Windlooker
Well-Known Member
No. They are Iowans supporting Iowa hunting, hunters, and conservation efforts. Friends of Iowa were NRLOs led by a wealthy landowner from Texas. I believe his handle was OrionWhitetails back in the day.
OFFENSE!! 2 Bills to support!! SF 293 & SF 247 EMAIL IN!!! What a great change!!!!
This discussion or bill has ZERO to do with class warfare or keeping the little man down. It could be interpreted that way as it clearly is discussing increasing the acres for a THIRD buck tag. The real reason for the bill is based on:
1) the biology of how many mature bucks live in a section & the trend statewide of LESS mature bucks vs more. There’s also context that we are the only Midwest state where u can shoot 3+ bucks & have the smallest deer herd with least habitat.
2) there’s literally a dozen++++ legislators, law enforcement, views of dnr, etc that want this law adjusted. Complaints, violations, getting it buttoned up so folks who don’t qualify can more easily be removed, impacts to pressure & lock up of land, on & on. REMEMBER- the DNR for example can’t write a bill. They can’t hardly have a public opinion. Most of this has came from legislators trying to be the voice for the DNR.
3) from hunters, i overwhelmingly believe this is purely “what can we do to dial things back”? Improve things for everyone. & get broad support on the “easy small fixes that we hear a lot of complaints on”? Or the BIG things - we can do multiple.
4) it also saves some guys from themselves without even knowing it. The folks who can’t give an inch but will get rolled over if this ever flipped for the outfitters, special interest loving Legislators or a small group seeking XYZ NR perk - to keep using this as ammo to change our regs.
The ISC in good faith got with members to find feedback & common ground on this bill & have the dialogue. No one can say that isn’t frigin impressive & something few other orgs would ever do. And pivot based on member feedback. If you complain after they did that- sorry, u r in the .0001% that can’t be pleased & understand they have gone above & beyond with communication, work, dialogue & listening. Remember - ISC, IBA, etc- these groups aren’t about “what can I get so I make $!” They are 100% “how can we help the resource & lift EVERYONE up.
So- look what happened…. All parties come to table …. YOU!!!!! Either side of debate. Legislators, conservation groups, etc….. all sides said “I’m ok with some compromise”….. “how about we drop it from 40 acres to 10 & grandfather in current folks?” The only thing missing was “can we get better verification & enforcement for those that don’t own the land or have zero merit to be getting this tag (clean up the rolls so it’s accurate”?? “SURE- everyone agrees to that!!” & that’s probably what the will see.
1) the biology of how many mature bucks live in a section & the trend statewide of LESS mature bucks vs more. There’s also context that we are the only Midwest state where u can shoot 3+ bucks & have the smallest deer herd with least habitat.
2) there’s literally a dozen++++ legislators, law enforcement, views of dnr, etc that want this law adjusted. Complaints, violations, getting it buttoned up so folks who don’t qualify can more easily be removed, impacts to pressure & lock up of land, on & on. REMEMBER- the DNR for example can’t write a bill. They can’t hardly have a public opinion. Most of this has came from legislators trying to be the voice for the DNR.
3) from hunters, i overwhelmingly believe this is purely “what can we do to dial things back”? Improve things for everyone. & get broad support on the “easy small fixes that we hear a lot of complaints on”? Or the BIG things - we can do multiple.
4) it also saves some guys from themselves without even knowing it. The folks who can’t give an inch but will get rolled over if this ever flipped for the outfitters, special interest loving Legislators or a small group seeking XYZ NR perk - to keep using this as ammo to change our regs.
The ISC in good faith got with members to find feedback & common ground on this bill & have the dialogue. No one can say that isn’t frigin impressive & something few other orgs would ever do. And pivot based on member feedback. If you complain after they did that- sorry, u r in the .0001% that can’t be pleased & understand they have gone above & beyond with communication, work, dialogue & listening. Remember - ISC, IBA, etc- these groups aren’t about “what can I get so I make $!” They are 100% “how can we help the resource & lift EVERYONE up.
So- look what happened…. All parties come to table …. YOU!!!!! Either side of debate. Legislators, conservation groups, etc….. all sides said “I’m ok with some compromise”….. “how about we drop it from 40 acres to 10 & grandfather in current folks?” The only thing missing was “can we get better verification & enforcement for those that don’t own the land or have zero merit to be getting this tag (clean up the rolls so it’s accurate”?? “SURE- everyone agrees to that!!” & that’s probably what the will see.
JNRBRONC
Well-Known Member
My question is who would do the checking? DNR home office personnel? Do they have better things to do with their time?
People have already shown "how creative" they can be to dodge regulations. The cleanest and administratively easy approach is to shutter the whole program. Another case of a few bad apples spoiling the whole bunch.
Again, drop the any-sex LOT, offer a couple of LOT antlerless-only to help manage population for those who deem it necessary for their situation.
Windlooker
Well-Known Member
Not that hard. Eliminate the tenant LOT. DNR personnel look up a parcel with the applicants name. That’s it. Parcel must show adequate acreage and the name of the person receiving LOT. It’s a few minutes on the county assessors website. Done. If they’re are two names on a parcel they ask who wants the tag. Happened to me last year.
Thinkin Rut
PMA Member
Keep it at 40 and grandfather everyone in for a set time, say 3-5 years. Put them on notice. Keep the tags as they are now with a 2 buck limit. Hit your 2 and you're tagged out. Keep shotgun party hunting intact to satisfy that shrinking crowd. Everyone sacrifices. A genuine thank you Skip for the work that you put in no matter how it turns out.
daniel93077
Active Member
Getting rid of the Landowner Tag completely would be the common-sense bill proposed if this were truly about caring for the herd. I say that as someone who wouldn't be restricted by the current bill. But that’s not what this bill does—it easily could have, but it didn’t. If this were really about the herd, we wouldn't be debating some number—10, 15, 20, 38, 40.
One tag is not some magic fix for herd management. If landowner tags were truly necessary for managing deer numbers, then the handful of extra deer taken on properties under 40 acres wouldn’t be enough to make or break the herd.
The real solution? Scrap this bill and push for legislation that actually prioritizes the health of the herd—get rid of the landowner tag.
The landowner tag is a privilege of land ownership, not a necessity for conservation.
One tag is not some magic fix for herd management. If landowner tags were truly necessary for managing deer numbers, then the handful of extra deer taken on properties under 40 acres wouldn’t be enough to make or break the herd.
The real solution? Scrap this bill and push for legislation that actually prioritizes the health of the herd—get rid of the landowner tag.
The landowner tag is a privilege of land ownership, not a necessity for conservation.
Last edited:
seven twenty
PMA Member
The trigger of this debate was the acreage limit. If the proposal had been 2 anysex tags and keeping the LOT floating I doubt we’d be 16 pages in. The whining from the other side that some might get 3 buck tags is just something to whine about. 80% of the people that get a LOT do not follow up and get 2 statewides on top of it. That is a statistic directly from the DNR. Of 30,750 people that got a LOT, 6313 hunters also purchased 2 statewides. Figure in the success rate and how many of that 6k were small parcel and this bill wasn’t going to have a noticeable affect on management.
Another phrase that is getting used regularly is that ”it’s for the betterment of the resource”. Be honest, it’s all about horns. The arguments from the other side are all about “buck” tags. Ask any biologist and they will tell you straight up that population management is not addressed by limiting the harvest of males. Just the opposite or everything is shut down.
Honest question, how many knew of this or had heard of it before it was brought up here? Looking across all the media where it’s being discussed, most are against it as written. I think everyone should be happy if Skips final ”understanding” is what gets approved. Nobody in their current status should feel picked on and it sets a reasonable minimum for future qualification.
Another phrase that is getting used regularly is that ”it’s for the betterment of the resource”. Be honest, it’s all about horns. The arguments from the other side are all about “buck” tags. Ask any biologist and they will tell you straight up that population management is not addressed by limiting the harvest of males. Just the opposite or everything is shut down.
Honest question, how many knew of this or had heard of it before it was brought up here? Looking across all the media where it’s being discussed, most are against it as written. I think everyone should be happy if Skips final ”understanding” is what gets approved. Nobody in their current status should feel picked on and it sets a reasonable minimum for future qualification.
I can’t help but laugh at everyone saying I will give up my LOT anysex tag because I think it will help the herd. Many of which bought their land not to make a living off it but solely to deer hunt on it. Then others say you should have to have at least 40 acres to qualify. I really don’t care if it is 2,5,10,15, 20, 40, 80 acres. It won’t make a difference.
