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

[Hardwood11]

I can’t help but laugh at everyone saying I will give up my LOT anysex tag because I think it will help the herd. Many of which bought their land not to make a living off it but solely to deer hunt on it. Then others say you should have to have at least 40 acres to qualify. I really don’t care if it is 2,5,10,15, 20, 40, 80 acres. It won’t make a difference.

Just look in the above post. It said that 5036 bucks were taken in 22/23 with anysex LOT tags. Do you guys realize that Iowa has 55,857 square miles of land inside its borders. So that means less than one buck for every 10 square miles of land was tagged with anysex LOT tag. Just a reminder…a square mile is 640 acres. So less than one buck on every 6400 acres was tagged with an anysex LOT tag. Boy those anysex LOT are really destroying our herd. And those guys with just 2 acres are obviously the problem. If you think having one more buck wandering around on 6400 acres that more than likely you won’t ever get access to is really going to be a game changer! You’re crazy. Good thing you guys are really focused on the important things! Just drop the idea of getting rid of a buck tag. It won’t help you get a bigger buck.

The only way to improve your hunting is to increase the population and there will be plenty of resistance from FB and the other insurance companies. Everyone should be putting 100% of their efforts into decreasing doe tag allocations and educating people to not shoot does if your population is down. Even if the DNR doesn’t change the doe tag allocations. That doesn’t mean we have to buy them or fill them. Educate your fellow hunters.

Do you realize how many farmers look at the anysex and antlerless LOT tags as the one little bone the IDNR throws them for feeding the deer herd all year. I am not talking about the deer farmers on here either. I’m talking about regular farmers that hunt deer for fun and to control the population. Not as a lifestyle. Sure let’s take away their anysex LOT. Then tell them that the IDNR is going to decrease the doe tags so we can have even more deer running around eating their crops. Sounds like great idea…let’s piss off 75% of FB’s membership by telling them they shouldn’t be able to shoot a buck with their LOT tag and make them think they are going to see herds of deer all over their crop fields again and in front of their wife’s car. Just like they used to see in the mid 2000’s. Can’t wait to see FB reaction when their members are calling and messaging their leadership asking them what they are going to do about loosing their anysex LOT and the DNR’s big plans to increase the deer population.

You guys really need to stop pushing this nonsense. If a guy farms 5 acres or 160 acres or 1000 acres and looses two acres of production due to deer damage. Two acres of 200 bushel/acre corn x $5.00 = $2000. You don’t think they should get an anysex LOT tag? There is a lot more deer damage done than you think. I’ve seen deer nip the silk off corn and completely destroy a two acre food plot in two weeks. Just because you distribute that same number of deer and damage over 5 acres or 160 acres or 1000 acres doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. Just means their yield monitor will read less. That was done in two weeks now calculate the amount of damage done to a producer’s corn and beans from April to October. Leave the anysex and antlerless LOT tags alone. They are not hurting the resource and are a nice gesture to the FB/farming community.

Pick the battles that will make a difference. Not battles that just burn political capital.

I’m just gonna be a little devils advocate here. Your math 55,857 square miles in Iowa . How much of that is crop land, roads, cities, parking lots, windmills, bare pasture, lakes/ponds farm sites … etc .

If it’s 90-92% then the math on the buck harvest would be about 1 buck per square mile of deer habitat. Which is not “nothing” or “minimal”.

—5036 bucks is quite a few, more than I would have ever guessed.

 

[Windlooker]

Agree. Fuzzy math qdm. Iowa has 35 million acres of land with only 2.8 million forested. As Skip always points out that’s only 8% of the total acreage. Most Iowa land isn’t optimum whitetail country. It goes without saying many don’t report their harvests. That 5000 buck number is higher.

 

[Sligh1]

Agree. Fuzzy math qdm. Iowa has 35 million acres of land with only 2.8 million forested. As Skip always points out that’s only 8% of the total acreage. Most Iowa land isn’t optimum whitetail country. It goes without saying many don’t report their harvests. That 5000 buck number is higher.

It’s wild how little we have here & how we trounce the results of places with 3-10x more quality habitat & far more deer. & think of the advantages KS & NE have over us…. They have huge expanses of grasslands full of deer. Millions of acres. We don’t have that. We have timber, a chunk of CRP & corn/bean fields that are open NOTHING when they harvested. Iowas data is more precise & monitors the changes but look at these examples. Look at area with no timber & darn near no deer or wildlife. That’s the vast majority of the state. Why we can throw some tags at people & watch the deer Harvest get cut in half in only like 5 years. We are FRAGILE!!!! We can be ruined so fast & easy it’s crazy. These other states need the folks who live there to FIX THEM!!!!!! Way more potential than we have. MO, WI, MN, IL, IN & even KS, SD & NE should pummel iowa. Ohio would beat us by a lot if they got rid of the bait, limited NR’s tags & put crossbows in their own season (vs shoved in archery season). OH’s strength is 1 buck & late gun. MO could be the #1 state in country EASY if they did 1 buck, late gun & limited NR tags given out. On & on. All this opportunity & amazing area all over country but “IOWA” is in everyone’s vocabulary when talking about deer hunting.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Above why I think Missouri would blow rest of county away if theyd make about 3 rule changes

 

[hillrunner]

Personably, I believe this is a positive bill with very minute impact on the buck population. We really need to stand behind and support both the ISC and IBA because there will be much bigger issues down the road. One can only hope and pray we never turn into a WI or MI. Without these two groups we would be totally screwed. So even if this issue doesn't go the way you like, stay united because much bigger crap will be coming.

With the above said I only hope we don't lose track of what I believe is, by far the biggest factor impacting IA's deer population. I see in a recent poll, EHD was considered at like 5%. Quite frankly, this number should much higher. With the different strains of EHD in IA, some areas have been totally decimated. On our farm, EHD has killed up to 75% to 80% on parts of the farm through the years. In fact in some years, I have found more dead deer in one year than we harvested in ten years. So no matter how you tweak buck tags, it will have minimal impact. Since the big outbreak in 2019 we have taken certain steps which has at least minimize the devastating effects of the disease. So, hopefully EHD is a topic that gets a fair amount of conversation in the future. Also don't shoot your last doe on your farm! We harvested none again this year!

This, ehd is dwarfing all methods of take where I hunt. No regulation change can come close to a disease that swoops in and knocks out 50% + of the herd in 2 weeks.

 

[Nrharris]

This, ehd is dwarfing all methods of take where I hunt. No regulation change can come close to a disease that swoops in and knocks out 50% + of the herd in 2 weeks.

Wish my county would do away with extra antlerless tags and maybe buck only for first shotgun for a year or two to let numbers rebound a bit.

 

[Sligh1]

Wish my county would do away with extra antlerless tags and maybe buck only for first shotgun for a year or two to let numbers rebound a bit.

Are u western iowa?
It’s wild what happened in western iowa. I heard for years “we ain’t got hit!!” Or very little if so. While we had got blasted 3 times pretty bad. Matter of time & if a guy ain’t ever had it around yet… yikes!

Say 5 or 10 years ago… Dnr dismissed ehd big time “no big deal”. “Only a couple thousand cases, drop in bucket”. “CWD is the issue. Ehd kills so few deer”. Well…. Much like ISC & hunters getting active on bills….. DNR has seen some changes too!!! For the good. Their deer biologist, Jace Elliott…. EXCELLENT!!!! Hosted tons of meetings in Western iowa. Got those results to legislators. Dnr has & will continue to use the FACTS to try to reduce tags. They finally got data & went public that the “best case scenario” on EHD reported cases is 10% of what’s reported is reality. So, 3,200 reported really means no less than 32,000. Probably 50k+. We kill 100k per year. It’s a HUGE deal. ISC, IBA, DNR & even Legislators have & will continue to educate on how bad this issue is. How devastating EHD is. We need tag relief & we need Shed Buck Season GONE. I have land in Shed buck hunting counties & it’s wild how many unsold tags were left. EHD is awful but how we are handling, discussing & pushing for changes is night & day better than 10 years ago.

 

[iowaqdm]

Agree. Fuzzy math qdm. Iowa has 35 million acres of land with only 2.8 million forested. As Skip always points out that’s only 8% of the total acreage. Most Iowa land isn’t optimum whitetail country. It goes without saying many don’t report their harvests. That 5000 buck number is higher.

Nothing fuzzy. There are 416 square miles of water that wasn’t included. There are deer living everywhere in this State. Even in Northern parts of Iowa that are predominantly Ag. Even those parts have groves, CRP, drainage ditches, creeks, rivers, sloughs, public hunting areas. Everyone was worried about the 2 acre landowners. Most of those are on the edges of cities. I don’t see too many 2 acre parcels in the middle of nowhere unless they are a farmstead that was sold off. Some of the largest bucks harvested in this State have come from the edges of cities or even within the city limits but if you wanted to exclude those areas just for discussion sake we can. So even if you wanted to say one third of the square miles were roads or cities etc, which it is not. That still means only one buck in six square miles was tagged with an anysex LOT tag. Which is still not going to make a difference.

 

[Daver]

This, ehd is dwarfing all methods of take where I hunt. No regulation change can come close to a disease that swoops in and knocks out 50% + of the herd in 2 weeks.

This. ^^ Just confirming what others are also sharing...

We shoot 8 to 12'ish deer per year off of our place, usually 1 or 2 bucks and the rest does. Let's call 8 or 9 an average year, with say 2 bucks.

In Aug. '23 we began noticing what turned out to be a significant EHD die off. Between then and the following shed/dead season, we found at least 18 carcasses on our place and I strongly suspect that number was only 1/2, or less, of what died off, since some I think got into ponds and sank, etc. Notably, there were several bucks that all of us had on our radar that just flat disappeared and no one found them, so go figure on those.

Also, we tend to shoot more does off of our property than do some close neighbors, as we have more flexibility, and maybe commitment, than do some other neighbors. So...if you take that trend and assume that roughly the same percentage of deer died on neighboring properties as they did on ours, BUT...since some only shoot 1-3 deer per year off of their place, the number of dead deer from EHD would be significantly higher as a percentage. (Does that make sense? )

At any rate...EHD is easily the biggest deer killer in our area, thankfully we really only saw it bad in the last half of 2023. Fingers crossed that stays that way!

 

[Nrharris]

Are u western iowa?
It’s wild what happened in western iowa. I heard for years “we ain’t got hit!!” Or very little if so. While we had got blasted 3 times pretty bad. Matter of time & if a guy ain’t ever had it around yet… yikes!

Say 5 or 10 years ago… Dnr dismissed ehd big time “no big deal”. “Only a couple thousand cases, drop in bucket”. “CWD is the issue. Ehd kills so few deer”. Well…. Much like ISC & hunters getting active on bills….. DNR has seen some changes too!!! For the good. Their deer biologist, Jace Elliott…. EXCELLENT!!!! Hosted tons of meetings in Western iowa. Got those results to legislators. Dnr has & will continue to use the FACTS to try to reduce tags. They finally got data & went public that the “best case scenario” on EHD reported cases is 10% of what’s reported is reality. So, 3,200 reported really means no less than 32,000. Probably 50k+. We kill 100k per year. It’s a HUGE deal. ISC, IBA, DNR & even Legislators have & will continue to educate on how bad this issue is. How devastating EHD is. We need tag relief & we need Shed Buck Season GONE. I have land in Shed buck hunting counties & it’s wild how many unsold tags were left. EHD is awful but how we are handling, discussing & pushing for changes is night & day better than 10 years ago.

East Central Iowa. South of Waterloo, West of Cedar Rapids. We got crushed by ehd the last 2 years. We're doing well before that. Heard from a lot of shotgun groups that said they didn't see many deer so they shot does.

 

[iowaqdm]

East Central Iowa. South of Waterloo, West of Cedar Rapids. We got crushed by ehd the last 2 years. We're doing well before that. Heard from a lot of shotgun groups that said they didn't see many deer so they shot does.

Increasing the population is the only way to improve our hunting. Buck quality will improve if we increase our deer numbers. We have to work on educating other hunters. We have to convince them to stop shooting does in areas where the population is low.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Increasing the population is the only way to improve our hunting. Buck quality will improve if we increase our deer numbers. We have to work on educating other hunters. We have to convince them to stop shooting does in areas where the population is low.

It's certainly one way.

 

[iowaqdm]

Those that were questioning my numbers and thought they were fuzzy math because of cities etc. I jumped on OnX. I drew a rectangle going from NW of Grimes 26 miles east to north of Mitchellville down 21 mile to just SW of Carlisle back 26 miles to just SW of Cumming then back to the starting point NW of Grimes. That encompasses most of the Des Moines and Ankeny metro with some undeveloped ag and timber ground along the perimeter. That area was basically 350,000 acres. I divided by 6400 acres for the one LOT buck killed per 10 square miles calculation. That equates to 55 bucks. Do you think there were 55 bucks tagged in that area with an anysex LOT tag? That area includes both the Des Moines river and the Raccoon river corridors.

I did the same for the Iowa City and Cedar Rapids area. I drew a rectangle encompassing those two cities and the Cedar river corridor that is being developed between the two cities and ended up with 250,000 acres. That equates to 40 bucks. Do you think there were 40 bucks tagged in that area with an anysex LOT tag?

I would guess at least that many if not more than that in both areas. If it is higher in these areas then that means it is actually less in some of the other rural ag areas. But you don’t have to take my word for it. The DNR gave you the harvest report numbers. It calculates out to 1 buck per 10 square miles killed and tagged with a anysex LOT tag. Get on OnX and try it yourself. Draw a rectangle around an area anywhere in the State. Divide the acres by 6400. Then zoom in and look for habitat that will hold deer like timber, groves, sloughs, CRP, etc. Then think about all the different landowners or possible tenants. It is not hard to imagine one of those landowners or tenants being successful and killing a buck. But it’s one buck, whether it be a fork horn or a 200”. The numbers still only average one buck per ten square miles. Saving one buck per ten square mile area is a not going to change anything for age structure or trophy potential.

Going after anysex LOT tags or the parcel size will just get people upset with little to no gain from it. We need those people on our side helping to get the deer population back up. Ultimately this type of legislation just burns bridges and political capital with the very landowners that determine access and our deer population.

 

[BDAHMS]

I’ve done a bunch of what you have mentioned!!! Very happy to see the response of ISC even if it is after the fact!!! Hopefully in the future they ask for our input before using our money against us!! I care about ISC and want them to continue to grow and attract new members and get even more money out of current members! I do not believe this will happen if people start to feel they have a predetermined agenda.

I agree with your last statement and make the same statements in board meetings. I know its heard and adjustments are being discussed as it goes. And I appreciate the reply, I was more or less making a general statement in hopes of everyone reading would think about their own actions. I just happen to be responding to you, so it came as me asking you. But I appreciate that you take the time to engage, make your voice heard and invest the time and resources yourself to participate in what's needed to help bring change (or sometimes lack of change when not needed) I hope to see many more follow suit and make that commitment. We all certainly won't agree on these topics, but having open dialogue is a great place to start and opposing views can be great for making progress.

also, with those (not going to quote and reply to each) with thinking things seem fishy with ISC or other organizations. Many times, things can be reactionary as a heads up isnt always given. Those making the posts, having the conversations with legislators and other details behind the scenes can be missed. We all have families and full-time jobs and simply put, things can be missed. With this being started up not that long ago, there is no doubt a learning curve and a time management curve that is rapidly evolving. Mistakes will be made, wins and losses will be had. But there is zero hidden agenda or fishy business behind the scenes. Watch the ISC statement video of who ISC is and what it represents. That is point blank who the ISC is. (here is the link in case you haven't seen it

) And as time goes, and we all learn the system, we will get better at both navigating these legislative waters and communicating to those that follow along. But if you have concerns, message me or ISC page directly. You won't get a run around; you will get direct answers and open dialogue. We can't help what happened in the past, who had better times than others etc. What we are focused on is Iowa today, our deer herd today, our future generation of hunters enjoying this phenomenal resource and doing what we can to preserve/improve that.

 

[tall@wide]

One tweak I think should be looked at is the section size..Most of the sections are divided into approx 40 acre squares. Some are 39.7 or 39.1..you would hate for someone to miss a LOT just because their section was just under 40.. maybe make it 39 instead if 40. Also, some will say 40 acres gross and 39 acres net.

 

[Sligh1]

Make

One tweak I think should be looked at is the section size..Most of the sections are divided into approx 40 acre squares. Some are 39.7 or 39.1..you would hate for someone to miss a LOT just because their section was just under 40.. maybe make it 39 instead if 40. Also, some will say 40 acres gross and 39 acres net.

makes sense. It got reduced down to 10 acres now. I don’t agree with it but that’s what compromise is.

What a lot of folks are missing & some non-hunting legislators brought up “LOT tags - this is meant for people growing crops or income from the land. They must be filing a schedule F. Im not a hunter but there’s a lot of complaints that the program is being misused by people who are not farming the land. That’s not the intention or the law. I want to make sure our current laws are being followed”. I actually didn’t know the schedule F was an actual requirement Until the last couple weeks. This program was/is being abused & I do wonder if SOME of the upset folks might be the ones that have not been following the existing law. Maybe not but that was a great point of debate & clarification several legislators have expressed.

 

[newfarmer]

Make

makes sense. It got reduced down to 10 acres now. I don’t agree with it but that’s what compromise is.

What a lot of folks are missing & some non-hunting legislators brought up “LOT tags - this is meant for people growing crops or income from the land. They must be filing a schedule F. Im not a hunter but there’s a lot of complaints that the program is being misused by people who are not farming the land. That’s not the intention or the law. I want to make sure our current laws are being followed”. I actually didn’t know the schedule F was an actual requirement Until the last couple weeks. This program was/is being abused & I do wonder if SOME of the upset folks might be the ones that have not been following the existing law. Maybe not but that was a great point of debate & clarification several legislators have expressed.

I’ve said that many posts back- it’s not just “2 acres” as everyone claimed. There are the regulations needed- but how many people truly are bypassing that… you can change it to 40, but until the actual regulations are even followed- there literally is no way to control it.

 

[Hawk32]

I’ve said that many posts back- it’s not just “2 acres” as everyone claimed. There are the regulations needed- but how many people truly are bypassing that… you can change it to 40, but until the actual regulations are even followed- there literally is no way to control it.

True, I agree 100%, but as under staffed as the DNR is controlling this becomes very difficult. If it wasn't so difficult to enforce there would be a heck of a lot of citations written. Maybe not a huge number for the actual using the tag on a deer shot illegally but I'd bet it would be a pretty good number for illegally possessing the tag and not meeting the actual requirements to have the tag in the first place.

 

[Sligh1]

I’ve said that many posts back- it’s not just “2 acres” as everyone claimed. There are the regulations needed- but how many people truly are bypassing that… you can change it to 40, but until the actual regulations are even followed- there literally is no way to control it.

What do you feel are reasonable adjustments so the program works as intended?
One thing they did before …. You had to enter a tax ID # for a parcel you owned & had to do it every 2 years. I don’t know why that went away. This is not that complex IMO…. Off the top of my head…. Update your tax ID # every couple years like we did before. Confirm or cross reference that list to make sure filing schedule F. This literally could be done in a day or 2 by 1 person in gov or by writing a program or even excel to confirm this. Super easy.

Take those off the rolls that don’t do it. It’s kinda like cleaning dead people or people that moved off voter rolls.
I owned a farm about 10-15 years ago. A guy who owned it about a decade before me had been getting tags for that land & using them for like 10+ years after he sold the land & didn’t own land. I got a call on that one confirming he wasn’t involved in farming the land. All I know- this is far easier to clean than bad voter rolls for example & folks on the side of administering, enforcing or legislators have all voiced that changes are needed to address a lot of issues. That’s not my world, I don’t understand it like they do but that’s loosely their POV.

 

[BDAHMS]

had this sent to me by a handful of people. few observations

1) soooooooooo im going to go out on a limb and say you are not making them banquet next Friday evening. RSPV no, understood. Although I do hope that changes in future years.
2) I really need to adjust my wardrobe as I really didn't think anything I had was made of sheep's wool
3) I agree with above that comment- I do like those shoes and may snag a pair.


on a serious note, aside from the obvious example, nothing we can adjust based on feedback and our states resources in mind will win over everyone. Which is the case for almost any change that comes. Often times those willing to stand up and be on the front lines fighting for certain values and changes, we will certainly be subject to criticism and misunderstanding/ stones being thrown. Although it sounds like attacking comments is often fairly common from said individual on that forum as well. So we cant win them all and wont invest too much time or thought in all relationships (or lack thereof) moving forward. Hopefully we can all work together to truly take the step on the right foot moving forward. and that is with ALL hunters in mind, but first and foremost our resources and the long-term sustainability for future hunters.