A second ARCHERY tag in Iowa??

[Hardwood11]

I wish Iowa was a one buck tag state. A good percentage of Iowa is agriculture with limited cover.

One buck tag, and a landowner buck tag for certain counties. If you really want quality ! That’s just my outside perspective!

It might be time for the DNR to manage bucks by County ? Instead of just antlerless! The same rules for Decatur County and Worth County (as an example) makes no sense !

 

[CurtisWalker]

If you were to get two archery tags you better make one only good for October and the other only good for November. Mature bucks would definitely take a hurting imo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[John Young]

I like the idea of buying one buck tag that’s good for all season. So you have the opportunity to hunt any or all of the seasons. But once you fill that tag your done buck hunting for the season. But as others have mentioned land owners should still get there tags. I think the land owner should be able to let anyone he wants use that tag as long as they are hunting on his property. Let’s face it land ownership isn’t cheap and any way a landowner can make an extra buck to help pay for the place more power to him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hillrunner]

I like the idea of buying one buck tag that’s good for all season. So you have the opportunity to hunt any or all of the seasons. But once you fill that tag your done buck hunting for the season. But as others have mentioned land owners should still get there tags. I think the land owner should be able to let anyone he wants use that tag as long as they are hunting on his property. Let’s face it land ownership isn’t cheap and any way a landowner can make an extra buck to help pay for the place more power to him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I strongly disagree with landowners being able to sell that tag. It doesn't take much imagination to see where that would lead.
Didn't Kansas try that?

 

[newfarmer]

I strongly disagree with landowners being able to sell that tag. It doesn't take much imagination to see where that would lead.
Didn't Kansas try that?

I agree, no way I would ever want a sale to happen. Then you are just going to create an even bigger problem.
As far as LOT tags, I own 18 acres, and if they ever change the minimum to lets say 20 acres, I would make a lot more money bulldozing my trees and crp and doing crop- trust me. So therefore, getting a tag with a smaller piece is for sure a perk and also going to save a ton of habitat for wildlife. Back in the day, everyone and their brother got tags, now its a lot more buttoned down (to an extent)- but I cant have 1 apple tree on 2 acres and have that work. When I filled out my paperwork, if I was doing a specialty fruit- pumpkins/apples/whatever- was told it has to be 10 acres of that but unsure if thats exactly true or not.
Now back to the original question- I would not be a fun of trading in any tags for different ones as I am against floating tags all together, HOWEVER, if it was a 1 tag state, then makes a whole lot more sense to float. The flip side, if all tags turned into floating tags, like a lot of other states, just simply put the youth with the other seasons, or open the bow season earlier (can you imagine that rush?)

 

[John Young]

I strongly disagree with landowners being able to sell that tag. It doesn't take much imagination to see where that would lead.
Didn't Kansas try that?

Why? It doesn’t matter where it leads. It’s the landowners right to the tag and to do with it as he sees fit should be his business as long as it happens on his property. If you have good deer on camera you could get upwards of $3k to $4k for that tag. Every dollar goes a very long way in helping landowners to afford the property. Why do you care what a landowner does on his property? What’s the difference if I fill the tag myself or make an extra $4k to help make my mortgage payments? The tag is getting filled either way. I could care less about killing another buck. I’d rather make the extra money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[newfarmer]

Why? It doesn’t matter where it leads. It’s the landowners right to the tag and to do with it as he sees fit should be his business as long as it happens on his property. If you have good deer on camera you could get upwards of $3k to $4k for that tag. Every dollar goes a very long way in helping landowners to afford the property. Why do you care what a landowner does on his property? What’s the difference if I fill the tag myself or make an extra $4k to help make my mortgage payments? The tag is getting filled either way. I could care less about killing another buck. I’d rather make the extra money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because thats exactly what will happen- a flood of the market of people wanting to make money, basically making every landowner an outfitter, where access will substantially decrease...

 

[John Young]

Because thats exactly what will happen- a flood of the market of people wanting to make money, basically making every landowner an outfitter, where access will substantially decrease...

Access has already decreased. You want to take money out of my pocket for land I pay for because you don’t want to lose your access? Probably your free access? You can always bite the bullet and make sacrifices to buy your own land like I did so you don’t have to worry about access. This day in age no landowner should he giving free access. It’s extremely expensive to own and maintain a farm. Especially this day in age. You can make pretty good money leasing. Why give it away for free? Most are starting to lease by the week anyways. You can make way more money that way. But you still don’t present a good reason why you should keep landowners from making that extra money. You obviously don’t understand what it takes to buy/maintain and pay for a farm this day in age or you would understand why landowners need to make as much as possible. This has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with surviving and not losing your farm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[John Young]

Access has already decreased. You want to take money out of my pocket for land I pay for because you don’t want to lose your access? Probably your free access? You can always bite the bullet and make sacrifices to buy your own land like I did so you don’t have to worry about access. This day in age no landowner should he giving free access. It’s extremely expensive to own and maintain a farm. Especially this day in age. You can make pretty good money leasing. Why give it away for free? Most are starting to lease by the week anyways. You can make way more money that way. But you still don’t present a good reason why you should keep landowners from making that extra money. You obviously don’t understand what it takes to buy/maintain and pay for a farm this day in age or you would understand why landowners need to make as much as possible. This has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with surviving and not losing your farm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fyi, if that did come to a vote you should only be able to vote if your a landowner that qualifies for a landowner tag. Non landowners shouldn’t have any say in what landowners can do. Jmo Now the party hunting and sharing tags should certainly be abolished. I’ve seen lots of gray area happen with that law/rule. It creates a lot of loop holes that need to be stopped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Obsessed]

Access has already decreased. You want to take money out of my pocket for land I pay for because you don’t want to lose your access? Probably your free access? You can always bite the bullet and make sacrifices to buy your own land like I did so you don’t have to worry about access. This day in age no landowner should he giving free access. It’s extremely expensive to own and maintain a farm. Especially this day in age. You can make pretty good money leasing. Why give it away for free? Most are starting to lease by the week anyways. You can make way more money that way. But you still don’t present a good reason why you should keep landowners from making that extra money. You obviously don’t understand what it takes to buy/maintain and pay for a farm this day in age or you would understand why landowners need to make as much as possible. This has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with surviving and not losing your farm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see that you're a new member John Young. It's quite evident, but welcome none the less.

I encourage you to lobby for the selling of lot tags. It has an extremely slim chance of ever passing, but hey, if that's where your passion is, go for it.

As the SOR (system of record) currently works, tags are associated with the individual. Including lot tags. It would take much retooling to assign the lot tags to the property. Also, if the current SOR wasn't modified, any one person could possess and use several other people's lot tags, which would not be easy to regulate or maintain, etc.

There are better ways for landowners to make a buck.

 

[newfarmer]

Fyi, if that did come to a vote you should only be able to vote if your a landowner that qualifies for a landowner tag. Non landowners shouldn’t have any say in what landowners can do. Jmo Now the party hunting and sharing tags should certainly be abolished. I’ve seen lots of gray area happen with that law/rule. It creates a lot of loop holes that need to be stopped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

except for the fact you missed a part where I put that I am a Landowner, thanks.

 

[hillrunner]

Why? It doesn’t matter where it leads. It’s the landowners right to the tag and to do with it as he sees fit should be his business as long as it happens on his property. If you have good deer on camera you could get upwards of $3k to $4k for that tag. Every dollar goes a very long way in helping landowners to afford the property. Why do you care what a landowner does on his property? What’s the difference if I fill the tag myself or make an extra $4k to help make my mortgage payments? The tag is getting filled either way. I could care less about killing another buck. I’d rather make the extra money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am a landowner who hunts 100% on my own land. You are not unique on this site by being a land owner so you can jump right off that high horse.
If you think it's expensive to be a landowner now, try buying land after every landowner around can split their parcels up between family members and become a full blown outfitter catering to wealthy non residents. It is not as simple as just switching out the shooter, the implications would be big.

 

[tall@wide]

Access has already decreased. You want to take money out of my pocket for land I pay for because you don’t want to lose your access? Probably your free access? You can always bite the bullet and make sacrifices to buy your own land like I did so you don’t have to worry about access. This day in age no landowner should he giving free access. It’s extremely expensive to own and maintain a farm. Especially this day in age. You can make pretty good money leasing. Why give it away for free? Most are starting to lease by the week anyways. You can make way more money that way. But you still don’t present a good reason why you should keep landowners from making that extra money. You obviously don’t understand what it takes to buy/maintain and pay for a farm this day in age or you would understand why landowners need to make as much as possible. This has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with surviving and not losing your farm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It sounds like you have overextended yourself on the farm(s) you own.. I prefer to let people hunt free and have never charged anyone to hunt a farm I own. Selling landowner tags is a horrible recommendation and one that would really hurt age structure in the state.

 

[John Young]

It sounds like you have overextended yourself on the farm(s) you own.. I prefer to let people hunt free and have never charged anyone to hunt a farm I own. Selling landowner tags is a horrible recommendation and one that would really hurt age structure in the state.

I think the majority of landowners would vote in favor. No high horse. Just a landowner that paid good money for a farm and needs/wants as little government over site as possible. For what it costs to own maintain a farm I should be able to do what ever I want as long as I do it on my own place. We don’t need the government breathing down our necks. If your allowing free access your a unicorn. This day in age. Advertise that on face book and you will be over run.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nrharris]

I think the majority of landowners would vote in favor. No high horse. Just a landowner that paid good money for a farm and needs/wants as little government over site as possible. For what it costs to own maintain a farm I should be able to do what ever I want as long as I do it on my own place. We don’t need the government breathing down our necks. If your allowing free access your a unicorn. This day in age. Advertise that on face book and you will be over run.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You say you want government out of it, yet you want the government to give/sell you a government document that you can resell for a profit. What a load of poo that is. Nobody is stopping you from leasing the ground you own or generating income from it.

 

[JNRBRONC]

Iowa code shields landowners from injury lawsuits if you allow free hunting, Need to buy a liability policy if you lease or charge a fee. It’s not the wounded hunter that sues, it’s his health insurance company and lawyers. Probably doesn’t happen often, but wouldn’t “bet the farm” on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[John Young]

You say you want government out of it, yet you want the government to give/sell you a government document that you can resell for a profit. What a load of poo that is. Nobody is stopping you from leasing the ground you own or generating income from it.

You can say what ever you want. Lol… I could care less. The fact remains I would surely vote in favor of it had it ever hit the ballot. Heck right now I could do it during the “party hunting” gun season as long as I was on the property with the hunter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Daver]

I think the majority of landowners would vote in favor. No high horse. Just a landowner that paid good money for a farm and needs/wants as little government over site as possible. For what it costs to own maintain a farm I should be able to do what ever I want as long as I do it on my own place. We don’t need the government breathing down our necks. If your allowing free access your a unicorn. This day in age. Advertise that on face book and you will be over run.

The fallacy of that line of thinking is that the landowners do not own the wildlife. That is under the control of the state and there are laws and regulations set to benefit all citizens, not just landowners.

Also, I too am a unicorn I guess, as I have never charged anyone that hunted, fished, trapped, etc, at my farm.

 

[iowavf]

I like the idea of buying one buck tag that’s good for all season. So you have the opportunity to hunt any or all of the seasons. But once you fill that tag your done buck hunting for the season. But as others have mentioned land owners should still get there tags. I think the land owner should be able to let anyone he wants use that tag as long as they are hunting on his property. Let’s face it land ownership isn’t cheap and any way a landowner can make an extra buck to help pay for the place more power to him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not what a landowner tag is meant for and I hope it never comes to being sold to others for profit! Why stop there, hell let anyone sell their statewide AnySex tag to the highest bidder.

 

[iowavf]

Access has already decreased. You want to take money out of my pocket for land I pay for because you don’t want to lose your access? Probably your free access? You can always bite the bullet and make sacrifices to buy your own land like I did so you don’t have to worry about access. This day in age no landowner should he giving free access. It’s extremely expensive to own and maintain a farm. Especially this day in age. You can make pretty good money leasing. Why give it away for free? Most are starting to lease by the week anyways. You can make way more money that way. But you still don’t present a good reason why you should keep landowners from making that extra money. You obviously don’t understand what it takes to buy/maintain and pay for a farm this day in age or you would understand why landowners need to make as much as possible. This has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with surviving and not losing your farm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmm, can we say Troll?