OFFENSE!! 2 Bills to support!! SF 293 & SF 247 EMAIL IN!!! What a great change!!!!
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
Yep! Sorry. I understand what you are talking about now. Agree. Guys waiting longer should have greater preference. Was not thinking of HF388
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
I’m always skeptical of groups asking for money/support. I’ll freely admit I’ve paid for the membership for this because I believed in the cause. I was skeptical from the beginning but I’d pay a lot to keep Iowa great. I’m glad I only paid the bare minimum for a membership and did not donate any real money to an organization that is cherry picking winners and losers in this fight. I’m just asking for honesty. Don’t ask for our money then tell us how you know how to spend it better than us without our input. This is why all our politics are screwed up. We’ve all seen John Kerry tell us why we need to lower our carbon footprint and drive electric cars while he traveled the world in private jets.. Just be honest with your goals. Plenty supporting all this have good intentions but there’s plenty of others that just want to limit the great residents of this state. Any reg that limits some resident with a little less land or a little less money than others is garbage. Nobody should ever listen to people that have more than you that ask you to take less while they give up nothing. That goes for everything. Not just hunting.
Last edited:
deerhunter93
Well-Known Member
What group did that come from?
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
Iowa Sportsman’s Club
Windlooker
Well-Known Member
Skip and many of us here support everything in the ISC clip you copied. IW, IBA, ISC try to be coordinated in the effort regarding issues that hurt and help. Also, groups like the IBA, not sure about ISC, hire lobbyists as well, that costs money. What issue in the ISC clip do you disagree with.
Oh good, so that means you the others you mentioned along with IW, IBA and ISC are strongly opposed to HF 179? I must have misread a couple posts supporting NRLO tags as that would not align with the last box under critical state issues. I support what was posted above from ISC!
Windlooker
Well-Known Member
179 is the NR family members getting tags at half price I think? Completely oppose this as most do. Regardless of family status gotta wait your turn. Dad and grandpa are already tagging deer for NR relatives. This will make it worse.
Last edited:
Interesting conversation, human nature at it's finest. We are all for others making sacrafices for the greater good, but boy does is suck when things hit home. DOGE uncovered $20 million for Sesame Street in Iraq. Those kids are going to feel like they lost a landowner tag.
seven twenty
PMA Member
Copied from an email from the DNR:
Approximately 30,750 hunters purchased a LOT any-sex tag in the previous 2024-25 season. Of these hunters, 6,313 (20%) also purchased two additional any-sex tags. 22% were filled. 80% were antlered.
The 22% is of the 30,750 so it will take more digging to get a better idea of exactly how many of the 6313 actually harvested a buck with their LOT but you could use that 22% as a generalization. Next is just how many of that 6313 fall in to the small parcel category and harvested 3 total. They were looking in to seeing if there was a way to get that # without going through individually. Even with that # it will be deceptive because the listed parcel doesn’t define total owned or rented.
I was also told that antlerless quotas were most likely going to drop again in many areas. Both hunter and harvest #’s were down significantly.
The people I talked to are under the impression that this bill was proposed and pushed by the ISC. Good or bad it gives the impression that they are targeting a select few. If they were fighting for everyone, a much simpler and less divisive bill would have been 2 anysex tags max regardless of if they are paid or LOT. Eliminating the tenant aspect and making it deed owner only would go ever well also I think. Another aspect supported by #’s is eliminating LOT altogether. Combining LOT anysex and antlerless #’s over the years shows that there are consistently more antlerless killed. If the purpose of the LOT tag was to control numbers then eliminating it should help increase them.
Regardless of what changes, there will always be a nefarious few. I heard a comment “we both get LOT tags, we each register a parcel.” This was a father/son duo that farm the same ground together. I’m guessing that situations like that account for more deer shot than to the actual # of small acreage people shooting 3 bucks.
Approximately 30,750 hunters purchased a LOT any-sex tag in the previous 2024-25 season. Of these hunters, 6,313 (20%) also purchased two additional any-sex tags. 22% were filled. 80% were antlered.
The 22% is of the 30,750 so it will take more digging to get a better idea of exactly how many of the 6313 actually harvested a buck with their LOT but you could use that 22% as a generalization. Next is just how many of that 6313 fall in to the small parcel category and harvested 3 total. They were looking in to seeing if there was a way to get that # without going through individually. Even with that # it will be deceptive because the listed parcel doesn’t define total owned or rented.
I was also told that antlerless quotas were most likely going to drop again in many areas. Both hunter and harvest #’s were down significantly.
The people I talked to are under the impression that this bill was proposed and pushed by the ISC. Good or bad it gives the impression that they are targeting a select few. If they were fighting for everyone, a much simpler and less divisive bill would have been 2 anysex tags max regardless of if they are paid or LOT. Eliminating the tenant aspect and making it deed owner only would go ever well also I think. Another aspect supported by #’s is eliminating LOT altogether. Combining LOT anysex and antlerless #’s over the years shows that there are consistently more antlerless killed. If the purpose of the LOT tag was to control numbers then eliminating it should help increase them.
Regardless of what changes, there will always be a nefarious few. I heard a comment “we both get LOT tags, we each register a parcel.” This was a father/son duo that farm the same ground together. I’m guessing that situations like that account for more deer shot than to the actual # of small acreage people shooting 3 bucks.
Last edited:
few things & we both know we respect each other & it’s ok to have differing views…
1) I believe this is VERY similar to a guy saying “I voted for Trump. Gave him my $. I disagree with _____ that he’s doing!!!” There’s zero person or group u will agree with everything. & for the record, I had a $30k cost share project that cost me about $60k by time I complete it. I got a call last week “that $ is on hold.” (DUE TO TRUMP!!!!). Am I mad? Nope!!!! Is it taking away from ME - YEP!!! Is it for the greater good? YEP. Even if I was pissed or it truly took away something great- there will NEVER be a time we agree with everyone all the time.
2) groups like IBA, ISC, etc TRY to come up with bills or support bills that: help the greater good (ALWAYS will have some pissed off people no matter the issue!!!!) Or support other orgs that will support them later. I might support the “conservation alliance” on an issue that’s near & dear to them I can get behind & hope to get their support later.
3) NO ONE is gonna convince me that the ISC & IBA do not have the purest best intentions & motives PERIOD!!!!!!! Does this mean that they could not have a perfect solution to something? SURE. Could they make a mistake (not saying they making or not making one here)? Sure. All the other special interests that have impact Iowas hunting have been based in: $ or ME. Period. More killing, new weapons, kill all the crop eating deer, more tags for this _____ group. All $ & me. ISC, IBA, etc have not one drop of that!!!!!!!!!! The first time you can see any good group looking to do good things, whether u agree or not. They are.
4) “but it impacts ME” …. I am not dismissing that. Anything political or regulatory will impact certain people or everyone. I just look at the alternative here….. “i own 5 acres so now……..”. NOW, if that’s the case….. the guy with 5 acres can shoot a buck during about 90 days of archery season. They can get a doe tag (and transfer a buck tag) during a gun season & hunt one of the other gun seasons to shoot a 2nd buck (so- what are they missing out on? 1 of the gun seasons maybe???) The same hunting you could do on LOT tag for the last 20 years until they changed law last year to make it floating. They can shoot the county allotted limit of does. To ME (& I promise, I am not trying to be divisive or lacking empathy) - that’s a lot of hunting & killing. A lot!!! On that same token of trying to be kind how I say this (I love you all!!!!
) ……. If the acre minimum was 40 acres to get a LOT tag…. Would there be ANY meaningful support if the bill was proposed to bring the minimum from 40 to 5 or 2?So I will play my "best case scenario" for any form of Landowner tag cleaning up. Call this a 4-5 year plan for example. You would never be able to tackle this all at once.
1- No more tenants. I think this is abused.
2- Landowner on Deed only. (Remove LLC? etc? I dont know how that works in the scheme of it to be honest) and that includes, no family aka kids, spouse, whatever unless name is on the deed, then still only the number of tags allotted.
3- Reduce to 1 any sex, 1 antlerless (could be 2- but don't need 3) start slow, less complaints
4- You get LOT, you do not get depredation tags- same, you get depredation tags, no LOT.
5- 10 acre minimum in 1 parcel, 20 acres total owned. I hammer the point, there are areas that you cannot buy a 40 acre parcel "easily". My farms- I would be buying crop ground at 15,000/acre to try to add more to any of my pieces. I think "Real" numbers would go a long way. Leave it this way for a few years
6- Lower to 1 LOT any sex. Leave it like this for a few years
7- Eliminate LOT tags OR give a LOT 1 floating any sex tag into the 2 buck max for Iowa.
I think if you slow played it, you would have a TON of support.
Only downfall- as a landowner, I wish we could always get 1 antlerless tag. I am in a county with NO doe tags. So always getting one doe tag would be nice to use IF I needed to, but thats purely for my own selfishness.
1- No more tenants. I think this is abused.
2- Landowner on Deed only. (Remove LLC? etc? I dont know how that works in the scheme of it to be honest) and that includes, no family aka kids, spouse, whatever unless name is on the deed, then still only the number of tags allotted.
3- Reduce to 1 any sex, 1 antlerless (could be 2- but don't need 3) start slow, less complaints
4- You get LOT, you do not get depredation tags- same, you get depredation tags, no LOT.
5- 10 acre minimum in 1 parcel, 20 acres total owned. I hammer the point, there are areas that you cannot buy a 40 acre parcel "easily". My farms- I would be buying crop ground at 15,000/acre to try to add more to any of my pieces. I think "Real" numbers would go a long way. Leave it this way for a few years
6- Lower to 1 LOT any sex. Leave it like this for a few years
7- Eliminate LOT tags OR give a LOT 1 floating any sex tag into the 2 buck max for Iowa.
I think if you slow played it, you would have a TON of support.
Only downfall- as a landowner, I wish we could always get 1 antlerless tag. I am in a county with NO doe tags. So always getting one doe tag would be nice to use IF I needed to, but thats purely for my own selfishness.
cybball
Well-Known Member
Can I ask kind of a dumb question? What is the point of this bill being debated? Is it the deer herd/numbers problem? Seems if they are just targeting the additional buck tag for LO? If this is it and my assumptions are right (may not be), it seems the LO tag thing won't do much if anything and an overall reduction of tags (buck total/does) would do the job in a better way?
I own 20, so this would impact me. But I don't care. I only shoot 1 buck a year if I get lucky. I do, however, know I'm not the only guy in the equation. Just trying to understand the "point" rather than getting into the weeds yet.
I own 20, so this would impact me. But I don't care. I only shoot 1 buck a year if I get lucky. I do, however, know I'm not the only guy in the equation. Just trying to understand the "point" rather than getting into the weeds yet.
Windlooker
Well-Known Member
I think this bill is intended to do more than just address deer numbers. It’s meant to clean up 2 acres of a timbered draw or fruit trees qualifying as a landowner. As someone said it was meant to help with crop damage etc. Whoever sponsored the bill allegedly believes 40 acres is more legitimate. Idk
Nrharris
PMA Member
Removing tenants from the LOT is a crock. The tenant on ag ground is the one that is hurt by wildlife damage. I as a tenant would fight that till I'm blue in the face. And it's not about being able to shoot 3 bucks. I haven't shot a deer in 3 years. It's about being able to hunt more seasons to have a better opportunity.
I’ll do my best to explain the different groups discussing this & different angles
1) the first time I personally heard different groups discussing this was when some NR buck tags were being debated. The folks who wanted NR buck tags or NRLO buck tags made countless/repeated points like “we can’t one buck tag when your residents get 2 & guys with 5 acres can even get another buck tag!!!!!” This type of comment was used OFTEN. To the point where some legislators said “wait, we give out a 3rd buck tag for 5 acre parcels!?” This type of debate & comment has come up many times & will continue to be used as ammo. Like it or not- they have a point & to the “average dude” listening to this, it does seem absurd.
2) co’s & dnr have had constant battles with this. I can’t explain their position perfectly but something along the lines of: a) abuses of this b) getting 3rd buck tag on parcels that almost don’t even support deer. C) guys locking up access that would be tagged out but keep going due to more tags. D) complaints on over crowding of public where folks use their statewide tag on public & keep their LOT until they finally need it. E) abuses of program/tag & misuse where folks are ticketed or breaking laws that take a lot of time away from CO’s. F) biology complaints on how many mature bucks an area or section can hold. Most agree any block it’s a “handful”. I’m not getting this perfect & don’t mean to speak for them but a lot of issues.
3) folks at capital, at dnr events & hunter feedback “we don’t need 3 buck tags!!” “Most states are 1 or 2 & I don’t have a place to go to even shoot 1!!”
4) access to quality land & quality game are #1 & #2 issues in state based on hunter data. Bills that may impact that will get some support.
5) I believe, loosely, the subset data was something like “1,000+ bucks on small parcels” Statewide. Not including other issues folks had with tags. When kills are 50k bucks & lot of ticked off or cocerned hunters.. this isn’t nothing.
6) dnr & legislators have got hammered by residents “don’t do XYZ cause we don’t even use or need 3 buck tags!!!!” (Like change NR tags)
7) on the LOT issue- I didn’t hear T up for debate. I heard a couple comments “why do they need them when it’s a buck??? They can shoot 2 bucks so why wouldn’t we give them Tenant doe tags?” If it’s ever debated…. I have heard above + “they can also get dep tags”.
I’m not really debating above or my pov. Trying to explain what I’ve heard & some different POV’s out there
JNRBRONC
Well-Known Member
Whether I'm tagged out or still hunting, we don't grant permission to hunt. So land ownership basically has it "locked up" in my case, doubt I'm the exception in this regard. Who opens up their farm when their tag is punched? Maybe to a friend or family, but it won't become "public hunting".
I'd be good with one statewide archery tag. After I shoot one decent buck, my drive to spend countless hours in the stand wanes. I did fill two archery tags many years ago, but my goals and thoughts have changed since then. The deer I arrowed this year was not truly on my radar, essentially fell into my lap. My target buck I hunted for this year, that I passed last year due to a broken tine, might be a real SLAMMER next season if he survived. Could have gotten a second archery tag or LOT and continued to go after him, but I rolled the dice on him surviving. Trailcams will tell.
I can get LOT but usually don't. It was nice back when we had a deer herd to get the 4 antlerless LOT's to thin things a bit. LOT any sex tag, removing one buck does next to nothing for herd management. Yeah, people will talk cull bucks get taken out via this mechanism. Those are people who think that they can "select" for a better deer herd by removing "bad genetics". I think those people are on a Fool's errand.
The doe has a huge role in trophy potential as well, not just the buck. Mossy Oak article on "Improving Antler Genetics".I don't think most people think they are changing the genetics in an area by removing a cull buck. It's more of a "make room" for a younger better genetic deer that would otherwise be pushed off a farm by and older age class cull type buck with less than desirable genetics. There is only so much bedding room on any farmWhether I'm tagged out or still hunting, we don't grant permission to hunt. So land ownership basically has it "locked up" in my case, doubt I'm the exception in this regard. Who opens up their farm when their tag is punched? Maybe to a friend or family, but it won't become "public hunting".
I'd be good with one statewide archery tag. After I shoot one decent buck, my drive to spend countless hours in the stand wanes. I did fill two archery tags many years ago, but my goals and thoughts have changed since then. The deer I arrowed this year was not truly on my radar, essentially fell into my lap. My target buck I hunted for this year, that I passed last year due to a broken tine, might be a real SLAMMER next season if he survived. Could have gotten a second archery tag or LOT and continued to go after him, but I rolled the dice on him surviving. Trailcams will tell.
I can get LOT but usually don't. It was nice back when we had a deer herd to get the 4 antlerless LOT's to thin things a bit. LOT any sex tag, removing one buck does next to nothing for herd management. Yeah, people will talk cull bucks get taken out via this mechanism. Those are people who think that they can "select" for a better deer herd by removing "bad genetics". I think those people are on a Fool's errand.
JNRBRONC
Well-Known Member
What's saying an equally "inferior" buck doesn't take the space? Roll of the dice.