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

OFFENSE!! 2 Bills to support!! SF 293 & SF 247 EMAIL IN!!! What a great change!!!!

Sligh1

Sligh1

Administrator
Staff member
Wow, didn’t think you’d ever see a bill doing good things did you?!?! Been 15++ years of defense, that’s changing!!!
We need emails of support & some bullet points why. Please write to those on the subcommittees!!! If need me to post email addresses lemme know…. PLEASE WRITE IN!!! & get friends to!!!!

SF 293: “CELEB TAGS GONE!!!!!!”
There was still >10m views promoting Iowa’s Deer hunting by celebs on best of best farms. While draw heads towards 6-7 years & growing!! ABOUT TIME!!!!!!! Governor retains some tags but doesn’t need to give them out & if he/she does- there’s no promotion of the state from those tags. This is GREAT!!!!! No more skipping line, promoting state to millions, getting tags over folks waiting in draw, showcasing the >.001% of best farms “this is iowa hunting” & continuing to build pressure for outsiders to come here. Stops!!! COMMON SENSE is back!!! For now it’s Senator Shipley. EMAIL: tom.shipley@legis.iowa.gov

LINK:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=SF293&ga=91&data=05|02||f1a717a236c640d2a58c08dd4ba26fc2|84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa|1|0|638749883220545986|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ==|0|||&sdata=+KrB2rDtpKBGLQ39cHhYzwBA0WAkGD6g3V6Lownubdk=&reserved=0

2nd: SF 247… LO tags, need 40 acres or more. Common sense again!!! Less than 40 acres: you will have to survive on ONLY 2 buck tags + tons of doe tags & still party hunting. Ok, under 40…. We cannot sustain or justify killing a 3rd buck statewide. No biological reason for it. It’s also being abused where dudes with house lots & tiny acres are getting 3rd buck tags (& yes, filling them elsewhere). Having 2 acres & needing a 3rd buck - this is hurting us & no reason for it based on biology, deer trends, hunting quality/decline, lack of access, etc. Again- COMMON SENSE is back in style!!!
Senators: Shipley, Staed, and Zumbach
Email: tom.shipley@legis.iowa.gov art.staed@legis.iowa.gov & dan.zumbach@legis.iowa.gov

LINK:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=91&ba=sf247&data=05|02||2d1a19c56c9d46306e3e08dd4b8502b1|84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa|1|0|638749756824738563|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ==|0|||&sdata=QnZGf7dwyBO+U8dd8KzGDIbNiTYHDkNZYES7k84ZaHA=&reserved=0
 
Question on the 40 acres- how is that “listed”. So I have 17 at my home place, and my 30 hunting piece is separate- so that’s 47? Or I rent a 76 farm/woods- that count too even though my current lot is set on my 17? (And they have never asked for any other parcels?) just curious how it’s going to work- as some small parcels you can’t “add” to to make 40? Maybe that’s devils advocate asking on people that will be “renting” ground to hit 40 then?
 
Just word of caution for folks re SF 293. I don't think you are going to notice a change. I've read SF 293 5 times now.

Governor gets 10 tags to give away as "celeb tags". That's the exact number that were given away this past season (and the names arn't recognizable or people you saw on TV) Maybe he/she will choose not to give them, but I doubt that.

It stipulates "photographs, videotapes ,or any other form of media resulting from the hunting visitation shall not be used for political campaign purpose" I've not seen it used that way so that is not a change.

The most "famous" people folks see on social media/TV have been buying auction tags or it was their turn to draw. Luke Combs, Morgan Wallen, Lindsey's, Gelsinger, Landrys, etc, etc. Anyone can submit a FOIA request and get this info.


SF 247 is simple, straightforward. Thats a change that is likely needed.
 
newfarmer said:
Question on the 40 acres- how is that “listed”. So I have 17 at my home place, and my 30 hunting piece is separate- so that’s 47? Or I rent a 76 farm/woods- that count too even though my current lot is set on my 17? (And they have never asked for any other parcels?) just curious how it’s going to work- as some small parcels you can’t “add” to to make 40? Maybe that’s devils advocate asking on people that will be “renting” ground to hit 40 then?
Click to expand...
The qualifying piece would have to be contiguous. So own a 40+ or be the farm tenant on a 40+. Then as Skip said, once a qualifying piece is established a person could go hunt additional smaller parcels they own on the same tag.

1739457378518.png
 
I’m going to have to disagree with you Skip. SF247 is not a win. It’s catering to the guys that can spend a qtr million for their own piece of hunting ground. Those of us that have been managing and taking care of our smaller parcels are now SOL? FYI, I’ve never used 3 tags but that’s not the point. What problem does taking my LOT status solve. I purchase doe tags every year instead of using my LOT‘s and rarely use them. I’ve shot 1 doe the last 2 yrs and it wasn’t on a LOT tag. 0 bucks.
As it is now, the advantage for me is that I don’t have to take a chance on which season to pick for hunting with the kids and grandkids. I get my LOT and they can get whichever license accommodates their schedule with school, sports, etc….With this change, we get 1 or 2 weekends depending on their obligations and hope that nothing changes.

I’m not 100% against a “minimum” #, but who decided on 40. No reason to leave us little guys out. If it’s only about the “3rd” buck tag then eliminate it for everyone.
 
seven twenty said:
I’m going to have to disagree with you Skip. SF247 is not a win. It’s catering to the guys that can spend a qtr million for their own piece of hunting ground. Those of us that have been managing and taking care of our smaller parcels are now SOL? FYI, I’ve never used 3 tags but that’s not the point. What problem does taking my LOT status solve. I purchase doe tags every year instead of using my LOT‘s and rarely use them. I’ve shot 1 doe the last 2 yrs and it wasn’t on a LOT tag. 0 bucks.
As it is now, the advantage for me is that I don’t have to take a chance on which season to pick for hunting with the kids and grandkids. I get my LOT and they can get whichever license accommodates their schedule with school, sports, etc….With this change, we get 1 or 2 weekends depending on their obligations and hope that nothing changes.

I’m not 100% against a “minimum” #, but who decided on 40. No reason to leave us little guys out. If it’s only about the “3rd” buck tag then eliminate it for everyone.
Click to expand...
Agree- its got to be all or none at that point. Ive said it multiple times over various posts, I think LOT needs to be looked at for qualifications. I know when I signed up, the 2 acres is "conservation program or profitable ground". My COUNTY has a minimum acreage you can parcel off- for example- my neighbor is 37 acres- he can only sell in chunks of 10 acres if he wanted to parcel down UNLESS he would make it a subdivision. Then he has to have roads build and utilities put in. People arent buying these imaginary 2-acre pieces. My other prime example, a farmer across the river ripped out 15 acres of trees, all of the fencelines, and redid his drainage to now not have a single deer on it- but he still gets a LOT. Where is he hunting? His 60 acre corn field without a single tree is where hes shooting all of his deer? I dont think so. Thats the stuff that needs to get addressed- the state doesnt have the manpower to fully monitor it correctly.
Again- I go back to- Landowner name on the deed only. Start there. How many tenant tags would that eliminate? How much would that help the grand scheme of things? There are areas in the state, you cant buy a 40 acre piece continuous (unless its a farm field)- and I am in one of those area. 5 miles up and down the river bottom, only 1 piece is larger than 39 acres- and the guy gets LOT AND Depredation tags...
 
Depredation tags is exactly what I was going to point out. Does the basis of getting a depredation tag come on multiples of 40…. 1 buck per 40 acres…. Let’s limit our resident landowners with this bill but let our neighboring landowners bring their family in every year to hunt. Wow
 
40 acres is the wrong direction, turning a rich mans sport. I dont have any stock in the game, I dont own land but not good for the common hunter we are trying to promote. As others have stated investigate landowner tags and if they are being distributed appropriately as opposed to increasing land to justify the tag. Lets be honest 40 acres rule is just a band aid to justify not investigating misissuing of landowner tags in the first place.
 
IowaBowHunter1983 said:
Just word of caution for folks re SF 293. I don't think you are going to notice a change. I've read SF 293 5 times now.

Governor gets 10 tags to give away as "celeb tags". That's the exact number that were given away this past season (and the names arn't recognizable or people you saw on TV) Maybe he/she will choose not to give them, but I doubt that.

It stipulates "photographs, videotapes ,or any other form of media resulting from the hunting visitation shall not be used for political campaign purpose" I've not seen it used that way so that is not a change.

The most "famous" people folks see on social media/TV have been buying auction tags or it was their turn to draw. Luke Combs, Morgan Wallen, Lindsey's, Gelsinger, Landrys, etc, etc. Anyone can submit a FOIA request and get this info.


SF 247 is simple, straightforward. Thats a change that is likely needed.
Click to expand...
few changes….
1) those tags are very likely not to be used. Very possible the allocation will be 0. Won’t be like in the past. It’s more like “hey, trump jr wants to come here, be a great gesture to have him”. There’s a very real possibility (I’ll leave it at that) where zero tags are allocated.
2) there will not be the pressure & test of the past to reach audiences. In the past, you wrote a follow up essay & those which reached the largest audiences got preference to receive the tags again. That no longer is the case. “Marketing iowa” will not be the key or goal here.
This is a huge step in right direction. The governor is very well aware of the problems these tags caused in the past & the root problems with existing program are now gutted. If a new governor comes in the future- the rules for reaching audiences won’t be there & if it’s problematic - we can work to eliminate all together. This is a good compromise to start.
Hair&Scales said:
40 acres is the wrong direction, turning a rich mans sport. I dont have any stock in the game, I dont own land but not good for the common hunter we are trying to promote. As others have stated investigate landowner tags and if they are being distributed appropriately as opposed to increasing land to justify the tag. Lets be honest 40 acres rule is just a band aid to justify not investigating misissuing of landowner tags in the first place.
Click to expand...
Here’s why I respectfully disagree…. It allows those with under 40 acres to shoot 2 bucks, as many does as the county allows & as many buck tags as that “Poor man” landowner can get party hunting. It’s too many as it is IMO. Limited the “poor man” to 2 buck tags & essentially unlimited does is NOT making this a rich man’s sport. It’s a silly amount of opportunity for anyone & more than enough for anyone by any practical & biological outlook.

The real answer is the “the rich man doesn’t need 3 buck tags + party hunting unlimited buck tags + unlimited does”. But like ANYTHING political, u can’t go full out & ask for the moon. You start with the areas where things are being abused & no merit. & no, there’s zero merit to a 3rd buck being shot off 5 acres. It ruins areas to have that extra killing & pressure & all the sudden these chopped up areas where segmentation happens …. Which is all over….. a guy can say “in this square mile section with 50 landowners…. There’s say, 10 additional buck tags due to landowners/tenants qualifying”…. That ruins areas & is not sustainable. In many cases there shouldn’t be a second buck being shot. But all over this state this was happening in segmented areas…. Literally a section (640 acres) where “10 extra buck tags” were allocated on top of current state allotments. It’s crazy & was abused with no merit for it. U have to consider carrying capacity of the land & how many bucks “40 acres” for example can support …. 2 or 5 or even 20 acres does NOT support 3 bucks. It doesn’t support 2. It absolutely does not biologically merit an extra buck tag. The reality is, the poor man will have to make due with 2 buck tags. This is a STEP in the right direction & does address a whole lotta abuse that folks might not realize was taking place.
 
Sligh1 said:
few changes….
1) those tags are very likely not to be used. Very possible the allocation will be 0. Won’t be like in the past. It’s more like “hey, trump jr wants to come here, be a great gesture to have him”. There’s a very real possibility (I’ll leave it at that) where zero tags are allocated.
2) there will not be the pressure & test of the past to reach audiences. In the past, you wrote a follow up essay & those which reached the largest audiences got preference to receive the tags again. That no longer is the case. “Marketing iowa” will not be the key or goal here.
This is a huge step in right direction. The governor is very well aware of the problems these tags caused in the past & the root problems with existing program are now gutted. If a new governor comes in the future- the rules for reaching audiences won’t be there & if it’s problematic - we can work to eliminate all together. This is a good compromise to start.

Here’s why I respectfully disagree…. It allows those with under 40 acres to shoot 2 bucks, as many does as the county allows & as many buck tags as that “Poor man” landowner can get party hunting. It’s too many as it is IMO. Limited the “poor man” to 2 buck tags & essentially unlimited does is NOT making this a rich man’s sport. It’s a silly amount of opportunity for anyone & more than enough for anyone by any practical & biological outlook.

The real answer is the “the rich man doesn’t need 3 buck tags + party hunting unlimited buck tags + unlimited does”. But like ANYTHING political, u can’t go full out & ask for the moon. You start with the areas where things are being abused & no merit. & no, there’s zero merit to a 3rd buck being shot off 5 acres. It ruins areas to have that extra killing & pressure & all the sudden these chopped up areas where segmentation happens …. Which is all over….. a guy can say “in this square mile section with 50 landowners…. There’s say, 10 additional buck tags due to landowners/tenants qualifying”…. That ruins areas & is not sustainable. In many cases there shouldn’t be a second buck being shot. But all over this state this was happening in segmented areas…. Literally a section (640 acres) where “10 extra buck tags” were allocated on top of current state allotments. It’s crazy & was abused with no merit for it. U have to consider carrying capacity of the land & how many bucks “40 acres” for example can support …. 2 or 5 or even 20 acres does NOT support 3 bucks. It doesn’t support 2. It absolutely does not biologically merit an extra buck tag. The reality is, the poor man will have to make due with 2 buck tags. This is a STEP in the right direction & does address a whole lotta abuse that folks might not realize was taking place.
Click to expand...
Skip, I’m sorry but that argument makes some big assumptions. #1, who says all three bucks came off the five acre tract? Number two, how many people actually shoot three buck and of those how many are on tracts under five acres? The premise you are suggesting of unsupported harvest would mean that the LO would not be able to harvest three bucks off the property on a consistent basis because of carrying capacity and over harvesting. The FEEL of the bill gives bad taste of special interest trophy buck hunters with large land ownership. Not saying I agree with third buck tag for small acreages but I also don’t agree with three bucks for anyone with current state of Iowa deer herd. Everyone knocks other Midwest state’s deer management but how many offer three buck harvests? If large tract landowners are on board have everyone put their third buck tag on the line.
 
Sligh1 said:
few changes….
1) those tags are very likely not to be used. Very possible the allocation will be 0. Won’t be like in the past. It’s more like “hey, trump jr wants to come here, be a great gesture to have him”. There’s a very real possibility (I’ll leave it at that) where zero tags are allocated.
2) there will not be the pressure & test of the past to reach audiences. In the past, you wrote a follow up essay & those which reached the largest audiences got preference to receive the tags again. That no longer is the case. “Marketing iowa” will not be the key or goal here.
This is a huge step in right direction. The governor is very well aware of the problems these tags caused in the past & the root problems with existing program are now gutted. If a new governor comes in the future- the rules for reaching audiences won’t be there & if it’s problematic - we can work to eliminate all together. This is a good compromise to start.

Here’s why I respectfully disagree…. It allows those with under 40 acres to shoot 2 bucks, as many does as the county allows & as many buck tags as that “Poor man” landowner can get party hunting. It’s too many as it is IMO. Limited the “poor man” to 2 buck tags & essentially unlimited does is NOT making this a rich man’s sport. It’s a silly amount of opportunity for anyone & more than enough for anyone by any practical & biological outlook.

The real answer is the “the rich man doesn’t need 3 buck tags + party hunting unlimited buck tags + unlimited does”. But like ANYTHING political, u can’t go full out & ask for the moon. You start with the areas where things are being abused & no merit. & no, there’s zero merit to a 3rd buck being shot off 5 acres. It ruins areas to have that extra killing & pressure & all the sudden these chopped up areas where segmentation happens …. Which is all over….. a guy can say “in this square mile section with 50 landowners…. There’s say, 10 additional buck tags due to landowners/tenants qualifying”…. That ruins areas & is not sustainable. In many cases there shouldn’t be a second buck being shot. But all over this state this was happening in segmented areas…. Literally a section (640 acres) where “10 extra buck tags” were allocated on top of current state allotments. It’s crazy & was abused with no merit for it. U have to consider carrying capacity of the land & how many bucks “40 acres” for example can support …. 2 or 5 or even 20 acres does NOT support 3 bucks. It doesn’t support 2. It absolutely does not biologically merit an extra buck tag. The reality is, the poor man will have to make due with 2 buck tags. This is a STEP in the right direction & does address a whole lotta abuse that folks might not realize was taking place.
Click to expand...
Well again, we can agree to disagree- but 40 acres is not the answer to the "abuse" of the tags. You take away my LOT, my county does not have a doe tag. So now I will get overran with does? Thats not right either. My statement earlier, and where I still lead to- the guy across the river has 60 acres now crop ground since he bulldozed which has zero deer. I have 17 acres that I have literally 45 on it right now... Why should he get a tag and I dont? He rents a piece of river bottom and now can hunt that because he has 60 acres? But I am left high and dry because someone thought 40 was a great number? Again, a LOT tag should be to whomever OWNS the land. Tenant tags/renting ground shouldnt be allowed to use the LOT. Thats where the abuse is. In 12 years of being able to shoot 3 bucks, I have never shot 3. I have however needed to shoot does. Take that away from me, you now have gained more areas where deer numbers will explode and insurance and Farm Bureau will be back at their games. I think you are going to cause a whole lot of separation in the hunters which wont be good for any bills going forward- unfortunately
 
I don’t totally disagree with the theory of SF247 but I don’t really like the optics of it. Also, as stated above one guy could be just under the limit and do everything possible to help deer and somebody else could be just over the limit and do everything in their power to destroy them. In my opinion, even tho I enjoy access to a LOT tag, it really seems hard to justify needing another buck tag just for owning land. I can see doe tags and depredation tags if needed, but it’s quite the perk to be eligible for another buck tag. I’d say just being able to hunt every season is the biggest advantage. Whether I intend to shoot 3 or not is kind of irrelevant. At least I can go basically every season I want right now. I obviously like it but can see why many think it’s unnecessary. Obviously if we qualify for the tag we already have a pretty good advantage over most. I really don’t know if raising the acreage limit will make the non land owning hunters happier in the state or if they will feel the goal post just keeps getting moved further and further away from them and will lead for them to push to eliminate it altogether. Not to mention the push to further liberalize other regulations since they feel the need to even things out with whatever perceived advantages they feel landowners currently have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I haven’t read this whole thread or bill yet but so far from what I’m reading I’m concluding this bill sucks!
Why such a small amount of acres?? Should be much much more acres than 40 acres!
I’ll support the first bill but as of now not the second one
 
Honestly wouldnt it be easier to just issue 2 any sex tags period, if you opt to use the LOT as one of those you can pick either archery or one of the gun seasons for you other anysex tag. 2 anysex tags is all anyone gets landowner or not. The landowner still gets the benefits of the floating tag as a discounted price and can pick another season for the other anysex. The LOT can only be issued to whoever's name is on the deed. The 40 acre will be a nightmare to police/enforce and it shits on guy who owns one or multiple parcels 39acres or smaller. I say there is more abuse with tenant tags than there is ever a realistic chance a guy shoots 3 bucks of a 5 acre parcel. I think this will create a big divide in hunter as it appears to me that the large landowners are not willing to give up their third tag but the guys with 39 acres or less are required to. I think this is a miss.
 
  • Deleted by Sligh1
Show…
Off top of my head …. The amount of “3rd buck tags” being registered to tracts of 2-10 acres for example was in the thousands statewide. I can’t recall exact # but it’s SUBSTANTIAL. Does that mean 3 bucks are shot off “5 acres”? NO. But the amount of tags allocated on 2, 5, 10 acres for bucks & those filled is no small #.
The ? Is this…. Can we sustain or justify an extra buck tag based on anyone owning 2 or 5 or 10 acres? The answer is NO in my strong opinion, based on: biology, our current hunting situation statewide & our current access issues. When we have cut the Harvest in HALF & the state’s #1 & #2 issues are: access to land to hunt & abundant game/quality experience (healthy balanced herd blended into that point) …. We MUST make some changes. When thousands of BUCK tags are being allocated for a 2 or 5 acre tract statewide & we are literally killing off opportunities for hunters to the point that they are becoming very loud & frustrated & quitting, etc - we have to make course corrections.

I’d personally like no 3rd buck tag PERIOD but we have to start somewhere. We cannot keep the direction we’ve been going & see the abuses of the segmented land further degrade experiences of other hunters. Let’s look at it from another POV…. If the law was 40 acre minimum TODAY to get a 3rd buck tag …. If we had a law being debated to drop it from 40 acre minimum down to 2 acres (or 5, whatever) …. What justification would we use for that change???? If this bill isn’t supported, minimum acres for a LO tag will be 2 acres. Do we want 2 or 40? If anyone here has any desire to take 3 bucks to 2 someday or move the acres to “200 acres” …. There’s zero path there without this. But this alone eliminates a long list of problems, over killing & unsustainable hunting taking place NOW.

I am very well aware that ANY bill is gonna have some “upset parties” & there’s NOTHING that’s perfect. NOTHING. Including our current regs which are full of imperfections & problems- FULL. Our hunting dynamics have changed rapidly in the last 10-15 years & we must course correct. This stuff is MINOR….. “I can only shoot 2 bucks & 12 does”. It’s MINOR. We either make some minor changes incrementally & clean up some real problems or reduce them or we will be forced to make far more drastic changes. We cannot sustain the course & trend we are on. This is small potatotes. & I’d give a positive reminder to folks …. We’ve changed our regs for the worse for 20 years now…. More killing, more tags, less deer, less quality, reducing access to land, etc. Finally we have some small things that are the pendulum slowly swinging the other way. We have to make a few course corrections. I’d encourage folks to think about “the big picture, resource & future of hunting” over maybe unique or personal desires for more liberal regulations which allow a lot of things to happen we can’t sustain.
The last 20 years have been a DRAMATIC SHIFT. These bills are not dramatic or some huge change in what hunters are allowed to do. Bottom line: this will probably reduce the amount of bucks shot statewide in the thousands & the other bill will take >10m views off our state. Very noble accomplishments IMHO that will have far more winners than losers.
 
Sligh1 said:
Off top of my head …. The amount of “3rd buck tags” being registered to tracts of 2-10 acres for example was in the thousands statewide or possibly 10’s of thousands. I can’t recall exact # but it’s SUBSTANTIAL. Does that mean 3 bucks are shot off “5 acres”? NO. But the amount of tags allocated on 2, 5, 10 acres for bucks & those filled is no small #.
The ? Is this…. Can we sustain or justify an extra buck tag based on anyone owning 2 or 5 or 10 acres? The answer is NO in my strong opinion, based on: biology, our current hunting situation statewide & our current access issues. When we have cut the Harvest in HALF & the state’s #1 & #2 issues are: access to land to hunt & abundant game/quality experience (healthy balanced herd blended into that point) …. We MUST make some changes. When thousands of BUCK tags are being allocated for a 2 or 5 acre tract statewide & we are literally killing off opportunities for hunters to the point that they are becoming very loud & frustrated & quitting, etc - we have to make course corrections.

I’d personally like no 3rd buck tag PERIOD but we have to start somewhere. We cannot keep the direction we’ve been going & see the abuses of the segmented land further degrade experiences of other hunters. Let’s look at it from another POV…. If the law was 40 acre minimum TODAY to get a 3rd buck tag …. If we had a law being debated to drop it from 40 acre minimum down to 2 acres (or 5, whatever) …. What justification would we use for that change????
I am very well aware that ANY bill is gonna have some “upset parties” & there’s NOTHING that’s perfect. NOTHING. Including our current regs which are full of imperfections & problems- FULL. Our hunting dynamics have changed rapidly in the last 10-15 years & we must course correct. This stuff is MINOR….. “I can only shoot 2 bucks & 12 does”. It’s MINOR. We either make some minor changes incrementally & clean up some real problems or reduce them or we will be forced to make far more drastic changes. We cannot sustain the course & trend we are on. This is small potatotes. & I’d give a positive reminder to folks …. We’ve changed our regs for the worse for 20 years now…. More killing, more tags, less deer, less quality, reducing access to land, etc. Finally we have some small things that are the pendulum slowly swinging the other way. We have to make a few course corrections. I’d encourage folks to think about “the big picture, resource & future of hunting” over maybe unique or personal desires for more liberal regulations which allow a lot of things to happen we can’t sustain.
The last 20 years have been a DRAMATIC SHIFT. These bills are not dramatic or some huge change in what hunters are allowed to do. Bottom line: this will probably reduce the amount of bucks shot statewide in the thousands & the other bill will take >10m views off our state. Very noble accomplishments IMHO that will have far more winners than losers.
Click to expand...
And again- are those pieces being Tenant tags, LOT tags, are the landowners actually qualified for the tags- or at they just being handed out? I mean- let me play devils advocate for you. You pissed of "substantial" small acreage owners- what if they all say "Get rid of my tag- then I want crossbows?" You willing to fight suddenly a substantial number of pissed off people because you THINK 40 acres is the magic numbers.
Again- start small you say- START with making the change to landowner tags to OWNERS only. Start there. I mean lets be real, how is the system going to change tomorrow to 40 acres? Does it go through the system and boot everyone? Nope. You are still going to have TONS of legwork to get it started and back to the original goal right? SO again, START SMALL- Start with the change of Landowners on the Deed are the ONLY ones who get a tag. No tenants and no renting. Lets see how the numbers adjust. Then if you want to start throwing out numbers for acres- then maybe you will have way less pushback.
 
Sligh1 said:
the other bill will take >10m views off our state.
Click to expand...
Good friendly debate amongst friends.....call.me skeptical on this. The guys people seeing on TV/social media didn't get the celebrity/media tags. Still going to see the like of Luke combs, Morgan Wallen, etc etc shooting deer all over TV after they buy the auction tags, which is what they did anyway. The $25k to buy the tag, they make in the first 10 seconds of a single concert. The 10 people that got hand out tags this year no one would even recognize their names I bet.

I support the bill. Just don't think it moves any needles.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom