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

HF 31

kbgibby

kbgibby

Threebeards
There's been some discussion of this bill, primarily about the provision requiring the $5 HUSH fee. However, I think maybe some people have failed to realize that this bill will give Iowa residents a license with two tags - the first for a doe and the second for either sex - for a fee of $25.50. Granted, you have to pay a mandatory $5 HUSH fee, but even with that, you're still way ahead of where we're at now ... $26.00 for anysex tag and $26.00 for first doe tag ($52 total vs. $30.50).
IMO, this is favorable for reducing the doe population in a couple of ways. First, you're getting a lower cost doe license to fill first. And it should expand the number of HUSH lockers, making it easier to donate meat. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

Here's the text of the bill:

1 1 Section 1. Section 483A.8, subsection 1, Code 2005, is
1 2 amended to read as follows:
1 3 1. A resident hunting deer who is required to have a
1 4 hunting license must have a resident hunting license in
1 5 addition to the deer hunting license and must pay the wildlife
1 6 habitat fee and the help us stop hunger program fee.
1 7 Sec. 2. Section 483A.8, subsection 2, Code 2005, is
1 8 amended by striking the subsection and inserting in lieu
1 9 thereof the following:
1 10 2. The deer hunting license shall be accompanied by two
1 11 tags and each tag shall be used only once. The first tag
1 12 shall be used to take an antlerless deer and the second tag
1 13 may be used after the first tag has been used, to take either
1 14 an antlered deer or an antlerless deer. When a deer is taken,
1 15 the deer shall be tagged and the time and date of taking shall
1 16 be written on the tag.
1 17 Sec. 3. NEW SECTION. 483A.8A HUSH PROGRAM FEE.
1 18 A resident hunting deer who is required to have a deer
1 19 hunting license pursuant to section 483A.1, subsection 1,
1 20 paragraph "e", and who is required to pay the wildlife habitat
1 21 fee, shall not hunt deer unless the person has also paid the
1 22 help us stop hunger (HUSH) program fee of five dollars. The
1 23 proceeds from the fee are appropriated for the exclusive use
1 24 of assisting with the cost of processing deer meat donated to
1 25 the help us stop hunger program administered by the
1 26 commission.
1 27 Sec. 4. Section 805.8B, subsection 3, paragraph b, Code
1 28 2005, is amended to read as follows:
1 29 b. For violations of sections 481A.54, 481A.69, 481A.71,
1 30 481A.72, 482.6, 483A.3, 483A.6, 483A.8A, 483A.19, and 483A.27,
1 31 the scheduled fine is twenty dollars.
1 32 EXPLANATION
1 33 This bill provides for the issuance of a resident deer
1 34 hunting license with two tags and requires payment of a help
1 35 us stop hunger (HUSH) program fee.
2 1 The bill provides that a resident hunting deer who is
2 2 required to have a deer hunting license pursuant to Code
2 3 section 483A.1 and who is required to pay the wildlife habitat
2 4 fee must also pay a $5 HUSH program fee. The bill provides
2 5 that the HUSH program fee is appropriated for the exclusive
2 6 use of assisting with the cost of processing deer meat donated
2 7 to the HUSH program administered by the natural resource
2 8 commission. A violation of this provision is punishable by a
2 9 scheduled fine of $20.
2 10 The bill also provides that a resident deer hunting license
2 11 shall be accompanied by two tags, each of which shall only be
2 12 used once. The bill provides that the first tag shall be used
2 13 to take an antlerless deer and that the second tag may be used
2 14 only after the first tag has been used, to take either an
2 15 antlered deer or an antlerless deer. The bill also provides
2 16 that when a deer is taken, the deer shall be tagged and the
2 17 time and date of taking written on the tag. A resident deer
2 18 hunting license costs $25.50. A violation of this provision
2 19 is punishable by a scheduled fine of $25.
2 20 LSB 1322YH 81
2 21 av/gg/14
 
I don't mind the $5 because I always buy a couple doe tags and this would save a few dollars. What I don't like is that I would have to shoot a doe first. I generally wait and shoot does later in the season when the weather is colder and I can hang them for a while. I personally don't see the huge numbers of deer that some folks say are out there. I have seen more does laying on the ground in one picture than I have seen on a 120 acre piece of ground all fall. Don't get me wrong, I am definatley all for shooting does. I just hate the idea of the big boy walking on by because I hadn't filled a doe tag yet. Population wise, shooting a doe early in the season will have no greater impact on the deer population the following year than shooting one on Jan. 10. Without any type of check in system, how do you really know who shot a doe before their buck anyway?
 
I like the idea. I usually shoot does first off in the season anyway......makes for a great confidence builder. Either way, I'd gladly give an extra 5 dollars to generate more HUSH lockers....I just hope one participates halfway close to home.
CRITR
 
I personally dont care if a doe must be shot first, but I only live 1 hour from the border in MN. So, I can go down as much as I want and with my farms it should not take more than a sit or two.

However, some NR's will be really p!ssed to be forced into that. Can you imagine working all year long in michigan , waiting to go on your big 7 day hunt, only to learn you must shoot a doe before you can get a crack at a shooter buck.

Lets say you dont get that oppurtunity till day 4 or 5(also assuming you kill what you shoot at), that leaves you 2 or 3 days to hunt for your buck.

With,
400$ for tag
100$+ for gas
200$ for a hotel
200$ for meals
+ other expenses you just spent 1000$ for 2-3 days of buck hunting.....and the reason you applied in the first place was to get a crack a true trophy whitetail.
confused.gif


I guess I vote to make it simple, fun! Just throw in the the free doe tag and most guys will probably take a doe. Besides 6000-8000 extra does are just a bleep on the radar screen in the overall management plan.

I like the idea of earn a buck here in MN and IA for our residents hunters only. Doesn't sound like a good deal for most NR's.

The upside probably would be fewer NR applications=more chances for me to draw a tag!
grin.gif
 
Shredder, I hunted IL for the first time this year. All I can say is i hope IA doesn't turn into a IL. Land is very hard to come by and the little public land there is is absolutely polluted with people. I hunted a park there this year and I was one of 387 people who had a tag for it and was told that that was one of the least pressured area. Didn't care much for it. However, I did shoot a doe before i shot my buck. So, go figure.

If the earn a buck goes through it would definately cut into outfitters pockets....which for me, personally, would be a good thing seeing I don't use them and wouldn't have to compete with those clients for a tag possibly???
 
I do like the fact that it would:

1) Help those in need.
2) Provide at least a basic qdm plan.
3) Save me $21 bucks for my 1st 2 tags.

The positives definatley outweigh the negatives, but if the res. are doing it, the nr should do it too. I don't think the managment plans always have to be centered around what the nr's are gonna think. If they want to enjoy the great hunting, they can do their part to manage and better the herd like the rest of us. I too hope IA doesn't turn into an IL.

With that said, how could this work without check in stations?
 
I don't like it. I don't like the earn a buck idea. The DNR has a plan for thinning the herd and it is working. Give them a chance before earn a buck is forced. Besides that, it is a free tag instead of a paid tag. It has the potential for less revenue for the DNR since now we need to buy one less tag since the first one is free.

I don't like that it is mandatory to donate to HUSH. Why tax the hunters this way? Why not tax everyone BUT the hunters since we are the ones that are thinning the herd. I'm all for HUSH but not this way where the intent is mostly wrong. Besides that, it isn't even available in my area. I hate to sound selfish but why should I donate my dough so some other hunter can get free processing to feed someone for free 120 miles from my place? HUSH doesn't help thin the herd in my area at all.
 
"I hate to sound selfish but why should I donate my dough so some other hunter can get free processing to feed someone for free 120 miles from my place? HUSH doesn't help thin the herd in my area at all."
confused.gif


For some reason I don't think that statement represents the hunting community very well. Pretty arrogant. As far as I am concerned, the more that the hunting community can do to help those that don't hunt and are in need, the better we are doing as hunters and as a society. It feels good to know that you may be helping some child to fall asleep at night with a full belly rather than pains of hunger.
 
I hunted my first earn-a-buck season in Wisconsin this past year. Overall, I can deal with it but there are a modest number of hunters across the state that are 100% against it.

From the standpoint of shooting antlerless deer is works wonderful. It also reduces your buck harvest by about 40%. This occurs because on opening weekend most hunters can't shoot the first spiker, forky or little sixer that walks by, instead they must wait for an antlerless deer.
 
Don't get me wrong, HUSH is a great program. I do donate to it already and I also have paid to process my harvests and donate the deer meat locally each of the past several years. It is my money and that is my choice. But forcing all hunters to donate to it is wrong. The intent of the proposed law is good but it does not work as intended. I think that it would be cool as a group collectively that we can say look what we did but why should we be the ones FORCED to do this? I think I do represent the hunting community quite well and if you think we should be forced to do this, why not make it $10, or $20, or $100? We know we can afford it since it is but a fraction of the overall costs that we put into the sport already. It might be arrogance but in my opinion the law fails unless the intent has equal payback and results statewide.
 
I see your point 150class. I guess I see it as a way of getting a tag that I already buy at a cheaper cost, and the money is being used for a good cause. Nobody is necessarily wrong, just looking at it from all directions.
 
Re: HF 31--Shredder

Not to change the subject, Shredder, but the problem with Illinois in my opinion is the county by county tags. That was a problem when I was a resident. My families farm straddles three counties, so we had to choose each year who hunted where. One year I got caught in the wrong county, and got spanked good by a conservation officer. I was a pusher on a drive on my own fathers land, and I had a legal permit to hunt 1/4 mile away. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind county doe tags for localized herd control, but the statewide any-sex tag is a great asset for a hunter in this State.
Dan
 
150 Class,

I think the whole point of making the HUSH fee mandatory is so that the program can be expanded to all parts of the state. I do see your point that because the deer belong to everyone in the state, that it should be more broadly supported -- not just hunters. And maybe there should be a campaign to get donations from other sectors.

I guess I look at the two tags for less money, even with the HUSH fee, as a good deal for everyone involved. Overall, it's cheaper for the hunter, the HUSH program gets funding needed to expand, it should result in more does being harvested which should ultimately improve our buck quality/numbers.

As for the earn a buck, I think it's good incentive to harvest more does. However if the shooter buck showed up first, (and I'm not condoning this), I suppose you could just toss the doe portion of the tag, since there'd be no way of knowing whether or not you'd actually killed a doe first. Then you'd either have to skip taking a doe or buy a second bonus license. You just wouldn't want to be caught with or using that first doe tag if the buck tag was already gone.
 
[ QUOTE ]
As for the earn a buck, I think it's good incentive to harvest more does. However if the shooter buck showed up first, (and I'm not condoning this), I suppose you could just toss the doe portion of the tag, since there'd be no way of knowing whether or not you'd actually killed a doe first. Then you'd either have to skip taking a doe or buy a second bonus license. You just wouldn't want to be caught with or using that first doe tag if the buck tag was already gone.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what makes the bill pointless... I agree, if a shooter buck crossed my path on day one, the first tag would vanish
 
Earn a buck tag equals temptation tag. Not a good idea IMHO.

I still think the insurance companies should/would have a stake in the HUSH program. It would be less expensive for the comapny to give, lets say 500K to the program which will help reduce the herd through harvest than to continue to pay 60M to reduce the herd through GMC Suburban. I'm sure there is some intelligent fellas out there that could do some sort of cost analysis on how much the company would save versus the 60M spent. In other words, if they spent 500K would that reduce the herd enought for them to save a couple of million.

The 'Bonker
 
I agree with avid hunter. The bill seems pointless, because if a monster Iowa buck comes walking past my stand at 10 yards, anyone would be tempted to take a shot, and then in turn just ditch your doe tag. If the hunter does ditch the doe tag...the plan completely back fires, because instead of having a doe harvested later in the season, the tag would be wasted and used on nothing. WE should not be required to have to shoot a doe before we shoot a buck! We paid for the either sex tag, so therefore we should be able to use that tag whenever we want to. I know that this bill is supposed to help the doe herd, but I think we are starting to get it under control (atleast we are taking better measures to do so). All and all I don't like the concept of making it "required" to shoot a doe when in Iowa, a monster buck could come by at anytime. Many times hunters will wait until a large, mature healthy doe presents herself for a clean shot, but if this bill came into effect I think a hunter would kill any doe that came by, including a small one, which could be a button buck. I know this may sound pretty stupid to some of you, but I think that's what would happen.

-sureshot1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom