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

Nonresident deer rule for 2006

W

wjs

Guest
The Natural Resource Commission has approved the Notice of Intended Action for Nonresident Deer Hunting. The notice contains the proposed regulations for hunting deer and includes season dates, bag limits, possession limits, shooting hours, areas open to hunting, licensing procedures, means and methods of taking, and transportation tag requirements for 2006. Now is your opportunity to make your comments on the changes described below or any other changes that you feel need to be made to the nonresident rule.

The only major change requires nonresidents that purchase an any-deer license to also purchase an antlerless-only deer license for $100. What this means is that any nonresident that obtains one of the either sex deer license will also have to purchase an antlerless license for the same zone and season. This requirement was passed by the Iowa legislature and signed by the governor as part of SF 206 last year. The DNR does not have the authority to change this requirement.

Another change that is being considered for both residents and nonresidents would restrict hunters from firing a shotgun shooting slugs or a muzzleloader from the road ditch. This is currently illegal north of Highway 30 and west of Highway 63. The change would make it illegal statewide.

One change that I recommended is not in the proposed rule. I had recommended that the nonresident license quotas be set on a county by county basis rather than the 10 large zones we have now. I believe this change would do a better job of distributing nonresident deer hunters across the state. I did an analysis and found that in 2004 some counties (Allamakee, Van Buren, Appanoose, Taylor, ...) had concentrations of nonresident hunters while adjacent counties ( Wapello, Winneshiek, Clarke, ... ) had very few nonresident hunters. I also looked back over the last 10 year and found that as the percentage of nonresidents in a county increased the percentage of resident hunters decreased.

My conclusion was that the 10 zones worked fine when the nonresident quota was only 1200 or 2500 but now that it has been increased to 6000 the zones need to be made smaller if we hope to distribute hunting pressure evenly. My proposal was to distribute the tags among the counties based upon the amount of high quality deer habitat in the county. Those counties with more habitat (and more deer) would get more licenses and those with less habitat would get fewer tags.


(I will email the complete analysis to those who would like to see it. email:willie.suchy@dnr.state.ia.us )

Any interested person may make written suggestions or comments on the proposed amendments on or before January 4, 2006. Such written materials should be directed to the Wildlife Bureau Chief, Department of Natural Resources, Wallace State Office Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0034; fax (515)281-6794. Persons who wish to convey their views orally should contact the Bureau at (515)281-6156 or at the Bureau offices on the fourth floor of the Wallace State Office Building.

There will be a public hearing on January 4, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. in the Fourth Floor East Conference Room of the Wallace State Office Building, at which time persons may present their views either orally or in writing. At the hearing, persons will be asked to give their names and addresses for the record and to confine their remarks to the subject of the notice.
 
Thanks for the update
waytogo.gif
 
Thanks for the opportunity to share our opinions. Here are a couple of mine;

I do not like the proposal for the NR licenses to be by county instead of by zone. Some of the residents are former lifetime residents who moved out of start due to careers or other reasons. While this may be better for some (making it easier for them to draw), it would make it harder for others. With your example, the applicant going to Wapello, Winneshiek, Clarke, ... would be almost guaranteed a license while the applicant going to Allamakee, Van Buren, Appanoose, Taylor, ... would have to wait more years than they did before.

Also, how would you divvy up the tags? Would it be ~60 per county or are you going to give more in the “target” areas and fewer in the areas holding fewer deer?

And how about the people that hunt multiple counties? The NR is already restricted to only hunting a specific zone and I think that is good enough. The whole thing seems like something more to manage that would best be left alone as is.

I like the no slug or muzzleloader law going statewide.

With that said, do I need to put this in writing and send it to where you say or do you plan to look back here and look at the feedback on this site?
 
Wow. $320 for any deer and now a required $100 antlerless for a total of $420?? Well that does it for me. I just don't have that kind of coin. I guess I'll tell my brother, dad, grandpa, uncles and cousins that they will be hunting the family farm without me from now on.

Just one more step in this becoming a sport for the rich.

In my three years as an IW member I can absolutely see the Iowa resident point of view in every aspect but this just pushes the good ol boys right out of the picture IMO.
 
WJS

Thanks for keeping us informed. It would seem that your data reguarding increased NR and decreasing residents bears out what some of us have been saying for quite some time. More NR means increased out of state land owner ship and leased ground which limits local resident access and creates safe zones. I know that you know this but now there is real data to back it up. I personaly don't think the required antlerless NR tag will do much as far as doe harvest because, eventhough they still must pay for it, most are only interested in The Big One and don't want the hassel of dealing with a dead doe or messing up their chance at MR. BIG so most will go unused. As far as shooting from the ditch I agree it should not be legal as it makes road crusing for the bubas to tempting.
 
Xtec shooter

Yes, they are welcome since they affect you as well.
 
150 class

I forgot to include how the tags would be divided up. I edited the first post and explained that it would be based upon the amount of deer habitat. More habitat = more licenses. Thanks.

It would restrict hunters to choosing one county. When I hunt in Wyoming I sometimes have to choose 1 hunt unit, it is often smaller than 1 Iowa county. If the goal is to distribute the pressure then smaller management units are required.

I will look back here and forward the comments but if you want the feedback to "officially" go to the NRC you need to send a letter or call or go to the meeting.
 
Wow,

$100 for a doe tag in addition to the $300+ for an any sex tag. Residents should be thrilled it looks as though the state is leaving doe management to those who live there. I admit most NR do not come for a doe, but would absolutely help with the doe issue if a doe tag was attached to the any sex allocation, or sold for a small fee.
 
I think my hope of ever being able to bowhunt in Iowa will be dashed if that proposed antlerless requirement is adopted. Not sure what the reasoning was behind that change, but if the goal is to get non-residents to assist in herd managment by taking antlerless deer, Iowa needs to be GIVING anlterless tags to non-residents who purchase an either-sex tag instead of sticking them with an extra $100 charge.
 
I think for the most part they know NR aren't going to try to manage our herd. We have 6000 any sex NR tags and over 12,000 applying. What this increase for a doe tag is saying is ,we know we will fill our 6000 quota, why not let the laws of supply and demand take place by increasing the cost of the overall tag and possibly allowing them to help with the deer herd in the process.
In business terms it makes sense while it sucks for NR strapped to a budget it will bring in more revenue while not changing much.
 
I understand what you are saying TallTines.

It just makes me sad to see Iowa going the way of Wyoming: Wildlife for sale to the highest bidder.
frown.gif
 
WJS
If I understand your post correctly, these NR changes are already "law" and it would only be possible to make minor alterations to the basic NR rules.
Shooting slugs from a road ditch for intance is still under consideration as well as any changes to resident hunting rules.
At this point any further major changes to the NR rules seem unlikely, however I will write in support of the rules as written.
Will NR's still be able to buy stand alone antlerless tags? This is one area that is being abused.
Are you thinking it would be helpful if we at least mention support for your idea of NR county quotas?
Thanks for the update!
 
Some random thoughts here from a NR...

If harvesting does is really the goal here, then why isn't a "earn-a-buck" program being considered for Residents (shooting a doe 1st, checking it in and then being issued your buck tags) who btw, have the entire season to hunt, rather than a $100.00 MANDATORY fee for the NR hunter who are generally only hunting on the average a week?

That being a mandatory purchase for a tag that doesn't necessarily even get filled, by choice or opportunity. It's one thing to raise the price of a NR license and INCLUDE an antlerless tag, but to just make an "additional tag" purchase MANDATORY for whatever fee someone see's fit, is in my eyes a highly questionable issue.

(That's also kinda like a getting a side dish on your plate you didn't order, and don't HAVE to eat, but you still have to pay for!!
mad.gif
...How many of Ya would complain about that??)

And why do these tags even have to be MANDATORY?? I have plenty of times shot my buck with days remaining on my hunt, and would have gladly attempted to harvest a few does if I could have purchased antlerless deer tags. (Or for that matter if one had been INCLUDED w/ a NR license would make even more sense to me.) But regardless, wouldn't having a number of these available for OTC sale (at a reasonable cost)to those who CHOSE to participate, be a more inviting option to at least TRY before mandating such a policy and fee?

$100.00?? That's alot of money on top of the NR license fees already being paid, (especially when you add in all the other moneies a NR hunter puts into the community he/she chooses to hunt in for food, gas, lodging, etc..) to supposedly and hopefully ASSIST w/ game management, while a resident can get antlerless tags for practically nothing, IF they choose to.

I dearly love hunting in Iowa and will continue to do so, but my killing of a mature buck every couple of years certainly doesn't make me responsible for any overpopulation problems or herd imbalances, or whatever...and I don't feel it's up to me or my wallet to correct it.
kickass.gif


Just my $0.02...cheapest participation in Iowa I'm allowed.
 
This is simply a way to collect more revenue from NR's without upsetting those sensitive to increasing NR tags for additional monies. I drove to Iowa for shotgun 1 and harvested my $200 doe and would have gladly done more if I were permitted, and within financial reason. Although residents will applaud this as a NR deterrent be prepared for more unpopular programs like late rifle seasons to control the doe population.

Wjs, can you explain the reasoning behind this one?
 
WJS,
As a former Iowa resident, I feel the good people of Iowa can charge whatever they feel for NR hunters. It's market driven, and when the price gets too high, they'll begin losing money (see Tomo's post)...otherwise get it while the getting is good.

That being said I'm interested the numbers used for to justify the splits by county. You stated that you found as the % of NR hunters increased the % of residents decreased. This really doesn't mean much. Percentages are just a part of the total. As NR increase, residents WILL decrease on a percentage basis. If you're looking at numbers I would be interested to know the individual rates of change for both groups. Are you seeing an absolute downward trend for resident hunters? Is it an upward trend but at a slower rate? How does that number compare to other area's of the state? Do you see any correlation with age distribution?
 
Ouch! that extra $100 hurts, odds are NRs coming to Iowa are not going to risk shooting a doe because it could sacrifice a valuable morning or evening hunt during their short trophy hunt in Iowa. My recommendation for PR, would be increase $50 and make the doe tag automatically come with all licenses.
 
I agree with the comments from most of the Non-res people - a $100 doe tag is ridiculous. Note that our legislature set that - gosh, could that possible bring in more money for the state? Maybe take the tag price up $30-40 if they 'have to' and then include a doe tag. I'm beginning to think that being a senator or congressman in Iowa should be a misdemeanor for first offense, with jail time being mandatory for re-elected officials.
smirk.gif
 
I, as a non-res have no problem paying an extra $100.00 to hunt deer. What still burns my butt like a three foot flame is requiring me to purchase a small game license for $80 some dollars. I come to Iowa to hunt deer.....nothing else, however I still have to buy something I will never use. When you come to my state (Wi) we don't charge for some bogus license. If you hunt small game, you buy that license. If you hunt deer, you buy a deer license. If you hunt both, buy a sportsmans license. Charge me $100.00 to help manage the property I hunt, I have no problem. Please don't weight me down with extra license baggage... Just my 2 cents
 
No offense, but anyone asking why this change was made must have flunked math. $600,000. Actually, from a politician's point of view it is probably considered pure genius. They managed to raise $600K (they will sell out) without upsetting hardly anyone (who can vote) and at the same time they can tell the insurance and ag industries that they threw them another bone (a few less does running around). Its win-win for them. Obviously a bummer if you happen to not live here though. Personally, I'm a bit embarrased that we charge that much.

As for expanding the no-ditch-shooting zone, I'm all for it!
 
Top Bottom