1 Buck state In iowa??

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Restricting buck tag opportunity even more will increase the feeling of urgency in people to make sure they solidify their own locked down private ground.

I've got TROPHY BUCK fever from the huntin shows I've watched.
I'm only allowed one buck tag, so on only one chance annually to bag me a big-un. Better make my time and $ count!
Too much competition on public ground.
Can't gain access to any private ground without renting or buying my own.
Better lock down my own private ground and keep everyone else out, so I can farm TROPHY BUCKS for myself. (Only adding to the problem.)
OR
Don't make enough $ to rent or buy my own ground, so screw this hunting stuff anyway. (Discouraging people from getting into hunting, or continuing to hunt.)

It's just another thing to feed the juggernaut that Iowa deer hunting has become.

I think it's the exact opposite. You get one. Peeps that get one are no longer hunting. Less "competition". Private land owners may be more inclined to let others hunt because they have less tags. No one on public is hunting a 2nd buck. More opportunities for others.

 

[Obsessed]

I think it's the exact opposite. You get one. Peeps that get one are no longer hunting. Less "competition". Private land owners may be more inclined to let others hunt because they have less tags. No one on public is hunting a 2nd buck. More opportunities for others.

I can respect your point of view, and it seems to make logical sense on paper, but my experience tells me otherwise. I pray we never find out how this scenario plays out in reality.

 

[sep0667]

Restricting buck tag opportunity even more will increase the feeling of urgency in people to make sure they solidify their own locked down private ground.

I've got TROPHY BUCK fever from the huntin shows I've watched.
I'm only allowed one buck tag, so on only one chance annually to bag me a big-un. Better make my time and $ count!
Too much competition on public ground.
Can't gain access to any private ground without renting or buying my own.
Better lock down my own private ground and keep everyone else out, so I can farm TROPHY BUCKS for myself. (Only adding to the problem.)
OR
Don't make enough $ to rent or buy my own ground, so screw this hunting stuff anyway. (Discouraging people from getting into hunting, or continuing to hunt.)

It's just another thing to feed the juggernaut that Iowa deer hunting has become.

I think it would have the opposite effect. A landowner that gives permission may be more inclined to let more than one person hunt when the first person with permission shoots there buck early on in archery season or during archery at all, because now that person is not out hunting a buck during late muzzleloader for example. I could see it winding up giving more people access to private. Same with public, once an archery hunter tags out that is likely one less person out hunting shotgun season or late muzzy on that public, therefore less pressure on the deer and ground.

 

[Sligh1]

Non-resident here who has never hunted Iowa. I have land across the river in WI and to the north in MN. For those reasons i didn’t participate in the poll.

I have a few questions -
What is a "celeb" tag?
Are the landowner tags restricted to residents only or can a NR land owner get a tag every year?


I do know someone who is a NR that buys a doe tag for the gun season and party hunts the resident buck tags in the group. It feels almost like a loophole in the system.

Landowner tags are for residents only.

Celeb tags are about 40 tags given out to tv folks who can bring biggest audiences to promote iowas deer hunting.

 

[Tmayer13]

I can respect your point of view, and it seems to make logical sense on paper, but my experience tells me otherwise. I pray we never find out how this scenario plays out in reality.

I am in no way trying to sound like a jerk here but.... What experience do you have in this scenario that would lead you to believe this?

 

[sure shot]

I'll be the jerk and ask why do people say 1 buck tag per year, but land owners should get 2? If 1 buck tag per year is such a good thing, then why don't you sign up for it as well (assuming you are a land owner and that's why answered that way)? Is it because you still want to shoot 2 bucks per year?

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Hardwood11]

I hunt in Minnesota & Iowa. Even though you see 100x as many hunts on the Outdoor Channel in Iowa, compared to Minnesota. It’s easier to get permission to hunt in Iowa than it is in Minnesota.

I’m not praising the publicity from TV/Social Media.. but it’s far more than that .

We do have more public land which helps access, but it’s all spoken for up here for deer hunting….Nothing to do with the Celebrity hunters.

You want to hunt in the future, you have to make it happen. Relying on someone else is getting way more challenging! Plan accordingly.

 

[Tmayer13]

I'll be the jerk and ask why do people say 1 buck tag per year, but land owners should get 2? If 1 buck tag per year is such a good thing, then why don't you sign up for it as well (assuming you are a land owner and that's why answered that way)? Is it because you still want to shoot 2 bucks per year?

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

That's the perks of owning land pal. Most land owners I know rarely shoot 3 bucks now. In fact this past season I did not fill my LO Tag. And in fact I did not kill a buck in 2020 or 2021 so I am unsure of what you are getting at. I could care a less about shooting 2 bucks in a year, I kill LOTS of does each year to fill my freezer. I was simply taking the current laws and removing one any sex tag. But if it makes you feel better then I would be all for only ONE buck a year....

 

[iowavf]

Deer population is controlled by does only. Party hunting for does is probably OK. If you want to shoot a buck I think you should have to use your tag allocation to do so.
The current rule gets abused extensively.

More to a healthy deer herd than just taking doe only.

 

[Obsessed]

@Tmayer13 my experience is just life experience. No realworld experience of being in a state that went to 1 buck tag. (e.g. NAFTA was a great idea on paper, but it worked the complete opposite of how the US constituents were promised it would work. Not related, just real-life experience of getting the opposite outcome of what's expected.)

Going to 1 buck tag would give many more cull bucks the opportunity to spread their inferior genetics until they died of natural causes, because less hunters would be willing to burn an anysex tag on them.

 

[Tmayer13]

@Tmayer13 my experience is just life experience. No realworld experience of being in a state that went to 1 buck tag. (e.g. NAFTA was a great idea on paper, but it worked the complete opposite of how the US constituents were promised it would work. Not related, just real-life experience of getting the opposite outcome of what's expected.)

Going to 1 buck tag would give many more cull bucks the opportunity to spread their inferior genetics until they died of natural causes, because less hunters would be willing to burn an anysex tag on them.

Well a buck actually gets most of its genetic potential from the doe so that would not matter.
I can also argue that it would allow a TON more deer to get to world class status because more people like myself would burn our tags on certain years to remove the inferior bucks from the herd thus giving the better genetic deer another year to grow....the amount of 200"+ would be staggering

 

[Obsessed]

Well a buck actually gets most of its genetic potential from the doe so that would not matter.
I can also argue that it would allow a TON more deer to get to world class status because more people like myself would burn our tags on certain years to remove the inferior bucks from the herd thus giving the better genetic deer another year to grow....the amount of 200"+ would be staggering

I respectfully disagree with a majority of this as well.

 

[hillrunner]

We have it here in Indiana, only thing that has saved our buck quality as we can use any weapon here (full crossbow and rifle). If we were killing 2 bucks we would have 0 left

How has it worked out in Indiana as far as access? Did the 1 buck rule make any difference one way or the other? More or less locked up land? More or less pressure on public ground? Do you see more older bucks with inferior racks?

Personally, I'd love to see it happen here but what I want means nothing. There is no way that iowa is going to make any moves that appear to limit deer harvest from what it already is. Real world affects won't matter. It's a fun discussion but I doubt it ever happens.

 

[TheBig8]

MN is a one buck state with a gun season during the middle of the rut. As long as ya'll aren't dumb enough to implement those regulations, I'm sure you'll be fine.

 

[Sligh1]

OHIO, KENTUCKY, KANSAS

@Tmayer13 my experience is just life experience. No realworld experience of being in a state that went to 1 buck tag. (e.g. NAFTA was a great idea on paper, but it worked the complete opposite of how the US constituents were promised it would work. Not related, just real-life experience of getting the opposite outcome of what's expected.)

Going to 1 buck tag would give many more cull bucks the opportunity to spread their inferior genetics until they died of natural causes, because less hunters would be willing to burn an anysex tag on them.

NAFTA was a sell out of US to Mexico & Canada & many knew it at the time. Took trump to fix it. Sorry on side topic.

On second part …. I agree with u. management bucks are harder to make sure they get taken. At the same time- most farms in iowa aren’t shooting them anyways. Culture of “high score over age” among public which is a shame. That’s where I believe the 2nd LO tag would likely be used by most folks IMO.

Hunting one buck states….. I don’t think I know a serious hunter that wants to change it back. Not one. Hundreds of guys across OH, IN, KY & KS I know. Kansas is where I’ve spent a ton of time. In areas hunted fairly hard. It absolutely balanced that state out & access is absolutely better in high pressure areas due to guys tagging out early & leaving open spots. The only gripe I hear “over & over” is “wish I had tag to shoot management bucks”. But that’s from serious folks. I revert to first point, IMO- most won’t shoot the “junker - not high scoring deer” when a higher scoring deer is around. I hate that but that’s the unfortunate reality I hope changes in 1 or 2 buck states.

SURE SHOT!!!! I like it!!! “I’ll be the jerk”. Ha!! Love it. Fair point. But we have to focus on the facts of this discussion- everyone loses 1 buck. I’ll give my opinion here…. No, I don’t think a LO should be able to shoot 3 bucks. 4 with urban. So- by definition- we are removing one buck tag from LO’s that get “too many” as it is. I get 3 buck tags a year. I will state here…. I am glad to give one of my buck tags up if it’s better for age structure, access, opportunities for other hunters, etc. I do believe it would be beneficial for these 3 areas. One less buck I shoot is one more buck someone else or a new hunter will likely be able to shoot. I do believe by definition- this would provide more opportunities to the hunters of this state.

 

[Obsessed]

OHIO, KENTUCKY, KANSAS

NAFTA was a sell out of US to Mexico & Canada & many knew it at the time. Took trump to fix it. Sorry on side topic.

On second part …. I agree with u. management bucks are harder to make sure they get taken. At the same time- most farms in iowa aren’t shooting them anyways. Culture of “high score over age” among public which is a shame. That’s where I believe the 2nd LO tag would likely be used by most folks IMO.

Hunting one buck states….. I don’t think I know a serious hunter that wants to change it back. Not one. Hundreds of guys across OH, IN, KY & KS I know. Kansas is where I’ve spent a ton of time. In areas hunted fairly hard. It absolutely balanced that state out & access is absolutely better in high pressure areas due to guys tagging out early & leaving open spots. The only gripe I hear “over & over” is “wish I had tag to shoot management bucks”. But that’s from serious folks. I revert to first point, IMO- most won’t shoot the “junker - not high scoring deer” when a higher scoring deer is around. I hate that but that’s the unfortunate reality I hope changes in 1 or 2 buck states.

SURE SHOT!!!! I like it!!! “I’ll be the jerk”. Ha!! Love it. Fair point. But we have to focus on the facts of this discussion- everyone loses 1 buck. I’ll give my opinion here…. No, I don’t think a LO should be able to shoot 3 bucks. 4 with urban. So- by definition- we are removing one buck tag from LO’s that get “too many” as it is. I get 3 buck tags a year. I will state here…. I am glad to give one of my buck tags up if it’s better for age structure, access, opportunities for other hunters, etc. I do believe it would be beneficial for these 3 areas. One less buck I shoot is one more buck someone else or a new hunter will likely be able to shoot. I do believe by definition- this would provide more opportunities to the hunters of this state.

So, self admittedly, you buy 3 buck tags annually, and would buy 2 if the state limited everyone to 1, (1 statewide & 1 landowner).

Why wait for legislation to regulate the # of tags you buy? Why doesn't everyone in support of this put their money where their mouths are and only buy 1 buck tag from this point forward? Why haven't they already only been buying 1 buck tag?

The state is interested in keeping #s in check and providing greater opportunity and incentive to ALL HUNTERS, more than they are in making Iowa a TROPHY BUCK state.

If you only buy 1 buck tag already, good for you. You're putting your convictions into action, which is better than most people ever do for anything.

 

[Spysar]

I think the idea is for the good of all. Not 1 guy giving up his tag.

But what's Lakosky, Bill W, Drury's, Midwest Whitetail, Jared mills, etc gonna do?? It won't affect bowmars, they'll just poach what they want , LOL

 

[newfarmer]

I buy all the tags I am allowed, Statewide and Landowner for the areas I hunt- in the 7 years I have been able to do it, never ONCE have I filled all my tags.
Now the flip side to that, years ago when doe tags were popular and I had 7 or 8 in my pocket, I usually did fill all of the doe tags. But I lived in town at the time and needed meat. Honestly, my family eats 80% deer all year long. So I do think its a slippery slope for a lot of reasons right.
Now we have moved, have cattle, have chickens, well let's be honest a small funny farm, I don't "need" the deer meat as bad.
I would be fine with 1 statewide and 1 LOT. I have hunted many other states that only allow one tag as well, and more people are astonished we can shoot more than one buck in IOWA- just blows their mind we could shoot 2+ Booners right?!

One of the most dangerous phrases in the world is "We've always done it this way"... I think to many people get "stuck" on what we have done for the last 30+ years, heck myself included.

Like most have stated, it's been a kill all mentality by all groups pushing for more deer seasons, weapons, tags, etc.
As a hunter, and let's be honest, conservationist, I can see the bigger picture other than "your taking, your taking, your taking". I think if it ever came down to a 1 buck state (let's be honest, no one is taking tags away tomorrow)- I think party hunting would also have to be gone in that scenario- there is no way it would work legitimately. Not even with doe tags- because people would still cross tag.

 

[abell3]

I'll be the jerk and ask why do people say 1 buck tag per year, but land owners should get 2? If 1 buck tag per year is such a good thing, then why don't you sign up for it as well (assuming you are a land owner and that's why answered that way)? Is it because you still want to shoot 2 bucks per year?

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

For many, buying ground took a lot of hard work and effort to accomplish. For me, being a landowner I would want a LOT tag.
That being said, I think only if you own land should you get a LOT tag. Not if your mommy and daddy bought the land.. or grandma and grandpa. Only the land owner should get the LOT tag.

I would STILL be in favor if Iowa went to a one buck state and Land Owners didn't get a LOT tag. We may see the big deer we use to see in the early 2000's.

Bucks do get their genetics from their mothers side. That is correct. So the "cull bucks running around and not getting shot and ruin the genetics" won't happen on a micro level. Different discussion when talking about macro level. Actually they get them from their mothers dad. So be careful when shooting too many does. You could be killing your "booner" doe.

 

[sure shot]

It just seems hypocritical to me when someone says we need to make iowa a 1 buck state, except for me - I get 2 tags. If being a 1 buck state is so great, then let's be a 1 buck state for everyone. What do the other 1 buck states do with land owners?
That being said in over 20 years of hunting iowa, I've shot 2 bucks the same year twice. There have been a few times when I've failed to get one with the bow, but gotten one with a gun, so those years I would now have to go without if we were a 1 buck state. There's also been a lot of years where I haven't gotten a buck period. I get that I'm not the type of hunter that this rule is going after, but as a person that passes way more bucks than they take, I get the short end of the stick.

I'm not a landowner, so I don't count though. I'm just a public land hunter who was a public land hunter before it was cool to be a public land hunter.

All that being said, I wouldn't be totally against this, even if you fancy landowners got 2 tags to my 1.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk