It would be very interesting to hear from the landowners with 40 or more acres if they plan to get their 3rd tag? Hearing lots of arguments about this bill is for the betterment of the Iowa herd/resource. If the betterment of the Iowa herd/resource is the sole reason that you are leaning "yay" on this bill, then are the same "yay" guys saying that they are willing to go on record and not get their 3rd tag? If it is about the betterment of the resource then guys with 40 or more should lean that way. Right? I am missing something? I am one that would qualify for the 3rd tag and I would absolutely be on board to give it up for the betterment of the herd/resource. I am not in favor of telling a small parcel guy that he is not deserving of a 3rd tag and the larger parcel guys are. IMO we need to go to 2 antlered tags per year for everyone. Thanks to all the guys & gals that take time out of their lives to go to the capital and lobby for all Iowans and our awesome resource.
OFFENSE!! 2 Bills to support!! SF 293 & SF 247 EMAIL IN!!! What a great change!!!!
The iowa sportsman’s club is very much seeking feedback on this. They will be posting a video asking for feedback
What u guys have to understand…. This isn’t just coming from ISC … this is response to hunters requests, dnr complaints/abuses & biological discussions. This had a lot of legislators wanting a 3 buck limit addressed & the opposition that uses it for ammo. It’s often times legislators that understand the reality of “let’s start here” (in this example it’s 40 acres). Seems reasonable.
Few quick points….
1) no one is willing to answer the ?’s the legislators have asked & a lot of different groups wanting perspectives. Folks with good faith dialogue here. The silence on not answering those ?’s is frustrating. I am totally ok with differing views but just to rail against something but not be apart of the dialogue & advancing the discussion is frustrating for all parties.
2) had 2 calls with groups & legislators today. This topic came up. Several ?’s such as these: for those that complain or unhappy about this or other bills, are these folks members of ISC, IBA or are they active at helping the causes? Or Just complaining & never willing to budge on any issue? I said: I believe many are members & are helping the cause. Fairly accurate? ISC made a point to revisit the issue with members so we hear the views & get #’s on support or lack of- COMING!!!! Let’s say 90% were for this: great info & it would move forward. Let’s say 50% supported it….. would NOT move forward. They listen & want to do what’s right.
3) i rarely get pissed off or “snap back” … pretty chill on hearing views & try to be extremely open minded & patient …. on some of this, ya, it’s irritating as $hit!!!!! Literally the whole hunting community wants changes. Wants to dial things back. Wants a win for our resource - big & small …. To ME & several legislators that have read this… it’s frustrating cause it comes across like “ya, we want change. As long as it doesn’t impact ME”. “I want better quality hunting but I don’t want to give anything up”. We can shoot 3 frigin bucks. 3!!!! Plus an urban buck tag = 4!!!!!! Plus as many party tags as u can transfer …. 5-10?!?!? & we can’t budge an inch for the resource or others or other organizations & legislators that have some major problems with the 2 or 5 acre 3rd buck tag issue. If we can all agree…. Let’s take EVERYONE down to 2 ….. fine, let’s go for it. There’s gonna be the same reaction though!! “U can’t take away anything from ME!!!”
Let’s go though!!!! Is there anyone that’s against this bill that won’t support going from 3 to 2 bucks for EVERYONE?
This ain’t the hill or bill to die on & we sure can tackle other things. But how hunters respond when everyone is begging for things to improve but having a fit if they have to give up the smallest thing….. that approach is bad politics & with any depth of understanding how the other side plays the game… the scumbags…. They will use this against us. “We’ll get our garbage through cause those guys will never give a concession on their end”. Just asking for a little more depth of thought & yes…. Contact ISC…. Be apart of the dialogue & let’s get this right- whatever it is.
What u guys have to understand…. This isn’t just coming from ISC … this is response to hunters requests, dnr complaints/abuses & biological discussions. This had a lot of legislators wanting a 3 buck limit addressed & the opposition that uses it for ammo. It’s often times legislators that understand the reality of “let’s start here” (in this example it’s 40 acres). Seems reasonable.
Few quick points….
1) no one is willing to answer the ?’s the legislators have asked & a lot of different groups wanting perspectives. Folks with good faith dialogue here. The silence on not answering those ?’s is frustrating. I am totally ok with differing views but just to rail against something but not be apart of the dialogue & advancing the discussion is frustrating for all parties.
2) had 2 calls with groups & legislators today. This topic came up. Several ?’s such as these: for those that complain or unhappy about this or other bills, are these folks members of ISC, IBA or are they active at helping the causes? Or Just complaining & never willing to budge on any issue? I said: I believe many are members & are helping the cause. Fairly accurate? ISC made a point to revisit the issue with members so we hear the views & get #’s on support or lack of- COMING!!!! Let’s say 90% were for this: great info & it would move forward. Let’s say 50% supported it….. would NOT move forward. They listen & want to do what’s right.
3) i rarely get pissed off or “snap back” … pretty chill on hearing views & try to be extremely open minded & patient …. on some of this, ya, it’s irritating as $hit!!!!! Literally the whole hunting community wants changes. Wants to dial things back. Wants a win for our resource - big & small …. To ME & several legislators that have read this… it’s frustrating cause it comes across like “ya, we want change. As long as it doesn’t impact ME”. “I want better quality hunting but I don’t want to give anything up”. We can shoot 3 frigin bucks. 3!!!! Plus an urban buck tag = 4!!!!!! Plus as many party tags as u can transfer …. 5-10?!?!? & we can’t budge an inch for the resource or others or other organizations & legislators that have some major problems with the 2 or 5 acre 3rd buck tag issue. If we can all agree…. Let’s take EVERYONE down to 2 ….. fine, let’s go for it. There’s gonna be the same reaction though!! “U can’t take away anything from ME!!!”
Let’s go though!!!! Is there anyone that’s against this bill that won’t support going from 3 to 2 bucks for EVERYONE?
This ain’t the hill or bill to die on & we sure can tackle other things. But how hunters respond when everyone is begging for things to improve but having a fit if they have to give up the smallest thing….. that approach is bad politics & with any depth of understanding how the other side plays the game… the scumbags…. They will use this against us. “We’ll get our garbage through cause those guys will never give a concession on their end”. Just asking for a little more depth of thought & yes…. Contact ISC…. Be apart of the dialogue & let’s get this right- whatever it is.
I feel like you are ignorning me Skip, it hurts my feelings
I have answered your questions (or maybe I should be going elsewhere to answer?-but this is my social media) but again, the problem that is faced, in my opinion, is the acre argument. Thats clearly dividing a lot of people which turns into remove ALL or remove NONE. I have said multiple times, lets looks at the regs. Lets look at the requirements. Lets try to button that up like they did to Nonresident party hunting- I mean doesnt that seem feasible? Revamp the regs to LOT OR lets go ahead and adjust them BEFORE the acreage requirement? As we all know, the entire state is different in every region- its hard to put a set number on acres statewide. Or do a 10 acre minimum with revamped requirements (just picking my county minimum you can buy). AND you could even do revamped tenant tags but require registering every year and every parcel? I admit I dont know the answer- but there is clearly the divide once acres get tossed out. And rightfully so- some people can make living on small acres (neighbors apple orchard is 37 acres is all) so 40 just doesnt seem like the answer.
How often does someone need to register? My father in law said he registered back in the early 90s (he thought it was early 90s) and never has been asked again. Bought and sold different pieces, has moved, etc. Thats alarming- I am not even sure he is registered on his current farm....
Just gonna throw this out as I think only the cull buck has been made against it but who reading this is against two bucks statewide other than urban? Still allow floating LOT and two statewide any sex but however you do it only 2 bucks statewide not counting urban????
Credit where credit is due…. THANK YOU!I feel like you are ignorning me Skip, it hurts my feelings
I have said multiple times, lets looks at the regs. Lets look at the requirements. Lets try to button that up like they did to Nonresident party hunting- I mean doesnt that seem feasible? Revamp the regs to LOT OR lets go ahead and adjust them BEFORE the acreage requirement? As we all know, the entire state is different in every region- its hard to put a set number on acres statewide. Or do a 10 acre minimum with revamped requirements (just picking my county minimum you can buy). AND you could even do revamped tenant tags but require registering every year and every parcel? I admit I dont know the answer- but there is clearly the divide once acres get tossed out. And rightfully so- some people can make living on small acres (neighbors apple orchard is 37 acres is all) so 40 just doesnt seem like the answer.
How often does someone need to register? My father in law said he registered back in the early 90s (he thought it was early 90s) and never has been asked again. Bought and sold different pieces, has moved, etc. Thats alarming- I am not even sure he is registered on his current farm....
I’m cool with “landowner tags”…. I think the vast majority are…. I would push back against the vast majority Perhaps by asking “why does it need to be a “BUCK” though?” Could be does. & I admittedly have a hard time understanding why we need more than TWO buck tags. Plus urban + party transferred buck tags. It’s a moot point but the farmers & hunters around my Kansas farm can’t believe we can shoot, 2, 3 or maybe even 4-5 bucks if we wanted. You can own 10,000 acres of kansas land & you get ONE BUCK TAG!!!! ONE!!! No party hunting. No landowner extra tag. ONE. & lot of other states like that. We are the only midwestern state where we can shoot this many. A state with the least amount of habitat & least amount of deer. From outsider perspective- 3+ is crazy!!! “Why don’t u give land owners an extra doe tag?” The NR’s know it’s insanity that we allow 3 & why they repeat it every year like clockwork “I can’t get 1 buck tag but the dude with 5 acres can get 3!!!!”
Make no mistake about it…. We have the best regs in the country. Period. With their flaws. Every state has flawed regs I’d love to see change. EVERY ONE!!!! Including iowa. We are hurting but we still have best regs in country. I do feel it’s our duty to fix the bad ones & lift up the resource that’s been hammered in a variety of ways for 20 years now.
These are questions I’ve heard asked & several of them multiple times by multiple groups or legislators, etc.
A) what are the merits (in the current hunting landscape) of shooting a 3rd buck off 2 or 5 acres for example?
B) if the current law was 40 acres to get a 3rd buck tag & the bill was to drop the acreage requirement to 2 acres, would u support it? Do you think it would have any meaningful support from the public?
C) would u support Residents who didn’t own land to get a 3rd buck tag?
D) would you support a 4th buck tag for those with 2+ acres
I answered those 4 questions a page ago I think? But sure hope someone else chimes in too- I like the constructive conversation. Oddly- I do believe if you said take away all of them- would be less of a battle. I think if we said “floating lot”- suddenly NR will be “why do they get a floating tag and we can’t even get a season tag?!”
Am I right to think that way?
Both very good points. I am very interested to see if the support changes or if there’s more consensus on going from 3 to 2 across the board. This and the NR argument for sure things to think about & appreciate the critical thinking!!!
BAM!!!!!! Iowa sportsman’s club just posted this video & a poll will be up any second now!!! There may be orgs that don’t listen to members or out of touch…. ISC isn’t one of them. Props to them!!!!!
www.facebook.com
Iowa Sportsman's Club
Lets discuss SF247 and hear from our president, Tayler Riggen, and VP, Chris Dunkin. Where do YOU stand on this bill that would require landowners to own 40 acres before being eligible for a...
www.facebook.com
Rjack
Well-Known Member
This is not true according to the regulations. A LOT counts as one of the 2 tags you can get in the spring.
Straight from the regs.
HOW MANY TURKEY LICENSES MAY I HAVE? A resident hunter may obtain a maximum of two fall turkey hunting licenses: two Combination Gun/Bow Licenses, or two Archery-only Licenses, or one Combination Gun/Bow License and one Archery-only License. One of these licenses may be a Landowner-Tenant License if the hunter is eligible.
I support the bill as written... if some confessions HAD to be made it would be a grandfather clause for those that have current LOT status. However, if you sell the piece, grandfather clause goes away. Next piece must be 40 acres to qualify.
trophybluf@borderlandnet.
Member
I too support the bill as written. Although, I feel it's foolish to shoot more than two bucks on any size parcel, if its going to divide us, grandfather any acreage at 10 or more acres. Personally, I prefer the bill as written.
You are correct.
deerhunter93
Well-Known Member
I read comments that I'm on board with on both sides of this one.
Selfishly as someone who would enjoy owning hunting ground someday but knowing a large chunk of land wont be in the cards, I would like to see the number slightly lower than 40 acres but I try to hunt a few properties throughout the season. If a person is ONLY hunting their land and they have under 40 acres, I don't think three buck tags are necessary.
No matter what minimum number of acres is set, there will absolutely be guys against it as they have 1 acre less than the minimum. An extra buck tag on two acres is ridiculous to me. I think a number in the 20-35 acre range (taxable acres) would be a reasonable minimum.
Overall I feel like I support the bill as written.
I would definitely be on board for a 2 buck maximum + urban and landowners can have one of their two tags be a floating landowner tag. Let them be able to hunt all seasons, all weapons as a benefit to owning land.
Selfishly as someone who would enjoy owning hunting ground someday but knowing a large chunk of land wont be in the cards, I would like to see the number slightly lower than 40 acres but I try to hunt a few properties throughout the season. If a person is ONLY hunting their land and they have under 40 acres, I don't think three buck tags are necessary.
No matter what minimum number of acres is set, there will absolutely be guys against it as they have 1 acre less than the minimum. An extra buck tag on two acres is ridiculous to me. I think a number in the 20-35 acre range (taxable acres) would be a reasonable minimum.
Overall I feel like I support the bill as written.
I would definitely be on board for a 2 buck maximum + urban and landowners can have one of their two tags be a floating landowner tag. Let them be able to hunt all seasons, all weapons as a benefit to owning land.
Thinkin Rut
PMA Member
As far as I know, the 2 acre minimum has been in place during the highest highs and the lowest lows and everything in between. Abuse is nothing new. You can't stand back and point your finger at its inception and say yep, there's our problem. I get very leery when asked to make a quick decision to support or not support especially when it's seemingly irrelevant but yet certain groups are pushing hard for it. Last year's late bills were frowned upon and viewed as being pushed through at the 12 o'clock hour...this year they're in vogue. Why this and why now? I'm plus 40 acreage. With the amount of resident hunters this is going to affect, this needs to be pondered another year.
I don't oppose this bill, but I really think that if we're going to argue that people should only get 2 buck tags (or even 1 buck tag) because it's better for the deer herd, then it should be across the board. However, I do agree it's going to take a real special 2 acre parcel to shoot your LOT buck on...
Also, I'm not trying to criticize, I assume a lot of work went into getting these bills going, and I have no idea on how the process transpired, but wouldn't it work out better if these discussions happened ahead of time before the bill was submitted? There clearly is a lot of interest/opinions here and at the ISC. Some transparency would help some of the criticisms that have been thrown out. I contributed to both the IBA and ISC knowing that there's a chance that it results in bills that I'm not necessarily a fan of but put faith in the people signing up to take on this work have improving deer hunting as their main goal. I get that maybe it didn't have time on how this year worked out, and it's a learning/first time doing this. I know there was a survey sent out a while ago on what to go after with bills, but this one seems to have come out of left field.
Also, I'm not trying to criticize, I assume a lot of work went into getting these bills going, and I have no idea on how the process transpired, but wouldn't it work out better if these discussions happened ahead of time before the bill was submitted? There clearly is a lot of interest/opinions here and at the ISC. Some transparency would help some of the criticisms that have been thrown out. I contributed to both the IBA and ISC knowing that there's a chance that it results in bills that I'm not necessarily a fan of but put faith in the people signing up to take on this work have improving deer hunting as their main goal. I get that maybe it didn't have time on how this year worked out, and it's a learning/first time doing this. I know there was a survey sent out a while ago on what to go after with bills, but this one seems to have come out of left field.
2-bucks
Well-Known Member
I have 140 acres. I will go on record that I will not shoot 3 bucks. I support no land owner tags. But that will never pass. Like Skip has said, we have to start somewhere. We have to stop with what do I want for me in this exact situation and make moves that are for the betterment overall BECAUSE that will actually lead to what is best for me and you long term.
Sadly many more people are sliding to the best for me short term decision in deer hunting and many other things in life.
deerhunter93
Well-Known Member
Which of the following changes do you feel would be the MOST beneficial for the 2025 season, in order to Keep Iowa Great for deer and deer hunters?
I believe this is the survey you are referencing.
I'm a huge fan of all the people in leadership roles with the ISC. However, I'm not sure they have representation from all types of Iowa deer hunters. Most of the leadership (if not all) are wanting Iowa to have the biggest and most mature bucks. As do I. But, I go back and forth if that is the best thing for Iowa hunters and deer in general and if we really understand how to get there.
Change regulations back to what they were in 2005 and I think we get back on course. Get rid of cell cams (I use them), get rid of rifles, no smokeless muzzleloaders, no crossbows, no e-bikes on public land, ect.