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

[Sligh1]

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 let’s 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. Let’s see how the numbers adjust. Then if you want to start throwing out numbers for acres- then maybe you will have way less pushback.

The actual owner is a good idea. I’ll check in on that for sure.
If someone says “u took away my 3rd buck tag, this is about ME & now I wanna burn the system down” then hunting in iowa or anywhere is doomed. Throw in the towel. If we can’t recognize collectively that this is a shared & fragile resource that’s hurting & we all can “give a little” - we’re screwed. The same way where we can’t cut any federal spending. We can’t eliminate any waste, fraud or abuse. We have to keep spending & don’t wanna take anything away from anyone. Both are unsustainable & both require us to look at what’s best for the greater good & what can be adjusted that has merits behind it. One that keeps the system healthier & more sustainable. There’s far more winners than losers here, no doubt in my mind.
Can we address changes, tweak & get this right or improve? ABSOLUTELY!!! Let’s go. I think your suggestion is a darn good one to be Honest. Everyone should be OPEN MINDED & open to better ideas. Love it.

 

[Sligh1]

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 know who they were for the most part.

I support the bill. Just don't think it moves any needles.

That could be true. BUT- it eliminates a pile of tags being allocated on top of what u just said. Just like a resident that makes a YouTube video. We can’t stop that. But we can stop a program that gives privilege to buy a $550 tag with no draw with the requirement of reaching massive audiences. That’s exactly what this does. >10 extra views per year promoting iowa will be taken out of the system.

 

[booneriverbucks]

This has little to do with the bigger points of the argument but I think a lot of people use their home place to register for the LOT tag since it doesn’t change as much. Their home and the surrounding acreage is often parceled off separately than the rest of their farm. Again, nothing to do with the bigger argument but I do think that is a big explanation for all the tags on parcels under 5 acres.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[newfarmer]

The actual owner is a good idea. I’ll check in on that for sure.
If someone says “u took away my 3rd buck tag, this is about ME & now I wanna burn the system down” then hunting in iowa or anywhere is doomed. Throw in the towel. If we can’t recognize collectively that this is a shared & fragile resource that’s hurting & we all can “give a little” - we’re screwed. The same way where we can’t cut any federal spending. We can’t eliminate any waste, fraud or abuse. We have to keep spending & don’t wanna take anything away from anyone. Both are unsustainable & both require us to look at what’s best for the greater good & what can be adjusted that has merits behind it. One that keeps the system healthier & more sustainable. There’s far more winners than losers here, no doubt in my mind.
Can we address changes, tweak & get this right or improve? ABSOLUTELY!!! Let’s go. I think your suggestion is a darn good one to be Honest. Everyone should be OPEN MINDED & open to better ideas. Love it.

I do agree debate is healthy and it’s a good way to gauge ideas and concerns. Glad we can discuss as adults here and throw out multiple reasons for each direction.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

That could be true. BUT- it eliminates a pile of tags being allocated on top of what u just said. Just like a resident that makes a YouTube video. We can’t stop that. But we can stop a program that gives privilege to buy a $550 tag with no draw with the requirement of reaching massive audiences. That’s exactly what this does. >10 extra views per year promoting iowa will be taken out of the system.

Those give away tags arnt the ones that have been making videos or promoting. They are basically unrecognizable names that I assume made a campaign contribution. I wouldn't have guessed this until I saw breakdown of who got what and where tag generated from.

 

[Sligh1]

Those give away tags arnt the ones that have been making videos or promoting. They are basically unrecognizable names that I assume made a campaign contribution. I wouldn't have guessed this until I saw breakdown of who got what and where tag generated from.

They are absolutely “celebs” or those garnishing views in the six to seven figure range. I saw the list - I am not sure if that’s public info or not (I believe it is, but I’ll refrain just in case). Most these names are widely known. The ones that are not- most of those are placed on platforms & shows that are widely known. Many repeat tags issued and u don’t get a repeat tag unless you reached large #’s

I totally get there’s complexity & a lot of detail in any bill & a lot of debate to happen. This is every bill that ever gets proposed. Great place to have it and keep it coming. If amendments are needed that are common sense & widely supported, absolutely, great to discuss & get this right!!!

 

[Muskrat24]

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.

Agree to disagree here but I don’t buy it. Still sounds like using word salads to justify agendas. Not saying you are but Im pretty open to seeing the other side of a topic and it wouldn’t sit well. I’m on your side, buy three licenses including LOT on more than 40 acres so wouldn’t impact me. Three buck tags in my pocket each year and have killed less than three in the last five years. Be nice to know the numbers that actually fill three bucks each year. My guess is enforcement of current regs would actually save more deer. If someone wants to shoot every fork horn that crosses their 5 acres is that what has put the state of the Iowa deer herd where it is, I don’t think so. Is the agenda to slow the parceling of property to small acres? This law will not change that because people will still want their little piece of heaven and shoot two bucks on statewide tags on five acres. If not sustainable then they won’t see a deer to tag. Just my opinion. We will lose support when we start saying under X acres doesn’t matter. Just my opinion.

 

[Sligh1]

Agree to disagree here but I don’t buy it. Still sounds like using word salads to justify agendas. Not saying you are but Im pretty open to seeing the other side of a topic and it wouldn’t sit well. I’m on your side, buy three licenses including LOT on more than 40 acres so wouldn’t impact me. Three buck tags in my pocket each year and have killed less than three in the last five years. Be nice to know the numbers that actually fill three bucks each year. My guess is enforcement of current regs would actually save more deer. If someone wants to shoot every fork horn that crosses their 5 acres is that what has put the state of the Iowa deer herd where it is, I don’t think so. Is the agenda to slow the parceling of property to small acres? This law will not change that because people will still want their little piece of heaven and shoot two bucks on statewide tags on five acres. If not sustainable then they won’t see a deer to tag. Just my opinion. We will lose support when we start saying under X acres doesn’t matter. Just my opinion.

No word salad….
Should parcels of 2-39 acres be SHOOTING what totals thousands (far more than that purchased) of bucks per year statewide continue? What’s the merit, sustainability or justification of getting a 3rd buck tag on 2 or 5 acres? They are being purchased & filled at what I believe anyone would consider a substantial amount each year.

Next: are the issues with access, amount of bucks on landscape, pressure, having quality hunting experience, etc- getting better or worse over time?

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

They are absolutely “celebs” or those garnishing views in the six to seven figure range. I saw the list - I am not sure if that’s public info or not (I believe it is, but I’ll refrain just in case). Most these names are widely known. The ones that are not- most of those are placed on platforms & shows that are widely known. Many repeat tags issued and u don’t get a repeat tag unless you reached large #’s

I totally get there’s complexity & a lot of detail in any bill & a lot of debate to happen. This is every bill that ever gets proposed. Great place to have it and keep it coming. If amendments are needed that are common sense & widely supported, absolutely, great to discuss & get this right!!!

(It takes a FOIA filing to get the list which anyone can do, but they don't voluntarily post a list anywhere)

So I have the list. Looking at it right now. The 5 tags that generated out of the governors office, most people wont know. One famous golfer, but certainly isnt on a deer TV show.

2024

5 tags issued out of Governors office
32 tags listed as auction
11 tags by DNR
5 tags by SDTI (no idea what this is)

53 total tags. Counted 3 times to be sure.

 

[newfarmer]

No word salad….
Should parcels of 2-39 acres be SHOOTING what totals thousands (far more than that purchased) of bucks per year statewide continue? What’s the merit, sustainability or justification of getting a 3rd buck tag on 2 or 5 acres? They are being purchased & filled at what I believe anyone would consider a substantial amount each year.

Next: are the issues with access, amount of bucks on landscape, pressure, having quality hunting experience, etc- getting better or worse over time?

Like stated previously though by a different poster- I register my home place of 17 acres and not any other piece- but I can hunt them all. That doesn’t mean they are getting shot on that 17 acre piece. My local DNR told me to register my home piece since I’m likely to stay here the longest. So maybe you’re reading more into that info than you should be?

 

[Sligh1]

Like stated previously though by a different poster- I register my home place of 17 acres and not any other piece- but I can hunt them all. That doesn’t mean they are getting shot on that 17 acre piece. My local DNR told me to register my home piece since I’m likely to stay here the longest. So maybe you’re reading more into that info than you should be?

Lemme play a bit of devils advocate … (love your POV- u know this!)….. what if u couldnt get a 3rd buck tag? Would that be a big deal to u?
If it is & u couldn’t get one & it’s a big deal to u but u could be convinced or see that it would benefit the resource or other hunters- would u be ok with reducing your tags to 2 bucks vs 3?

My personal POV which im not putting on others…. I have a lot of ground & I’d like to see my 3rd tag go. I’d also like to see my ability to bring in infinite amount of buddies & share tags with them so I can shoot even more. So- lots of farms owned by me, don’t want 3rd buck tag to be available & don’t want tag sharing. As I believe it would help the state…. NOT hurt the state. I have zero reasons to think reducing from 3 to 2 would hurt the state & see no good argument on how it hurts things. I am not looking for response “well they aren’t used” because they are. Wanna know how it hurts the state & resource by reducing from 3 to 2 & no sharing buck tags?? Sure am open to that POV or response though. & yes, this is an issue that’s not being debated but still worthwhile discussion

Tough crowd tonight!!! . & it’s all good!!!

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Like stated previously though by a different poster- I register my home place of 17 acres and not any other piece- but I can hunt them all. That doesn’t mean they are getting shot on that 17 acre piece. My local DNR told me to register my home piece since I’m likely to stay here the longest. So maybe you’re reading more into that info than you should be?

just trying to understand your situation. Do you have multiple small pieces? Are any of them 40 or more. (Sorry if already posted)

 

[newfarmer]

just trying to understand your situation. Do you have multiple small pieces? Are any of them 40 or more. (Sorry if already posted)

Correct- all pieces I own are under 40 because it’s all that’s been available. I rent a 60+ acre piece but doesn’t do me any good right? In total I own 47 acres, but not one piece. My DNR officer said to register my home piece. So again- how many people have been told to register “a” parcel- and don’t think about big parcels or what not.

As far as 3 bucks- I haven’t ever shot 3 bucks since I’ve been able to- but if you are going to make the divide- how is 40 acres magic? Again I point to my neighbor across the river- 60 acres bulldozed and can get a LOT and can hunt all the 2-10 acre chunks he wants to rent? So what did you gain? Pushing the little guys to not allow hunting who might not even shoot deer off their own pieces yearly? Honestly I’m more concerned about doe tags going away since I’m in a county that doesn’t give a doe tag. I stated earlier- the guy with the 60 acres across the river has 0 deer and I had a boatload on my piece. He will get to have the luxury of a 3rd tag and doe tags- I’m shit out of luck…it’s either all or none.
Again- starting small equates to landowners only- no more tenants. I’m going to guarantee that alone shakes up the numbers DRASTICALLY as long as it’s monitored. If it’s not monitored- you literally are gaining nothing but a pissing match. If I could only hunt my owned pieces with LOT would be perfect for doe patrol and if a stray giant came through great. (Not rented ground)
Again- I have zero cares about 3 bucks- it really isn’t even a concern (oddly I’m more fired up on doe tags since again- we have none) but to draw the line at 40 acres starts that elitist trend that 40 continuous acres is better than 2 parcels of 47. Idk- the start small argument and tossing out 40 isn’t “small”. Especially seeing the process when signing up, knowing that it’s literally never been monitored, knowing how much abuse is more than likely out there that could be nipped easier by starting with Landowners and only on owned land. Give that 2-3 years, look at the numbers and adjust. Or- eliminate them all ‍

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Correct- all pieces I own are under 40 because it’s all that’s been available. I rent a 60+ acre piece but doesn’t do me any good right?

What do you rent the 60 for? For farming? If so, you can register that piece as a tenant and then hunt all your owned pieces on the LOT tag.

 

[newfarmer]

What do you rent the 60 for? For farming? If so, you can register that piece as a tenant and then hunt all your owned pieces on the LOT tag.

Correct- BUT- as I stated, my local DNR said to register my home piece. NOT to use the rental piece since that could end.
So- that leads to- how many pieces get “rented”- and never gets taken away? So I follow what my local officer told me to do.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Correct- BUT- as I stated, my local DNR said to register my home piece. NOT to use the rental piece since that could end.
So- that leads to- how many pieces get “rented”- and never gets taken away? So I follow what my local officer told me to do.

Ok I understand what you're saying. But you have an avenue under the proposed rule change to maintain your LOT tag status. Good advice by DNR officer under current rules. If rule changes you have an option.

 

[booneriverbucks]

Correct- BUT- as I stated, my local DNR said to register my home piece. NOT to use the rental piece since that could end.
So- that leads to- how many pieces get “rented”- and never gets taken away? So I follow what my local officer told me to do.

You’re good for now under the new proposal!! Just have to register under the 60 acre field…. Of course when it’s eventually changed again to going to whose name is on the deed then you’ll be back to not qualifying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[newfarmer]

You’re good for now under the new proposal!! Just have to register under the 60 acre field…. Of course when it’s eventually changed again to going to whose name is on the deed then you’ll be back to not qualifying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hence why I’m making a point now- and again- to go back to my DNR officer and say “the guys on Iowawhitetail say to register my rental piece- even though you told me to do my home piece”- I’d look pretty “sketchy” right?
The reasoning he said “owned” piece over rental is for the following reason- and why I keep saying the same thing. He pulls you over in “x” county- it’s a whole lot easier for him to pull up gis, OnX, whatever and say ok makes sense or you don’t own ground in this county. He doesn’t have to track down the parcels (he specifically said it was hard during gun) so he had me do it that way.

 

[theDoorman]

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

Yes please post these emails

 

[booneriverbucks]

Hence why I’m making a point now- and again- to go back to my DNR officer and say “the guys on Iowawhitetail say to register my rental piece- even though you told me to do my home piece”- I’d look pretty “sketchy” right?
The reasoning he said “owned” piece over rental is for the following reason- and why I keep saying the same thing. He pulls you over in “x” county- it’s a whole lot easier for him to pull up gis, OnX, whatever and say ok makes sense or you don’t own ground in this county. He doesn’t have to track down the parcels (he specifically said it was hard during gun) so he had me do it that way.

I totally understand what you’re saying!! I was told to register my home place- a whole 4.5 acres!! The rest of my land where I’m much more likely to actually use the tags is in two other counties.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk