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!!!!

Sligh1 said:
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”.
Click to expand...
I said earlier- I could get behind all LOT getting dropped versus the split right now. But I’ve said plenty- the system itself needs the revamp first and only be owners on deed. That’s the logical first step to close abuse. Then ease into either acreage limit or completely phase out. But im done for the day- it’s daddy day with my girls and in the scope of things- thats what important.
Thanks all for a great discussion at this point and not turning into straight negativity
 
Skip, Im not sure that SF 247 is one to come out of the gate saying this going to change anything. It divides the resident landowners right away and has zero facts behind what you guys are pushing. Im having a tough time supporting any of this with zero data/facts on anything they are pushing. There are bigger fish to fry and im not sure this even qualifies as a fish. In my opinion its a big do nothing that only divides us up as a group and lets be honest we need all the support we can get to righten the ship.
Getting rid of the celeb tags is great!!! now lets focus on reducing the antlerless tags that will truly help the population rebound and push for bill that promote access for resident hunters. I honestly dont see SF 247 doing anything to move the needle in any way but i do see it as pissing people off/ causing a divide amongst hunter and losing support for the ISC. Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
Sligh1 said:
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”.
Click to expand...
Make it just like the Turkey tags, a resident gets 2 regardless if one is a LOT/ discounted rate or not. I could get behind that 100% and im sure a majority of others would too.
 
I may have started the rich vs poor debate with my intial comment because it is the case in my belief.

Throwing an acreage amount on something again is nothing more than a bandaid and a benefit to the one with the most acres/money. Again I dont own any land so you know how many statewide tags I can get. . .two. I am happy with that and it seems realistic. No floating tag, no third tag, no if you hunt city deer a forth tag.

Elimate statewide tags to better the herd and make it fair to every party. As stated if you have a deer population problem there are other ways to control it by shooting does. If you want or need more bucks shot because you need to manage your rather large properties go ahead and message me and I will use one of my two statewide tags to kill a decent cull buck.

Benefiting one party is why we are so divided on this subject. I pay my taxes as a resident and plenty of them and if I wanted I could probably lie and get a LO tag as I have the required acreage but it is my home property with not much timber, not realistic to hunt for LO tag.

Since I pay just as many taxes and work hard in my home state should I get a third tag, I mean all you do is own more land and you get a third tag has nothing to do with anything else.
 
I don't know if 40 acres is the right number, not sure you can put a number on it that would create less divide but I do know there are way to many people that abuse the LOT system just to have that "extra" tag in their pocket. Would be nice to know how many LOT are reported as filled but I doubt that is obtainable data. For many its probably just more about having that extra tag in you pocket just in case. Whether it's an acre minimum, eliminating all together, or whatever there needs to be more stipulations to receive one and stiffer penalties for those that abuse it. There is zero reason why someone with a 2 acre lot and claims to sell apples should be able to get that extra tag. So if putting an acre minimum on it helps stop the abuse I'm all for it. I'd be in favor of eliminating LOT all together or I'll say it again you shouldn't qualify for one unless it's ag related.
 
As has been mentioned, I was under the impression that one had to see a cash stream from the property.

From a call to the DNR in DSM, I got the feeling that they see all parcels registered whether the husband or wife or both are listed as owner and only one LOT will be issued accordingly. For those saying multiple family members can get LOT's for individual parcels, do you have HARD evidence that this is happening?

From the DNR website:
Who is eligible for Landowner/Tenant Licenses?
Landowner/Tenant licenses are valid only on the farm unit of the owner or tenant. The qualifying landowner or tenant does not have to reside on the farm, but must qualify under the following definitions:

“Family member” means a resident of Iowa who is the spouse or child of the owner or tenant and who resides with the owner or tenant.

“Farm unit / Qualifying parcel” means all parcels of land that are in tracts of 2 or more contiguous acres that are operated as a unit for agricultural purposes and are under the lawful control of the landowner or tenant. Parcels of land in a farm unit need not be contiguous, but all will be considered part of a single farm unit regardless of how those parcels are subdivided for agricultural or business purposes. An owner cannot receive a Landowner-Tenant license on one parcel and a family member receive a Landowner-Tenant License on another, even if the parcels are separate business operations.

