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

[Rjack]

Is schedule F actually a requirement in the regulations or is that an opinion of something that should be added? I do not see that in the DNR regulations booklet. Timber is considered agriculture by the DNR.

 

[newfarmer]

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.

Well I guess that’s my question is- how often is it even updated? I’ve never had to “re enter” anything in 12 years. I changed my stuff due to my DNR officer wanting my home farm versus renting- but even then- when I changed I literally put in a parcel number and “agreed” I was up to terms.
I can be the first to say I don’t have the answers- but I still think in big picture- acreage number has little to do with it. It’s all the abuse or lack of follow up.
I still stand behind first thing to change as well- landowner only (or if it’s rent ground- have to show tax paperwork yearly). But again- if you don’t “require” the updates or qualifications - people are getting tags that just are abuse.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Id like to see a bill introduced to eliminate a statewide tag for everyone. One remaining tag could float. Plus LOT, subject to new rules. I know some may not agree with this, but i think we really need to head that direction if Iowa has any hope of staying great (or getting better)

 

[Hawk32]

Is schedule F actually a requirement in the regulations or is that an opinion of something that should be added? I do not see that in the DNR regulations booklet. Timber is considered agriculture by the DNR.

That's a good question. I will see what I can find out. I was told by an officer a few years ago, and I trust this one to know since he has continued to move up the ranks and is typically in the know, that timber is does count unless there income from it. This was years ago and maybe that's changed but I don't think so..He said it didn't matter if you owned 5 or 500 if there was no income you were not eligible.

 

[booneriverbucks]

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.

Thank you for the reply!! Even if I do not deserve it!!! Your reply is why I was quick to join ISC!! I do believe in the cause!! I love TBI but am saddened that it politically has only led to the jealousy of some!! I think it’s awesome tho. I see success stories from every class of hunter every time i see a post from it!!! It’s awesome!!! My issue/opinion on this bill is purely based on statistics/facts. 25 years ago the average acre of Iowa farm ground was around 1100. Today it is closer to 11,000. Meanwhile average wages of iowa/us residents was only around 60,000 then and is only around 80,000ish now. There is no doubt/no argument that this bill highly benefits the older generation. The older generation once again reaps the benefits while giving up nothing. Anybody can look at the statistics of iowa land ownership and see this.

 

[booneriverbucks]

Litterally no one has said that anywhere. If they did, post a screenshot and I'll buy you a beer or a soda.

And there is zero correlation to buying or selling land to the topic of a 3rd buck tag.

I don't get it..... at all.

You and me are the statistical outliers here. We’ve had it awesome!!! Many “normal” iowans 25 years ago were able to easily buy more land than the current non landowner has a chance at. Look at the stats!! Both of us had it awesome!! Even if we think we worked hard for it!! I like to think i’ve worked hard for what i’ve had but by no means do i think I deserve another anysex tag over someone else. It’s not the same game anymore. I’ve had it awesome!!!! Iowa has totally blessed me! I just can’t help but feel hypocritical that all of a sudden I think someone younger than me deserves less while I know darn well we aren’t dealing with the same scale of economies. Totally understand what you are saying and love your opinions on everything. Except this. With the huge changes in the costs of hard assets recently (land, housing etc.) this bill is poorly timed.

 

[MarkF]

You and me are the statistical outliers here. We’ve had it awesome!!! Many “normal” iowans 25 years ago were able to easily buy more land than the current non landowner has a chance at. Look at the stats!! Both of us had it awesome!! Even if we think we worked hard for it!! I like to think i’ve worked hard for what i’ve had but by no means do i think I deserve another anysex tag over someone else. It’s not the same game anymore. I’ve had it awesome!!!! Iowa has totally blessed me! I just can’t help but feel hypocritical that all of a sudden I think someone younger than me deserves less while I know darn well we aren’t dealing with the same scale of economies. Totally understand what you are saying and love your opinions on everything. Except this. With the huge changes in the costs of hard assets recently (land, housing etc.) this bill is poorly timed.

So wait, only old people can afford over 40 acres? The way you talk you’d think the bill was written to ban anyone born before a certain date from getting a LOT.

 

[booneriverbucks]

Look up the statistics/demographics. There is absolutely no doubt this bill favors a certain age class/voting block. The statistics without a doubt back up my opinion. The facts don’t lie. The very same voting block that sat around and watched our country go 36 trillion in debt benefitted greatly from the devaluation of the dollar while they were invested in hard assets such as land/housing. Definitely rode up the stock market too. Was it all their fault?? Of course not. They had the votes and power tho. Just like they did while our deer hunting has supposedly declined. Once again the can is being kicked down the road while those in charge make no sacrifice. Instead of looking in the mirror and realizing they had a cause in all of this the burden of bad government/regulation is passed on to someone else. I’ll never support a bill that cherry pics winners and losers. If it’s “for the good of the herd” all of us should sacrifice something. I own land. I’d qualify for 3 tags under this proposal. I’m giving up absolutely nothing tho. I already have it awesome. I don’t need things to be any better because of the sacrifice of someone who owns less than me.

 

[seven twenty]

Let’s just make it easy and solve multiple issues with one change. Eliminate the LOT altogether. Those that have issues on their “Ag” ground can apply for depredation tags. Nobody can whine about anyone getting 3 “buck” tags, nobody should feel discriminated against, and it eliminates the need for the DNR to spend time and resources following up and verifying anyone filing for a LOT. No LOTs, no issues.
This bill is going to affect such a small # that I feel we could have spent our time and resources pushing for something more beneficial and with greater impact to the herd. January seasons and all of the extra antlerless tags for example. DNR numbers show that 80% of the people that get a LOT don’t follow-up with 2 more paid tags. There is no doubt that there are some bad apples there but it would have been a lot easier to weed them out and not create a divide or resentment amongst everyone else.

 

[iowaqdm]

Id like to see a bill introduced to eliminate a statewide tag for everyone. One remaining tag could float. Plus LOT, subject to new rules. I know some may not agree with this, but i think we really need to head that direction if Iowa has any hope of staying great (or getting better)

This is the exact opposite of what should happen. Let’s say you only get one buck. But you like deer meat. Maybe you want to bow and gun hunt. Now instead of shooting two bucks in an area with low deer numbers you shoot a buck and a doe. Now you’re hurting the population trend. Everyone keeps saying let’s get rid of LOT tags. For what??? To save 5000 bucks State wide.

If you want Iowa to be great or get better then the only way is increase the population. You have to get people to stop shooting does to get the population back up. We are less than half the population we had back in mid 2000’s when everyone thought we had the best hunting. I believe they said our deer population was around 750,000 back around 2005 and it is now somewhere around 350,000 deer currently. If we would lay off shooting does for 1-2 years we would bump up doe numbers by 150,000. That would equate to an additional 150,000 bucks added annually and 150,000 does just from the fawns dropped by the additional 150,000 does.

We need to get our deer population back up to around 500,000 after harvest. That’s how you will keep Iowa great or improve it. Not by taking away opportunities for people to be afield. Not by getting rid of LOT tags or going to a one buck State. Going to one buck will just lead to more does being shot and high grading the herd. Both will give you the exact opposite results of what you’re wanting.

Look, there is way more management now than there was in 2005. There are way fewer shotgun groups pushing deer because of access. The deer are getting through season in better health than they were in 2005 due to food plots and supplemental feeding. Everyone wants to blame this weapon or this season. That is not the problem. The problem started in the late 2000’s with us over harvesting does. Then some EHD hit and took our population even lower. Even though we got the January antlerless season closed it was too late. The damage was done. Doe tags allotments have hardly changed in the last 10-15 years because of FB and they continue to filled because the average guy doesn’t follow the population trends in their area. This year we harvested around 100,000 deer. Even if half were bucks. That would be 50,000. If we could get the population up to 350,000 does and 150,000 bucks for a total population of 500,000 after harvest. Going into the next season you will be adding roughly 300,000 buck fawns every year to your 150,000 bucks. Plus you would be adding roughly 300,000 doe fawns to your 350,000 does. Even with 50% mortality of your fawns you would be adding 150,000 does and 150,000 bucks. So going into hunting season you would be at 500,000 does and 300,000 bucks. That would be around 8-9 does and 5 bucks per square mile. This would allow hunters to harvest more deer while being more selective on buck harvests. Both will give better hunting opportunities for the average guy and the trophy hunter. The bonus is if EHD hits and takes out 50,000 deer the population will bounce back much faster with a 500,000 starting population vs 350,000.

Honestly, the other suggestions are a waste of time and energy. IBA and ISC should continue to be focused on stopping legislation that changes our current regulations. Keep crossbows out of archery. Stop changes to how NR tags are drawn or any increases in allotment. This other nonsense that won’t improve our hunting needs to be shut down immediately. The IBA and ISC should be lobbying the DNR to decrease doe tag allotments across the State. They should also be educating everyone to not shoot does if the deer population is low in your hunting area. It is a numbers game. It is really that simple.

 

[DMarley83]

This is the exact opposite of what should happen. Let’s say you only get one buck. But you like deer meat. Maybe you want to bow and gun hunt. Now instead of shooting two bucks in an area with low deer numbers you shoot a buck and a doe. Now you’re hurting the population trend. Everyone keeps saying let’s get rid of LOT tags. For what??? To save 5000 bucks State wide.

If you want Iowa to be great or get better then the only way is increase the population. You have to get people to stop shooting does to get the population back up. We are less than half the population we had back in mid 2000’s when everyone thought we had the best hunting. I believe they said our deer population was around 750,000 back around 2005 and it is now somewhere around 350,000 deer currently. If we would lay off shooting does for 1-2 years we would bump up doe numbers by 150,000. That would equate to an additional 150,000 bucks added annually and 150,000 does just from the fawns dropped by the additional 150,000 does.

We need to get our deer population back up to around 500,000 after harvest. That’s how you will keep Iowa great or improve it. Not by taking away opportunities for people to be afield. Not by getting rid of LOT tags or going to a one buck State. Going to one buck will just lead to more does being shot and high grading the herd. Both will give you the exact opposite results of what you’re wanting.

Look, there is way more management now than there was in 2005. There are way fewer shotgun groups pushing deer because of access. The deer are getting through season in better health than they were in 2005 due to food plots and supplemental feeding. Everyone wants to blame this weapon or this season. That is not the problem. The problem started in the late 2000’s with us over harvesting does. Then some EHD hit and took our population even lower. Even though we got the January antlerless season closed it was too late. The damage was done. Doe tags allotments have hardly changed in the last 10-15 years because of FB and they continue to filled because the average guy doesn’t follow the population trends in their area. This year we harvested around 100,000 deer. Even if half were bucks. That would be 50,000. If we could get the population up to 350,000 does and 150,000 bucks for a total population of 500,000 after harvest. Going into the next season you will be adding roughly 300,000 buck fawns every year to your 150,000 bucks. Plus you would be adding roughly 300,000 doe fawns to your 350,000 does. Even with 50% mortality of your fawns you would be adding 150,000 does and 150,000 bucks. So going into hunting season you would be at 500,000 does and 300,000 bucks. That would be around 8-9 does and 5 bucks per square mile. This would allow hunters to harvest more deer while being more selective on buck harvests. Both will give better hunting opportunities for the average guy and the trophy hunter. The bonus is if EHD hits and takes out 50,000 deer the population will bounce back much faster with a 500,000 starting population vs 350,000.

Honestly, the other suggestions are a waste of time and energy. IBA and ISC should continue to be focused on stopping legislation that changes our current regulations. Keep crossbows out of archery. Stop changes to how NR tags are drawn or any increases in allotment. This other nonsense that won’t improve our hunting needs to be shut down immediately. The IBA and ISC should be lobbying the DNR to decrease doe tag allotments across the State. They should also be educating everyone to not shoot does if the deer population is low in your hunting area. It is a numbers game. It is really that simple.

I think you may be on to something here. Not saying i am 100% agreement on all however In my mind this approach does settle a lot of internal civil disputes above....

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

This is the exact opposite of what should happen. Let’s say you only get one buck. But you like deer meat. Maybe you want to bow and gun hunt. Now instead of shooting two bucks in an area with low deer numbers you shoot a buck and a doe. Now you’re hurting the population trend. Everyone keeps saying let’s get rid of LOT tags. For what??? To save 5000 bucks State wide.

If you want Iowa to be great or get better then the only way is increase the population. You have to get people to stop shooting does to get the population back up. We are less than half the population we had back in mid 2000’s when everyone thought we had the best hunting. I believe they said our deer population was around 750,000 back around 2005 and it is now somewhere around 350,000 deer currently. If we would lay off shooting does for 1-2 years we would bump up doe numbers by 150,000. That would equate to an additional 150,000 bucks added annually and 150,000 does just from the fawns dropped by the additional 150,000 does.

We need to get our deer population back up to around 500,000 after harvest. That’s how you will keep Iowa great or improve it. Not by taking away opportunities for people to be afield. Not by getting rid of LOT tags or going to a one buck State. Going to one buck will just lead to more does being shot and high grading the herd. Both will give you the exact opposite results of what you’re wanting.

Look, there is way more management now than there was in 2005. There are way fewer shotgun groups pushing deer because of access. The deer are getting through season in better health than they were in 2005 due to food plots and supplemental feeding. Everyone wants to blame this weapon or this season. That is not the problem. The problem started in the late 2000’s with us over harvesting does. Then some EHD hit and took our population even lower. Even though we got the January antlerless season closed it was too late. The damage was done. Doe tags allotments have hardly changed in the last 10-15 years because of FB and they continue to filled because the average guy doesn’t follow the population trends in their area. This year we harvested around 100,000 deer. Even if half were bucks. That would be 50,000. If we could get the population up to 350,000 does and 150,000 bucks for a total population of 500,000 after harvest. Going into the next season you will be adding roughly 300,000 buck fawns every year to your 150,000 bucks. Plus you would be adding roughly 300,000 doe fawns to your 350,000 does. Even with 50% mortality of your fawns you would be adding 150,000 does and 150,000 bucks. So going into hunting season you would be at 500,000 does and 300,000 bucks. That would be around 8-9 does and 5 bucks per square mile. This would allow hunters to harvest more deer while being more selective on buck harvests. Both will give better hunting opportunities for the average guy and the trophy hunter. The bonus is if EHD hits and takes out 50,000 deer the population will bounce back much faster with a 500,000 starting population vs 350,000.

Honestly, the other suggestions are a waste of time and energy. IBA and ISC should continue to be focused on stopping legislation that changes our current regulations. Keep crossbows out of archery. Stop changes to how NR tags are drawn or any increases in allotment. This other nonsense that won’t improve our hunting needs to be shut down immediately. The IBA and ISC should be lobbying the DNR to decrease doe tag allotments across the State. They should also be educating everyone to not shoot does if the deer population is low in your hunting area. It is a numbers game. It is really that simple.

Absolutes like always, never, ONLY arn't a great way to engage in a conversation.

Increasing the population is certainly ONE way to improve the hunting. No argument from me there.

There are several other things that can be done to improve things as well and certainly are not a "waste of time"

We don't have to guess about the buck tag. Ask anyone in a state that has gone to that. Things got unquestionable better when that happened.

No adverbs of indefinite frequency here. They don't apply in nearly any debate.

 

[Sligh1]

IMHO - there’s a miss on how impactful reducing a buck tags truly is. Probably warrants another thread. I’m not necessarily saying “we have to go to 1 buck now!” Maybe we never get there but if our trend on hunting access, quality, balanced age structure don’t get better & continue to get worse - there’s going to be more hunters across state that will ask for it & support it.
I’m gonna make an assumption here that’s not meant to offend or be divisive …. Those that think reducing a buck tag doesn’t make much difference or going to 1 buck wouldn’t make difference…. Have likely not been to 1 buck states. Or been on the borders of 1 buck vs 2 buck states. It’s a stark difference. I’ll give you a few examples….

Indiana was a 2 buck state. Access, age structure & folks wanting a better quality herd came to a boiling point (maybe 15-20 years ago). The argument AGAINST changing the rules said “most people don’t fill the 2nd buck tag anyways!!” They had a situation where they have the will to push it through knowing the other benefits & won …. 2 to 1 buck. What happened!!!!…. Hunters that often didn’t shoot 2 bucks anyways…. They got extremely picky & likely thought twice about pulling trigger on the 1 buck they did shoot. Likely passing who knows how many thousands of bucks statewide just because guys held off & passed more deer. That state, in 5 years, went from like 18th to 3rd or 4th in country for B&C bucks. Hunters against the change largely changed their minds & would not want to see it go back to 2 bucks. When guys tagged out on a buck, a portion were done & it freed up access. It took some pressure away as guys felt “well, the worse these other guys can do is only shoot 1 buck & there is more bucks now”.

Guys who think the doe #’s will get lower- actually not right. That is directly tied to the antlerless tags given out or access issues. Ohio is 1 buck & can’t get doe #’s under control because they allow unlimited NR tags & everything is leased up as an insane amount of NR pressure comes to that state. Much like MO - when you cross line into N MO- deer #’s are higher since everything is leased up or unlimited NR access. Like it or not (I’m a NR of KS & see it there) …. NR’s are not shooting does in any state. Generally <10% do. MO has a real problem with countless dudes locking up land & shooting bucks only & no does… it’s driven by a totally different dynamic though & in their example, 2 bucks where anyone can get those buck tags & lock up more land than iowa - it’s a complex $hit storm. I could explain but I’ll spare the novel.
Now….. you go to Kansas across from MO (or Nebraska) to KS’ 1 buck. & yes, a later gun season …. I see it with everyone “I’m gonna be fussy at what I shoot, I got one crack”.

MO to KS, 2 to 1 buck- night & day difference. MICHIGAN to IN & OH…. I’ve hunted the line at bottom of MI… you cross into both those states….. totally different. Immensely better. OH also has late gun but IN does not …. Both are a huge enhancement. If IN could move gun back - oh my gosh- would be insane & it’s already immensely better than S MI.

Bottom line: every state that made the change: the argument by opposition is always “but most people don’t fill the 2nd tag”. & in every case I’ve seen or recall- the results exploded the states potential & alleviated (not solved but helped) many of the problems all hunters face. Improved those states for EVERYONE!!! The average farms got way better. The states that always been that way- almost always better than neighbors. & i personally don’t believe states like OH, KS, IN, etc would now want to reverse course & go to 2 bucks. It changes the minds of hunters on what they shoot, immediately… “maybe I’ll hold off”. It doesn’t immediately impact the actual # of bucks shot. But it makes those states wildly better in a short time. There’s other issues of course: when is gun season, how many doe tags are given out, do we limit NR access, etc. But that issue, IMHO- is a winner in every state it’s been done in. & yes, I roll my eyes with a bit of a smile going “we really are debating some folks losing a 3rd buck tag going to 2?!?!?!?” 1 buck states…. Spend a bit of time thinking of why it’s so impactful …. & it is!!!! ….. while it doesn’t immediately wildly change the amount of bucks shot. Over the long term (3-5 years) - yes, there’s more bucks but the age class is far better & far more balanced. Who is the biggest beneficiary???? EVERYONE, but mainly the little guy- hunting average land. The “rich guy” probably limited things before. Now it lifts the whole system up and the little guy has an experience closer to that of the highly managed parcels. It’s a win for: new hunters/kids, average guys, Access, the RESOURCE & the overall quality of the herd & future.

 

[newfarmer]

Im all for a 1 buck state- I understand the dynamics. I don’t agree though is the “divide”. It’s all or none that will help- not x acres. Again- with 3 different pieces to hunt with a LOT- no one knows which piece I shot it off. Not only that, you have no idea if my statewide came off my land, public, or my friends. Maybe more so the problem is- we went to a floating tag, suddenly now removing that from some, but zero time frames on what anyone is expecting. No clear guide to the end- has anyone said- “this is a slow roll to eliminate tags and be a one buck state?” Or “we’re gonna slowly get rid of LOT in general?” “We are going to do 40 acres for 3 years and then eliminate them?” Or I assume no one wants to publicly air that piece?
Remember- the folks here are a different breed for how we are and how we all can acknowledge it- is that why the discussion was brought here? To really talk through lots of points?
I know it’s clearly been a dead horse beaten to death 5 times over- but that’s the deal.

How did Indiana switch? Just a “suck it up buttercup” or?

 

[iowaqdm]

I think you may be on to something here. Not saying i am 100% agreement on all however In my mind this approach does settle a lot of internal civil disputes above....

That is my exact point. These other “ideas” just pits one guy versus the other guy. The guy that likes to hunt for meat verses the trophy hunter, the landowner vs the non-landowner, the guy with 41 acres vs his neighbor with 39 acres. The party hunter vs the non party hunter.

The old saying divide and conquer comes to mind. We need everybody on the same page. That page is getting the population up.

The argument that other States went to one buck and it made a difference. Well let’s use Indiana because that State has been brought up several times as an example. Well Indiana has 35,868 square miles of land versus Iowa at 55,857. Indiana’s deer population is around 700,000. Iowa’s is 350,000. So Indiana is ~ 35% smaller with twice as many deer as Iowa. Indiana’s deer harvest in 2024-2025 was 126,183. Iowa’s deer harvest in 2024-2025 was 101,278. I’m sure buck quality did improve for Indiana when they went to one buck. But they have 700,000 deer. Let’s get our population up even with Indiana at 700,000 and see if anyone is complaining before we take away opportunities from our resident deer hunters. As far as Kansas and Ohio, they both have deer populations between 650,000-700,000. Again, both States have twice as many deer as Iowa.

I consider myself a trophy hunter/manager and don’t support going to one buck. My reasons are buck harvest doesn’t affect population trends. I do believe going to one buck will result in more does being harvested which will affect the population trend. It also doesn’t allow the trophy hunter/manager to cull bucks. Resulting in high grading the herd and negative long term consequences.

Most importantly I don’t want any hunters to have opportunities taken away because of my lust for antlers or anybody else’s. We can call it balanced age structure but let’s call it what it is…larger antlers. I just try to step back and take my personal agendas out of my thoughts. I try to think about what is best for all resident deer hunters, kids and our sport. I don’t think taking away a residents opportunity to hunt for a buck with bow and then a gun if they chose is in the sports best interest. Iowa has all the right regulations already in place. We just need to get our population back up to get us back to where we were in the mid 2000’s.

We need to remember. Not everyone cares about big antlers. We also need to remember that not one hunter (trophy or meat hunter) in the State of Iowa was complaining about our deer herd when our deer population was 750,000.

Let’s focus on what will actually make a difference versus dividing us. We need every single one of us to be on the same page. That page is getting the population back up. That is the message we need to be pushing. That is a message all of Iowa’s deer hunters can get behind. That is the message that will improve everyone’s hunting. That is the message ISC should be pushing. Not pushing for a one buck State.

 

[Sligh1]

Im all for a 1 buck state- I understand the dynamics. I don’t agree though is the “divide”. It’s all or none that will help- not x acres. Again- with 3 different pieces to hunt with a LOT- no one knows which piece I shot it off. Not only that, you have no idea if my statewide came off my land, public, or my friends. Maybe more so the problem is- we went to a floating tag, suddenly now removing that from some, but zero time frames on what anyone is expecting. No clear guide to the end- has anyone said- “this is a slow roll to eliminate tags and be a one buck state?” Or “we’re gonna slowly get rid of LOT in general?” “We are going to do 40 acres for 3 years and then eliminate them?” Or I assume no one wants to publicly air that piece?
Remember- the folks here are a different breed for how we are and how we all can acknowledge it- is that why the discussion was brought here? To really talk through lots of points?
I know it’s clearly been a dead horse beaten to death 5 times over- but that’s the deal.

How did Indiana switch? Just a “suck it up buttercup” or?

Indiana was a probably a case where a slight majority changed the rules. Right wrong or indifferent. I remember the debate very loosely from a distance. Maybe I don’t have it right but it was kinda like this…. I’d GUESS the vast majority were simply frustrated with the hunting, access, quality, age class, etc. That’s generally a pretty uniform starting point for most states to be honest. Then- u have to say (anyone on any side of discussion, poor, rich, casual hunter to serious)…. “Ya, we can’t sustain this and it sucks. I propose we make ______ change & here’s why!!…..”. Then the divide comes!! “I agree we need change but that’s not the way to do it”. This example happens everywhere all the time!!!!! It’s why my home state of MI sucks so badly it’s mind boggling!!!! Everyone in every walk knows it sucks, literally almost everyone….. then u propose any change that “limits” or “takes away” ANYTHING & a portion of the same guys that say “this state sucks!!” Cry to no end!!! “You can’t take away _____”. & the whole movement or political will to change STOPS. Nothing changes cause a big enough handful have Man-Tantrums/Mantrums & shut ANY idea down. & it stays garbage & often just gets worse.
Indiana…. Those guys finally had BALLS!!!! They had a slim majority & said “screw it, these guys having the Mantrums don’t understand that this will lift the whole broken system up. They are only focused on this little data set (who & how many kill 2 bucks) they can’t see the forest from the trees. We know we doing right thing for the everyday guy, let’s go!!!” Something like that. They did it and I’ll make this up but let’s say it was 52% for it and 48% against it but it passed. I’d bet my life that 5 years later it was 75%++ for it & <25% wanting to go back.
& remember !!!! In hunting debates - the argument often comes up “that favors the rich or elite” - BS…. The rich & elite are already set. They will always have “great hunting”. The rich & elite don’t really care to get into these debates. Those that do- do it because they care about the everyday dude. That’s who’s losing on the average blocks & average areas. Those are the guys that would benefit the most from lifting the whole system up.

It’s very much like Trump cutting an agency or spending or certain jobs…. Huge amount of folks are gonna go nuts!!!!!! But he’s saying “this isn’t sustainable!!! Everyone knows we got real problems. No one is willing to give an inch but screw it, it has to be done. Have your tantrum BUT - HISTORY will prove me right in years ahead when we don’t go bankrupt or collapse!” I’d say it’s a bit like that. If we listen to same policies of “kill more, keep all tags same even though we shoot half as many bucks. Don’t fix abuses. Don’t allow anything to be dialed back” whatever …. We handcuff ourselves from change when/if we trending in wrong direction- things will get worse in many cases. In this case, deer #’s in general are the biggest issue. But shooting 3 bucks can’t be off the table for discussion. I’m not saying it’s in the plans but I also think anyone would be foolish to take it off the table if we keep trending in exact same direction we have been for last 10 years.

 

[Iowa]

Id like to see a bill introduced to eliminate a statewide tag for everyone. One remaining tag could float. Plus LOT, subject to new rules. I know some may not agree with this, but i think we really need to head that direction if Iowa has any hope of staying great (or getting better)

I’m all for having one less statewide tag but before we get carried away with floating tags we should look into the number of bucks that we are “saving”
I talked to a biologist last summer that told me about 4,500 bucks (1in 10)were killed by someone who had already shot a deer in 2023. The number of unfilled gun and muzzleloader tags was somewhere around 85,000. Now with a floating tag you would give 85,000 guys another couple seasons to shoot their FIRST buck. I have a hard time believing we would kill fewer bucks as a state with a floating tag. Not to mention how crowded some hunting areas could get.

 

[Muskrat24]

I’m all for having one less statewide tag but before we get carried away with floating tags we should look into the number of bucks that we are “saving”
I talked to a biologist last summer that told me about 4,500 bucks (1in 10)were killed by someone who had already shot a deer in 2023. The number of unfilled gun and muzzleloader tags was somewhere around 85,000. Now with a floating tag you would give 85,000 guys another couple seasons to shoot their FIRST buck. I have a hard time believing we would kill fewer bucks as a state with a floating tag. Not to mention how crowded some hunting areas could get.

Yeah I’m not for a floating tag. I do like the floating tag for the LOT as they are only hunting their own ground. 2 buck max, floating LOT and fix the antlerless permits and shed buck season. Should make good improvements.

 

[hans1]

The regulations will have to change and reduce the Buck harvest and try to increase populations overall in areas in lower density areas. They will never allow the population to go back to the 2000-2010. That crazy population is what got this late rifle and the crazy high antlerless county quotas started. The bottom line is if the majority of the hunters dont support change in management larger landowners and other serious hunters will just buy,lease and in some situations high fence the neighbors they dont agree with and manage the way they feel is correct.