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

If YOU could write the rules

-im all about earn a buck, but only in counties where there is LOTS of does....with the northern counties that may be a problem, so Earn a buck should be county sensitive.

-I like to shoot two bucks, late muzz is a good release for a frustrating bow season, so im all about two bucks....

-I think an early season (First weekend of October) would help some. get the hunters while they are fresh and jacked about the season. but the folage and high temps might make things NOT as fun. make the doe you would kill count towards your earn a buck and more bowhunters would participate, thus increasing the doe harvest.

-Lower the price of doe tags, maximum $5 per

-Get more lockers to participate in HUSH, in SE Iowa is difficult to find an open locker when you need one.

-increase the number of the NR doe quota, and make the tags as cheap as ours......the NR hunters prly dont shoot as many does because it cost $100 per tag.

-make all purchased tags valid and carry over to the late antlerless season.

-Im not interested in a longer Shotgun Season, i dont feel that would increase the over-all numbers.

-this is not to irritate any body, and i mean NO disrespect. I think youth season oughta be doe only. or at the very least, all youth have to abide by the earn a buck program as well

-keep the November Antlerless gun season as is, but allow all bow antlerless tags valid to fill with guns, ONLY for those 3 days.


i know this is just my opinion, and maybe not the cure all for our current problem, but i think these options would be more efficient than the extended shotgun season.


Good Post Mud
 
For starters, I believe harvest reporting is a problem. Personally I love the system, but outside of the die hards all I hear is bitching about the harvest reporting system. I believe MAYBE 70% of the harvest actually gets reported. I know I hear plenty of guys talk about not reporting because its just too much trouble to report multiple deer via phone. Anybody know anybody who has been ticketed for not reporting? I dont. There has to be some major incentive for reporting to get accurate numbers. I'd suggest a fairly hefty fine and a 2 year license suspension for failure to report any harvest.

Similarly, my biggest problem with the 3rd gun season was that it rewarded those who failed to report, and also gave everyone else the idea that if they didnt report next year maybe they could falsly create the need for another "bonus" season and allow them to reuse their tag. This set a horrible precident if you want people to accurately report thier harvest. To me allowing any "unused" tag to be valid later would only encourage more non-reporting of harvests.

To solve that I would drop the requirement to buy an either sex license before a doe tag. Then I would raise either sex tags to, say, $40 each, and drop all doe tags to $2-5 each. I know personally I'd buy more tags and still spend about the same amount of money. I also know alot of guys who would just buy the cheap doe tags because they dont care about antlers. If enough does were not harvested in a given county then simply raise the quota of cheap doe tags mid/late-season in any given county that needed it.

Basicly, I'd make bucks expensive and does really cheap, then remove any incentive to not report a harvest and make not reporting very expensive. This wouldnt do much for areas with access problems, but overall I think it would help harvest more does and provide more accurate harvest numbers.
 
I do like the idea you have timberpig about the higher buck tag and cheaper doe tags. But for us die hards we would see that as a good thing, but to a someone like a father trying to get his son into hunting who will more than likely buy the one anysex tag, i might think that would deter some future hunting.

Here is what I would like to see done:
1.
How about this and I am sure a NR would hate this but at the same time it would be a great opportunity to get a tag every year.

NR land owners who don't pull an anysex tag have an opportunity to get one by shooting a certain number of does off there property.

It would be like the city hunts except on their own land for NR.

I don't mean to punish NR but I think it would be great opportunity for the NR land owners that maybe don't pull a tag some years and don't even hunt (creating a sanctuary) to earn the chance to shoot a buck every year.

I think this would help solve some sanctuary problems in these areas.

You could also base it on acres owned i.e. (40 acres-2 does, 200 acres-6 does to get any sex tag.

Of course these tags would have to be cheaper as well for them.

i also would not be opposed to this scenario for residents either. But I think for many land owning residents it would be a burden and stop them from hunting. While not to pick on NR but I think they would be a little more motivated.




2.
I like the idea of the bundle tag like they have in WI. I really think it would work best because it would be cheaper for the majority of us who buy this many tags and i think it would bring the extra income in because it is cheaper and the guys who didn't buy this way in the past now will because they are getting a deal. I think income for the DNR would stay the same while issueing more doe tags. One buck tag and 2 doe tags for $56.00 compared to 66.00.



3.
If the DNR really wants does taken out in the problem counties like Van Buren they will have to make tags cheaper there.....period. So I would say for the tags that are not sold out every year they might need to lower doe tag prices.

Or if there is a certain amount of doe tags left in each county they should maybe cut the price of the doe tag in half by late muzz season and the extended seasons.




I really don't want to see any longer gun seasons. I think for the most part where hunters can hunt they are keeping the herds in check in IA. I don't think the deer population has gone up in quite a few years. I think right now we should sustain where we are at and no more.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> IOWA DNR 2008 DEER RULES

No printing booklets this year, no reading about what tags you can get...

1) Does only for 2008

2) Doe quotas are set for each individual county

3) Doe tags are $10 bucks a pop, buy all you want and tag transfer (like party hunting) until the quotas for all counties are filled.

4) No bucks shot period for one year in Iowa.....

This would be my dream season..... Kind of silly, but think of what this would do for the deer herd. </div></div>

I wouldn't have a problem with this motto, as long as the state is willing to accept a loss of revenue and the DNR does a superb job of understanding the individual counties herd and sets limits accordingly. Certain counties may only have 1-5 tags issued for the whole season.


Like I said in another post...the deer population problem is a localized deal, so why not set the seasons and limits specific for those areas? This is what I'd like to see.

If localized can not be done then I say make the "quota-tags" an ANY SEASON, Gun/Bow combo tag like the spring turkey tags. As a bowhunter I could purchase 10, shoot (x amount) of does early before the rut...buck hunt hard during the rut...and still have an opportunity to fill my remaining doe tags during the shotgun seasons.

I also like the idea of bundled tags.
 
For those of us who end up with tag soup.

Open up the season on Sept. 15 for those with unfilled tags from the previous season. Tags are good for does only, and good only before October 1st. It might boost the DNR's tag sales knowing that if you don't fill the tag, you still have a shot at early season next year.

You know that there are some that are going to shoot an antlerless in late season that they know is a buck just so they can fill the tag. Knowing the tag has some value for an early season the following year might save a few shed bucks.

I would like to see that in Illinois also.

And yes, I still have tags.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gundog870</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would love to see an early doe season. But moreover I would like to see an earn a buck program put in.
</div></div>

I've always thought that was a good idea. You'll always have a few that try to skirt around it but make the person check the deer in and then you are granted a buck tag after that. Seems pretty easy to me.
 
Not shooting bucks for a year would be retarded, it wouldnt do a dang thing for this state. Right now there is about 65,000 bucks shot through out the state, Over Half of our Harvest, do you think that we could replace those 65K with does, and then add a ton more on top of that. The DNR doesnt give a crap how many bucks die.

You guys can preach about having a doe only season all you want, but I don't believe for a minute you would be out there near as much shooting does. Half the does anybody shoots is because it pisses them off in the tree, or you are simply bored. Half of you guys have your own farms, my god if I had my own farm and wanted to manage it, I would do it. I wouldn't rely on the state. In one season you should be able to easily shoot 40-50-60 does depending on how many you have. I only know 1-2 guys in the state that shoot 40+ does every year.

In all honestly if I could only shoot does I wouldn't hunt them near as much. I would wait till this time of year and go out and shoot as many as I could with a gun. I wouldn't sit in the woods in November and watch bucks go by, no way. I shot 15 does last year I know 10 of those were when I had a buck tag in my pocket, so I would probably only shoot about 5 a year.

If anything I would add an extra buck tag to the state under the stipulation, you have to shoot 10 does to recieve it. It could be for any season, but you got to shoot 10 does to get it. Something radical needs to be done, because lets face it people dream of 200 inch deer, not 120 lb does.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LIV4RUT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not shooting bucks for a year would be retarded, it wouldnt do a dang thing for this state.</div></div>

I agree. The only thing gained by not shooting bucks for a year is that the poachers wouldn't have any competition and the incidence of poaching would most likely increase due to disgruntled hunters.

The cost of a doe tag should be looked at. I bought 12 this year and that is about the limit of my budget. If somebody is buying 40, my hat is off to them. How about having an incremental fee for doe tags, the more you buy, the cheaper they get? And do away with the first one being $27, that is just dumb and discourages people from buying any.

I'm not a fan of earn-a-buck, unless this year's does add up to a bonus any sex tag for next year. As mentioned, the IDNR does not have the infrastructure for the checking portion of this proposal.

I like the "bundle" idea, being that you get a couple of doe tags with your any sex license. I know a couple of groups of shotgun hunters that don't shoot does, won't even buy a doe license. I bet if they were forced to buy them, they would "want to get their money's worth" and fill them.

The other idea I like is the "reverse lotto". Go back to the license drawing days, except this time most of the licenses are doe only. That program is sure to start a rebellion. Plus, now that we have ELISA, there is no going back.

I think the biggest problems are access to private land and urban deer. If the private landowners won't manage their herd, not much can be done. Then, we are faced with urban sprawl in many areas: the Coralville Reservoir area being a case in point, not incorporated into a city yet not really rural. I think at first these people like living with deer, until the deer eat their attempts at landscaping and the urbanites wind up having a deer as a hood ornament. These urban areas tend to be difficult areas to manage for deer as well. Most of these urbanites have money and might have political influence to lobby for herd reduction. Many times these areas are surrounded by farmers who get tired of the "urban herd" of deer and contact the Farm Bureau. Again, more lobbying to thin the herd in areas of difficult access. Turtl had a thread going where it was mentioned that doe tags might have to go to a sub-county level. This would mesh nicely with the urban deer issue, if one could get access.
 
Well I have read some good things and some bad things but a good discussion.
I am not sure about the carry over thing for unfilled tags for a couple reasons. First of all I know that the DNR has an unfilled tag number in their calculations and if all tags carried over that would be all out of wack. If these tags did carry over they should be for either the county issued or the hunters home county, because although the doe tags are county specific the any-sex ones aren't. Much of the problem in SE Iowa is that there just isn't a lot of places to hunt and I believe that is one of the main factors in not selling all the quota of doe tags. The few areas of public ground have been hit pretty hard the last couple of years and really don't hold the numbers of deer that people visualize. I also really believe that the high powered rifle season keeps at least as many hunters away as it draws because of the safty issue. Many hunters who are reluctant to hunt during any shotgun season see the safty issue of rifles and the normally bad weather as a good reason to stay home or go ice fishing.

Currently I am not and have not been in favor of an earn a buck program, not because I think it is a bad idea, but because I think with out check stations and extra man power and expense it can't work properly. The people on here are good ethical sportsmen, but we must realize that there are many who hunt in Iowa aren't, so any kind of honor system or call in program is prime for abuse. For heaven sakes we already have NR hunters using doe tags to kill bucks, because they just can't stand the temptation, and resident hunters doing the same thing or just outright poaching and cutting off heads. If we are honest with our selves, how many of us would let a "Booner" bed down under our stands just because we had not shot and reported a doe yet? It is easy to say "I would" until it happens but not practical when it does really happen.

If we are going to cut the price of doe tags I agree with doubling the price of a Buck tag and I think we should start designating them as such, either Buck or Doe only tags. I think this might work better than an earn a buck program. It would make, or allow, someone to decide if they are willing to spend the extra money to try for a trophy or just spend a little to enjoy just plain old deer hunting. It would also give much needed extra revenue to the DNR. I know that there are some who will be upset about an increase in the cost of a buck tag, but if you really break it down that extra $26.00 is the least costly thing we carry into the woods with us. I used 2 boxes of slugs tht cost $13.00 a box just to sight in with and still missed the only shot I have had so far. I just can't see the extra price being a hardship on anyone, and if it is you surley can't really afford to have a big buck mounted any way, so just buy a doe tag.

I would like to see outfitters and guides to be licensed and bonded, and if they lease or own hunting land they should have to file a doe or population control plan and be forced to adhear to it or not have his license renewed the following year. I would set the bond at a percentage of his hunting revenue and use the income tax department to monotor it. If caught and convicted of any game offences by himself or by his hunters the bond would be forfited to the DNR. I would also charge a surtax on those who lease their land for hunting, based on the lease dollar amount. I would also have a tax credit for land owners who do allow hunting, based on the number of does harvested on their land but I haven't figured out a good way to determine that. I would also not allow NR landowners to enroll in the forest reserve program, so that those timber acres are still on the property tax rolls.

I would do away with using high power rifles for any deer hunting in Iowa. I don't believe that the novelty factor draws out any real numbers of hunters who would not be hunting anyway with shotguns or muzzle loaders. I still have a safty concern even though there haven't been any reported incidents to date, I think it is only a matter of time. The particapation rate has been pretty low the last 2 years because of weather and lack of interest and maybe the novelty wearing off, so I don't feel it would impact the harvest numbers at all.

The last thing I would want is real population numbers that are verifible. I think that only with these facts can we or the DNR make real rational decisions about how many or what sex of deer we should be harvesting. Currently there are so many differing opinouns about deer hunting regulations, both by hunters and the DNR COs, that many are unsure if they are legal or not. To make differnt regulations for different counties, or zones, or even areas with in the same county would be mind bogleing and many would be ignored and unenforcable, so would do no good, other looking good on the legislature floor. The bottom line is that the DNR can issue as many doe tags as it wants, but if hunters cna't find places to hunt or have a good reason to buy them, they will go unsold. It defies logic why in Van Buren County the DNR made 5000 doe tags available when for the last several years they have only sold a little over 2000 of them. I also believe some of the arbitary population numbers are way lower than most of us deer hunters would like to see.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: timekiller</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ghost</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
IOWA DNR 2008 DEER RULES

No printing booklets this year, no reading about what tags you can get...

1) Does only for 2008

2) Doe quotas are set for each individual county

3) Doe tags are $10 bucks a pop, buy all you want and tag transfer (like party hunting) until the quotas for all counties are filled.

4) No bucks shot period for one year in Iowa.....

This would be my dream season..... Kind of silly, but think of what this would do for the deer herd.
</div></div>


I'd still be out 40-50 days. </div></div>

as would I but we would be the minority
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Lastly... I would want is real population numbers that are verifible. </div></div>

Bowmaker, I modified where I'm quoting you so people don't read it wrong.

This is one of the biggest issues in the whole deer population debate. One that hasn't been clearly verified for several years.

It takes a lot of man-hours, which translates accordingly to $$$$, to conduct a widespread census. The DNR has been the burden barer in the past for censusing the deer population.

Perhaps we need to setup a 'comando' team that is willing to donate their time to try to acheive better "totals". Granted a helicopter flying down the rivervalleys would be the easiest for kind of terrain, but in the open areas the 'comando' team could ask farmers or conduct their own surveys. Add the numbers up to form a better estimation than what we've been given the past several years.

As was said above by someone, the earn a buck deal would get abused. A person could go as far as saying that any system would get abuses, just that sum would be taken advantage of more so than others. This current system is easily foiled. For as many people that take the time to register their deer correctly I'm sure as many are not. How would a person get caught for not calling in their deer...especially if they do their own processing. The DNR doesn't have the man-power to travel around and check everyones tags...no differently than them having time to conduct a logical census.

I honestly believe the deer herd isn't in any kind of danger of over population, and an under-population is a ridiculous thought in most areas. The happy medium in where the deer population should be resides with the $$$. The $$$ in all logical sense is coming from the Insurance companies, the DNR, and farmers. I only see one group out of those three that stands to make any money off of maintaining more deer.
 
Ghost idea of an antlerless only 2008 would be very interesting. That would make for a record 2009 big buck harvest and bumper shed crop!
I would like to see the DNR implement an earn a buck program, however I don't see that happening any time soon. I would like to see them open the statewide bow season two weeks earlier Sept. 15th. Heck, they could even make it antlerless only until the normal Oct. 1st. Additionally, I would like to see the antlerless tags transferable from season to season. That is, keep them county specific, however be good to use for any of the seasons.(bow, shotgun,muzz) I'll be honest, I'm sitting on 1 statewide bow tag, 1 statewide muzz tag, and 6 antlerless bow tags for 3 different counties. There is no way I'm going to fill all those with a bow. Maybe both statewide tags and 1 antlerless. If the antlerless were transferable and I could use my muzz, they would all be filled.
 
This discussion is one that could easily become heated but I'm thankful for lots of great ideas and sharing of thoughts without "throwing rocks" /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I also feel that it's a little like being asked "What would you do if you won a million dollars?".. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Most of us don't expect to "win" but we do have "dreams" of what we would do if we won...or..if we could "write our own rules".

Letting more bucks survive to maturity and harvesting more antlerless deer would be my "dream" scenario but most likely nothing more then a dream...

Just some thoughts...

I keep hearing very positive things about Wisconsins earn-a-buck program...and not while discussing it...if you get my drift.

That tells me this...it can work or some facimile of it and it could work with our electronic reg. system...just food for thought. Wisconsin Regs

My thoughts are that nothing will ever really change (kinda like politics... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif ) lots of talk but real radical change is rare, still......

it is fun to dream...... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
 
I've always said a way to have doe control and no effect on the revenue for the DNR is to make ALL landowner tags antlerless. I know some people will say they are paying taxes on their land and deserve the any sex tag, but hey, the tag is basicly free other than the issue fee. The counties with the population problem give the landowners the second tag for $12 or two antlerless tags.
 
I would offer a program that allows the state to lease private lands so hunters would have access to hunt deer. Many states just west of you have this (KS, WY, SD, ND etc.)

The creation of more seasons, more tags, cheaper tags etc. will only go so far.

The real problem is getting hunters access to lands where antlerless deer are not being shot
 
As a former resident and new NR- I think the state has to take some credit for creating the sanctuary problem. Not many out of state hunters or NR landowners are going to harvest does at the price of the doe tags. I'd like to do more myself but won't at that price(I just spent $200 for a spring turkey tag though). I get friends and neighbors and their kids to take does but it is never enough when there is close to 1000 acres inside of a mile that does are not shot. The 640 on two sides of one of my places is leased and they are really proud men who don't shoot does and you can't really force it without some kind of incentive- any landowner can or could also be a tree hugger and not allow hunting access so it is not just about NRs buying up hunting tracts.
 
I haven't read through any of the replys but I have thought #2 would be the right answer for sometime now. Buy your doe tag for the season you want to use it in and if it goes unfilled then it would be good for the special late doe season. This seems like an easy answer to increasing doe harvest year in and year out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom