levied on many violations including fish and game, but they didn't do their homework very well.
As of now no fishing or hunting license the fine is set at $100 and with court cost and surcharge thrown in the total is $145. There is a bill pended within the legislature that would put fish and game fines back where they were.
To reiterate what NateW said--a physical check-in of the turkey or deer is not needed as Not-So misunderstood. It would have been a piece of paper that came with your deer/turkey license.
State Conservation Officer
Not-so. As a professional wildlife biologist with a degree from Iowa State. I think that it's my place to tell you that you don't have a clue. Your babbling just goes to show what we as responsible sportsmen are trying to overcome. If ignorance is bliss, you're a pretty happy guy. Hopefully continued visits to this site will help to inform you on the way that thing really work. Successfull management is the sole reason that there are turkeys all over. Or did you think that this just happened?
04-24-2001, 11:33 PM
The check-in requirement only asked that you fill out paper work, you were not required to take the turkey or deer anywhere. This would allow the DNR to know for sue how many turkeys are harvested, and how many deer are harvested each year. Right now, everything is an educated guess, and that's not good. managine a resourse has to have a facts a little more harder than the "They're everywhere" mentality.
To ensure we have a stable healthy population, the DNR biologists need to have some kind of knowledge of how many animals are being harvested. It ill only make the resource better in the long run.
04-25-2001, 07:32 AM
Good piece Doug, I like your work.
I find this statement surprising:
"Legislators drafted the resolution after reportedly receiving phone calls from Iowa hunters who thought the 48-hours reporting requirement and the fine for not reporting ($145 including court cost and surcharge) were unreasonable."
I spend a lot of time with a lot of hunters. I have never heard anyone say they were against this until reading this board yesterday. I have a pretty good relationship with my State Senator and my HoR Member. I'm going to check with them and see how many "Iowa Hunters" they heard from. (Both voted in favor of the checking system).
Keep up the good info!
04-25-2001, 08:38 AM
On Monday I was talking to my district supervisor and he mentioned that he attended the legislative breakfast in his area last Saturday. One of his legislators said that even though he had 15 hunters tell him they were in favor of a license increase for residents (and none spoke against it) he still opposed any increase because he calls it a tax increase. So much for voting what your constituents want.
04-26-2001, 08:51 PM
This is just a theory, but I wonder just how much the retailers had to defeat this new process. This would create more work for the retailer with out making anymore sales off of the hunter, they have already purchased there gear. I know that the process wouldn't take much time to do, but that all adds up if you do 1000 tags or more in a weeks time and you know that there are places that will do much more than that.
Just my opinion and I mean nothing bad to someone that might be a retailer, and I could understand where this might be a problem for some retailers.
Just one more thing, I was in favor of the new process and even checking in the actual animal if needed. I feel that this might help elimanate this crazy season selection process. If the DNR had adequate info on each species it might do away with short hunting seasons and lengthen them, like turkey season with short first and second season.
[This message has been edited by Chipguy (edited 04-26-2001).]
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.