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

Legislation

Give the NR a doe tag with the anysex tag.What could it hurt? The amount they pay they deserve a quality hunt which requires a quality herd. With that said, I believe residents can and will do the "grunt work" required to maintain our herd and enjoy doing it, (right old buck). I do not wish to contract this out to NR for fear of negative impacts to quality of hunting including resident displacement, increased party hunting for trophies using resident tags etc. Looking at harvest numbers it seems us residents are killing a lot more deer and setting records for harvest. Is there a metric out there of what is needed to meet state goals for harvest? As my 4 year old woud say, are we there yet? It would be easier for residents with bonus tags if they could harvest during all seasons instead of having to specify one season. Residents need also realize we cant have the cake and eat it too. We must properly fund IDNR or they will get the revenue from NR's. We may need to pay a little more to preserve our hunting heritage.
 
Ive tried to stay away from this one, but here it goes.
What does the DNR want? Does anyone in Des Moines ever ask the biologist what would be best for the deer herd? Not for the pocket book, but for the quality of the herd. This happens every year, the legislature meets and starts telling the experts how to do their jobs. Its not just wildlife, but all areas of the state. Their job is to make laws and appropriate money. They need to tell the DNR how much money they have and just let them do their job.

As far as lifting the cap on NR tags, I dont think that would make any difference. Im sure there are some NR that would gladly hunt does, but most hunters who travel want to put antlers on their walls. I agree with one cam that we would also face a battle for hunting land. This year they want the cap on NR antlerless and a few years later we lift the cap on antlered. The next thing you know only those with deep pockets will be able to hunt.

I like the idea of allowing a bow tag to used during gun season, many hunters quit after the 1st bow season and the tag goes unused.
I also dont understand the special late season, why not move it to the beginning of the season? Have a two week time period in September that is doe only. That way we we lessen the risk of shed bucks getting shot. It makes more sense to me if herd management is our actual goal. The bottom line is the legislature should be taking its cues from the DNR and not insurance companies and farmer groups.
 
Horst - There were 2500 antlerless tags issued to NR's last year. They sold out! Good points onecam!
 
Onecam, this is a pretty hot topic on most of the boards I goto right now.NR want more tags and NR that own land here want to hunt it every year since they own it.

Remember awhile back when the state of Arizona got taken to court over the cap on thier non resident big game tags?And they lost.I agree land access is a big issue right now, I wont argue that with you.

But suppose one of the following happens

A-NR landowners take the state of Iowa to court for the right to hunt thier own land every year

B-NR and or the outfitters in this state takes the state to court like they did in Arizona to get the cap raised or removed

C- they take the state to court citing all of the above reasons they are being treated unfairly

With the publicity right now about the deer population being "out of control" and Arizonas case already setting a precednet for it Im not sure a case like that would come out in favor of Iowas sportsmen.Its in every newspaper and in the legislature right now we need more deer killed, it wouldnt take much to convince a judge.

all Im saying is right now, we aint got nobody on our side.the insurance industries raising hell.The DNr sees it as a chance to make money.Theres already several bills being looked at with something to this effect in them.NR think theyre being screwed over.And even the hunters in Iowa are divided on some of these issues.Non hunters in Iowa just want them killed, they dont care who does it.

Somebodies gonna have to give eventually or its eventually gonna wind up in court.Something easy like taking the caps off antlerless tags could make a big difference in the outcome of all this.A judge would be hard pressed to find in favor of them if their allowed to shoot all the does they want.And I really dont think its gonna raise the number of NR hunters much higher than they are now, and they certainly arent gonna spend $100,000 buying land here cause thier gauranteed a doe tag.hate to say it but money and politics are gonna win this in the end, deer managements getting a little farther outta the spotlight all the time
frown.gif
 
Horst, all good points. Yet we as sportsmen and women need to take the lead vs being led by the insurance companies etc. We need to protect our interests and as Mole eluded to - ask for a healthy deer herd and trust our DNR to provide a road map for this goal.

Contact your legislator and politely ask for these things. Let's support the idea of making antlerless tags available to those that draw an either sex tag. This alone will increase doe harvests and possibly double the total number of tags sold to the NR sportsmen.

Lastly I leave you with this ...

[ QUOTE ]
we aint got nobody on our side

[/ QUOTE ]

not true - we have the IBA and our Conservation groups fighting to protect us every day - are you a member?
 
The part that i don't like about the antlerless only tags are that they can be used partyhunting. When I first heard this I thought that it didn't make much sense to have an antlerless tag and be able to shoot bucks with a party. Could this loophole be closed to help in the doe only harvesting?
 
I would say 99 out of 100 non-residents would not buy an antlerless tag just to shot a doe given the current price in Iowa. I wouldn't, I can get free doe tags in my home state. Dor is correct when he states what likely happens is a non-resident gun hunter buys a doe-tag and then gets to party hunt with friends or family and gradma puts her tag on the big buck that he ends up shooting.

In essence your 2500 doe tags are cheap either sex tags. You are actually getting ripped off because they are basically getting a second buck tag for a reduced cost.

I also feel that if you draw a either sex tag for non-resident bow hunting or gun hunting you should receive a antlerless tag if needed to control the herd at the same value that a resident pays. The whole premise for antlerless tags is to control deer numbers and we should make that as easy as possible.

Buy the way the legislature creates the laws and its the states agencies job to implement those laws. Dont complain to the DNR, complain to your elected officials and hold them accountable.
 
Onecam, no Im not a member of the IBA.Im a member of several organizations but thats not one of them.I dont like thier stance on some things, which dont have anything to do with this topic, and Im on a rather tight budget so I cant support all of the conservation, and gun rights groups.

Id be in favor of giving them doe tags with thier either sex tags.But Im also pretty concerned with whats gonna happen in the future with all of this.To ell you the truth, I think the deer population problems already being taken care of, theres just to many people expecting results to fast for it to work.Weve been setting record harvests, and theres more doe tags available then ever.But the non resident tagging situations not gonna resolve itself, and somewhere down the road its gonna get ugly
frown.gif
 
Every one seems to have their own take on this problem so here is mine. I think perhaps we should increase the NR tag numbers to 8000 any sex tags and include an anterless tag, and raise the price to $400.00. This would generate $3.2 million for the DNR. It would take the heat off about increasing license numbers because now we allow a total of 16000 tags between antlered and anterless. There should also be some way to track the antlerless tags to see if they are being used on does, maybe a mandatory survey and a tooth sample or some thing. We should do this for a couple years at least to see if the antlerless tags are really being used or just thrown away after the antlered tag is used.

As for HF31 I don't like the $5.00 mandatory HUSH money. This would amount to nearly a million dollars and I wonder how much of that is paying for processing deer meat for the prisons. Don't get me wrong I think that HUSH is a good idea but I'm concerned where the money is going. I process all my own deer so I have no idea how much a locker gets for basic processing, but $1,000,000.00 should cover 20 to 25000 deer. Because I do process my own, and give some away, I don't think I should have to pay for everyone else. If a person wants to donate deer meat and money to the program then they should, but until they put a mandatory fee on the groceries we all buy to fight hunger I don't think hunters should foot the bill by law. I am not against an extra fee, however that would be strictly ear marked for habitate or land aqasition.
 
The big difference between Iowa and Arizona is the amount of federally owned land. The state was controlling the amount of tags on publically owned land. That was bound to get changed. Iowa is completely the opposite, with most land privately owned. I'm not sure that Arizona ruling would apply here. At least that's what I read. I wish I could remember where. Outdoor Life ?
 
Bowmaker,

I understand your not wanting to pay the $5 HUSH fee. But it's only $5 -- a pretty small amount to pay for what amounts to a big boost to overall QDM in the state. A number of hunters on this site, particularly those in southwest and northeast Iowa, have said they would take more does if there was a HUSH locker closer (in some cases 2+ hours away). If $5 apiece helps get more does harvested, we're all better off. I imagine Old Buck, pharmer and many others spend quite a bit more than that on QDM each year.
grin.gif

I do appreciate the bill authors being up front about it. They could have just raised the license fee $5. And if I read the bill correctly, you get two tags for the price of one so even with the $5 HUSH fee, you're still money ahead. For $5, you're getting a lot more direct benefit than with most of your other tax dollars.
 
Turkeyriver, your right about the federaly owned land.But here theres a lot of guys that actually own land that arent being allowed to hunt it, which is worse, the state controlling the tags on public land or telling you that your own properties off limits except maybe every other year.Dont get me wrong, Im not supportive of NR landowners being given gauranteed tags, Im just trying to look at as a judge would.

Actually Arizonas lawsuit wasnt even filed bynon residents, it was filed by guides in the state who wanted to make more money off the states big game animnals.The state didnt lose because of the number of tags issued, it was decided that the state controlling the tags was in violation of interstate commerece laws, or it was interfering with the rights of the guides to make a living in other words.That could definately apply here if the outfitters in our state wanted to get in on it.
 
Bowmaker - The HUSH program is for the Food Bank of Iowa, not the prisons. I believe the fee that a locker charges is approx $55.00 per deer. This is a program that needs to be launched state wide. We need more lockers that are going to accept deer. Like 3beards said, guys are having to drive 2 hours to the nearest locker. Think how many more does they would harvest and take to the hush program if there was a locker 15 minutes away.
 
I think there needs to be more lockers around, also. I know my dad would take the limit of does he could if we also didn't have over a 2 hour drive to the nearest locker. We took 3 deer within our house hold all in different seasons and by the third one we were giving meat away to anyone who would take it. He still had tags to fill but didn't have anywhere for the meat.
 
Bowmaker-

Thier is a way to find out what tags got used for what and how many deer are actually killed ina year-It's called a deer registration station!!!!!

I cannot believe the IDNR does not have this in place yet so they can accurately estimate the harvest and deer numbers. The post card system is a joke and is getting a 5-6% less return rate every year.

This sight is continually cursing poachers and for good reason. Make these jerks that are shooting deer with rifles during the bow season and sticking an arrow into them or shooting deer with rifles come to a check station for the world to see thier kills. Its alot easier for the wardens to go to one place than to hope to happen across a hunter with his deer.

Also many of the harvest problems with antlerless tags would dissappear if group hunting was only allowed for antlerless deer.

WI Shedhead
157RAtinybuck-thumb[1].gif
 
Three beards

What bothers me is not the $5.00, but the fact that it becomes mandatory. I just don't think that we should start down the road that because a charitable donation, and I make lots of them, does good things that we should by law make it mandatory. I don't want to seem to go off the deep end here, but where will this lead us to? Mandatory "United Way" or "Red Cross" donations.

WI SHEDHEAD
I understand about check stations but am not in favor of them. I think the costs would far out weight the benifits of a more accurate reporting system. My son worked at 2 check stations in Illinois for two years as part of his grad work, and his reports are less than glowing. Most stations were staffed by volunteers who could not tell what the deer were shot with even if they cared. The aim was to record the sex and age of the deer brought in. To age them they had to cut the back corner of the mouth to be able to see the milk teeth in the back of the jaw. Most hunters with deer they wanted to mount refused to allow this so the aging information was very scewed.

All in all the HUSH program is a good program I just object to being forced into it. I'm cheap but not that tight.
 
I completely agree that we need to make sure our legislators keep the current cap on NR hunters. As pointed out in an earlier post, the 2500 doe tags are really meaningless if a NR can party hunt and tag an additional buck, that being the case I would argue that we give all NRs both an either sex tag, and an antlerless tag - with a modest increase in price due to inflation.

I think HUSH is a great program, that is way underfunded. I have no problem paying $5 to support this program if it means that we can keep the status quo. I also believe that they should consider other tax/fee options for paying for this program and others like it. Perhaps tack on $5 to renew automobile registration/plates, as all Iowa drivers benefit from a reduced deer population. They ought to also solicit $$$ from the insurance companies, as they have a vested interest.

Any more ideas on how to pay for HUSH etc?
 
Avid - I believe the insurance companies did donate to the hush program last year. So did the Iowa Bowhunters Association. I would also be more than happy to pay extra money to insure it got launched statewide so all hunters could benifit. I put probley $55.00 a week in gas in the ole expidition, What's a little more in licenses to help the hush program out. I do think they need to raise prices all the way across the board, not just us hunters. Heck why not phesant tags, dove tags (If it passes), and bass tags. You can fish 365 days a year in Iowa for what, under $20.00? Camping should go up, biking and hiking, bird watching, etc...

I talk to my legislators at least once a week. Via email or phone. If more people would do this, we could get a lot more accomplished. It only takes a few minutes guys and kat!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom