Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

A second ARCHERY tag in Iowa??

Wadz32

Wadz32

New Member
Okay, I cannot be the only person whos' mind this has crossed. Of all of the diehard archery hunters on this site, let alone in the WHOLE state!! Someone, somewhere who is much smarter than me has thought of this and I just havent heard about it. Did I miss something??

To my point - What if we could TRADE our gun any sex tag for a SECOND archery any sex tag?? Much like the state of Illinios, where you can purchase both of your any sex tags for archery only, and obviously are then excluded from harvesting a buck during the regular gun season. Can anyone think of any negative effects this could have on the herd? I sure cant. It would give bowhunters more opportunities and in turn, reduce some clutter during the gun seasons, giving them more opportunities! Just my thoughts, curious to hear yours. Not looking to start an argument of bow vs gun, or any party hunting trash talk. Had this been pushed before and I missed it?

P.S - Skip I hope you see this, I sent a message awhile back about this subject. I also emailed the president of Iowa Bowhunters Association, but had no response. My hopes were to see about starting a petition (or however you start a process like this). Thanks!
 
Good post!!!!!!!
Let me start here…. I am OPEN MINDED!!!! I can make arguments for BOTH SIDES & believe both sides have great points. My opinions can change & I can be convinced on many topics. On any issue- valid points & I want to empathize with all sides.
I also like to “call it as I see it” which means some folks get a point of view they don’t like to hear. But I try to be fair. & it’s still just one dudes opinion so take it for what’s worth ;) ….

I’m thinking here & typing/thinking out loud …..

I think on many levels this makes sense. I get your points above. Agree with a lot. I’ll start with “objections” or “issues” that legislators, dnr & hunters might pose in opposition …. & we need to understand that POV….
1) archery right NOW is getting more crowded. DNR, politicians are catching a lot of heat!!! Access is dwindling & their #1 issue they are faced with right now is LACK OF ACCESS TO QUALITY land & the new hunters quitting due to that. So- any reg is gonna need to pass that stress-test. Think on this… IF a guy has 1 archery tag,…. If he tags out - it frees up pressure for other hunters to have a bit more space & potentially access being HELPED in that scenario. U keep the tagged out guy in the game with a 2nd tag…. More pressure & intensifies our already crowded archery hunting. This issue will be the #1 obstacle with DNR & legislators.
2) does it help age class? IF a guy did shoot one with bow & one with gun- it would make zero difference of course. So- the ? I’d have…. Will there be a NET killing of more or less bucks due to this? Do MOST Bowhunters not gun hunt or not fill those tags? Would this create more bucks shot, less or the same???? Dunno on this one. It’s probably a big NOTHING & splitting hairs. In areas with already intense ARCHERY PRESSURE- it probably would cause more bucks to be shot of course & age structure lowered simply due to less bucks for hunters & some hunters willing to shoot “whatever”. Negative impact in high pressure archery areas. Which- is it a huge deal? Probably not. On other hand- we have been trending towards a worse age structure steadily for a decade+ ….. do we wanna do anything to speed that up or try to do things that go opposite direction (EXAMPLE: 1 buck tag instead of 2)???? I don’t have answer. I have OPINION (& it’s worth those 2 cents) - I want regs that improve our slowly degrading age structure. Not other way around. So- admittedly- I’m biased towards intense CONSERVATIVE regs - I’d rather things TIGHTEN UP vs getting more liberal. Reality- I’d be ok if things just stayed same & we didn’t give up any ground BUT…..
3) you aren’t “adding more” - your proposal is a TRADE ….. so it doesn’t go against the line many have of “no more new BS!!!! STOP!!!!! LEAVE US ALONE!!” U r offering a trade & its interesting!!!!! Gun seasons are actually becoming LESS CROWDED & Archery is becoming MORE CROWDED. It’s certainly not a safety issue there…. It’s a “where is the trend?” “Where is the problem areas”. Archery access is a problem area. And it’s GROWING. & if this state sold out to crossbow lobby…. BYE!!!!!! Bye to countless archery guy’s access!!!!! HELLO TO CROWDED DISASTER IN OUR <8% timber!!!!! If that one got through - OMG- now THAT is a disaster. Clearly what u saying is nothing close to that. Not in same ballpark. I do worry if we start shuffling things- special interests will take that as “weakness” that iowa is always willing to shuffle, change and SELL OUT ….. they will smell blood & push crossbows & any other special interests changes & go full force. All of the special interests. They want to see weakness in our Line of Defense we hold on not messing with regs. Minor & this is big picture but this is a very real issue - bi-product in the tactics of going after reg changes by special interests. We need to keep our guard up!!!
4) kinda repeat but the topic will come up… “why does anyone need more than 1 buck with the issues hunters are facing?” & “folks that also can fill their freezers with many does after that 1 buck”. It’s kinda back to the 1 buck debate. Which- not stating a view or saying that view is right or wrong- but it’s a view & issue that’s also getting louder & a question that will be posed.


Bottom line…. I dunno. Others…. Chime in…. Does this hurt or help access??? Does it help or hurt archery pressure? Help or hurt our herd & age class?? This is a DISCUSSION & I’m interested in all perspectives!!! Just like Wadz32 is!!! Great post & my small squirrel brain will continue to chew on this ;). & look forward to other thoughts.
 
If implemented, I predict...

1. An increase in gun season tag sales.
Reason: All of the new folks who buy them only to trade them in for a 2nd archery tag.

2. Gun season(s) participation probably would not drop, and if so, not by much.
Reason: Gun hunters enjoy it for what it is, for filling freezers and comradery, and don't have the time to dedicate to archery hunting, etc.

So, in the end, I see Iowa increasing its overall tag sales, in turn, increasing the # of potential deer to be harvested on an annual basis.
 
Imo, leave it alone. I get the sentiment,
bow should be more challenging than gun so what's the harm? But what you're adding is another tag during the rut . It gets even worse if you consider the potential for cross bows.
On the flip side of this, wouldn't it be only fair to offer a 2nd gun tag in lieu of a bow tag? I could easily see the slippery slope that leads to this.
I'd rather see us go to a 1 buck state but I doubt that's going to happen.
 
Sligh1 said:
Good post!!!!!!!
Let me start here…. I am OPEN MINDED!!!! I can make arguments for BOTH SIDES & believe both sides have great points. On any issue- valid points & I want to empathize with all sides.
I also like to “call it as I see it” which means some folks get a point of view they don’t like to hear. But I try to be fair. & it’s still just one dudes opinion so take it for what’s worth ;) ….

I’m thinking here & typing/thinking out loud …..

I think on many levels this makes sense. I get your points above. Agree with a lot. I’ll start with “objections” or “issues” that legislators, dnr & hunters might pose in opposition …. & we need to understand that POV….
1) archery right NOW is getting more crowded. DNR, politicians are catching a lot of heat!!! Access is dwindling & their #1 issue they are faced with right now is LACK OF ACCESS TO QUALITY land & the new hunters quitting due to that. So- any reg is gonna need to pass that stress-test. Think on this… IF a guy has 1 archery tag,…. If he tags out - it frees up pressure for other hunters to have a bit more space & potentially access being HELPED in that scenario. U keep the tagged out guy in the game with a 2nd tag…. More pressure & intensifies our already crowded archery hunting. This issue will be the #1 obstacle with DNR & legislators.
2) does it help age class? IF a guy did shoot one with bow & one with gun- it would make zero difference of course. So- the ? I’d have…. Will there be a NET killing of more or less bucks due to this? Do MOST Bowhunters not gun hunt or not fill those tags? Would this create more bucks shot, less or the same???? Dunno on this one. It’s probably a big NOTHING & splitting hairs. In areas with already intense ARCHERY PRESSURE- it probably would cause more bucks to be shot of course & age structure lowered simply due to less bucks for hunters & some hunters willing to shoot “whatever”. Negative impact in high pressure archery areas. Which- is it a huge deal? Probably not. On other hand- we have been tending towards a worse age structure steadily for a decade+ ….. do we wanna do anything to speed that up or try to do things that go opposite direction (EXAMPLE: 1 buck tag instead of 2)???? I don’t have answer. I have OPINION (& it’s worth those 2 cents) - I want regs that improve our slowly degrading age structure. Not other way around. So- admittedly- I’m biased towards intense CONSERVATIVE regs - I’d rather things TIGHTEN UP vs getting more liberal. Reality- I’d be ok if things just stayed same & we didn’t give up any ground BUT…..
3) you aren’t “adding more” - your proposal is a TRADE ….. so it doesn’t go against the line many have of “no more new BS!!!! STOP!!!!! LEAVE US ALONE!!” U r offering a trade & its interesting!!!!! Gun seasons are actually becoming LESS CROWDED & Archery is becoming MORE CROWDED. It’s certainly not a safety issue there…. It’s a “where is the trend?” “Where is the problem areas”. Archery access is a problem area. And it’s GROWING. & if this state sold out to crossbow lobby…. BYE!!!!!! Bye to countless archery guy’s access!!!!! HELLO TO CROWDED DISASTER IN OUR <8% timber!!!!! If that one got through - OMG- now THAT is a disaster. Clearly what u saying is nothing close to that. Not in same ballpark. I do worry if we start shuffling things- special interests will take that as “weakness” that iowa is always willing to shuffle, change and SELL OUT ….. they will smell blood & push crossbows & any other special interests changes & go full force. All of the special interests. They want to see weakness in our Line of Defense we hold on not messing with regs. Minor & this is big picture but this is a very real issue - bi-product in the tactics of going after reg changes by special interests. We need to keep our guard up!!!


Bottom line…. I dunno. Others…. Chime in…. Does this hurt or help access??? Does it help or hurt archery pressure? Help or hurt our herd & age class?? This is a DISCUSSION & I’m interested in all perspectives!!! Just like Wadz32 is!!! Great post & my small squirrel brain will continue to chew on this ;). & look forward to other thoughts.
Click to expand...
Great points all around and I can agree with most of them! The crossbow thing did cross my mind after I made the post. That would be devastating as a whole. I am a member of IBA, and I know you are as well. We are pushing back on the crossbow legislation hard. God help us it never passes!! As for crowding, I agree 110% that deer hunting itself is becoming more crowded. Im 26 years old and this will be my 12th year archery hunting. So I by no means am speaking behalf on a ton of experience as many members have 3x if not more years than I do. BUT, in my short time as an archery access is getting extremely hard no matter the weapon. In the past 3 years I have contacted close to 80 landowners and only recieved a handful of yes's. Maybe a bad salesman but its deffinetly a confidence killer getting hard no's one after the other. In the same breath, over 50% of the private farms I am fortunate to have access to, are limited to archery only. The reason being most deer hunting families have their annual deer camp with friends doing their drives or however they choose to hunt. And I have ZERO problem with that. I hope the tradition never ends and I will HAPPILY take just the archery rights of said properties and show my appreciation as the landowners deserve.

I have not heard of the archery crowd getting more pressured, but it would not surprise me one bit due to the growing popularity of big antlers and higher age class animals. I dont doubt your statement what so ever, in fact I would love to see some sort of statistics if you could point me where to look?

As for the overall age structure and buck heard, do we see a rise or a falling effect on age structure, say in the last decade? With trail cameras, the popularity of management, social media and 99% of influencers pushing the big antlers, wouldnt that cause more hunters (especially the younger generation) to say "I only want to shoot mature animals" because Mark Drury does, Lee Lakosky does, the Sligh brothers!! Lol. Personally, it did for me at a young age and I passed many bucks that looking back, I shouldnt have that early on. I wish I could go back and slap myself and say "what are you doing?? Shoot that buck! Shoot that 120 - 130 - 140. Gain experience and stop trying to replicate what you see on tv. Climb the ladder. You idiot!" Lol. Is that mentality better or worse for the deer herd? Sure it saves alot of young bucks, but is that worth the lack of experience and learning curve? The first time I ever drew my bow back on a true giant, 170+ buck, I had no buisness being in that situation. Nerves were through the roof and going back in time to climb that ladder, may have changed the outcome when I let that arrow go. I feel like that was a major side tangent but I worked to hard on typing to delete it .

But back to the point, would it change the outlook on deer hunting as a whole? Would it change the herd dynamic? I hate to keep using liberal Illinios as an example, but putting my Iowa ego aside. Look at the numbers, the record books, the famous names that have come from Illinios. In MY OPINION, If they reduced their non resident tags and created a draw state similar to Iowa, I think they would blow everyone out of the water as far as #1 big buck state. I do agree with the crowded argument, but would it really change the quality that much? That question will keep me awake tonight lol.
 
  • Deleted by Wadz32
Show…
hillrunner said:
Imo, leave it alone. I get the sentiment,
bow should be more challenging than gun so what's the harm? But what you're adding is another tag during the rut . It gets even worse if you consider the potential for cross bows.
On the flip side of this, wouldn't it be only fair to offer a 2nd gun tag in lieu of a bow tag? I could easily see the slippery slope that leads to this.
I'd rather see us go to a 1 buck state but I doubt that's going to happen.
Click to expand...
Overall, yes I agree it would be best to leave it alone. To yours and Sligh's point, it would only push the crossbow supporters further. But for sake of conversation, what if one of those 2 tags were only good for October? Would that change the opinion? And yes, Iowa change to a one buck state would be great, but damn imagine the push back!
 
The LOT tag is already the season of the owners choice. Right. An Iowa LO can have two archery tags already, statewide tag and lot. What am I missing. He’s suggesting another archery tag for non LO ? Go buy 2 acres. The 2 ac LOT is a joke.
 
Last edited:
I am way more open minded on subjects like this than most IMO as I see people wanting to improve their own hunting opportunities and not looking to the impact to others in another camp. I ONLY bow hunt. Would this improve my chances for a second buck, likely, BUT I also want a better age structure and am willing to shoot only one or no bucks if the right one does not come by knowing that those bucks I would not be happy with should be better next year IF someone else doesn’t shoot them, that’s a chance I’ll take.
Your suggestion will adversely affect age structure and buck numbers because hunters will be more apt to shoot a less desirable deer on their first tag knowing they have another in their pocket. And there is no question all bucks are more vulnerable during the rut than they are during shotgun or late season.
Lastly and probably the most important part is what happens to OPPORTUNITY to harvest a mature buck for a gun hunter, goes down for sure because now someone shoots two bucks before gun season leaving less bucks for gun season. HUGE net loss to gun hunters. I like how MO and IA limit buck harvest before gun season, for the most part, to one buck. I think too often bow hunters look out for themselves and don’t look at impacts to other hunters. Plus you can already shoot two bucks in a year with your bow, one early archery and one traditional late season, what you propose looks to ONLY benefit bow hunters with no regard to other seasons. I’m with skip I’d like to see one buck limit per year.
 
Windlooker said:
The LOT tag is already the season of the owners choice. Right. An Iowa LO can have two archery tags already, statewide tag and lot. What am I missing. He’s suggesting another archery tag for non LO ? Go buy 2 acres. The 2 ac LOT is a joke.
Click to expand...
It's got to be the right 2 acres bc a landowner tag is only good for the land you own. You can't simply take that tag anywhere to fill it
 
I understand that. I’m sure that rule is stretched. Lol. I know of nobody who has been cited for filling a lot tag elsewhere. I wouldn’t do it but it happens. Point is you only need 2 ac for a third tag. Should be at least 20.
 
Last edited:
Windlooker said:
I understand that. I’m sure that rule is stretched. Lol. I know of nobody who has been cited for filling a lot tag elsewhere. I wouldn’t do it but it happens. Point is you only need 2 ac for a third tag. Should be at least 20.
Click to expand...
There is also more to it than simply owning two acres
 
Like what? Own 2 ac in a rural area, or a place that permits deer hunting, meet one of the broad ag requirements and one can buy a LoT tag. That simple.

Farm unit” means all parcels of land that are in tracts of 2 or more contiguous acres that are operated as a unit for agricultural purposes and are under the lawful control of the landowner or tenant. Parcels of land in a farm unit need not be contiguous, but all will be considered part of a single farm unit regardless of how those parcels are subdivided for agricultural or business purposes.
 
Last edited:
Windlooker said:
Like what? Own 2 ac in a rural area, or a place that permits deer hunting, and one can buy a LoT tag. That simple.

Farm unit” means all parcels of land that are in tracts of 2 or more contiguous acres that are operated as a unit for agricultural purposes and are under the lawful control of the landowner or tenant. Parcels of land in a farm unit need not be contiguous, but all will be considered part of a single farm unit regardless of how those parcels are subdivided for agricultural or business purposes.
Click to expand...
Must be operated for ag purposes is far more than simply owning two acres in a rural area
 
Lol. Right. Grow a few trees, be enrolled in crp, timber reserve, TSI etc. Not difficult to qualify. D and E below is as broad as you can get. You only need to meet one of the requirements.

Owner” means an owner of a farm unit who is a resident of Iowa and who is one of the following:
A. Is the sole operator of the farm unit.
B. Makes all farm operating decisions but contracts for custom farming or hires labor for all or part of the work on the farm unit.
C. Participates annually in farm operation decisions or cropping practices on specific fields of the farm unit that are rented to a tenant.
D. Raises specialty crops on the farm unit including, but not limited to, orchards, nurseries or trees that do not always produce annual income but
require annual operating decisions about maintenance or improvement.
E. Has all or part of the farm unit enrolled in a long-term agricultural land retirement program of the federal government.
F. Rents the entire farm to an adult child who operates the farm.
G. An owner DOES NOT mean a person who owns a farm unit and who employs a farm manager or third party to operate the farm unit, or a
person who owns a farm unit and who rents the entire farm to a tenant who is responsible for all farm operations (unless the renter is the owner’s child).
“Tenant” means a person who is a resident of
 
Last edited:
No I didn’t. My point is no way can 2 ac make an ag impact. Should be 20 minimum for a lot tag. Also it’s way too easy to qualify. Timber is a crop, what’s a nursery 5 trees or 100, enroll in a program etc and you have a third tag.

Iowa needs to make the lot tag legit and eliminate party hunting. That alone would have huge positive impact.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom