How many welcome Outfitters in Iowa???

[Crockett]

Nope, it was meant how it sounded and not apologizing for it either. Just sick of the pointless yet pot stirring posts and comments, (not that yours is pointless or pointing fingers at you) that have swamped this site lately...

Logging off....

Pointless kinda depends on who you are! I probably won't let "ANTYTHING GO!" just on your word!! The post was just a ouestion!! And please don't make me get kicked off here!!!!!!!!( I can't use swear words!)Guy's thanks for the post back!! :way:

 

[Crockett]

Man I really like sushi.

Mobile Cooter using IW

WHY?????????? Try to stay with it Josh!!!!!!!:way:

 

[sep0667]

Outfitters are only good if you can afford to pay 3k to go hunt deer or are an outfitter yourself, or of course own/have access to a neighboring property. Would I like to own land/have access next to an outfitter? Sure, it would probably be good hunting, but IMO I would feel like I was cheating a little. I don't know the numbers but I highly doubt outfitting has much of an impact at all on Iowa. It does however have an impact on NR's wanting to own/lease in Iowa and forces the average hunting like me to have to go to public(which is even more crowded now) and have a harder time gaining access to private. I will never hunt with an outfitter because it is ridicoulous to pay 3k to hunt deer for no more than a 3 or 4 days. Not only that, but who wants to be told exactly where to sit, not know the land, do your own scouting, etc? You just pull the trigger. Outfitting is bad news to the far majority of hunters, and if NR access is increased it will explode. I'm a fan of sushi by the way.

 

[Crockett]

I guess I'll find out this year about the next door neighbor leasing to a outfitter!! I just would like to know what the landowners cut is! This guy is charging $2500.00 for 5 days! Hope the hunting is better on that side of the fence than it was on mine this year!! The clients will be sadly disapointed!!!

 

[Liv4Rut]

I bet being an outfitter if you are a good one is kind of stressful. I have taken many youth, friends, family members that were just getting into hunting and I think I put more thought into setting them up and stressing out about it more than I do myself. It might not be enjoyable the more I think about it.

 

[iowaqdm]

Personally, I think you need to drop this topic and get over it, Crock.

This is a stupid discussion, if you really think outfitters are the decay of Iowa, get a grip. Its a free friggen country and a free market, more power to the guy who has the means to make a dream come true. AND be apart of fulfilling other hunter's dreams.

There is nothing wrong with outfitting when its done properly, and its actually a good thing for the surrounding landowners. But bad landowners are just as bad as bad outfitters.... and you'll have both everywhere you go...



True, but if you have the means, why not? For guys like us, 3G's is not even open for discussion... But for those that it is, I see no problem with paying to provide the quality experience...

Those of you who have never hunted with one oughta go try it once.... you'll see how it works and have a much different outlook on what it takes and what they offer. Hunting is NOT an exclusive sport, if you don't have the money to be a NR landowner, and don't want to waste valuable time on public land where who knows what can happen, an outfitter is the best option. It's a helluva lot of fun, and a great way to enjoy a hunt

I fully support Iowa outfitters and without them you are taking a major chunk of the rural economy away. They are needed, they exist everywhere and are NOT going anywhere. Get used to the idea....

I understand where you are coming from about free country and all the power to the guy with the means to do it. Having said that I'm not sure if your considering the big picture. First off you are in the "industry" and therefore always try to play both sides of the fence or in this case siding with the very group that will kick the majority of your readers to the curb. I realize that the outfitter's buy ad space so I understand why you side with them. Secondly, if you have spent any time what so ever reading (what your peers are writing) about the quality of hunting in west central Illinois then you would realize it is going straight down the tube. Good luck finding a buck over 175" in Pike County, twenty years ago it used to produce some of the largest deer in the country every year. Third point is if you had any idea how limited Iowa's deer habitat is you would realize that any large scale outfitting like in west central Illinois coming to Iowa would end the hunting experience for all future generations. Fourth point, it is hard enough to recruit youth into hunting let alone finding a place to take them so when you look at your children or the other little ones running around at the daycare, pool or school ask yourself what is more important. Someone having the right to ruin our resource and tradition for the almighty buck or standing up to protect it for the next generation. Once your readership has been pushed out of the sport your subscriptions will dwindle and then your advertisers (outfitters). Then you will loose your dream just like those little ones I mentioned above. Outfitters will never save the economy in any county in this State. You can take that to the bank. Once Iowa's resources have been milked dry the outfitters will pack up and move to the next hot spot but by then it will be too late. Step back and dig deep within THA4, you know what is the right side to be on in regards to outfitting whitetails in Iowa. Outfitters do enable some hunters access to the sport and possibly offer a better chance at a trophy than public ground. I think many wannabe trophy hunters think they can just shell out some cash and they will shoot one. That is rarely the case. Many who choose outfitters just aren't willing to put in the hard work to be successful or have drank the kool aid. If your reading this and feel that flying from Florida, PA, you pick the State and landing in a place like Pike County for your five day $4000 hunt is buying you a quality experience or if marching in on beaten paths to your stand to wait for your 130" buck is what you consider a quality hunting experience then I kinda feel sorry for you. Because once you have shot that 130" for $4000 then you'll just want to drop $5000 for that 160" and then $6000 for that 170". That description of hunting is far from what I was taught about the sport from my father who started bowhunting with recurve back in the early 1960's. The principles of putting in hard work, scouting, building relationships with landowners and learning your quarry in hopes of possibly getting to release that arrow or pull that trigger was better than the actual taking of the game animal. I'm gonna say one last thing and that is I can't thank the IBA and guys like Randy Taylor enough because they fight on a daily basis to protect what we have. Thank you Randy for all your hard work!

 

[moosehunter]

I'm a bit on the fence with this one. Probably because I have no outfitter close to my hunting area so there is no personal experience with one. If an outfitter would lease my hunting spot I'd probably be a bit sore about it I'm sure.

If I had the time and money and the land you can bet I would never start an outfitter business. Years ago my dad had a fishing resort in Northern Minnesota and the only time he took to fish was when I came up for vacation. I would think that being a succsessful outfitter would take much time, work and effort all for someone else to enjoy. I like to hunt for alot of reasons but it is my little escape and downtime. Anything more than that and now it's another job and I sure don't need that.

With all that said I believe that in the future if you are not a land owner you will likely be paying an outfitter to hunt. I don't like it but I can see that happening. More private ground is dissapearing every year to leaser's and outfitters. It will be the have vs the have nots.

 

[hillrunner]

If our only concern is the quality of the hunting in the neighborhood, I can tell you from experience that I would much rather have the property next door go to an outfitter than become public..

 

[Sligh1]

If it were just about property next to mine (which isn't the starting topic- so sorry)- I would not want an outfitter. I put it one notch above public land (yes- many variations on management of outfitters) In all honesty- I personally would sell my land of An average outfitter set up shop. I do not have a problem the outfitters right to b in business. I have friends that r outfitters. Though- at the end of the day- on avg, their land is managed differently than mine and too many hunters get churned threw to pay the bills and too many "just have to shoot a buck and get their moneys worth" and don't take interest land management like i do on mine because it isn't theirs. I don't fault them but I just don't want em near me. 2 different goals. I fully support their right to exist but I do feel they r very poor for management vs most other situations.

 

[TJJ67]

commercialization of anything has the potential of ruining it forever.

 

[Thinkin Rut]

I would have thought that if someone puts down 3 to 5 grand for a hunt that he wouldn't be looking for a 125 inch buck to fill a tag nor would he feel the need to kill for the hunt to be a success. I would also think that the outfitter would be looking to keep repeat customers therefore managing it well enough for the hunter to at least get a look at a trophy class buck. I always thought they had a non-trophy charge added on if the deer didn't score so high.

Can I be "for outfitters" and yet be "against Thomas" on just this one thread??

 

[Jdubs]

Most outfitters have a standard of some type. A group of guys, great guys I might add, lease ground to my west but shoot anything through the two shotgun seasons. I think an outfitter would be require clients to be more choosey.

 

[LANDROBBER13]

On the contrary, Crockett, I think you asked a very good question. Really, who do we want as our neighbor? The farmer on my southeast corner allows one person to hunt (trophy hunter) so he's okay. The property bordering my south line is owned by a single guy from St. Louis who can only hunt every 3 years so he is a really good neighbor. To the north is a 160 where the owner allows friends to bowhunt and then drives it to death during shotgun season with up to 17 shooters. Then east and north is a neighbor with 2000 acres who leases to a nationally recognized outfitter (self proclaimed best in the industry) who treats it like deerhunting's version of a puppy mill. I would gladly trade them all (except for the St. Louis guy) for one quality outfitter who managed for trophies and practiced QDM.

P.S. Cooter, I hope you never get mad and leave; I appreciate your faithfulness to the forum.

 

[Sligh1]

Where I steer 180 degrees from outfitting management....

Most clients will shoot the best genetic 3.5 and even 2.5 year olds. When I'm trying to let the best genetic 4.5's live, they are dead well before that on most outfitted land. If it were just ONE of those bucks, fine - but unfortunately, I usually see 4-6 bucks like that come off an "average" sized outfitter tract. Put a 130" restriction on the bucks on your farm- watch as almost every client tags out on a great genetic 3.5 year old (sometimes 2.5) and the rare 4.5 (possibly an older one). Contrary to top genetic, mature buck management for sure.

Pressure on OLD bucks is fine with outfitters (if they have old bucks) because they usually run the bucks out or cause em to go nocturnal. But- when folks are trying to keep pressure low & outfitters have 2-3 guys a week hunting any given farm- pressure is usually way more than I'd ever consider on any good managed piece.

In most of Iowa- it's not like we all have 2,000 acre blocks, so I can manage my 2,000 acres and even if the outfitters 2,000 acres next to me gets destroyed- I'm ok... Most folks are NOT talking big acreages like that, most are broken up into 160's, 240, 80, 320 or WHATEVER. Sorry- you just can't have 15 guys churned through a 240 in a year (bow, both gun seasons & late ML)- take 5 to 7 2.5 to 5.5 (or ANY age) bucks and have it be an excellent piece with "good" management or even mediocre management, age structure and likely buck to doe ratio.

Again, this is just COMPARING the avg outfitted ground vs the avg 'well managed" private land. I likely would take shotgun driven land over outfitted land next to me any day. I'd LOVE to have a group of 2 NR guys owning land next to me VS an outfitter. And AGAIN- I am all for the outfitters right to exist, make a living & hunt BUT I feel the management of AVG outfitted ground is just a step above public land. I sure hope they aren't the norm in Iowa because I know it would hurt our management but the ones that exist as they do now, I fully support their right to do so.

 

[sureshot]

I did a search on Iowa outfitters and only found one that had antler restrictions of 140 with $500 fine or 150 on one of their "trophy" leases with a $1000 fine for shooting one under that. With 8000 acres leased.


The rest were 125-130 or none at all. I don't see how they are great managers for big bucks other than the ones they are putting in their pockets.

I know of multiple outfitters in my area that have a 140in minimum with a $1,000 fine, however, they dont' enforce it all of the time. There were three bucks out of 8 shot on 600 acres this year with this particular outfitter where they didn't fine the hunter for shooting 140inch deer. I don't think they are great managers at all, and in my opinion, are worse than even the landowners in my area who allow multiple people to hunt, because most hunters from in state in my area will only shoot big deer/old deer.

 

[Sligh1]

140in minimum

That's usually what I see- 125-140" minimum. That puts all the good genetic 3.5 year olds on the target/kill list. It even will kill some amazing genetic 2.5 year olds. Probably the WORST deer people could be shooting. It's one thing to shoot 1 or 2 of those bucks off a section, but after 5, 6, 8 or whatever of those bucks are killed off a section... Whoa, management down the toilet and you just killed off years of good genetic mature bucks.

 

[Thinkin Rut]

Sligh1...If I had the cash to buy into one of these "super" neighborhoods, could you put me on a property in a fairly short amount of time? Are there that many of these neighborhoods around? There always seems to be a spoiler or two where I hunt and most of the hunters talk the talk but few would pass a 160 inch deer if it were 3.5 years old. I'm just curious to the availability of such properties.

 

[Sligh1]

Sligh1...If I had the cash to buy into one of these "super" neighborhoods, could you put me on a property in a fairly short amount of time? Are there that many of these neighborhoods around? There always seems to be a spoiler or two where I hunt and most of the hunters talk the talk but few would pass a 160 inch deer if it were 3.5 years old. I'm just curious to the availability of such properties.

Rare, I know of very few of these mega-properties. U don't necessarily need a mega-property to have a "well managed piece" though either. Usually, like I think you are saying- there's a lot of 100 acre, 200 acre, 80 acre pieces. Now- where the difference comes... Most "regular" parcels get a couple guys who might kill those top genetic bucks... The outfitted pieces are planned, strategized and booked up for groups of DIFFERENT bow hunters, gun, late ML to churn through all season. Offering 5, 8, 10 or whatever amount of bucks to be killed off a piece. On outfitted ground, they often have to have 10 different guys on any given piece to make a profit. VS the avg say 180 acres- usually a group of folks have permission (and MOST landowners usually like to limit to a few guys for a whole season) & I would argue a far less amount of bucks get targeted & killed. Even if 1-2 top genetic bucks that are young get killed- it's obviously not near as bad as say 6 bucks of course. Even MOST shotgun driven land- if only 1 land owner does it- it takes a day or 2 and the land is vacated & deer moved to low pressure land PLUS that only lasts a few days VS the outfitted land being POUNDED from Oct 1 to Jan 11. Booking FIVE DAY HUNTS, they load land up all season. Think of how many FIVE DAY HUNTS you could potentially sell from Oct 1 to Jan 11 when you're trying to make a profit?!?!?!
Then the guys with permission don't have $2-3k on the line either & most likely want to manage & plan to return next year. Don't have the "pressure" to get a "decent buck down" to "get their money's worth". It's 2 totally different worlds in so many regards, I could go on and on but I'll spare you.
Passing a 160" 3.5 year old.... Most on here would go- "NO WAY"- ok, I get that. I do know a ton of folks who would though. Best deer to pass (happy to back this up) is a 3.5 year old 160" for example. On the average land, a few of those generally escape, on the outfitted land they are killed almost every time- too many guys and too many folks that have to kill that buck on outfitted land & the # of guys hunting that outfitted land is just way too many.
My land in particular.... I'd say if you averaged it out- there's maybe .5 person on any given day. The MOST at once is 2 people BUT there's several breaks in there BUT the bottom line is: I won't let 6 bucks be killed off my land UNLESS they were super old (which no, isn't going to happen). heck, I won't allow 1 3.5 to be killed with great genetics VS 5-6 in common outfitted settings. Night and day difference long term.

Great properties are rare. Of course. Totally do-able and it's even more do-able to buy a piece and turn it into that amazing managed place- half the battle is not pulling the frigin trigger on every young, good genetic buck. Another piece of that puzzle, I would never buy land next to an outfitter. I'd also being shopping & checking on who my neighbor is I'm buying against. Is this homework a pain and is there a wide variance on quality of properties out there? OF course. BUT- is there top notch neighborhoods and also crap neighborhoods? Sure. Your job to figure out the difference and/or do all you can with the piece you own.

 

[Altiman94]

You also have to remember that some of the hunters from other states where a 130" buck is a monster are quite happy with the 3.5 y/o 130" 10 pt. So, for an outfitter to limit the hunter to anything about 150" or 160" maybe is an unreasonable goal to ask their hunters. They still have to make $ to keep their doors open and letting their hunters harvest a deer that they are happy with is one way to do it.

The farm next door to my in-laws farm was basically ruined by a couple of college aged guys who probably bit into the big buck craze pretty hard. They were running trail cams all over the place and had stands bordering all sides of my in-laws property. Not to mention the rampant tresspassing. In two years, both farms were not much better than public hunting land in the area. I was pretty discusted with how these guys hunted. Of course they didn't agree when I offered to help.

Now, they are gone, likely graduated from school and moved for jobs. I am nearly the same age as them, so I'm not bashing on 'younger' folks. I am saying that sloppy hunters are everywhere.

The farmer that gave them permission is not a hunter himself and doesn't really care about the deer on his 80 acres. So, to him having a few extra guys out shooting some deer that eat his corn or beans is a good thing to him. Unfortunately there's hardly any deer in the area. I firmly believe that the group (4 guys or so) harvested every doe they say and lots of small bucks. After 2009 the hunting had been pretty bad. It's only started to get better then the last 2 years b/c these guys are gone.

 

[150 Class]

So, without answering the question to the topic, what is so wrong with someone shooting a 120" buck that is only 2 1/2 - 3 1/2 years old? Or as some of you have gently put it, what is wrong with someone being happy with a 120" buck (or any size rack for that matter)?

I have not been affected by outfitters so cannot answer that question. I thought I was affected by neighboring landowners (mostly resident) until I figured out they weren't a problem at all, they just didn't, or still don't, have the same management philosophies as me. That does NOT make them a problem.