Just look in the above post. It said that 5036 bucks were taken in 22/23 with anysex LOT tags. Do you guys realize that Iowa has 55,857 square miles of land inside its borders. So that means less than one buck for every 10 square miles of land was tagged with anysex LOT tag. Just a reminder…a square mile is 640 acres. So less than one buck on every 6400 acres was tagged with an anysex LOT tag. Boy those anysex LOT are really destroying our herd. And those guys with just 2 acres are obviously the problem. If you think having one more buck wandering around on 6400 acres that more than likely you won’t ever get access to is really going to be a game changer! You’re crazy. Good thing you guys are really focused on the important things! Just drop the idea of getting rid of a buck tag. It won’t help you get a bigger buck.
The only way to improve your hunting is to increase the population and there will be plenty of resistance from FB and the other insurance companies. Everyone should be putting 100% of their efforts into decreasing doe tag allocations and educating people to not shoot does if your population is down. Even if the DNR doesn’t change the doe tag allocations. That doesn’t mean we have to buy them or fill them. Educate your fellow hunters.
Do you realize how many farmers look at the anysex and antlerless LOT tags as the one little bone the IDNR throws them for feeding the deer herd all year. I am not talking about the deer farmers on here either. I’m talking about regular farmers that hunt deer for fun and to control the population. Not as a lifestyle. Sure let’s take away their anysex LOT. Then tell them that the IDNR is going to decrease the doe tags so we can have even more deer running around eating their crops. Sounds like great idea…let’s piss off 75% of FB’s membership by telling them they shouldn’t be able to shoot a buck with their LOT tag and make them think they are going to see herds of deer all over their crop fields again and in front of their wife’s car. Just like they used to see in the mid 2000’s. Can’t wait to see FB reaction when their members are calling and messaging their leadership asking them what they are going to do about loosing their anysex LOT and the DNR’s big plans to increase the deer population.
You guys really need to stop pushing this nonsense. If a guy farms 5 acres or 160 acres or 1000 acres and looses two acres of production due to deer damage. Two acres of 200 bushel/acre corn x $5.00 = $2000. You don’t think they should get an anysex LOT tag? There is a lot more deer damage done than you think. I’ve seen deer nip the silk off corn and completely destroy a two acre food plot in two weeks. Just because you distribute that same number of deer and damage over 5 acres or 160 acres or 1000 acres doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. Just means their yield monitor will read less. That was done in two weeks now calculate the amount of damage done to a producer’s corn and beans from April to October. Leave the anysex and antlerless LOT tags alone. They are not hurting the resource and are a nice gesture to the FB/farming community.
Pick the battles that will make a difference. Not battles that just burn political capital.
Last edited:
daniel93077
Active Member
This is where I'm at... either leave LOT as is if truly needed....or..... get rid of LOT all together if it isn't. The bill as written definitely does nothing but burn political capital with those supporting true conservation based on data and evidence. The way it's written calls the integrity of the bill into question.
Really good question!!! Also fair, well thought out & stated. I think this POV would have a chunk of population thinking same lines & I’ll give you my honest answer….
1) when we say betterment - is it about “horns”? Partially YES…. We want a balanced age class. We want some mature bucks to be on the average block or a reasonable chance at one. When u have a balanced age class…. Clearly u have bigger “horns”. Would we prefer the opposite of that? like my home state of MI where most 1.5 gets gunned down & 1/3rd of the hunters quit in 20 years cause everyone says “this sucks!!!” Or places where u can shoot rifles in the middle of the rut & most parcels don’t have one mature buck around. Or …. What some groups want & to some degree have gotten: NO DEER PERIOD!!! So ya, I would say age class, robust population & reasonable chance at an older buck with bigger rack is very much desired.
2) I talk to our state biologists “often”. Same with several from other states. I can’t emphasize this enough….. their job is NOT just to manage #’s. It’s a portion of what they do but all states “try” to improve quality to some degree. Iowa puts a very high degree on balancing the age class. By creating a more desirable hunting situation & biological balance- u keep more hunters engaged & u for sure keep RETENTION extremely high With serious hunters on down. U lose serious hunters… you lose control of your management & even the economics will crater. MI is a perfect example!!! “Kill Whatever you want, infinite weapons, infinite bag limits, crazy long seasons…. “You think of it- you get it!!” …. Place is RUINED. Dnr & legislators there are full panic for how to solve this complex problem….. no one will shoot does, $ problems, access is LONG GONE & hunters quit in droves. Lot more to it but variations of that play out in lots of states.
3) no- this isn’t JUST about betterment either…. Or what “I want”. & ya, what I want wouldn’t fly, 2 bucks max. Done. What it’s about is legislators, dnr, enforcement, biologists & hunters all hearing a variety of concerns from “their perspective” & one bill to “help resolve” the issues each body, group or constituency wants. & yes, this is normal for legislation…. “This group would like it to be 160 acres. That group would like 2 buck tags max.” Let’s start with ______ & see how it goes. Compromise & lots of groups giving input. Why it goes to subcommittee so YOU and every other group can show up and say “what about THIS?____”. “Can we change this_____?” “I do or don’t support & here’s what this group wants”. Every walk of life with regs or laws works like this.
IMHO- this one should be an EASY ONE…. “Eah, I can only shoot 2 bucks & 5 does on my 5 acres”. Not end of the world. I want it selfishly to be 2 for EVERYONE,….. heck, maybe 1!!!! But it’s not just ME or one group or one POV.
Contraversial statement no politician would dare to say. IMO …. The group that should have THE MOST INFLUENCE & SAY ON HUNTING REGS: Serious Hunters. They understand the issues far deeper than the non-hunter or weekend warrior. They have the most skin in the game, most experience, wisdom & at a minimum, they should carry considerable influence & credibility while regs are proposed. U wanna leave it up to the lunatics, farm bureau or brainless bureaucrats?? Go to MI & see how that’s worked out.
daniel93077
Active Member
I reached out to Tayler from ISC. Great guy who is dedicating a lot of time, energy, and passion to making things better for Iowa Sportsmen and our deer herds. Here are my notes from that communication.
Understanding SF 247 and the Landowner Tag Debate
SF 247 is a proposed bill in Iowa that seeks to change the land requirements for landowner deer hunting tags. Here’s what you need to know:Who Proposed the Bill?
- SF 247 was not written by the Iowa Sportsmen’s Club (ISC).
- The bill was introduced by Senator Tom Shipley after discussions with the Iowa DNR about potential issues with landowner tags.
- The DNR requested a review of the program due to concerns about abuse.
What Does the Bill Do?
- It raises the minimum land requirement for a landowner to qualify for a landowner hunting tag.
- Current requirement: 2 acres.
- Proposed in the bill: 40 acres.
- The reason for choosing 40 acres is that it is a common parcel size in Iowa.
What is ISC’s Position?
- ISC did not create this bill but was asked for input.
- ISC’s board believes 40 acres is too high and has publicly stated they support a 10-acre minimum instead.
- If the bill does not change to a lower acreage, ISC will withdraw support.
- ISC supports reforms to prevent abuse of the landowner tag system while still allowing legitimate landowners access to tags.
Why is the Change Being Considered?
- The DNR has reported abuse of landowner tags, including:
- Landowners’ children getting tags when they are not the actual landowner.
- Deceased individuals still being issued tags.
- Very small parcels (such as 2-acre lots in housing developments) qualifying for landowner tags.
- The goal is to set a more reasonable acreage threshold that prevents abuse while still allowing landowners to participate in deer management.
What Will Happen Next?
- The bill will go through committee discussions where adjustments can be made.
- ISC expects that the final version of the bill will lower the acreage requirement closer to 10 acres.
- If legislators do not agree on a lower number, ISC will withdraw support for the bill entirely.
What Are the Broader Issues?
- Many Iowa hunters have raised concerns about declining deer numbers.
- The ISC has been asked to advocate for limiting buck harvest, but there is currently no legislative support for a one-buck limit or ending tag-sharing.
- Legislators will not support a full elimination of landowner tags, partly due to Farm Bureau influence.
- The ISC wants to balance conservation efforts with realistic legislative goals that can actually pass.
What Comes Next?
- The ISC will be conducting member polls to prioritize conservation issues.
- A Legislative Committee will be formed within ISC to gather input from hunters across Iowa.
- The goal is to find solutions that are practical, science-based, and achievable within the legislative system.
Final Thoughts
This bill is not final and is open for discussion and revision. Hunters who have concerns should stay engaged in the conversation, provide input, and focus on solutions that ensure the long-term health of Iowa’s deer herd.
Hawk32
PMA Member
Daniel
Thanks for that information. Very useful.
My 2 cents is 10 acres is too small and there better be a financial component to it where income off the property has to shown yearly to obtain one. A lot of acreages are 10 acres and like mine have no income and should not receive a LOT
Thanks for that information. Very useful.
My 2 cents is 10 acres is too small and there better be a financial component to it where income off the property has to shown yearly to obtain one. A lot of acreages are 10 acres and like mine have no income and should not receive a LOT
GREAT post. 100% agree that there is fraud with the LOT tags. Getting rid of LOT completely is not going to get supported and is going to waste time and money. Going to two buck state will take away the incentive for those lying and will fix a lot of the issue. Tracking LOT eligibility is close to impossible other than when CO stops and requests documents to support the tag. Going to LO on deed only is not going to get supported because in a lot of cases the tenant has the financial loss from damage and FB will fight hard IMO. Going to two bucks + Urban fixes all the issues IMO. Takes away the incentive to lie when you can get two statewide tags anyway and most aren’t getting LOT for the floating aspect as that just started. Getting LOT for antlerless would be few and far between on small parcels. I’m not sure how each county handles this but could there be a requirement added to eligibility of the parcel being zoned ag by county assessor and RE tax rolls? Just an idea. 10 acres while still impacting some may be more realistic of a middle ground. But even at that, going to 2 bucks statewide really makes that harvest irrelevant IMO.
seven twenty
PMA Member
Why is the change being considered?
The DNR has reported abuse of landowner tags, including:
Something is still sketchy on the ISC side. They’ve been putting out Legislative Updates for over a month now on their FB page and no mention of this bill at all. I was told by the DNR that ISC was the push behind this bill. Misunderstanding? Lack of communication? I don’t know, but the fact they don’t mention it on their page prior to yesterday doesn’t seem right. It wasn’t in their poll 6 mos ago asking what the important issues were either.
The DNR has reported abuse of landowner tags, including:
- Landowners’ children getting tags when they are not the actual landowner.
- Deceased individuals still being issued tags.
- Very small parcels (such as 2-acre lots in housing developments) qualifying for landowner tags.
Something is still sketchy on the ISC side. They’ve been putting out Legislative Updates for over a month now on their FB page and no mention of this bill at all. I was told by the DNR that ISC was the push behind this bill. Misunderstanding? Lack of communication? I don’t know, but the fact they don’t mention it on their page prior to yesterday doesn’t seem right. It wasn’t in their poll 6 mos ago asking what the important issues were either.
randomdeerhunter123
New Member
randomdeerhunter123
New Member
Obviously I don’t know how to use this app, my comments are under ISC’s position in my last post
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
daniel93077
Active Member
I appreciate the discussion and understand the skepticism—any group advocating for policy changes should be open to scrutiny. I joined ISC last year, I trust the mission and the people leading it to do what the membership as a whole wants. For what it's worth, it was his son's birthday and he still took the time (wish he wouldn't have) to write me a very lengthy response so I think that alone shows his dedication. I admire that.
- On the Facebook Poll & ISC's Stance
- A Facebook poll isn’t necessarily an official policy position—it could reflect individual opinions within the group (difference of opinion is 100% ok with me).
- I trust the stated official stance of iSC.
- I still don’t like the bill—the most meaningful part (reducing buck harvest) is minimal at best. That said, I do like reduced buck harvest.
- Still, knowing that my neighbors would have reduced opportunity, to my benefit, doesn't sit well with me.
- On Past Hunting Practices
- If certain practices were legal at the time, then they were operating within the rules and I'm good with that.
- If there are concerns about past behavior conflicting with ISC’s mission, it’s fair to ask for transparency—but for me doesn't call into question the stated stance.
- Being in the public eye is tough and opens one up to a lot of criticism, often unfounded and unfair. I choose to trust unless someone clearly shows me I can't.
- On Habitat Projects
- I don’t have direct insight into ISC’s funding allocation, but if there are legitimate concerns, asking for more transparency would be a productive way forward.
I can be a bit sensitive to legislation that I feel might reduce opportunity for the younger or average hunter to the benefit of those of us with more resources. I was the young/average hunter once and I haven't forgot about it. That's what originally raised my concerns about this bill. In the end, win or lose on the bill I think it's small potatoes and doesn't matter much. I'll send my position to the legislators and move on.
ISC is the best organization that’s hit iowa since the IBA! IBA is the only reason this state wasn’t steamrolled by the scumbags turning it into a dumpster fire for hunting like most other states!!!!!!
The folks wanting to exploit our state & resource got so big & so aggressive…. IBA could not handle it all on their own. It was David vs 8 Goliaths. For those with short memories…. We had 9 horrible bills in one year. Crossbows, tags for outfitters, tags to sell to highest bidder, rifles for turkeys, on & on!!
There was 9 bad bills & 5 of them “THESE R GONNA PASS!!” We were organized & mobilized & guess how many passed??? 0!!!! NADA!!!!
ISC formed to fight back against all these GROWING threats. & u know how many bad bills they’ve stopped that you never even heard about? Hard ? To grasp since you don’t hear about it!! A lot!!! I get to see & work with different groups, legislators & all these hunters that have stepped up to get involved ….. it’s amazing!!!!! These groups of guys are doing this cause they care, period!!!! So our sport doesn’t get ruined & the special interests destroy the state. I applaud all of them & all of you for helping. You have & are literally saving this state!!! I can’t emphasize that enough. Will it ever be perfect? Of course not. Is this issue a minor part of the big picture? YEP. Could we lose a battle? SURE. We are doing the right thing, on the right path and I’m thanking you all for what you’ve done!!!
The folks wanting to exploit our state & resource got so big & so aggressive…. IBA could not handle it all on their own. It was David vs 8 Goliaths. For those with short memories…. We had 9 horrible bills in one year. Crossbows, tags for outfitters, tags to sell to highest bidder, rifles for turkeys, on & on!!
There was 9 bad bills & 5 of them “THESE R GONNA PASS!!” We were organized & mobilized & guess how many passed??? 0!!!! NADA!!!!
ISC formed to fight back against all these GROWING threats. & u know how many bad bills they’ve stopped that you never even heard about? Hard ? To grasp since you don’t hear about it!! A lot!!! I get to see & work with different groups, legislators & all these hunters that have stepped up to get involved ….. it’s amazing!!!!! These groups of guys are doing this cause they care, period!!!! So our sport doesn’t get ruined & the special interests destroy the state. I applaud all of them & all of you for helping. You have & are literally saving this state!!! I can’t emphasize that enough. Will it ever be perfect? Of course not. Is this issue a minor part of the big picture? YEP. Could we lose a battle? SURE. We are doing the right thing, on the right path and I’m thanking you all for what you’ve done!!!
tall@wide
PMA Member
Agreed. i sent them a donation to be used for lobbying efforts recently.
trophybluf@borderlandnet.
Member
Personably, I believe this is a positive bill with very minute impact on the buck population. We really need to stand behind and support both the ISC and IBA because there will be much bigger issues down the road. One can only hope and pray we never turn into a WI or MI. Without these two groups we would be totally screwed. So even if this issue doesn't go the way you like, stay united because much bigger crap will be coming.
With the above said I only hope we don't lose track of what I believe is, by far the biggest factor impacting IA's deer population. I see in a recent poll, EHD was considered at like 5%. Quite frankly, this number should much higher. With the different strains of EHD in IA, some areas have been totally decimated. On our farm, EHD has killed up to 75% to 80% on parts of the farm through the years. In fact in some years, I have found more dead deer in one year than we harvested in ten years. So no matter how you tweak buck tags, it will have minimal impact. Since the big outbreak in 2019 we have taken certain steps which has at least minimize the devastating effects of the disease. So, hopefully EHD is a topic that gets a fair amount of conversation in the future. Also don't shoot your last doe on your farm! We harvested none again this year!
With the above said I only hope we don't lose track of what I believe is, by far the biggest factor impacting IA's deer population. I see in a recent poll, EHD was considered at like 5%. Quite frankly, this number should much higher. With the different strains of EHD in IA, some areas have been totally decimated. On our farm, EHD has killed up to 75% to 80% on parts of the farm through the years. In fact in some years, I have found more dead deer in one year than we harvested in ten years. So no matter how you tweak buck tags, it will have minimal impact. Since the big outbreak in 2019 we have taken certain steps which has at least minimize the devastating effects of the disease. So, hopefully EHD is a topic that gets a fair amount of conversation in the future. Also don't shoot your last doe on your farm! We harvested none again this year!