“Owner” means an owner of a farm unit who is a resident of Iowa and who is one of the following:

A. Is the sole operator of the farm unit.

B. Makes all farm operating decisions but contracts for custom farming or hires labor for all or part of the work on the farm unit.

C. Participates annually in farm operation decisions or cropping practices on specific fields of the farm unit that are rented to a tenant.

D. Raises specialty crops on the farm unit including, but not limited to, orchards, nurseries or trees that do not always produce annual income but require annual operating decisions about maintenance or improvement.

E. Has all or part of the farm unit enrolled in a long-term agricultural land retirement program of the federal government.

F. Rents the entire farm to an adult child who operates the farm.

G. An owner DOES NOT mean a person who owns a farm unit and who employs a farm manager or third party to operate the farm unit, or a person who owns a farm unit and who rents the entire farm to a tenant who is responsible for all farm operations (unless the renter is the owner’s child).

“Tenant” means a person who is a resident of Iowa and who rents and actively farms a farm unit owned by another person. A member of the owner’s family may be a tenant. Rental includes cash rent and share crop arrangements. A person who works on a farm for a wage and is not a family member does not qualify as a tenant.

Common Landowner/Tenant Scenarios if you are unsure of your eligibility for Landowner/Tenant licenses.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Click link for Common Landowner/Tenant Scenarios.

If the above is not being enforced, that should be addressed first before new legislation is added, IMO.
 
Could always keep the general rules for EVERYTHING the same with a MAX of two tags purchased per person. If you don’t own land or bow hunt you’d still only be eligible for 1 tag like you currently are. Only one bow tag possible for everyone except landowners can use their second tag in any season (including bow) for use on their land. They could also specify a gun season to use it statewide then it would float to be used only on their land in any later seasons. Then we still have 2 bucks for everyone and landowners still enjoy some benefit they have previously had and this may not open us up to being accused of being elitists nearly as much. I still think the added flexibility is the biggest perk of a landowner tag and not necessarily having 3 tags. If we all only have two tags still it’s much harder for others to bring up all the rich vs poor stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Sligh1 said:
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”.
Click to expand...

I could see a single floating tag with another for landowners. No reason that couldn’t work.
If this whole debate is honestly about population and health then antlerless tags should be addressed first. Isn’t that why urban hunts are “earn a buck” systems? You knock down the antlerless population to control density. We eliminate some antlerless tags and it should help density.
Everyone keeps using the term “buck” tag but they are anysex tags and they are not unlimited in any season. Terminology is important. Saying someone can get as many party hunting tags as they want is inaccurate when talking bucks. No one can shoot unlimited bucks while party hunting Skip. To throw that comment in while discussing tags is deceptive. When talking with people who don’t understand the system, all they hear is how you word it.
If it’s not about the horns we should be discussing tags in general but all we keep hearing is “buck” tags. So let’s be honest, is it more about horns or not?
Show us some #’s, how many LOT tags are issued and then, of that, how many were used on antlered deer? How many of those LO’s also got a paid tag? How many were used? I’m sure the DNR can tell us exactly how many hunters took 3 bucks in their name and compare that to the overall harvest. I’d bet it’s such a minute % that it’s irrelevant. Id guess maybe 1-2% of total harvest is a 3rd buck and that may be high. (Edit) A quick search looking at 2022 #’s, LO’s accounted for 10% of the total harvest. I’ll get better #’s later but it looks like LOT tags have about a 25% success rate. They aren’t the problem.
Get rid of the extra seasons. Early ML and Jan late would be a big game changer. Revamp how the DNR is getting the #’s to set their quotas. Deer congregate where they aren’t pressured. Just because their survey sees a bunch in one stretch, it doesn’t reflect the whole county. If a Farmer has a predation problem, evaluate why. A lot of it isn’t even deer. Does the ground get hunted or is it surrounded by ground that doesn’t? Is it all horn hunting? There’s more to the story in those places.

Your passion and time are appreciated Skip, we just don’t want you to fall to the dark side of a career politician. Word salads, back door deals, and such :) Thanks for all you do.
 

Attachments

  • 77296A6E-57B4-4DEB-8F25-576DBE021F86.jpeg
    77296A6E-57B4-4DEB-8F25-576DBE021F86.jpeg
    192.2 KB · Views: 26
Last edited:
scottonbuck said:
Skip, Im not sure that SF 247 is one to come out of the gate saying this going to change anything. It divides the resident landowners right away and has zero facts behind what you guys are pushing. Im having a tough time supporting any of this with zero data/facts on anything they are pushing. There are bigger fish to fry and im not sure this even qualifies as a fish. In my opinion its a big do nothing that only divides us up as a group and lets be honest we need all the support we can get to righten the ship.
Getting rid of the celeb tags is great!!! now lets focus on reducing the antlerless tags that will truly help the population rebound and push for bill that promote access for resident hunters. I honestly dont see SF 247 doing anything to move the needle in any way but i do see it as pissing people off/ causing a divide amongst hunter and losing support for the ISC. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Well said

I’ll have some #’s here in a little bit and it doesn’t look like they’ll be supportive of the bill
 
JNRBRONC said:
As has been mentioned, I was under the impression that one had to see a cash stream from the property.

From a call to the DNR in DSM, I got the feeling that they see all parcels registered whether the husband or wife or both are listed as owner and only one LOT will be issued accordingly. For those saying multiple family members can get LOT's for individual parcels, do you have HARD evidence that this is happening?

From the DNR website:
Who is eligible for Landowner/Tenant Licenses?
Landowner/Tenant licenses are valid only on the farm unit of the owner or tenant. The qualifying landowner or tenant does not have to reside on the farm, but must qualify under the following definitions:

“Family member” means a resident of Iowa who is the spouse or child of the owner or tenant and who resides with the owner or tenant.

“Farm unit / Qualifying parcel” means all parcels of land that are in tracts of 2 or more contiguous acres that are operated as a unit for agricultural purposes and are under the lawful control of the landowner or tenant. Parcels of land in a farm unit need not be contiguous, but all will be considered part of a single farm unit regardless of how those parcels are subdivided for agricultural or business purposes. An owner cannot receive a Landowner-Tenant license on one parcel and a family member receive a Landowner-Tenant License on another, even if the parcels are separate business operations.

“Owner” means an owner of a farm unit who is a resident of Iowa and who is one of the following:

A. Is the sole operator of the farm unit.

B. Makes all farm operating decisions but contracts for custom farming or hires labor for all or part of the work on the farm unit.

C. Participates annually in farm operation decisions or cropping practices on specific fields of the farm unit that are rented to a tenant.

D. Raises specialty crops on the farm unit including, but not limited to, orchards, nurseries or trees that do not always produce annual income but require annual operating decisions about maintenance or improvement.

E. Has all or part of the farm unit enrolled in a long-term agricultural land retirement program of the federal government.

F. Rents the entire farm to an adult child who operates the farm.

G. An owner DOES NOT mean a person who owns a farm unit and who employs a farm manager or third party to operate the farm unit, or a person who owns a farm unit and who rents the entire farm to a tenant who is responsible for all farm operations (unless the renter is the owner’s child).

“Tenant” means a person who is a resident of Iowa and who rents and actively farms a farm unit owned by another person. A member of the owner’s family may be a tenant. Rental includes cash rent and share crop arrangements. A person who works on a farm for a wage and is not a family member does not qualify as a tenant.

Common Landowner/Tenant Scenarios if you are unsure of your eligibility for Landowner/Tenant licenses.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Click link for Common Landowner/Tenant Scenarios.

If the above is not being enforced, that should be addressed first before new legislation is added, IMO.
Click to expand...

It is certainly happening. Example: BS Farms owns 1k and rents 1k. Dad gets a tag on the home place. Mom gets a tag up the road on the BS Trust parcel, Junior gets a tag for xyz rented parcel, and his kid gets one for another rented parcel. The kids wives could also get tags on rented ground. The rules are there but no way to enforce them. The easiest way to stop the abuse would be to go with deed name only but with trusts, llc’s, etc, that won’t pass.
 
The LO tag issue isn’t a data/numbers thing, it’s a smell test issue. When you hear someone gets a tag for 2 acres everyone’s immediate reaction is, 2 acres? Really. IMO it should be 80. Back in the day farms were divided into 36 160 ac sections, or a square mile. To receive a “bonus” tag one should own that much, however 80 acres would be fair. 2 acres is a joke.
 
Sligh1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
First off I want to THANK YOU for all you do for deer hunters in IOWA. There is not another person in America that does for his state that you do for us. Your HONESTY and PATIENCE is second to NONE. You do not need to apologize for anything. You are only trying to keep Iowa deer hunting great!

Just a comment on some on the comments regarding " rich versus poor " or " big versus small " or fairness, is pure crap. We are all deer hunters and it is not about the " poor me syndrome". It's suppose to be about the greater good, right?

As for the LOT to be fair I believe, if five acres qualifies for a tag, then you should be able to get approximately 500 LOT on your property. I am assuming in this discussion, everyone on here would agree, that would be fair or else you would obviously be punishing the large landowner, right? Does this sound ludicrous?

My point, large landowners are needed to provide great hunting for small owners. Just as ludicrous it is for you to kill 500 bucks on your farm, it's that ludicrous for someone to kill 3 bucks on a small property. Large landowners give far more than they take and it appears on here, small landowners want to take far more than they give.

Just remember most large owners are insulated from bad regulations. Just the opposite for small owners. Please everyone, take less and give more.
 
trophybluf@borderlandnet. said:
First off I want to THANK YOU for all you do for deer hunters in IOWA. There is not another person in America that does for his state that you do for us. Your HONESTY and PATIENCE is second to NONE. You do not need to apologize for anything. You are only trying to keep Iowa deer hunting great!

Just a comment on some on the comments regarding " rich versus poor " or " big versus small " or fairness, is pure crap. We are all deer hunters and it is not about the " poor me syndrome". It's suppose to be about the greater good, right?

As for the LOT to be fair I believe, if five acres qualifies for a tag, then you should be able to get approximately 500 LOT on your property. I am assuming in this discussion, everyone on here would agree, that would be fair or else you would obviously be punishing the large landowner, right? Does this sound ludicrous?

My point, large landowners are needed to provide great hunting for small owners. Just as ludicrous it is for you to kill 500 bucks on your farm, it's that ludicrous for someone to kill 3 bucks on a small property. Large landowners give far more than they take and it appears on here, small landowners want to take far more than they give.

Just remember most large owners are insulated from bad regulations. Just the opposite for small owners. Please everyone, take less and give more.
Click to expand...

When I first read this posting this morning I was very dissapointed in the opposition of this bill on this particular website.

It is clearly for the greater good of the resource regardless of how it affects you as an individual!

Agree with the statement above. That is an excellent point of view. These small tracts would never have a decent buck to hunt if the bigger tracts did not exhist. If the large land owners were killing at the same ratio there would be litterally ZERO!

Givers and Takers absolutely ran though my thoughts while reading.

And giving being I planted a 1/2 acre radish kill plot and cut 4 acres of weed trees to build a sanctuary is not what I am referring too.

Thanks skip for all your hard work!!!!!!
We are very fortunate to have you!!!!
 
trophybluf@borderlandnet. said:
First off I want to THANK YOU for all you do for deer hunters in IOWA. There is not another person in America that does for his state that you do for us. Your HONESTY and PATIENCE is second to NONE. You do not need to apologize for anything. You are only trying to keep Iowa deer hunting great!

Just a comment on some on the comments regarding " rich versus poor " or " big versus small " or fairness, is pure crap. We are all deer hunters and it is not about the " poor me syndrome". It's suppose to be about the greater good, right?

As for the LOT to be fair I believe, if five acres qualifies for a tag, then you should be able to get approximately 500 LOT on your property. I am assuming in this discussion, everyone on here would agree, that would be fair or else you would obviously be punishing the large landowner, right? Does this sound ludicrous?

My point, large landowners are needed to provide great hunting for small owners. Just as ludicrous it is for you to kill 500 bucks on your farm, it's that ludicrous for someone to kill 3 bucks on a small property. Large landowners give far more than they take and it appears on here, small landowners want to take far more than they give.

Just remember most large owners are insulated from bad regulations. Just the opposite for small owners. Please everyone, take less and give more.
Click to expand...

I sure don’t disagree! My only issue is this without a doubt benefits me and others that meet the requirements much more clearly than it helps those that don’t. It really does not matter in many peoples minds that it might drive overall quality up. They think they will never see the difference and in their minds it is another “perk” for the rich and could lead to even greater calls to liberalize more regulations to make things”fair” for everyone. Those of us that can isolate ourselves will always be isolated from bad regs and will always have it good but everyone else could be stuck with what is left. I don’t mind the bill. I just don’t like the target it puts on the “elite”, “rich” whatever term could be used. I also have a hard time accusing someone who has less than me of being a taker when I’m not not giving up anything myself


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
seven twenty said:
I could see a single floating tag with another for landowners. No reason that couldn’t work.
If this whole debate is honestly about population and health then antlerless tags should be addressed first. Isn’t that why urban hunts are “earn a buck” systems? You knock down the antlerless population to control density. We eliminate some antlerless tags and it should help density.
Everyone keeps using the term “buck” tag but they are anysex tags and they are not unlimited in any season. Terminology is important. Saying someone can get as many party hunting tags as they want is inaccurate when talking bucks. No one can shoot unlimited bucks while party hunting Skip. To throw that comment in while discussing tags is deceptive. When talking with people who don’t understand the system, all they hear is how you word it.
If it’s not about the horns we should be discussing tags in general but all we keep hearing is “buck” tags. So let’s be honest, is it more about horns or not?
Show us some #’s, how many LOT tags are issued and then, of that, how many were used on antlered deer? How many of those LO’s also got a paid tag? How many were used? I’m sure the DNR can tell us exactly how many hunters took 3 bucks in their name and compare that to the overall harvest. I’d bet it’s such a minute % that it’s irrelevant. Id guess maybe 1-2% of total harvest is a 3rd buck and that may be high. (Edit) A quick search looking at 2022 #’s, LO’s accounted for 10% of the total harvest. I’ll get better #’s later but it looks like LOT tags have about a 25% success rate. They aren’t the problem.
Get rid of the extra seasons. Early ML and Jan late would be a big game changer. Revamp how the DNR is getting the #’s to set their quotas. Deer congregate where they aren’t pressured. Just because their survey sees a bunch in one stretch, it doesn’t reflect the whole county. If a Farmer has a predation problem, evaluate why. A lot of it isn’t even deer. Does the ground get hunted or is it surrounded by ground that doesn’t? Is it all horn hunting? There’s more to the story in those places.

Your passion and time are appreciated Skip, we just don’t want you to fall to the dark side of a career politician. Word salads, back door deals, and such :) Thanks for all you do.
Click to expand...
I assure you…. The forces of the dark side will not take over me and they do NOT like me as I’ve got to debate them with facts that have not gone their way. I’ll battle them FOR YOU ALL til my dying day.

I don’t wanna correct “little things” & I hope folks can get past little statements “u can’t shoot unlimited bucks!! (Or does)”. I hope folks know what I’m saying there. If I got 15 buddies to come to my farm with tags…. Can shoot 15 bucks. If I wanted to do what COUNTLESS folks did or are doing “hey buddy, pay u $500 for your tag & technically you sit with me” u can shoot as many as guys you can find. If I wanted to shoot 20 bucks legally with today’s system- I could. Are guys doing that? No. But a lot are shooting several for sure. Going to KS farm…. Getting mildly creative…. I can shoot ONE buck. Period. Why we are at 3 + as many as you can transfer + urban tags doesn’t have merit to me. Does it to you?

I looked at a few “surburban” or segmented areas in Polk, Dallas & some areas around iowa city & Cedar Rapids. The names were blurred out but there was MANY cases where 2-5 acre (I think the min is 2 but I might be off) chunks had been issued 3rd buck tags and a “good bit” of those were filled (who knows, off top of my head I thought it was like 1/3rd???). But a lot of examples where you say, “100 landowners in a square mile / 640 acres” & “10-15 landowners with small parcels getting & often filling that tag”.
Again, I revert back to my question…. What’s the merit or benefit to any of these: resource, access, other hunters, healthy herd, etc - to have an extra buck tag for 2 or 5 acres? That’s really the ? Or what the bill is getting at to the core: 1) yes, there’s merit & folks should be able to get a 3rd buck tag with “5 acres” or 2) the guy with 5 acres will be limited to 2 buck tags.
Which do we want? & side bar to add to that…. Hunter pressure…. You have 2 buck tags…, you hunt archery & must pick a gun season. Keeping things so they are not super packed. With a 3rd tag- it puts all those people into all those gun seasons. More pressure, more locked up land, etc. Dividing out our gun season by having people choose is a genius regulation by iowa!!!! 3rd buck tag creates more folks thrown into all of them.

Last tidbit to those that engage in class warfare…. Outside of here there is a lot who don’t think critically that love to bring in class warfare. They consider “those with any land” rich. “U have 5 acres & u get an extra buck tag I can’t get!!!?!?!? You rich people always have the perks!!!” Class warfare advances nothing. & I’ll go on record saying I believe the 3 buck tags should be capped at 2 for any landowner regardless of acre size
 
We may know what you’re inferring but the majority of those folks making the decisions don’t know any better. And why insist on calling it a third Buck tag, It’s an any sex tag. The numbers I’m seeing show that roughly 25% are even used on avg with youth being the most successful. I haven’t gotten to the point to breakdown how many of that 25% are used on bucks but I will post some factual numbers from the DNR here in a little bit.

 
seven twenty said:
We may know what you’re inferring but the majority of those folks making the decisions don’t know any better. And why insist on calling it a third Buck tag, It’s an any sex tag. The numbers I’m seeing show that roughly 25% are even used on avg with youth being the most successful. I haven’t gotten to the point to breakdown how many of that 25% are used on bucks but I will post some factual numbers from the DNR here in a little bit.

Click to expand...
wait.... what..... Youth using LOT tags?
 
booneriverbucks said:
They can!! Haha. Just have to register them as eligible family member. If my daughter bow hunted she would be eligible for 4 anysex tags!! Dumb!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I was going to point that out later. Youth are eligible for 4 of the mighty “Buck” tags. How many parents are taking advantage of that? It’s always kind of been tongue in cheek that six-year-old junior shot that 200 inch buck
 
Last edited:
trophybluf@borderlandnet. said:
First off I want to THANK YOU for all you do for deer hunters in IOWA. There is not another person in America that does for his state that you do for us. Your HONESTY and PATIENCE is second to NONE. You do not need to apologize for anything. You are only trying to keep Iowa deer hunting great!

Just a comment on some on the comments regarding " rich versus poor " or " big versus small " or fairness, is pure crap. We are all deer hunters and it is not about the " poor me syndrome". It's suppose to be about the greater good, right?

As for the LOT to be fair I believe, if five acres qualifies for a tag, then you should be able to get approximately 500 LOT on your property. I am assuming in this discussion, everyone on here would agree, that would be fair or else you would obviously be punishing the large landowner, right? Does this sound ludicrous?

My point, large landowners are needed to provide great hunting for small owners. Just as ludicrous it is for you to kill 500 bucks on your farm, it's that ludicrous for someone to kill 3 bucks on a small property. Large landowners give far more than they take and it appears on here, small landowners want to take far more than they give.

Just remember most large owners are insulated from bad regulations. Just the opposite for small owners. Please everyone, take less and give more.
Click to expand...
I disagree on many fronts on this logic and 100% from a respectful argument. I do agree with comments about Skip, 100% respect the time and effort he puts in for all of us.
My argument is, 20 small parcel landowners should have more voice than one landowner. This is a bill that is being proposed to elected officials and those elected officials should stand behind the interests of their constituents. If this is truly a herd health issue and herd numbers it should come down from DNR in tag allocations. Buck harvests in general do not negatively impact the population as much as does harvests.
In regards to the 500 LOT tags on one parcel is missing the issue because the intent is to stop over harvesting then that parcel will not have any deer UNLESS this proposed law is to stop the small landowner from shooting another one of neighbor big landowners bucks….
Easy fix and if everyone is so passionate about it make it two buck limit period, get your cheap LOT tag and hunt all seasons if you want but even if you end up with three any sex tags only two bucks. Exactly how turkeys are now. Any argument against this other than just saying it won’t pass? Then everyone is not on board when it affects them directly and doesn’t matter that we are all hunters. I’d be fine with one buck limit but that fits my agenda not the majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom