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

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

“The reality is, the poor man will have to make due with 2 buck tags“

That’s a piss poor comment to make and expect continued support. Kind of sounds like you’re in that “elitist” category and not really here for everyone as you make out to be.

Your own argument contradicts itself. If 2, 5, or 10 acres isn’t supporting 3 bucks, then it’s probably pretty obvious that guys aren’t killing 3 and if they are, it’s probably not on the same parcel. The abuse with the LOT tags is the bigger landowners/tenants. Everyone in the family can claim a different parcel. We can say, get rid of LOT tags, but then people are going to complain because they own the ground and should be able to hunt it. Small parcels aren’t the problem and if they are, post up the facts. Not “off the top of my head #’s” but published facts. Another thing, small parcels don’t have to hold deer to be a great spot. When your in between 2 large tracts, it can make a perfect corridor.

Picking on the little guys isn’t the answer. I get a lot tag every year and have never used it. I’ve shot 1 buck in the last 5 years and wasn’t on me. My LOT tag is to have when the kids and grandkids are able to come by and hunt. We all know how unpredictable specifying a specific day or 2 with school, sports, holidays, etc can be.

Name on the parcel, eliminate them, or leave them alone. LOT tags aren’t the problem.

Lets set up a poll here and see results, I can’t see how to make one
 
Last edited:
Don't you have show income off the property to obtain a LO tag? Am I wrong on that? I was told by my local CO that was the case quite a fews back. Will that still be the case? Lots of loop holes in that as well that should be dealt with in my opinion. Know one person that planted a couple apple trees and "sold" apples. Know another person that "sold" firewood. If the land isn't used for agriculture purposes you shouldn't quality for LO tag in my opinion but I know that will go over like a fart in church.
 
Sligh1 said:
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!!! :)
Click to expand...
Skip, I’m on your side on this I just think it is gonna be a tough sell. Here we are with a proposed bill that is potentially gonna take a tag away that in my eyes is not a major player in affecting where our herd is today while another bill is also proposed that will increase opportunity for NR that are related to some big land owner. So take opportunity away from a resident and increase opportunity for NR relative. I don’t like the optics.

Another spin, FB and insurance companies want all deer dead but this bill will take an opportunity away from a small parcel landowner and then that buck walks over the hill and gets shot in the shed buck season because DNR tag allocation is not focused on rebuilding the herd. Too many does being harvested following EHD outbreaks is a bigger culprit.

The three buck limit has been available since I have been a resident as far as I know and the hunting was really good back then. Let’s focus on fixing the problem being low herd numbers and these few people shooting a third buck on a small parcel will be back to irrelevant like it was 20 years ago. I know the argument against this is we are better hunters and spend more time in the field which will have a few more people killing three bucks but better herd numbers equals more bucks. And look for the ones that are abusing the system with Apple and firewood sales. Who are more likely to be the ones shooting three bucks.
 
Sligh1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand this comment, so should big LO also not forfeit their LO tags and if they aren’t then they are only about ME? Why is it only the small parcel guys that are being selfish? With that philosophy those big LO should also recognize that we have a fragile resource and they should also just roll over and give up their third buck tag??
 
seven twenty said:
“The reality is, the poor man will have to make due with 2 buck tags“

That’s a piss poor comment to make and expect continued support. Kind of sounds like you’re in that “elitist” category and not really here for everyone as you make out to be.

Your own argument contradicts itself. If 2, 5, or 10 acres isn’t supporting 3 bucks, then it’s probably pretty obvious that guys aren’t killing 3 and if they are, it’s probably not on the same parcel. The abuse with the LOT tags is the bigger landowners/tenants. Everyone in the family can claim a different parcel. We can say, get rid of LOT tags, but then people are going to complain because they own the ground and should be able to hunt it. Small parcels aren’t the problem and if they are, post up the facts. Not “off the top of my head #’s” but published facts. Another thing, small parcels don’t have to hold deer to be a great spot. When your in between 2 large tracts, it can make a perfect corridor.

Picking on the little guys isn’t the answer. I get a lot tag every year and have never used it. I’ve shot 1 buck in the last 5 years and wasn’t on me. My LOT tag is to have when the kids and grandkids are able to come by and hunt. We all know how unpredictable specifying a specific day or 2 with school, sports, holidays, etc can be.

Name on the parcel, eliminate them, or leave them alone. LOT tags aren’t the problem.

Lets set up a poll here and see results, I can’t see how it’s done
Click to expand...

I seem to remember some crazy person on here posting about how the elite often ask others to give up something for the good of everyone meanwhile they give up virtually nothing and are perfectly set up to reap the benefits…. That dude was nuts!!

Again, I see the thinking on this bill and do think it was meant to help. Skip has done plenty for everyone on here at one time or another that has benefitted all of us without a doubt. In general, I just can’t ever support a bill that doesn’t really affect me but does change things for others. You just never know when the thing you enjoy will be on the chopping block next. This bill helps me a ton by eliminating a few tags and additional opportunities for my neighbors. I should be excited for it! Still can’t bring myself to liking it tho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
newfarmer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why sketchy? Law changed (hypothetically) so you changed registration. Worried about getting pulled over and explaining where you're hunting? I'm not trying to lack empathy, but it's sounds a little paranoid. If you're following the law there is zero to worry about. Just do it right and enjoy the heck out of it. Nothing to stress about.
 
Until someone can show me otherwise, I’m going to stick with the belief that the issue is NRLO’s wanting a tag because residents get one. Someone has gotten in someone’s ear/pocket and this is just the first step. Next year we can bump it to 80 or 100 and include NRLO”s getting a tag because they’re a big landowner. Haven’t we heard how any little change is just a stepping stone.

Is there a way to compare peoples tag history. IE: how many people using LOT tags used to get a paid and now don’t. Or how about the # of people that got 3 tags and then used all 3. Let’s see some actual #’s instead of just talk. How many of these small parcel owners only got and maybe used the one tag. I didn’t use mine and could probably point out a dz LO’s that didn’t even get tags. I know of at least a dz pd tags that took tag soup this yr or tagged a doe just for meat and at least 6 of those anysex tags weren’t even used. Populations are down but not because of LOT tags.

Im obviously not alone when I say that limiting LOT tags is not what needs addressed. The LOT tag isn’t what created the population issue. If it’s being abused, there are already ways to address that.

PS: not shooting that 3rd rooster hasnt had much impact on the pheasant population. The boys are going to get the job done regardless, we need the females whether we’re talking birds or deer.
 
Last edited:
Something said over and over. " I have a 3rd buck tag and don't use it".

Why is that?

The reality it's because the opportunity does not exhist. If it did they get used. (Opportunity being whatever your personal standard/goal is)

I'd say this is not picking on the little guy however aligning the law with the original intention. Is 40 acres perfect? No. But what is. 40 is the smallest farm size the land was originally parceled into so makes sense to me.

"I need the LO tags or the does get out of controll" This is exactly the purpose of the deportation tags.... and if is a real issue the tags are 100% given.

"It's for the kids or grand kids". Youth tags already float across every season. Adult Iowa residents with no lot tag can legally deer hunt 90 of the 100 hunting days.

If we all want a better quality of hunt we all must give up something and do what is better for state and animal as a whole. Not what is more convenient for me.

So small land owner gives up tag for less than 40 acres. What does large land owner give up?
 
Muskrat24 said:
Skip, I’m on your side on this I just think it is gonna be a tough sell. Here we are with a proposed bill that is potentially gonna take a tag away that in my eyes is not a major player in affecting where our herd is today while another bill is also proposed that will increase opportunity for NR that are related to some big land owner. So take opportunity away from a resident and increase opportunity for NR relative. I don’t like the optics.

Another spin, FB and insurance companies want all deer dead but this bill will take an opportunity away from a small parcel landowner and then that buck walks over the hill and gets shot in the shed buck season because DNR tag allocation is not focused on rebuilding the herd. Too many does being harvested following EHD outbreaks is a bigger culprit.

The three buck limit has been available since I have been a resident as far as I know and the hunting was really good back then. Let’s focus on fixing the problem being low herd numbers and these few people shooting a third buck on a small parcel will be back to irrelevant like it was 20 years ago. I know the argument against this is we are better hunters and spend more time in the field which will have a few more people killing three bucks but better herd numbers equals more bucks. And look for the ones that are abusing the system with Apple and firewood sales. Who are more likely to be the ones shooting three bucks.
Click to expand...
I keep seeing Skip say “shoot unlimited does”… isn’t that what we should be stopping? I mean right now you can clearly see a divide amongst landowners- and only because you are wanting to take from some but not all. I think all of us say- you take them all, ok. You take none, ok. But the acreage doesn’t set well with anyone without the hard data.
My cousin rents ground in Howard County, his house in town is the registered piece he was told to use. (I asked last night to find out- and don’t agree with)
So again- maybe a revamp of the system first. We want numbers to rebound- I’ve never seen a buck drop fawns so I’m lost at how this has become the “hill to die on” for helping to herd? Is it because EHD is killing the precious bucks? Guess I still don’t “care”- we do need the does! We need a population rebound- and for someone to still say “well you can shoot unlimited does”- that’s the first problem out of anyone’s mouth for population.
And again- I will do whatever my officer says to do because if that is what saves HIM time to keep going along and trying to weed out potential poaching/problems- I’m all for doing what he tells me.
I will be very honest- I emailed in opposition, and have zero reason to change my stance with what has been presented.
Until a revamp of the system in general is done, until its landowners only- you have zero way to change it. How many people are suddenly going to “rent” 40 acres for a dollar and still get a tag? Lots. Who is going to shoot “unlimited” does? Lots. Heck the guys here keep saying that- and again- bucks aren’t dropping fawns. Me having 2 bucks on my farm this year means I have 2 bucks next year. Me having 3 does this year means 6-9 potential deer next year.
 
newfarmer said:
I keep seeing Skip say “shoot unlimited does”… isn’t that what we should be stopping? I mean right now you can clearly see a divide amongst landowners- and only because you are wanting to take from some but not all. I think all of us say- you take them all, ok. You take none, ok. But the acreage doesn’t set well with anyone without the hard data.
My cousin rents ground in Howard County, his house in town is the registered piece he was told to use. (I asked last night to find out- and don’t agree with)
So again- maybe a revamp of the system first. We want numbers to rebound- I’ve never seen a buck drop fawns so I’m lost at how this has become the “hill to die on” for helping to herd? Is it because EHD is killing the precious bucks? Guess I still don’t “care”- we do need the does! We need a population rebound- and for someone to still say “well you can shoot unlimited does”- that’s the first problem out of anyone’s mouth for population.
And again- I will do whatever my officer says to do because if that is what saves HIM time to keep going along and trying to weed out potential poaching/problems- I’m all for doing what he tells me.
I will be very honest- I emailed in opposition, and have zero reason to change my stance with what has been presented.
Until a revamp of the system in general is done, until its landowners only- you have zero way to change it. How many people are suddenly going to “rent” 40 acres for a dollar and still get a tag? Lots. Who is going to shoot “unlimited” does? Lots. Heck the guys here keep saying that- and again- bucks aren’t dropping fawns. Me having 2 bucks on my farm this year means I have 2 bucks next year. Me having 3 does this year means 6-9 potential deer next year.
Click to expand...

This seems like the typical me me me.

Trump and DOGE is cleaning house in Washington. Cutting friverlous spending everywhere. I 100% support it. They have not gotten to the USDA yet! When they do I'm sure they are gonna take a hatchet to a lot of the programs we hunter/landowners are actively takiking part in. It's going to be bad for me me me.

However I still 100% support it because of the good they are doing across the board. This is a similar situation.

BTW it does not take away 1 buck tack it takes away 4 antlerless tags as well as 1 either seelx tag.
 
seven twenty said:
“The reality is, the poor man will have to make due with 2 buck tags“

That’s a piss poor comment to make and expect continued support. Kind of sounds like you’re in that “elitist” category and not really here for everyone as you make out to be.

Your own argument contradicts itself. If 2, 5, or 10 acres isn’t supporting 3 bucks, then it’s probably pretty obvious that guys aren’t killing 3 and if they are, it’s probably not on the same parcel. The abuse with the LOT tags is the bigger landowners/tenants. Everyone in the family can claim a different parcel. We can say, get rid of LOT tags, but then people are going to complain because they own the ground and should be able to hunt it. Small parcels aren’t the problem and if they are, post up the facts. Not “off the top of my head #’s” but published facts. Another thing, small parcels don’t have to hold deer to be a great spot. When your in between 2 large tracts, it can make a perfect corridor.

Picking on the little guys isn’t the answer. I get a lot tag every year and have never used it. I’ve shot 1 buck in the last 5 years and wasn’t on me. My LOT tag is to have when the kids and grandkids are able to come by and hunt. We all know how unpredictable specifying a specific day or 2 with school, sports, holidays, etc can be.

Name on the parcel, eliminate them, or leave them alone. LOT tags aren’t the problem.

Lets set up a poll here and see results, I can’t see how to make one
Click to expand...
My words may not have come off right & if that’s the case, apologize for how I communicated it. All I did was respond to the comment “over 40 is going towards rich man’s sport” or whatever. So- i worded the other camp as <40 acres as the poor man. Who can shoot 2 bucks & ____ does. 2 things to add to that: it’s NOT a rich vs poor discussion. Not whatsoever (a lot of dudes with 80 acres that are far from rich) & I personally feel like class warfare & breaking people into “groups” is generally a worthless political exercise that gets us no where.
Next- I don’t personally think any group should have 3 buck tags.
Finally- there’s no perfect bill. I didn’t write this. A lot of groups had input & it can get some clean up if needed. This bill was done with POSITIVE intent …. Help the resource, hunters, future, alleviate pressure, reduce a lot of abuses & have more game on landscape for everyone. We want to be careful to not lob friendly fire at those trying to do good here. For 20 years it was the wrong people getting bills passed. If folks attack those that are FINALLY trying to do what they believe are good things… you very well may have the reaction “no good deed goes unpunished” & their drive to help will subside. I won’t make this personal & it’s not. But …. All this stuff- this has NOTHING to do with me. Won’t impact me one drop. So- if my motives are ever questioned or im supposedly on the side of some elitists or some special interests looking to exploit this state…. That’s clearly a statement too far that I would never allow to be said as it’s complete garbage.

The fact of the matter…. Guys with 2 acres can get 3 buck tags… 1 more than the anyone else. I’d like to see the reasoning or rationale that an extra buck tag should be allowed for them?? There’s a very large # of people statewide with 2, 5, 7 acres getting a 3rd buck tag where the non-landowning hunter can’t….. & filling that tag!!!! What is the justification for this? It’s hurting our resource, causing abuses, not sustainable, causing more land to be locked up, doesn’t make biological sense with half the herd to shoot more bucks, etc etc. Please explain the rationale for a 3rd buck tag on 2 acres.
 
newfarmer said:
I keep seeing Skip say “shoot unlimited does”… isn’t that what we should be stopping? I mean right now you can clearly see a divide amongst landowners- and only because you are wanting to take from some but not all. I think all of us say- you take them all, ok. You take none, ok. But the acreage doesn’t set well with anyone without the hard data.
My cousin rents ground in Howard County, his house in town is the registered piece he was told to use. (I asked last night to find out- and don’t agree with)
So again- maybe a revamp of the system first. We want numbers to rebound- I’ve never seen a buck drop fawns so I’m lost at how this has become the “hill to die on” for helping to herd? Is it because EHD is killing the precious bucks? Guess I still don’t “care”- we do need the does! We need a population rebound- and for someone to still say “well you can shoot unlimited does”- that’s the first problem out of anyone’s mouth for population.
And again- I will do whatever my officer says to do because if that is what saves HIM time to keep going along and trying to weed out potential poaching/problems- I’m all for doing what he tells me.
I will be very honest- I emailed in opposition, and have zero reason to change my stance with what has been presented.
Until a revamp of the system in general is done, until its landowners only- you have zero way to change it. How many people are suddenly going to “rent” 40 acres for a dollar and still get a tag? Lots. Who is going to shoot “unlimited” does? Lots. Heck the guys here keep saying that- and again- bucks aren’t dropping fawns. Me having 2 bucks on my farm this year means I have 2 bucks next year. Me having 3 does this year means 6-9 potential deer next year.
Click to expand...
Yes, we should be stopping the doe massacre in most areas. I’m saying, many counties do have doe tags & if a guy wanted (Some do) they could shoot unlimited does (until tags ran out). Should they? Heck no! Should we reduce doe tags? Absolutely. It’s the same as me saying “right now u can shoot unlimited bucks during party hunting”. You can!!! Is it crazy??? YEP!!! Do some Guys shoot a bunch with party tags? Some do, YEP. I’m just saying…. those that protest that THEIR opportunities are now limited …. C’mon!! Not even close. We are still so far overboard with the killing taking place. In my view…. If we reduce this TINY thing here, it’s not NEARLY enough. Yet- with some insanely liberal killing we can do even after this…. Some folks would be upset…. I’m saying, respectfully… it’s not right …. There’s so much opportunity to kill stuff here it’s insane.
Do we not all agree that there’s too many seasons, too many weapons, way too many tags, far too many possibilities to kill does & bucks & the problems in hunting have got far worse????
 
Ultimately, I'd love to see a 2 buck max for every Iowa resident. That would include party hunting and even the horribly run state of Illinois has a 2 buck max. Really a 1 buck limit with an extra tag for landowners would be ideal (of course hunters that don't own land would say that is not fair). I would also strongly like to see all in season baiting/feeding banned. What's so hard about passing that!
 
tall@wide said:
Ultimately, I'd love to see a 2 buck max for every Iowa resident. That would include party hunting and even the horribly run state of Illinois has a 2 buck max. Really a 1 buck limit with an extra tag for landowners would be ideal (of course hunters that don't own land would say that is not fair). I would also strongly like to see all in season baiting/feeding banned. What's so hard about passing that!
Click to expand...
I would agree with you on all points here.
 
seven twenty said:
Until someone can show me otherwise, I’m going to stick with the belief that the issue is NRLO’s wanting a tag because residents get one. Someone has gotten in someone’s ear/pocket and this is just the first step. Next year we can bump it to 80 or 100 and include NRLO”s getting a tag because they’re a big landowner. Haven’t we heard how any little change is just a stepping stone.

Is there a way to compare peoples tag history. IE: how many people using LOT tags used to get a paid and now don’t. Or how about the # of people that got 3 tags and then used all 3. Let’s see some actual #’s instead of just talk. How many of these small parcel owners only got and maybe used the one tag. I didn’t use mine and could probably point out a dz LO’s that didn’t even get tags. I know of at least a dz pd tags that took tag soup this yr or tagged a doe just for meat and at least 6 of those anysex tags weren’t even used. Populations are down but not because of LOT tags.

Im obviously not alone when I say that limiting LOT tags is not what needs addressed. The LOT tag isn’t what created the population issue. If it’s being abused, there are already ways to address that.

PS: not shooting that 3rd rooster hasnt had much impact on the pheasant population. The boys are going to get the job done regardless, we need the females whether we’re talking birds or deer.
Click to expand...
The only stepping stone here would be all LO’s getting their tags dropped to 2. Dunno if that happens but that’s the only next step. I’ll tell you the ammo the NR’s use to attack IA’s regs right now… “you guys can get THREE BUCK TAGS & I have to wait for one”. They find 3 absurd. To their credit on that POV…. WE ARE THE ONLY MIDWEST STATE THAT ALLOWS THREE BUCKS TO BE SHOT!!!! Plus an urban tag. Plus as many party hunting tags as you want. That’s crazy, IMO. KS, IN, OH, MN, KY: 1 buck. We are 3+. We have the smalllest deer population & the least amount of habitat of any midwestern state. To ME & only ME…. I don’t see how we can’t collectively all go “ya know, maybe the max of 2 buck tags statewide is something we all can get behind”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom