2014 rule change

[hoosierhunter]

Sod

I appreciate your post and it maintains my points to hawk. What I said might not be popular, but it's correct.

Knowing that the majority of Iowa is not even average deer habitat, then deer damage is not adversely affecting a majority of farmers. At least not to the point is screaming for a herd reduction. Yes some guys are getting hit but those farms are also affected by farming a lot more edges as well.

It's my opinion that deer are used as a crutch more than they should be.

As for insurance, it is what it is. You do agree though that in recent years guys were hitting acceptable or better yields and still getting paid on the insurance. Even without crop insurance payments, the income generated would be more than acceptable. Profits were still made and then here comes another check. The program wasn't designed for that and we all generally accept it.

As for being an idiot, it's a general statement but it was never directed to you that I recall. You know this is IW and most of these guys are deer managers. They also consider the general public inept at managing the resource. Simply put, pushing deer and managing bucks do not go hand in hand.

 

[westpointhunter]

I have a great respect for intellegence and there is a lot of intellegent guys in the PMA section!


Yikes

 

[iowavf]

Idk why people can't do it. I feel the same way Hoosier

You can still hunt that way if you choose or you can party hunt, pretty simple. What's the difference if 10 guys buy tags and each person shoots a deer, or the group of 10 guys shoot 10 deer? As for the reasoning of deer getting shot and not tagged during party hunting, those same individuals who hunt that way will still hunt that way even if party hunting didn't exist. Those who shoot deer 1st, then decide maybe that's not what they want to tag will still hunt that way. I think the late season needs to end and the doe tags numbers reduced in certain counties to keep the numbers from falling further.

 

[Sod Savage]

hoosier, i work on the family farm and literally talk with 100's of farmers per week. A vast majority don't feel that there are too many deer and "screaming herd reduction". Of the handfull that do 95% of them have lagitimate complaints. So I think it is you that are exagerating.

I don't think Hawk is thinking the deer herd is too large. I just think he doesn't want to hear from some guy from Indiana with no paticular interest in Iowa other than he likes to hunt deer in Indiana and dreams about hunting in Iowa as he drives thru on I80, thinking that there isn't much deer habitat here. I got news for you Iowa for the most part isn't good deer country, there are countys that are outstanding there are others that are terrible. If you were to take a map of Iowa and throw a dart to decide to where hunt, chances are you would be in a corn field.

 

[Sligh1]

As several have heard straight from the sources at FARM BUREAU, it's approximately 100 farmers across the state that raise holy-heck with Farm Bureau on the deer #'s. Guys that get pretty loud and impactful. They make a lot of noise and not a lot of voices in FB to counter it. (This comes straight from someone at FB I know btw but I know many others have heard the same thing, often publicly).
The guy I spoke with said, something pretty close to this "Essentially, 100 guys are determining how the state is managed for deer". Referring to the "100 guys" that go bananas with FB. Then, FB forwards this agenda through: full time lobbyists, huge "donations" to folks like Brandstad, etc. FB, etc probably has the most weight and look what happened with Brandstad pulling the Executive order and throwing out the DNR recommendations - siding with Insurance companies like FB.

And, to above, I do agree it's a vast minority of farmers across the state that are both in good deer areas and see the major damage. I do agree with that and I think some facts & evidence can substantiate it when you start discussing how much habitat is left in Iowa.

 

[fletch920]

Ok I'm done with the non-PMA side of Iowawhitetail.

Reason is:

1. Guys want to complain about not seeing many mature bucks and hardly any deer in general, but they want to change nothing. The culture of greed and only willing to take the same or more has made me sick. GREED will be eventually push all the little people out of hunting and will ruin it..

2. Insanity: Doing the same thing you've been doing but expecting different results.... There are way to many "members" in this category (very few PMA members thankfully).

3. I live by the "Golden Rule", treat others how you'd like to be treated.

4. I have a great respect for intellegence and there is a lot of intellegent guys in the PMA section!

Sound like you is going to be real happy their.....

 

[luckdrawhunts]

Hoosier u dont have a clue about crop s or crop insurance.
A farmer insures to make X amount per acre.
Margial yeilds dont pay the input costs.

 

[Sligh1]

FYI - I did have a couple farms I farmed this year that had some "damage" due to the DROUGHT. Farms that missed some needed rains. These ran off the county average and I was paid to get me to either 80-85% of the county average on those farms. My premium was subsidized by Gov. Automatically came that way. Relatively inexpensive. So, I ended up doing just fine on those places. I would prefer to have the higher yields like I did on some other places but it all worked out fine. Sure was nice to have in drought locations. I did not turn in any insurance (as my yields were fine) on my farms that missed the drought but were also packed with deer habitat. In my case, it was pretty minor over the whole fields. Some edges got hammered but did just fine over all.

 

[60plus]

I have a hard time believing they'd make a radical change such as that, but I guess anything is possible. If the goal is to increase the population, it'd be more effective if they went back to the "antlered only" paid tags for archery and shotgun. That's how the population was really built up back in the 70's and 80's. But I realize that would not be a popular idea either...

NWBuck

I agree with NWBuck..Call me an old fart but 2013 was my 50th year as a deer hunter in this state. The DNR knows exactly how to grow the deer herd if they are serious about it, or if they are allowed to may be a better way to put it. In the 70's and 80's getting a doe tag was like winning something at a raffle. Our group of 20 idiots, or whoops sorry I meant deer hunters..actually a lot of those guys were insurance guys..sorry Hoosier couldn't resist. But we would get maybe 4 doe tags in our group, and everybody else was sent an Antlered only tag. End result was a bunch of young bucks got shot and the herd grew. But it didn't happen in just a couple of years. Party hunting is as old as the deer herd. The hunters have to be managed as well as the herd. So, we will see how serious they are at bringing it back. Or, who wins the Peeing contest.

 

[hoosierhunter]

Hoosier u dont have a clue about crop s or crop insurance. A farmer insures to make X amount per acre. Margial yeilds dont pay the input costs.

Hey what's that post right under yours say????

Oh yeah that's a farmer posting ACTUAL results and agreeing with my principle statement.

 

[risto2351]

As several have heard straight from the sources at FARM BUREAU, it's approximately 100 farmers across the state that raise holy-heck with Farm Bureau on the deer #'s. Guys that get pretty loud and impactful. They make a lot of noise and not a lot of voices in FB to counter it. (This comes straight from someone at FB I know btw but I know many others have heard the same thing, often publicly).
The guy I spoke with said, something pretty close to this "Essentially, 100 guys are determining how the state is managed for deer". Referring to the "100 guys" that go bananas with FB. Then, FB forwards this agenda through: full time lobbyists, huge "donations" to folks like Brandstad, etc. FB, etc probably has the most weight and look what happened with Brandstad pulling the Executive order and throwing out the DNR recommendations - siding with Insurance companies like FB.

And, to above, I do agree it's a vast minority of farmers across the state that are both in good deer areas and see the major damage. I do agree with that and I think some facts & evidence can substantiate it when you start discussing how much habitat is left in Iowa.

You are exactly right Skip.
FB is well organized and makes sure Branstad gets his donation.
Hunters (and don't take this wrong guys) are not as well organized as FB and the majority of hunters do not care. I have hunting buddies that do not have a clue what is going on and just roll with the punches.
Hunters do not make enough noise as a huge group and while that continues they will continue to do what they want. IMO

 

[risto2351]

NO!! He is only done "shooting"

Wapsi they will be done hunting.

I see a very small percentage of people sticking with it for three or four days with their buddies if their tag is filled. It will give them added incentive to stick it out otherwise they will grab their deer and head home.

 

[Hawk32]

I don't recall saying or arguing any of this.......Sod pretty much summed it up for ya. I think you are arguing more with yourself on this pale. Not that I need to justify anything to you but believe it or not I am well aware of iowa natural resources, and fairly active in a multitude of ways when it comes to iowas conservation. I am also very well aware of what the state of what Iowas land consists of. All I am saying is stop making some of these ridiculous statements and accusations. You say "facts" when in reality all your saying is broad generalized accusations of what you "think" you know. And yes I did take offense to the "idiot comment" because there again you are making a generalized statement. Done with you and this.

Sorry to everyone else for getting off topic. Back to the question the OP asked. I personally have not heard of any of this and I follow the legislative side of things fairly closely. Not saying some of these won't come up but doubt things will change much. I will say I do believe the doe tags will get reduces but not drastically enough.IMO

"So your saying that the majority of farmers in Iowa experience significant crop damage from deer?

Your also saying that crop insurance hasn't paid farmers when it shouldn't have more times than not recently?

Your telling me that the majority of Iowa holds even average deer habitat? That at least half your state doesn't consist of pure crop ground that holds very few deer period.

If you want to try and call me out fine , but do it with facts not because you have hurt feelings from hearing what you don't want to hear....."

 

[hoosierhunter]

I don't recall saying or arguing any of this.......Sod pretty much summed it up for ya. I think you are arguing more with yourself on this pale. Not that I need to justify anything to you but believe it or not I am well aware of iowa natural resources, and fairly active in a multitude of ways when it comes to iowas conservation. I am also very well aware of what the state of what Iowas land consists of. All I am saying is stop making some of these ridiculous statements and accusations. You say "facts" when in reality all your saying is broad generalized accusations of what you "think" you know. And yes I did take offense to the "idiot comment" because there again you are making a generalized statement. Done with you and this. Sorry to everyone else for getting off topic. Back to the question the OP asked. I personally have not heard of any of this and I follow the legislative side of things fairly closely. Not saying some of these won't come up but doubt things will change much. I will say I do believe the doe tags will get reduces but not drastically enough.IMO "So your saying that the majority of farmers in Iowa experience significant crop damage from deer? Your also saying that crop insurance hasn't paid farmers when it shouldn't have more times than not recently? Your telling me that the majority of Iowa holds even average deer habitat? That at least half your state doesn't consist of pure crop ground that holds very few deer period. If you want to try and call me out fine , but do it with facts not because you have hurt feelings from hearing what you don't want to hear....."

You have anything better to add other than I'm wrong because I'm a NR? Let me know when you do.....

 

[chappy]

You have anything better to add other than I'm wrong because I'm a NR? Let me know when you do.....

IMO he doesn't need to add anything. The fact that you don't live here is good enough for me. You aren't exposed to as much local information as we. We know Iowa isn't perfect but its closer than most. Debate is a good healthy thing. I personally don't want a nr telling me our problems. If you have problems on your land fix them or sell. Its hard to tell but I'm not jumping up and down as I type this. I'm not calling you out personally but I am in this post referring to nr that want to yell about not getting enough tags. Haven't you heard anything, our deer numbers are down.

 

[Bowtech84]

Ok I'm done with the non-PMA side of Iowawhitetail. Reason is: 1. Guys want to complain about not seeing many mature bucks and hardly any deer in general, but they want to change nothing. The culture of greed and only willing to take the same or more has made me sick. GREED will be eventually push all the little people out of hunting and will ruin it.. 2. Insanity: Doing the same thing you've been doing but expecting different results.... There are way to many "members" in this category (very few PMA members thankfully). 3. I live by the "Golden Rule", treat others how you'd like to be treated. 4. I have a great respect for intellegence and there is a lot of intellegent guys in the PMA section!

Don't let the door hit ya! Hope the PMA guys figure out something quick because I'm ready to see good deer numbers!

 

[luckdrawhunts]

I am a farmer have been all my life.
Sligh1 it depends on how much u have covered and what county. I am in one of the counties that 80% dont make much profit

 

[rookie10pt]

I read in multiple comments how that the doe tags need to be reduced.

Before the 2013/14 season weren't the doe tags reduced in multiple counties?? Actually, if I remember correctly there was only ONE county where the doe tags were increased...and that was Bremer.

Sure! Maybe the doe tags need to be reduced some more…that's not the point. The point is, THE "DOE TAG REDUCTION" BALL HAS STARTED ROLLING!

It will be interesting to see what this upcoming season will bring in this regard.

 

[Altiman94]

I think there is some truth to the statement that 'some hunters do not care'. I don't know if it's truly the case that they don't care about the deer population being lower but they aren't doing anything to make it better (i.e. keep shooting does, not writing their legislature, etc). But I still think having doe tags available on public land was a big mistake to start with. We keep blaming branstad and everyone else we can find, but there was no need for the DNR to allow extra tags on public land.

 

[Sligh1]

I am a farmer have been all my life.
Sligh1 it depends on how much u have covered and what county. I am in one of the counties that 80% dont make much profit

Warren, lucas, Clarke, ringold & Decatur. Decatur is probably the toughest to do well with lower county averages. My Clarke farms do well but they have some good dirt and I put a lot into them. All the farms do get a lot of deer pressure. Ya- for sure no blanket rule and some COunties better than others. Deer aren't my threats though - its 10x more dependant on the weather.
For me, deer, turkey and coon damage is way down the list vs what the weather will do. Yes, I do count on the 1st 12 rows of corn to be toast around timber but that's generally more attributable to the trees though.
I get it though and obviously a wide open 85 CSR flat field without a
Drop of cover is ideal. But even with that the weather again is biggest threat. Pretty obvious I know. I get u though.