HF 2410 formerly HSB610 NRLO tags

[Hardwood11]

Gas prices could easily slow down the amount of hunters applying for tags and points this year. If a guy is going to scout/set up/hunt etc… could easily be 3 trips to Iowa.

Gas @ $4-5 a gallon? Plus the $600+ tag
SPENDY

Thanks Biden !!

 

[Windlooker]

Biden is an utter joke. Those of you who voted against Trump’s “personality” did you vote for this? Next time vote beyond “what do I get” and vote for the candidates vision and stance on the foundation that built this great place. We won’t talk about the voter fraud, it’s obvious. Let’s go Brandon

 

[Elvis188]

Gas prices could easily slow down the amount of hunters applying for tags and points this year.

I had a talk with Kansas Wildlife and Parks yesterday. They said last year they issued 22,000 NR tags. They had 30,000 NR's apply. The lady told me they actually expect more people to apply again this year because they think people will not be traveling as much because of gas prices, so they expect them to save their money for one big trip. I guess time will tell. I am in agreement with Hardwood11 that pref point request will go up but actual people wanting tags will stay the same or go down.

 

[Nightvision]

Feel bad on 5 year wait for NR’s. It’s crap….. we have been promoting the state, with state resources for decades now. To reach MILLIONS!!! “Iowa has big bucks” & if a guy that got that governor/media tag doesn’t reach a huge audience in their summary report/follow up based on data …. They will not draw that tag again- given to someone who will. How messed up is that?

more folks with $…. More people wanting to travel (& flee their broken states). I agree the 5 year wait sucks & it’s crap. The SOLUTION:
1) go to zones without 5 year wait
2) MIDWEST STATES NEED TO FIX THEIR OWN RUINED MANAGEMENT!!!!!!!!! If MN, MI, PA, WI, MO, NE, Etc etc etc would mimic Iowa’s regs - hunters would have MILLIONS OF ACRES OF “NEW” quality hunting land. Instead of destroyed wasteland. If ONE state could fix their issues - would be 2-5 times the hunting area that iowa has. The solution isn’t to change IOWA. The solution is to change the other Midwest states!!!!!!!!!!!
3) get rid of the governor/celebrity tags that reach millions yearly by design!!!!!

It’s ok. The wait and limited pressure is what makes it so fun. I just wish Missouri, Illinois, Kansas, and Nebraska would limit their tags as well.

Kansas and Illinois should cut their amount of tags in half and Missouri should set the amount at half of what they sold last year.

To a point, the tags will sell. I much prefer quality over quantity.

 

[Windlooker]

Wish in one hand and **** in the other. The states you mentioned are concerned about killing adequate numbers of deer which equals revenue. Two goals met. Again your trophy hunting aspirations are not considered. Hunting was never about trophy hunting.

The farce is you have the same chance, in the states you mentioned, of killing a 150 in buck as you do in Iowa. As a NR on public or private, in a week long hunt, the odds of killing a 170 in plus deer are slim and none. Where I hunt we have Amish and career farmers who deal with deer over population year around; which has negative impact. Neighbors don’t care and the dnr doesn’t care. That’s the hard truth.

You might have a better opportunity in Iowa if you hunt with a good outfitter because they control big chunks of land. The price for a 5 day hunt ranges between 3 and 5 k plus the $660 tag. Idk, Illinois, Kansas and Ohio might be a better gig.

 

[Sligh1]

Wish in one hand and **** in the other. The states you mentioned are concerned about killing adequate numbers of deer which equals revenue. Two goals met. Again your trophy hunting aspirations are not considered. Hunting was never about trophy hunting.

The farce is you have the same chance, in the states you mentioned, of killing a 150 in buck as you do in Iowa. As a NR on public or private, in a week long hunt, the odds of killing a 170 in plus deer are slim and none. Where I hunt we have Amish and career farmers who deal with deer over population year around; which has negative impact. Neighbors don’t care and the dnr doesn’t care. That’s the hard truth.

You might have a better opportunity in Iowa if you hunt with a good outfitter because they control big chunks of land. The price for a 5 day hunt ranges between 3 and 5 k plus the $660 tag. Idk, Illinois, Kansas and Ohio might be a better gig.

We don’t need NR’s to keep the deer population in check. Period. I love my NR buddies but their impact on the deer herd can never be as effective as residents. If all we cared about was “killing deer”…. which we don’t…. We would not allow any NR hunting. 100% Residents only. Thankfully, We also care about biology, age structure, herd health, TROPHY/OLDER AGE BUCKS, new hunter participation, etc. The DNR itself hosts & pays for “trophy deer” stats to be kept on its website with date, county, score & weapon.

I would argue that all states care about the almighty $ the most …. I would then argue that if broken states actually fixed their regulations & made their state attractive for quality whitetail hunting - their overall revenue & potential/$ would INCREASE.

 

[Windlooker]

Sligh. You’re from Michigan. There’s nothing Michigan could do to fix their deer quality. There’s too many hunters. Period. Deer are killed before maturity. States like MI and PA would have to limit licenses sold to reduce pressure, not gonna happen.

PA had a point restriction, took out does to have better ratio, has a gun season after Thanksgiving, one buck per year (not three). There’s has been zero difference in quality because of the hunter numbers. You didn’t stay in MI and help fix the regs because it’s not fixable. In fact there’s nothing to fix in their eyes. They’re killing deer and keeping numbers down for farmers, insurance companies , etc.

 

[MarkF]

Sligh. You’re from Michigan. There’s nothing Michigan could do to fix their deer quality. There’s too many hunters. Period. Deer are killed before maturity. States like MI and PA would have to limit licenses sold to reduce pressure, not gonna happen.

PA had a point restriction, took out does to have better ratio, has a gun season after Thanksgiving, one buck per year (not three). There’s has been zero difference in quality because of the hunter numbers. You didn’t stay in MI and help fix the regs because it’s not fixable. In fact there’s nothing to fix in their eyes. They’re killing deer and keeping numbers down for farmers, insurance companies , etc.

Quality in pa has definitely improved in recent years since point restrictions, especially in areas around Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Trophy quality deer are in every state, I live in New Jersey and have killed at least one buck between 150-175 every year for the last 15 years, friends have killed a couple over 200. Most guys don’t wanna put in the work required to do it in their home state so they’ travel somewhere, where big bucks are more plentiful.

 

[Windlooker]

That’s because Allegheny and Philadelphia counties aren’t hunted, it’s suburbia, some deer reach maturity. I grew up in westmoreland and Indiana counties and owned my own farm. I know PA hunting. It’s garbage. That’s a bad example.

Have to say if you’re killing a booner every year for 15 years that’s something that rivals or surpasses pro hunters in the mid west states. Id never leave NJ. Wow.

 

[MarkF]

That’s because Allegheny and Philadelphia counties aren’t hunted, it’s suburbia, some deer reach maturity. I grew up in westmoreland and Indiana county. I know PA hunting. It’s garbage. That’s a bad example.

There’s someone hunting every 2 acre lot in suburban areas, tons of hunting pressure. Not sure how it’s a bad example anyway, my point is if your willing to do the work you can kill big deer in every state.

 

[Windlooker]

Lol. Ok. I’ll take you to the farm I owned in PA, my buddy owns it now in Indiana county, get you permission to hunt. It’s 200 acres of nice PA habitat. You won’t kill a 150 from the day you start to the day you die. BTW, I owned it for 15 years and he is going on 20. Not a 150 in sight no matter how strict the management. Too much surrounding pressure.

Keep in mind owning a farm is an advantage. Most don’t own and face worse odds there.

 

[MarkF]

Lol. Ok. I’ll take you to the farm I owned in PA, my buddy owns it now in Indiana county, get you permission to hunt. It’s 200 acres of nice PA habitat. You won’t kill a 150 from the day you start to the day you die.

Your missing my point, I wouldn’t waste my time hunting a farm that won’t produce the quality I’m looking for, I would spend my time finding what I’m looking for and then gaining access to hunt. Point is there’s still quality deer hunting in states like pa and Michigan.
Only one of my nj bucks have been over 170, the rest are 150-160.

 

[Sligh1]

Sligh. You’re from Michigan. There’s nothing Michigan could do to fix their deer quality. There’s too many hunters. Period. Deer are killed before maturity. States like MI and PA would have to limit licenses sold to reduce pressure, not gonna happen.

PA had a point restriction, took out does to have better ratio, has a gun season after Thanksgiving, one buck per year (not three). There’s has been zero difference in quality because of the hunter numbers. You didn’t stay in MI and help fix the regs because it’s not fixable. In fact there’s nothing to fix in their eyes. They’re killing deer and keeping numbers down for farmers, insurance companies , etc.

Disagree. Go across border of “best area in MI”…. The southern 1/3rd of state…. Cross into Ohio…. Which has a ONE BUCK RULE + GUN SEASON AFTER RUT…. Infinitely better. IN trumps MI simply due to the one buck rule.

I agree the chances are slim in MI. But there’s a chance. That chance is: the “old school: kill every 1.5 year old every season” …. Those folks are aging while the younger generation understand that changes are needed. If they mimicked what OH or IN did with 1 buck rule & did what OH did with gun season- OMG!!!!…. MI could be so much better it’s mind boggling.

Agree- I left MI cause it was a disaster. Doesn’t mean I don’t think they could change. No, im not gonna waste 10-30 years of my life waiting. The biggest point….. I don’t want iowa to mimic any of the regs that have ruined MI or countless others states. We value age structure, biological & sensible regs in iowa. Over $ in some cases. Other states sold out & ruined their resources countless decades ago.

It bothers me to NO END that we fight regulations that want to destroy or hinder the resource. It’s always “DEFENSE”…. Iowa or any state - for once - if the regulation changes MADE THINGS BETTER - it would be a miracle that kept giving for generations. We’ll always fight to Keep iowa great!!

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

There’s nothing Michigan could do to fix their deer quality.

No way. See OHIO.

 

[Windlooker]

What have they done that PA hasn’t tried ? Again, point restriction, doe ratio management, no guns in rut, one buck rule etc. If you were PA or MI where are they going wrong?

1983 you’re a Michigan kid too. How do they fix it besides owning 1000 ac and posting it like you do in IA?

Those who have the ability to own a bunch of land and post it, regardless of the state, is helping themselves not overall hunting in the state.

You have experience in a bad state, MI, and a good one, IA. How would you fix MI or PA?

 

[JNRBRONC]

Somebody is killing them in Michigan.

Michigan gives lifetime hunting ban to man over poaching incident

Michigan state officials permanently banned a man from hunting after he pled guilty to multiple charges related to an incident that occurred last year.

www.foxnews.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Windlooker]

IMO some of the anti NR and NRLO positions not only target that group, but target land owning Iowans.

Many of the big chunk landowners, 500 plus acres, are owned by the Iowa vid stars and others that were purchased by accident, or purposely, never expecting this rec land boom. As many know 20 plus years ago owners of non tillable considered it garbage and almost gave it away not really seeing Iowa hunting as a commodity. Enter video and social media. 400/ac land in 2000 is now 4000+.

The anti NRLO stance purports to prevent more buying by that group but in reality it also stymies selling by resident farmers and landowners; impacting their potential profit.

The reasoning is that no common sense Iowan would ever overpay for rec land and that the money that will, for the most part, comes from deep pocket out of staters, thus preventing sell of land, and the sub dividing of large parcels, from residents to NRs.

Too bad for the land owning, profit seeking resident. Lol. I’m sure the trophy hunting community speaks for them too? It’s funny though how feelings on issues change as one ages, life happens, and personal goals change. Just my thoughts.

 

[Daver]

IMO some of the anti NR and NRLO positions not only target that group, but target land owning Iowans.

Many of the big chunk landowners, 500 plus acres, are owned by the Iowa vid stars and others that were purchased by accident, or purposely, never expecting this rec land boom. As many know 20 plus years ago owners of non tillable considered it garbage and almost gave it away not really seeing Iowa hunting as a commodity. Enter video and social media. 400/ac land in 2000 is now 4000+.

The anti NRLO stance purports to prevent more buying by that group but in reality it also stymies selling by resident farmers and landowners; impacting their potential profit.

The reasoning is that no common sense Iowan would ever overpay for rec land and that the money that will, for the most part, comes from deep pocket out of staters, thus preventing sell of land, and the sub dividing of large parcels, from residents to NRs.

Too bad for the land owning, profit seeking resident. Lol. I’m sure the trophy hunting community speaks for them too? It’s funny though how feelings on issues change as one ages, life happens, and personal goals change. Just my thoughts.

??? If land could be had for $400/acre in 2000 and could now be sold for $4000/acre 20'ish years later...I guess I am not seeing where the selling owners are being stymied too much.

 

[Windlooker]

According to anti NRLO folks the NRs are buying all the ground and NRLO legislation will cause the land rush at the current rate. I question that btw. That said potential resident income suppressed when we fight against NR buying. If you sold your farm wouldn’t you want a larger buyer demographic, or smaller?? When I sell I’ll take that deep pocket doctor from Chicago all day long. Btw, your answer will change over time. At 30 years old, no way will I sell, at 60 well………

 

[Sligh1]

According to anti NRLO folks the NRs are buying all the ground and NRLO legislation will cause the land rush at the current rate. I question that btw. That said potential resident income suppressed when we fight against NR buying. If you sold your farm wouldn’t you want a larger buyer demographic, or smaller?? When I sell I’ll take that deep pocket doctor from Chicago all day long. Btw, your answer will change over time. At 30 years old, no way will I sell, at 60 well………

If all I cared about was $ - I’d want this legislation to pass. It would absolutely blow the cost per acre up. No doubt in my mind & this is the world I live in everyday. Blow it up.
*Side note: iowa has needed laws against foreign ownership of Iowa’s land - this state is a target world wide…. Iowa’s legislation should favor Iowans first.

There’s a huge group of landowners that prioritize the quality of state, herd, overall access for everyday folks, biology, Iowa’s future for generations ahead BEFORE $! If all we cared about was $….. let’s have the state of IL take over Iowa’s game laws. Few folks can make some short term financial gains while we flush the state down the drain.