Nonresident deer license increase proposed

I personnally don't see a problem with raising the amount of available tags to 16,000 NR. I know I will catch some major flack on this, but think about this. This year Iowa made a huge increase in price. THEY DIDN'T EVEN SELL ALL OF THERE TAGS IN THE LOTTERY!!!! There aren't many non-residents willing to pay $321.75 for a Iowa tag. Look at the drop off in numbers of applicants. The DNR probably wishes they could get 16,000 people to apply, because that would be an extra $2,574,000.00 in there bank account (8000 X 321.75) just from the extra 8000 any deer tags. As far as killing a doe on a tag that costs over $100.00, I won't! They should give me a doe tag with my buck tag, just like they do in Illinois and every other state! I can kill a doe in my backyard any day I want, but killing a Trophy Buck anytime around home not very often. I don't think the non-residents hurt the hunting at all in Iowa! I know the residents don't like the fact that us non-residents often kill some very large bucks, you feel like were stealing them from you. From what I have seen the main problem in Iowa is the many of that some residents (at least in my area) have a huge poaching problem! They kill more bucks then they are legally aloud, they shoot small ones just shoot them? If anything I think the non-residents help the hunting, were picky and it rubs off on the residents. The guy I hunt on used to kill any buck he saw, he know is actually getting picky and letting some of them young bucks actual walk an extra year or two. He can't believe the deer he is seeing a year later. There is plenty of deer to go around in Iowa for both resident's and non-residents, don't worry there isn't enough dedicated people willing to pay the price to hunt up in Iowa anyway!
 
...as Patrick mentioned this is last year's info (which did not pass)...the new Iowa session won't be together until after the new year...this is when we might see more deer legislation - we might not as their may be bigger fish to fry this year...one of the things that scared me most last year is that under one proposal half of the proposed 16,000 NR tags would have had to gone to Outfitters and Bed & Breakfast type operations that catered to hunters...someones idea of economic developement...

...where I live a pretty well-to-do family owns several thousand acres of land...bought by "Dad" years ago...he was using great habitat management long before the government got on board to help landowners with private land conservation...his land covered all the great habitats that has made Iowa famous the last several decades - marshes loaded with waterfowl, woods full of deer & turkey, and uplands nearly overflowing with pheasants...he had it all and realized that there was much more there than what he could enjoy just by himself, so he shared his land...he did not let just anybody on mind you - mostly his employees and others he knew well enough to know that they would help protect his property and respect him as landowner...well "Dad" is pretty well out of the picture now and "Daughter" has assumed the management of the land - some she has bought from the family, though much of it is still owned by "Dad"...several years ago she found out about the interest of NR's to come hunt Iowa Deer and perhaps more importantly what they would pay to hunt them...to make an already long story a little shorter most (if not all) of the ground is pay-to-hunt now...it started with deer, then turkey, then pheasants, then waterfowl...now I will not argue about her right or any landowners right to choose what they want to do with their land - it theirs!...but she was a driving force behind the above mentioned legislation...she runs a B&B operation...for some reason she thinks her business needs the help of the state (or she is owed it) to promote her several hundred-dollar-a-day hunts...just thought I would share/vent...
 
In my opinion there is absolutely nothing worse for our sport than outfitter or transferable tags. These strictly cater to special interest groups, and are nothing more than entitlement programs. It's infecting Kansas right now. Once you hand out a free lunch, it is impossible to take it away.
 
More Non-Res = more people getting a piece of the pie.

More people getting a pice of the pie=competition

competition=demand

demand=$

$=leasing, outfitting etc...

leasing=Less oppotunities to the people who currently have opportunities (A resident who hunts for free), and in turn will need to pay big $ for the same opportunities.

I have friends that come from out of state to hunt I love their company and comradary. I have problems with out of staters buying up hundreds of acres and making a business out of the great hunting we have in Iowa. Give the residents more doe tags if the herd needs thinned. Don't open the flood gates for non-res.

When I hunt in different areas of the state I bring the same revenue with me ie...Motel, restaraunt, gas, etc..I just didn't buy the out of state tag.

Just my selfish thoughts.
Pupster
 
A lot of good points have been raised here and a lot of things that I hadn't considered. Southernhunter raises a good point about the price of licenses for the "trophy" hunters are willing to pay. It seems to me that there is "room" to increase the price of non-resident licenses, particularly bucks only.

However, I think at the same time, the DNR needs to make it harder for outfitters to get licenses or offer licensed hunts. Put an outfitter surcharge on these to make the cost prohibitive and keep the leasing under control. And regulate reserve hunting as well.

As indicated many times on this forum, we have lots of people willing to guide or hook out-of-state hunters up with local landowners. I would much rather see higher license fees go to the DNR than keeping the licenses lower and have the extra bucks go into the pocket of some out-of-state outfitter who leases the land.

If we're worried about NRs taking smaller bucks how about implementing a "horn tax." Require out of state hunters to go through a checkpoint and for bucks scoring below a certain rough score range, they pay a surcharge. That might not be a bad idea for resident hunters in NW Iowa ... most guys I know up there will shoot anything with antlers rather than take a doe.

This all goes hand in hand with boosting the number of does harvested if overall population control is the aim. Sorry to get long winded but thought I'd toss a couple of new ideas out there.

Two more days til LMZLDR!!!!

Threebeards
 
Considering that the total deer kill, as reported by the Iowa DNR, was approximately 136,000 last year, I do not feel that doubling the number of non-resident either-sex tags will have a noticeable impact. I would assume that the additional tags would be appropriately distributed among the various non-resident hunting zones to ensure that all the additional hunters don't end up in one area.

Many comments have been made that hunters in bordering states are not practicing quality management, shooting their immature bucks, so that hunters residing in those states end up traveling to states like Kansas and Iowa to hunt a mature deer. I see very little quality management being practiced by the average Iowa resident slug hunter who hunts in large parties, as seems to be the most popular way to hunt during gun season. While patrolling my property in Van Buren County in the southeast, I have seen numerous pickup trucks filled with anything brown from fawns to yearling bucks to the occasional mature buck. Can't speak for all areas of the state, but around here if it is brown it goes down is the philosophy. I would rather have some tags going to non-residents who will pass on the immature bucks.

Everyone agrees that we want to ensure that we have a plentifull supply of mature bucks in Iowa and that regulations need to be in place to accomplish this. People get upset at the prospect of a few thousand additional non-resident hunters getting licenses to try to shoot one of our big bucks. If Iowa residents are as concerned about preserving the mature buck population as so many state, then it seems to me that the most effective solution would be to restrict Iowa residents to shooting one antlered buck per season, regardless of weapon used. I wonder how many Iowa residents kill two or more bucks per season? I bet it is more than the total non-resident buck kill. And how about the elimination of party hunting where a hunter with a doe tag can shoot bucks for all of his buddies who have proper tags. Seems to me that everyone wants severe restrictions placed on non-residents with little or no restrictions on resident hunters. Something to think about.
 
How do we go about letting someone know our opinions on this issue? She we talk to our legislators or what? I can't stand this outfitter, lease hunting direction that are states heading in. I feel sorry for the next generation of sportsman. I hope we can control this now. More doe tags for residents!!!!
 
Sorry everyone! I appologize for not realizing the information was quite dated. Thanks to Patrick for pointing that out.

It did stimulate some interesting discussion.

I also appreciate that most if not all are able to express a variety of ideas in an intelligent and respectful manner.

If we are going to survive the anti's we need to be able to agree to disagree on issues at times and still pull together when it comes time to save the sport.
 
For what it's worth...
As a NR on the outside looking in, I can hazard a guess at an often overlooked factor that makes IA more attractive than some of its neighbors...
You don't let the gunhunters out until after the rut is over, and when you do, they don't have rifles. That alone is a major factor to growing big ones.
Change what you will, but don't change that!
(I live in MN, but do not hunt here because the MN DNR has not figured that out...)
 
John V--I agree with your post entirely. Most deer I see in the area I hunt that are killed in the 1st and 2nd shotgun season are any and everything. There is no management philosophy in my area. If it has horns or not it dies if it gets within gun range. The party hunting philosophy is out of control with no way to enforce how many and what sex of deer are killed. Tags are purchased for groups and many guys kill there wifes deer while she is at the mall shopping!Not tooting our horns but bow hunters are some of the most ethical and management minded hunters in the sport.
There are some bad apples I would agree, but all and all I have been on both side and I know how groups of hunters operate. The other day I observed a pickup load of hunters moving down a gravel road all with their shotguns out of the case. I wonder if they would jump off and shoot if a buck or doe ran there way. My Uncle drew a second season non residentgun tag and went home empty handed back to the state of Maryland yesterday because he would not shoot a management buck. His license cost him 3 times as much. Some changes need to be made and some of them need to start right here at home in Iowa. If you think we have trophy deer now in this state due to quality management just think what we would have if we could get the gun hunter to be more management oriented. I say if you want to kill a buck you need to kill a doe first before you can get the buck tag issued. That might help in one aspect of controling the doe and or deer population. Does not doe to buck ratio also increase the quality of the bucks?Just my two cents worth. Do you think this idea is workable?
 
I don't want to offend all you nonresident hunters on here, but some questions need to be asked. First why do you want to come to Iowa to hunt? Because of our large bucks. Next why don't you have those same big bucks in your home state? I can only guess that it is because your herds are out of balance or someone has been killing small bucks. I just can't see many other reasons. You grow the same corn and soybeans and alfalfa that we do, and have the same type of deer. I will bet your does are the same size as ours. So what can be the difference?

Another thing that bothers me about the increase in numbers of licenses is the concentration of those hunters. I don't think many will go to NW Iowa or central Iowa. The vast majority will come to SE Iowa and my back yard. What will that do to my buck population here? You can say that there is little effect on the deer, but if you take 5 or 6 or 8000 bucks from 6 or 8 counties then soon there aren't any of those big boys left and lots of does. If a NR is not willing to pay the price to harvest a doe then the only reason they are here is to collect a buck, not the hunting experience and seeing lots of deer. When I went to New Mexcio to hunt elk, we went specificly for cows. The tags were easier to draw, cost less about $298.00, and we wanted the experience of hunting elk in the mountains. It was wonderful and we plan to return in a couple of years. I admit that I can't shoot cow elk in my back yard like some of you can shoot does at home, but the different hunting experience was well worth the price.

The other problem with more NR licenses will be law enforcement. I am not impling that you guys are all criminals, but with increases numbers and pressure there is bound to be more trouble. The extra publicity will eventually drag in more of the bad element creating more trouble for land owners, DNR officers, and good eithical hunter. I have heard stories of tresspassing, spotlighting, and lots more. I even heard a story that a hunter shot a buck and left it lay while he waited for something bigger to come along, then shot a bigger one. He thought he was justified because he paid so much money for the license and wanted the biggest buck he could get.

I told you once before that I can get a little preachy, and the more I thought about this over night the more worked up I got. Thanks for listening!
 
Lots of good ideas (that I wish other state DNRs would look at as well...)
Another thought...
To increase doe-take, have a tiered system.
You can buy a doe tag for a small fee. If you check a doe, you can then buy an either-sex tag for a higher, but moderate fee. But for the hunter who is not interested or does not have time, allow the option of buying an either-sex tag without taking the doe first... but at a premium price.
And while we're on it, there's always the antler-point restriction option to force a modicum of management.
 
Being in NW Iowa I can tell this wouldnt affect my area much, people just dont spend that much to come up here and kill a buck.It isnt because we dont have mature bucks, I had two in bowrange this year that would make P&Y, one I believe was about 150 class deer.But we aint got the number of trophy deer you do in southern and NE Iowa.I guesse I can live with that, it means less people hunting the ones we do have and very little leasing of ground around here by hunters.So even if they raised the number of non resident licenses and only give out so many in each zone, the majorityof the pressure would still be centered in other parts of the state, no one will pay to hunt here plain and simple.

it might just be here but Ive noticed the last two years with all the antlerless tags given out a steady drop in the number of deer I see, and a steady rise in the number of deer i find dead, shot and left to rot, mostly does and smaller bucks.I can only imagine that problem gets worse the farther you get into trophy deer country, pay 320$ for a tag, mistakinly shoot a deer you thought was bigger than it really was, decide you dont wanna tag it so there it lays.Up here its residents that are the problem, I am just guessing the bigger the rack and the more money involved the worse the problem can be.

It makes me kinda upset to see this sport reduced to a lotta numbers, the dnr needs this much money, raise the price of the tags to this much and then raise the number of tags available to this amount.Now the ones that draw the tags want this size of deer which a certain amout of points, a minimum spread, and tines this long.It aint a sport no more, its big business.Throw in leasing and outfitters and you get this price for so many acres of leased ground and then the hunters charged according to antler size of what they kill.It aint about deer management, its about big $$$.

Southern and Nw iowa promotes great deer hunting.NW Iowa we promote great pheasant hunting.Dont believe me, come check out our state ground.They leave no trees or cover a guy could possibly hunt deer out of.Every piece of ground they get is instantly clear cut and planted in grassland so the pheasant hunters have a place to go.

This is straying a little from the non resident tags but moneys what its all about.The only deer management done is done on private ground by private landowners.Other than that its one big fundraiser
frown.gif
 
If there is concern of the NR just coming there to hunt big bucks and leave the does then why not offer a combo tag? Here in IL we sell a combo tag (1 either sex, 1 antlerless only) for about the same price as a Iowa NR tag. I would bet there would be a lot of does taken from the NR if thats what your looking for.
 
What would make sense, would be to increase the NR archery tags. We take far fewer deer than the gun hunters,"just look at the gun stories posted on your forum". Eleven guys and 13 bucks!!! My group of four has hunted Iowa three years and have taken four bucks while passing up 50+. I understand your concern on what extra tags bring with it but archers do not over harvest and are more selective.
 
It makes sense to me to give non-resident deer hunters who are hunting zones with an overabundance of deer a doe tag in addition to their either sex buck tags. Lots of fellows who tag out early would be willing to help out with proper management and kill a doe, but not if they have to pay an extra arm and leg to get the tag or use their either sex tag. This would help alleviate perceived problems that outfitters and leased lands only shoot trophy bucks and not enough does to balance the herd. I have friends who lease lands for out of state bowhunters who are hunting only trophy bucks. These fellows have church groups hunt does only on their properties during gun season after all the trophy bowhunts are over. Gives the locals a chance to hunt leased lands and they get to shoot does for their freezer and to keep the herd in balance.
 
Personaly I'm opposed to any kind of a horn limit. I agree with Horst about finding more dead deer. With min horn requirements what happens when a hunter realizes that his deer is smaller than he thought. I know that ground shrinkage has happened to all of us, if we are honest. Or what about the young hunters who can't tell a 14" spread from an 18". Does that make them a criminal? I also don't like the check station idea either for most of the same reasons. I know people from Mo and Il where they have check stations, and there are still the same problems. I don't want to create an environment where some one might think it is better to leave a dead deer in the woods than pay a penality. I think these types of things only affect the honest people anyway, not the bad guys. If you shot a small buck legally it doesn't make you a bad person. More experience or better judgement may make you more selective in the future.

I have read lots about Iowa's huge NR fees, so I checked out surrounding states.
Minn= $251.00 + $78.00 small game
Mo.= $145.00 + 25.00 + 76.00 small game
Wis.+ $135.00 + 75.00 small game
ILL. + $200.00 + $50.75 small game

I read a comment from a MO hunter that said more Iowa hunters killed big bucks in Mo than the other way arround. That may very well be true, but why then would a Mo hunter want to pay $300 in Iowa instead of $15.00 for a resident Mo tag? I just can't see myself paying large NR fees to hunt deer in most other states, when I can hunt better and more comfortably at home. I would and have gone out of state to hunt things like bears, elk, and antalope or other species which we don't have here.
 
Bowmaker'
I'm the alien who made the statement about more big bucks being taken out of Missouri by Iowans than the other way around, and I can see why you would wonder why I pay to come to your State. There are a couple of reasons, first and foremost is that Im able to enjoy hunting the entire rutting period without sharing the woods with gun hunters. The second reason is that there are more mature Bucks overall in Iowa. But even so its still easier to kill a trophy buck in Missouri with a 270 than it is to kill one in Iowa with a bow.
Could you imagine if the same number of missourians were allowed into Iowa with rifles during the second and third weeks of November? I wouldnt wish that on any big buck population! This year during my week in Iowa I played cat and mouse with three different 140-150 inch deer all of which I could have killed easily with a rifle.
If only they could change our seasons and methods to be like yours it would take only 2-3 years and it all would be equal. But that will never happen....too much tradition going on. Our only hope long term is that more people will practice QDM on their own.
 
IALUVRFROMMO

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against Missouri, in fact I only live 25 miles from the line, and they will let over the boarder without a passport. I do understand more now about your comming here to hunt the rut and not having to compete with your gun hunters. I bet the woods could get crowded. It is not that I want to keep NR out, but I do want to limit them in order to maybe limit the outfitters and leasing problems. I do think leasing is comming if we don't do something about it other than complaining on here about it, and I really think that will hinder all of our hunting enjoyment.

On a little different note I want to say I really enjoy most of your State Parks in Missouri. I like your system of funding them. My wife and I discovered the trout parks in southern Mo and enjoy them very much. Thanks for letting us share them.

Merry Christmas and a Happy and productive New Year.
 
I am from WI , been bowhunting Iowa since 95'.

Back then we had hardly no trouble finding a good setup on the famed Iowa Public grounds . I mean we never saw another hunter, period. We hunted every year except one that we did not draw since,

Every year we see more and more competition for the public ground. When I am spending that kind of money on a deer tag , I expect a decent opportunity to hunt with out interference from a abundance of others who drew tags.

In my opinion they already give out too many tags at 8000. The private grounds are all being leased up by these stinkin outfitters and forcing more residents onto the public ground as well.

I got to hand it to Iowa , You guys have some of the greatest bucks in the country but if your going to add hunters through awarding more tags then you will not have that for much longer. And you will not have a dedicated big buck hunter like me wasting my time fighting over a tree on public ground.

I will simply spend my valuable hunting time in a tree some place else. Remember Iowa is not the only place to hunt big bucks.

I am in favor of keeping or lowering the numbers of NR tags even if it means I will have to wait longer between. I am a laborer and money is a object to me. But I would still pay for a increase if I could be assured that something was done to spread the hunters from public grounds. ie eliminating any further outfitting .

I mean we hunted the same ground for all this time . We see License plates from the other side of the state in the lots we hunt. Can these guys not find private land closer to home to hunt??????? Or was that land leased up by outfitters??????

I think the outfitters should be the ones the Iowa DNR is looking too to profit from. They have the money to lease up all the land they should be able to afford a big ol' permit fee increase.

I got to tell ya , I look forward to drawing a tag each season but it is getting to the point that if I have to compete this heavily for a tree to hunt I will back out and just hunt other states.

If they want to charge NR's that much they should have a obligation to provide a better quality hunt. Increasing the amount of tags will not do that . Throwing in a doe tag for that price wouldn't hurt either!!!!!

Gritty,,

From WI
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top