Daver
PMA Member
I agree very much with what Fishbonker is representing. It isn't that NR's shoot so many deer as a percentage of the overall annual take, the objection(s) that many people I know have is that more NR licenses will lead to more land being locked down via leasing and/or direct purchase. It doesn't matter how many deer there are or how many tags will be issued, etc, if a person cannot get access to good hunting land readily there are going to be "feelings" about the issues.
Access to land is the real issue in my mind, the others are side issues. If "regular guys" were still able to hunt where they did before, etc, I don't there would even be a discussion about more NR licenses, let alone any rancor. I don't think anyone that is being realistic about these issues could deny that there has been a great deal of "displacement" occurring over the past 4-8 years. It has happened to me several times and to virtually every hunter/friend I can think of. On the flip side, I have even "displaced" fellow longtime Iowa hunters on the land that I own.
I can honestly say that I am just as happy to see an ethical, dedicated NR harvest a big Iowa buck as any resident hunter. What I don't like to see is the transformation where the land is being locked up, so to speak.
BTW - Before someone starts flaming... I do allow other hunters on my property, just not everyone, all the time, etc. I do not charge, although I do welcome help with the ongoing habitat management I am doing and I do not allow young bucks to be shot. Heck, I have even allowed, gasp, NR's access to my land.
In short, I am in favor of laws and regulations that preserve a scenario where "all" people have a roughly equal chance to participate in this great sport.
Access to land is the real issue in my mind, the others are side issues. If "regular guys" were still able to hunt where they did before, etc, I don't there would even be a discussion about more NR licenses, let alone any rancor. I don't think anyone that is being realistic about these issues could deny that there has been a great deal of "displacement" occurring over the past 4-8 years. It has happened to me several times and to virtually every hunter/friend I can think of. On the flip side, I have even "displaced" fellow longtime Iowa hunters on the land that I own.
I can honestly say that I am just as happy to see an ethical, dedicated NR harvest a big Iowa buck as any resident hunter. What I don't like to see is the transformation where the land is being locked up, so to speak.
BTW - Before someone starts flaming... I do allow other hunters on my property, just not everyone, all the time, etc. I do not charge, although I do welcome help with the ongoing habitat management I am doing and I do not allow young bucks to be shot. Heck, I have even allowed, gasp, NR's access to my land.
In short, I am in favor of laws and regulations that preserve a scenario where "all" people have a roughly equal chance to participate in this great sport.
Don K
Member
I bowhunted Iowa for the first time this season. I was amazed at the quailty of deer and public land to hunt. The pressure was near none as I saw 1 other bowhunter in 2 weeks. Im more than happy to wait another couple years to get my turn to hunt there again.
If you want more does harvested then have a doe tag given along with the either sex tags. Here in Illinois a NR gets 2 tags for archery 1 either sex and 1 anterless. This year they also sold NR doe tags over the counter to those you had a NR tag and they where real cheap.
Here in Illinois the Outfitters have gotten together and filed a lawsuit against our NR cap. A cap that is now 15,000 and was raised after only 1 year. They are going to take 3,500 of these tags and reserve them for the outfitters. Our DNR is in big trouble here as our new Gov. is trying to save money and is really laying people off. There was a meeting a couple months back and our DNR director said he would like to see the NR tag go to 500!!! They are out for nothing here but money.
I hope everything there in Iowa stays the way it is. But i bet whatever happens with this lawsuit on our cap here in Illinois will effect Iowa and Kansas down the road........
If you want more does harvested then have a doe tag given along with the either sex tags. Here in Illinois a NR gets 2 tags for archery 1 either sex and 1 anterless. This year they also sold NR doe tags over the counter to those you had a NR tag and they where real cheap.
Here in Illinois the Outfitters have gotten together and filed a lawsuit against our NR cap. A cap that is now 15,000 and was raised after only 1 year. They are going to take 3,500 of these tags and reserve them for the outfitters. Our DNR is in big trouble here as our new Gov. is trying to save money and is really laying people off. There was a meeting a couple months back and our DNR director said he would like to see the NR tag go to 500!!! They are out for nothing here but money.
I hope everything there in Iowa stays the way it is. But i bet whatever happens with this lawsuit on our cap here in Illinois will effect Iowa and Kansas down the road........
ironwood
Active Member
I hope the 35% cap stays in place and that outfitters never get an allotment of tags. I like the idea of keeping the out of state seasonal pressure as evenly dispersed as possible. Also, I can't see any reason why any business should have more access to the states natural resources than any individual.
I have never been able to figure out the reasons for this cap and upon reading some of the posts, I suppose that I can look at it in a different light. Initially, I thought that this was a harvest issue and could not figure out why if you had 6500 total NR tags you would want 65% of the hunters using a weapon that typically yields 70% success or better against the 35% that is roughly 25-30% successful. I would have thought that the IBA would have supported more archery tags that would yield lower NR harvest rates, since NR hunters typically are there for the trophy buck there would be a lessor effect on the harvest. Now I see that it probably has nothing to do with the harvest or who shoots a trophy deer or not but more in land availability to residents. Outfitters paying high lease fees need to rely on bowhunters to support their business. They cannot survive on gun hunting alone due to the shortened season unless they run through an extremely high number of hunters (which would in turn hurt their business as the poor service would deter re-booking). If there were more archery hunters they could sustain relatively low hunter numbers per week, low impact, and provide quality which would lead to further land leases, expansion and growth in their business,etc which is good for them but bad for residents. Awfully tough call. I love everything about hunting in Iowa and I use an outfitter and am glad for the opportunity. My outfitter has worked thru the regulations and provides an excellent hunt so he now has many repeat customers who follow the rules and bowhunt every other year therefore sustaining his business that enable him to live (not get rich) and do something he loves to do. I don't see this as a problem. I guess that my bottom line is that I would love to see a change that would provide me a better chance to hunt in Iowa each year- but I can see the other side and have no problem if things do not change.
I'm not sure as to the original reasoning for the cap or Maximum, whatever you want to call it. But I do know one thing for sure; most resident hunters form their opinion on how they percieve it to affect them. In my opinion, and how I see it affecting me is not in deer numbers as far as what is killed but in how it may affect my access to hunting property. I currently have sole (bow) hunting rights to 5 separate farms and I don't want that to change. Selfish? Hell yah! But I also take very good care of those landowners. Could I compete with someone who has a couple grand to spread around? Hell no! Anyone that thinks the elimination of the cap wouldn't result in a disproportionate amount of added pressure on a few counties in the State is not thinking clearly. If you were to research an out of state hunt how would you start? You would research the best place to go. When you look at all 99 counties it's not too hard to envision that being pared down to maybe 30-40 of the best. Now put all those bow tags to work in those counties and guess what the local Joe Blue Collar sees happen to his opportunities! I'm not against NR hunters. I've even helped a few with my limited hunting knowledge when I've run into them. But imagine how that would change if the hunting rights were leased on 2 or 3 of my farms. It's not broke so don't fix it! What needs to change is the way we fund the DNR. The article from the Des Moines Register was reprinted in the Dubuque Telegraph Herald today and any time we have a DNR employee advocating more non-resident tags to remove the temptation of poaching from those "poor fellows who just couldn't resist" that should tell us all something. I know a little something about being a public employee and understanding where your bread is buttered but to see a DNR employee advocate more tags just because they need the cash turns my stomach. I've never turned from the challenge of increased tags costs for residents either but we are far overdue for a constant, guaranteed funding stream for the DNR. This would eliminate most of these discussions. Sorry so long. Maggs
A couple are next to public ground and a couple are owned by people who simply let no one else hunt there. All of them are largely affected by hunting on the neighboring properites. One of them had a shotgun group go through 1st season & they shot 11 deer. Lots of public ground nearby though so it won't totally wipe out the bucks. Maggs
avidhunter
New Member
Maybe these are small farms? Though I seriously doubt it... I don't see how you are taking good care of the landowners, unless you are filling 10+ doe tags a year on each farm???
I ran into a similar problem this last season, when one farmer that always let us hunt, shut us out, because his grandson wanted to hunt his ground solo... we're talking like 300-400+ acres of prime timber... all for ONE bowhunter? please....
I ran into a similar problem this last season, when one farmer that always let us hunt, shut us out, because his grandson wanted to hunt his ground solo... we're talking like 300-400+ acres of prime timber... all for ONE bowhunter? please....
I have to agree with some of the recent posts my opinion on this issue is based on land access. Over the last handful of years I have been displaced from a number of properties due to leasing or gross overpopulation of hunters. My favorite (and only remaining) private property, which I shared with one other hunter last year, I shared with seven this year. I talked with two of the hunters and they said leasing and pressure had pushed them from their properties as well. The surrounding properties, which constitute thousands (yes, thousands) of acres, have been leased or purchased by groups from California and Michigan (the California group offered to let my friend bow hunt for $5000 a year). Next year I hope to introduce my six year old to deer hunting and I may need to lease or buy some property just so he can have a decent experience unfortunately when I do I will probably displace some other hunters its a vicious cycle.
However, having said that the whole issue of NR opportunities is a big one and I wont form my final opinion solely on my personal experience. I guess the question we need to answer is, will increasing NR access to Iowas resources increase Iowas ability to manage the deer herd or further our sport? If not, why consider it? This should never be an issue of fairness.
However, having said that the whole issue of NR opportunities is a big one and I wont form my final opinion solely on my personal experience. I guess the question we need to answer is, will increasing NR access to Iowas resources increase Iowas ability to manage the deer herd or further our sport? If not, why consider it? This should never be an issue of fairness.
If you look at this from a numbers stand point an increase in NR tags would not affect the overal harvest much except that I could actually see it go down with more property tyied up with leasing or NR landowners. As several have said harvest on thies acres will go down because NR don't want to waste their time or money on does or anything less than a real trophy.
From an equality viewpoint actually bow hunters have to large an allacation already. There are bow season, 1st shotgun, 2nd shotgun, and late muzzle loader seasons. Equality would give all seasons 25% of the tags. Also bow hunters have not only 2 1/2 months but can hunt during the peak rut time. How can any one say bow hunters aren't treated fairly. As for the falacy that more tags would increase a NR's odds of drawing I don't think so. More tags means more entries and more publicity and more entries, and more outfitters and more entries, and on and on. Odds would in all likly hood go from once every 3 years to once every 5 years. We must think of the long term outlook before we embrace the short term.
From an equality viewpoint actually bow hunters have to large an allacation already. There are bow season, 1st shotgun, 2nd shotgun, and late muzzle loader seasons. Equality would give all seasons 25% of the tags. Also bow hunters have not only 2 1/2 months but can hunt during the peak rut time. How can any one say bow hunters aren't treated fairly. As for the falacy that more tags would increase a NR's odds of drawing I don't think so. More tags means more entries and more publicity and more entries, and more outfitters and more entries, and on and on. Odds would in all likly hood go from once every 3 years to once every 5 years. We must think of the long term outlook before we embrace the short term.
Bakes
Member
This may have been suggested I can't remember all the posts and peoples suggestions.
I feel the tags should be distributed evenly by the number of applicants.
If say IADNR decided to give out 10,000 tags to NR (used that number because it's easy). Say 7,000 bowhunters apply, 3,000 1st season gun hunters and 3,000 2nd season gun hunters and 1,000 ML hunters apply. For a total of 14,000 applicants for 10,000 permits available.
Bowhunters made up 50% of applicants so 5,000 permits would be deligated to them.
1st season gun hunters made up 21% of applicants so they would get 2,100 permits
2nd season gun hunters made up 21% of applicants so they to would get 2,100 permits.
ML hunters made up 8% of applicants so they would get 800 permits.
If done this way the same percentage of applicants would be denied a tag know matter weapon of choice. I feel this is the best way of doing it to make it equal/fair for all hunters whether you use a smokepole, stick and string or 12 gauge.
Bowmaker,
Using 25% across the board would make it more lopsided than what it already is. I don't feel that you can take into consideration the rut and how long each season is. These are season dates established by the IADNR why make the bowhunter get the short end of the stick, instead make it even like above. The blanket statement that no NR wants to waste his money on shooting does is not true. My friend is going down this weekend to harvest a doe and if I was given the opportunity to do so by the IADNR I would be riding with him. The DNR sold all 2,500 NR doe tags this past season someone must be using them.
http://hf.centraltechnology.net/ia_quota/app/nonResAntlerlessList.do
Avidhunter,
I think you would be suprised at how many hunters on this site have 300-400 acres all to themselves. If playing the wind right and not over hunting stands it may take a couple locations like that to kill Booners consistantly.
The above is my 2 cents worth
.
Nonres
I feel the tags should be distributed evenly by the number of applicants.
If say IADNR decided to give out 10,000 tags to NR (used that number because it's easy). Say 7,000 bowhunters apply, 3,000 1st season gun hunters and 3,000 2nd season gun hunters and 1,000 ML hunters apply. For a total of 14,000 applicants for 10,000 permits available.
Bowhunters made up 50% of applicants so 5,000 permits would be deligated to them.
1st season gun hunters made up 21% of applicants so they would get 2,100 permits
2nd season gun hunters made up 21% of applicants so they to would get 2,100 permits.
ML hunters made up 8% of applicants so they would get 800 permits.
If done this way the same percentage of applicants would be denied a tag know matter weapon of choice. I feel this is the best way of doing it to make it equal/fair for all hunters whether you use a smokepole, stick and string or 12 gauge.
Bowmaker,
Using 25% across the board would make it more lopsided than what it already is. I don't feel that you can take into consideration the rut and how long each season is. These are season dates established by the IADNR why make the bowhunter get the short end of the stick, instead make it even like above. The blanket statement that no NR wants to waste his money on shooting does is not true. My friend is going down this weekend to harvest a doe and if I was given the opportunity to do so by the IADNR I would be riding with him. The DNR sold all 2,500 NR doe tags this past season someone must be using them.
http://hf.centraltechnology.net/ia_quota/app/nonResAntlerlessList.do
Avidhunter,
I think you would be suprised at how many hunters on this site have 300-400 acres all to themselves. If playing the wind right and not over hunting stands it may take a couple locations like that to kill Booners consistantly.
The above is my 2 cents worth
Nonres
ironwood
Active Member
Nonres I think from a fairness to all NRs your numbers may sound good but as this topic has developed is has become clear that the resident hunter is more concerned about added pressure during the bow season for land usage than making the NRs more involved in QDM. As a resident I like the caps and think they are already too generous with the current 35% bow cap.
Unfortunatley, I believe Iowa is in a no win situation. I commend those who are trying to come up with a good solution, but the fact of the matter is that more NR's and outiftters, will be coming to Iowa in the future to take advantage of a valuable resource that has been made public. For years Iowa hunting was like private stock in the New York Stock Exchange until brought into the public eye by nationally known hunters. Farmers, landowners, insurance companies, real estate companies and business owners will take advantage of new found wealth. I've tried to think of a solution but there is none. In the coming years more residents will be displaced from hunting grounds, however, I don't think the quality of the deer herd will diminish. In fact, it may become better as most NR's and outfitters are serious hunters who know how to manage whitetail deer. Illinois has experienced an influx of NR's, and seem to maintain quality. I know this does not solve anything for the resident hunter, but as I stated in earlier posts resident hunters have noone to blame but the big time video producers/hunters and business people exploiting Iowa deer hunting; who live in Iowa, for this current mess.
Nonres
My point was that the bow hunters have it pretty good now. I wasn't advocating that we drop to 25%, just that is the fairest way for all NR tags to be distributed. Since late muzzle loader is the least used by NR, I don't think those hunters would be happy to give up their chance to hunt so that 200 more bow hunters could hunt for over 2 months through the rut. I do take into consideration the long season and timing, that is why I think the 35% cap is justified.
My point was that the bow hunters have it pretty good now. I wasn't advocating that we drop to 25%, just that is the fairest way for all NR tags to be distributed. Since late muzzle loader is the least used by NR, I don't think those hunters would be happy to give up their chance to hunt so that 200 more bow hunters could hunt for over 2 months through the rut. I do take into consideration the long season and timing, that is why I think the 35% cap is justified.
Bakes
Member
Ironwood,
The first part of my post was to answer Onecam's original question about the 35% cap. I think it needs to be removed and I feel it should be determined by percentage of applicants so that each weapon recieves equal tags.
You obviosly disagree, you feel the cap should be lowered even further. WHY??? Not sure who would support this except the NR gun hunter. The reason that I understand is that your nervous that bowhunters will lease up the land. Do you not think that gun hunters will use outfitters, lease or buy land or get permission on land the same as bowhunters will. It is just my opinion but I would rather have bowhunters from out of state hunting the land beside my hunting grounds rather than gun hunters.
.
Nonres
The first part of my post was to answer Onecam's original question about the 35% cap. I think it needs to be removed and I feel it should be determined by percentage of applicants so that each weapon recieves equal tags.
You obviosly disagree, you feel the cap should be lowered even further. WHY??? Not sure who would support this except the NR gun hunter. The reason that I understand is that your nervous that bowhunters will lease up the land. Do you not think that gun hunters will use outfitters, lease or buy land or get permission on land the same as bowhunters will. It is just my opinion but I would rather have bowhunters from out of state hunting the land beside my hunting grounds rather than gun hunters.
Nonres
ironwood
Active Member
Nonres, I tend to agree with the thought of having bow hunters next door as apposed to gun hunter, but it still would put a higher percentage of pressure on the land resource during the bow season without the cap. I really am not sure what all the best answers are or if anybody cares what we think, it just seems reasonable to me that there is a real function to the cap. God knows that things are going to change; I simply believe that the natural resources belong to all residence of the state and should benefit the resident first and foremost. No business or nonresident should ever control or determine the use of these resources. I do not hunt out of state very often but I would expect most states have similar issues and protections in place or going in place for the future of residents hunting. Everybody knows how I feel, I am going to try and become a reader for awhile.
Avidhunter,
I'm sorry you had to jump to conclusions although I'm sure it's my fault. I should not have said 5 farms; I should have said 5 properties. To clarify matters I looked up total acres in the plat book. One property is appx. 40 acres and that includes a hay/corn field, house, shed and barn + a horse pasture. Total timber is maybe 10 acres but it borders several hundred acres of public ground. Good situation for me? You bet it is. Next property is 20 acres of all timber except where the house sits(an old mansion). I gained sole hunting rights because I took the time to ask and no one else apparently did. This property just recently changed hands and I took the time to talk to the new owners. While it may change; at the moment I am the only one bowhunting there.
Next door is a farm of 60 acres. House, hay/corn field and pasture make up around 30 acres and the remainder is in the timber reserve. This property sat unhunted for about 10 years because no one cultivated a relationship with the owner. I did! Will I apologise for that? Hell no! Last two farms are owned by the same family. I've shared these properties in the past and will in the future. In fact, the last guy shot his only deer out of my stand! With my permission. One farm is 273 acres and the other is 154. Both have hundreds of acres of public ground next door and they are managed as beef farms. Total timber is probably around 200 acres for both properties and it's all pastured. Do I need to shoot 10 does off each property? No and they don't want me to either. No matter how many hunters hit these properties they could not change the deer population dramatically as the deer would, and do, simply move on to the neighboring farms. Hopefully this clears up any misconceptions but if I ever need a lesson in managing the deer on these properties I'll be sure to give you a call. Maggs
I'm sorry you had to jump to conclusions although I'm sure it's my fault. I should not have said 5 farms; I should have said 5 properties. To clarify matters I looked up total acres in the plat book. One property is appx. 40 acres and that includes a hay/corn field, house, shed and barn + a horse pasture. Total timber is maybe 10 acres but it borders several hundred acres of public ground. Good situation for me? You bet it is. Next property is 20 acres of all timber except where the house sits(an old mansion). I gained sole hunting rights because I took the time to ask and no one else apparently did. This property just recently changed hands and I took the time to talk to the new owners. While it may change; at the moment I am the only one bowhunting there.
Next door is a farm of 60 acres. House, hay/corn field and pasture make up around 30 acres and the remainder is in the timber reserve. This property sat unhunted for about 10 years because no one cultivated a relationship with the owner. I did! Will I apologise for that? Hell no! Last two farms are owned by the same family. I've shared these properties in the past and will in the future. In fact, the last guy shot his only deer out of my stand! With my permission. One farm is 273 acres and the other is 154. Both have hundreds of acres of public ground next door and they are managed as beef farms. Total timber is probably around 200 acres for both properties and it's all pastured. Do I need to shoot 10 does off each property? No and they don't want me to either. No matter how many hunters hit these properties they could not change the deer population dramatically as the deer would, and do, simply move on to the neighboring farms. Hopefully this clears up any misconceptions but if I ever need a lesson in managing the deer on these properties I'll be sure to give you a call. Maggs
hcsafari
Member
Great topic and some very interesting discussion for sure. I would have to agree with Jdubs - however unfortunate that may sound for most residents of Iowa. It's coming and there is no stopping it. I hate it, as it has happened to me here in MS concerning waterfowl hunting - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer so to speak. Let's face it guys, when I was growing up and living in Iowa it was already happeneing then - and that was 20 years ago. Non-resident pheasant hunters were leasing up hunting ground left and right in Cass County - in the 1980's. Fortunately, I did alot of trapping and my Father had some solid relationships with many landowers and farmers so we were always able to solitify hunting rights. My younger brother still lives there and he has been able to continue doing so - but for how long? Only time will tell. I still come to Iowa and hunt - when I can scrape up the money for a tag which isn't often. Hunting and outdoor recreation are big big business. Here in MS retired marginal ag land is generally worth more per acre as hunting property then ag land is when in production. I imagine that trend will continue and spread through much of the southeast and up into the midwest. Someone who posted in here has a quote under their name somethig to the affect that when money dictates hunting rights - all hunters lose! Well I could'nt agree more. But what do we do? I would like to believe that most NR hunters coming to Iowa either have friends there that they hunt with, go through an outfitter or hunt public land. If thats the case and I would imagine a very large percentage of them do - then the impact on resident hunters is pretty minimal. But thats now - the future, who knows? Like I said - I have lost a lot of duck hunting ground here in MS because of others coming in and leasing it up - more residents then NR believe it or not - but that dose'nt make it any better. I hate to see the potential for the same thing to happen in Iowa - I grew up there and to this day I still refer to it as Home.
Just some thoughts.
Just some thoughts.
robowhunter
New Member
I'm a ethical, law abiding, non-resident bow hunter, who has fallen in love with Iowa and I am very much against increasing the bow cap or total NR tags. As Jdubs & hcsafari have stated the outfitters & land leasers are coming. Increasing the number of NR hunters is going to put the process in overdrive. When I see land in eastern NC, where a 120 class buck is the deer of a lifetime, leasing for $20/acre, it scares me to think what these outfitters and business owners would be willing to pay for land in Iowa! Over the last 10 yrs, eastern NC leases have increased from $3 or $4 per acre to $15 or $20 per acre. The majority of this increase can be traced to outfitters and a large business owner who happens to be part owner of the Carolina Panthers (can you say tax right off). On their days off some of the Panthers are flown in to hunt. All it takes is for a very few people to run the price sky high. It is extremely hard for NC landowners to turn down this extra income. I pray that this situation never arises in your great state.