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

DNR Layoffs

Droptines said:
Though the minimum acreage for a LO tag may seem ridiculous; they are still required to hunt only that small parcel of acres. At least the landowner is guaranteed a place to hunt every year! Those who are opposed to the LO tags in general might think twice when it comes time to secure private land to hunt. How many shotgun hunt in a party with a landowner? Who's land are you hunting? I can see public ground being even more crowded the day LO tags are no longer issued!
Click to expand...

Party hunting....that's an entire topic in itself.....
 
Hardwood11 said:
MN Hunter-- the +1 would not add more hunters. Second no argument on here limits or hurts the hunting.

The argument of letting NR have +1 could hurt access to property. As mentioned earlier it could bring in more buyers, but it's not like they are not buying already. Many big landowners like Winke, Drury, Lakosky,
Lindsey--were NR and now are R. Tags Didn't stop them from buying up big chunks.

It's about resident access, that's where the argument is.

The reason the hunting is good, is the December gun season.

Restricting NR tags helps, but I think everyone can admit the real reason states like Iowa and Kansas produce big mature bucks is the timing of the gun season.

If they ever change that, Iowa would be similar to Missouri ... no matter if they restrict tags.
Click to expand...


I think only allowing residents to kill 2 any sex deer and going with the +1 for NR is a smart move. No one needs to kill 3 any sex deer and if it's for "meat" then they aren't opposed to a doe tag
 
I do not like party hunting in general, but if you take that away from NR, then you are going against the "no changes" philosophy that you all preach. That would make it impossible for a NR to manage his farm with Iowa laws as he would not get a tag for two or possibly three years.
 
I think if I could buy a Landowner tag for let's say $50, and allow me to use it any season I would go for that. I have never filled all 3 anysex tags in a year but I would be willing to pay more if I could use it any season. I could purchase it prior to Oct 1st and use it for any season.
 
Hardwood11 said:
I do not like party hunting in general, but if you take that away from NR, then you are going against the "no changes" philosophy that you all preach. That would make it impossible for a NR to manage his farm with Iowa laws as he would not get a tag for two or possibly three years.
Click to expand...

I think another word besides impossible might be in order. A NR landowner can orchestrate deer drives just as easily with or without the personal ability to shoot a buck.

Deer numbers are managed thru antlerless hunting. Lots of options there.

...its just kinda like those farmers that curse deer up and down and think they are the devil's spawn and then turn around and don't allow any hunting on their land. We all know one!
 
Hardwood11 said:
I do not like party hunting in general, but if you take that away from NR, then you are going against the "no changes" philosophy that you all preach. That would make it impossible for a NR to manage his farm with Iowa laws as he would not get a tag for two or possibly three years.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of resident hunters who can control the deer numbers on your land. Or is this another "NO Hunting" NR farm?
 
Droptines said:
There are plenty of resident hunters who can control the deer numbers on your land. Or is this another "NO Hunting" NR farm?
Click to expand...

Seriously? Now I have to rely on others to control deer numbers? Had a local guy hunt my farm he shot my best buck (160 inch that was off limits) then lied about it said he shot it in another county.

So now it's my family and friends.

Are you letting NR hunt your farm?
 
Why would a NR landowners let you hunt their land, when the residents are keeping them from hunting their own land? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
 
That's the rules, you don't live here, you don't get resident rights. It would be a disaster if they give in. I guess I dont understand the problem. That's what makes it great, coveted and desired. I didn't want to hunt Iowa every 3-4 years so I moved here. You bought farms knowing your hunting would be limited, it was your choice. I share my hunting ground and knowledge with my non resident friends every year. I share my buck tag for gun as well, don't love that rule but it's what we have so I do.
 
Hardwood11 said:
I do not like party hunting in general, but if you take that away from NR, then you are going against the "no changes" philosophy that you all preach. That would make it impossible for a NR to manage his farm with Iowa laws as he would not get a tag for two or possibly three years.
Click to expand...

WHAT?? They can manage the farm by shooting does!!
 
Hardwood11 said:
Seriously? Now I have to rely on others to control deer numbers? Had a local guy hunt my farm he shot my best buck (160 inch that was off limits) then lied about it said he shot it in another county.

So now it's my family and friends.

Are you letting NR hunt your farm?
Click to expand...
I don't understand. You can kill a doe on your land every year. Do bucks eat that much more than does? If so you can party hunt with your neighbors every year and kill them also. With the lowest amount of public hunting land in the United states; residents rely on private land to enjoy deer hunting. Landowners like you are keeping residents from enjoying that right.
 
Droptines said:
I don't understand. You can kill a doe on your land every year. Do bucks eat that much more than does? If so you can party hunt with your neighbors every year and kill them also. With the lowest amount of public hunting land in the United states; residents rely on private land to enjoy deer hunting. Landowners like you are keeping residents from enjoying that right.
Click to expand...

I think you missed that I was responding to Ishi, who said he wanted to get rid of the party hunting rule, and the automatic doe tag for NR....without the ability to party hunt, then you would be more difficult to manage the farm for deer period.

It goes against the "no change" philosophy that many of the guys on IW stand behind. From what I have seen since coming to Iowa, a large percentage of Iowa residents are not against NR getting tags to hunt the land they own, I would say 3 of 4 that I have talked to (mostly guys on here that oppose any increase in tags).
 
Hardwood11 said:
I think you missed that I was responding to Ishi, who said he wanted to get rid of the party hunting rule, and the automatic doe tag for NR....without the ability to party hunt, then you would be more difficult to manage the farm for deer period.

It goes against the "no change" philosophy that many of the guys on IW stand behind. From what I have seen since coming to Iowa, a large percentage of Iowa residents are not against NR getting tags to hunt the land they own, I would say 3 of 4 that I have talked to (mostly guys on here that oppose any increase in tags).
Click to expand...
I would be for NR landowners receiving a preference point if they opened their land to resident hunters. If the NR landowner refused to open his or her land to a pool for residents to acquire hunting; they would not be eligible for any preference over any other nonresident. The argument over managing the deer is moot if the land is closed to resident hunters. If you are managing the land for trophy bucks; you should register as an outfitter.
 
Hardwood11 said:
I think you missed that I was responding to Ishi, who said he wanted to get rid of the party hunting rule, and the automatic doe tag for NR....without the ability to party hunt, then you would be more difficult to manage the farm for deer period.

It goes against the "no change" philosophy that many of the guys on IW stand behind. From what I have seen since coming to Iowa, a large percentage of Iowa residents are not against NR getting tags to hunt the land they own, I would say 3 of 4 that I have talked to (mostly guys on here that oppose any increase in tags).
Click to expand...
Lol, start a petition! Surely the 15 regulars on IW aren't the only ones preventing a rule change.
 
Bowtech84 said:
Lol, start a petition! Surely the 15 regulars on IW aren't the only ones preventing a rule change.
Click to expand...

That is not what I was saying...you seriously cannot even discuss this issue, without 10 guys piling on and acting like we are sitting on the door of the capitol trying to change the law. It is just a discussion forum.
 
Droptines said:
I would be for NR landowners receiving a preference point if they opened their land to resident hunters. If the NR landowner refused to open his or her land to a pool for residents to acquire hunting; they would not be eligible for any preference over any other nonresident. The argument over managing the deer is moot if the land is closed to resident hunters. If you are managing the land for trophy bucks; you should register as an outfitter.
Click to expand...

Making it public land, yeah everyone would jump on that trade off??? There is no requirement or obligation to allow residents to hunt, that is the choice of each individual landowner. Why would anyone pay big money to buy a farm to make it into public land? Not sure where you are going with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom