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

[seven twenty]

Some quick #’s from the 22/23 report which is the 1st one that showed up:
(Button&shed #’s excluded)
Across all Seasons

1. Of 31,733 Anysex LOT issued, 5036 were used on bucks & 1689 on antlerless for a total of 6725 deer harvested. A little under a 25% success rate overall with only 16% of issued tags being used on bucks.

2. Of 29,421 antlerless LOT issued 6966 does were shot for also just under a 25% success rate.

3. Overall, there were 8655 doe harvested compared to 5036 antlered using LOT.

It looks like more LO’s are after meat vs horns. With these #’s it’s kind of hard to justify calling a LOT just an extra “Buck” tag. It would be interesting to see exactly how many used it that way though and then break down that # to see how many were the small parcel claims. I’m sure it’s being/been abused but not to the extent to justify a new law. Our local CO does a decent job of checking up on the “small parcel“ guys I think. Enforce what we have. If it’s a population issue, decreasing the antlerless tags would be a better starting point.

Side note, there were 111 antlered deer reported on antlerless LOT tags.

Muskrat says it very well in the post above and I agree with everything he says there.

Whatever the “buck” limit is make it across the board. I’d like to see the floating tag kept though regardless of who gets it. If that’s everyone, I’m ok with that.

 

[Hair&Scales]

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.

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

Bottom line absolutely that's why people are concerned about this, the small owners are just fighting for equality. Two tags for everyone period to start with. One tag for everyone if it needs to evolve more.

We are giving landowners discount tags, floating tags, an extra tag. Where does it stop! Make it even for every resident hunter public land hunters, large landowners, small landowners.

The whole floating tags thing is an absolute shame to our state in my opinion and I can't believe it passed, it can and will have an impact on our herd and quality. Now you have what 4 months basically to kill a deer. How do we teach kids coming up that if you don't kill something in a certain time frame then that is just the way it is.

 

[tall@wide]

I

Bottom line absolutely that's why people are concerned about this, the small owners are just fighting for equality. Two tags for everyone period to start with. One tag for everyone if it needs to evolve more.

We are giving landowners discount tags, floating tags, an extra tag. Where does it stop! Make it even for every resident hunter public land hunters, large landowners, small landowners.

The whole floating tags thing is an absolute shame to our state in my opinion and I can't believe it passed, it can and will have an impact on our herd and quality. Now you have what 4 months basically to kill a deer. How do we teach kids coming up that if you don't kill something in a certain time frame then that is just the way it is.

I do think Landowners deserve something. Many have invested large sums of money in Iowa and pay a lot of taxes on the property they purchased.

 

[gunrunr]

I was always told that landowner tags were for people actively engaged in farming and producing crops for income as a business. Supposedly it was to help offset some of the damage done by the wildlife and allowed you to harvest an extra deer on your own property only. When my father and I farmed together we were running around 800 acres across 5 different locations and we only got ONE Landowner tag (ie: dad did) - despite how many acres we had and that it was spread out all over the county. I couldnt get one until I had my own farm in my own name. I really don't think that a 2 acre lot on the edge of town with a couple trees in the backyard should allow you to get a LOT tag - it may be happening but I don't think that is the original intent.

 

[seven twenty]

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

Not arguing but I’m going to address some of your points here. As I said before, just because we understand what you’re saying doesn’t mean the rank & file do. They need it spelled out specifically, no different than gun debates.

Are we debating LOT or shotgun season regs? Your first point is all about gun season regs. They’ve been that way from the beginning and our best years were while they were in affect. Things have gone downhill with the proliferation of media and the horn craze. FB & the other Ins Co’s have pushed their agenda also. Even as a LO you don‘t have 3 tags unless you’re using someone else’s tag which could be changed but that isn’t the problem. Again, it’s always been that way even during the best of times. A lot of people still want to shoot their own and will take soup if they don’t. As for the others, eliminating the sharing of tags may slow it but I doubt you’ll ever stop it.

When looking at these small parcels on the map, how do you know that they had/used 3 tags? You can’t see their names. How do you know that they don’t take the LOT only? Maybe they don’t know anyone else that hunts or don’t want to hunt public. It’s their own mini urban hunt. Just because they get a LOT doesn’t mean they are getting the 2 paid. It could also be a larger owner that prefers living closer to town and that is just the parcel they claim. There’s a few different scenarios but without all of the facts, we just don’t know. Without actual data from the State, we have no idea of just how many people are claiming 3 bucks. The State #’s show that LO’s are taking more antlerless with a LOT. 16% of anysex LOT’s were used on antlered deer, not 1/3 and just under 25% of all the issued LOT were filled. So why do we keep calling it a buck tag? More antlerless are shot on LOTs than bucks. The horn hunters are the ones crying because they think someone is getting more than them.

To answer your question on merit or benefit: As stated above, it’s not necessarily an extra buck tag as you call it. It’s only an “extra” if they buy 2 statewide also and we have no #’s to know exactly how many do that. We shouldn’t assume everyone does. The merit/benefit is that they don’t have to worry about access or other hunters. If the heard is healthy, a person shooting one deer on his own land has no affect. People staying home is actually leaving more access for others. Win/win for both. If it is a 3rd tag, it’s being used at “home” and not crowding into the gun seasons. No matter when it’s used, it’s done at “home”. The counter argument here is that a person can just buy a statewide and use it at home which is true but they pay the extra taxes and whatever just like the guy with 40. Not as much but they still pay extra so why discriminate.

As for the scenario of 100 LO’s in a square mile, that’s an extreme idea but think about it. If 10-15 are filling their LOT tags every year than it’s 1 of 2 things. That section is healthy or it’s overpopulated. Either way it’s a benefit to the health of the heard. If we’re talking 3 tags each, then something definitely needs addressed anyway. 30/45 deer off a section annually would probably be a super benefit. Those other 80-90 LO’s aren’t going to be happy with what a heard that size is doing. It’s an extreme scenario and could never happen. Why use it as an example. Let’s be realistic and quit riding the extreme side on these issues. Shock, fear, and awe may get things done but not always the right things.

l’ll also go on record with 2 tags for anyone regardless of status. Maybe keep the LOT floating with a paid statewide for LO’s and 2 season specific for everyone else. The whole debate here is over discrimination based on land wealth. 2 tags for everyone with the LO getting some sort of benefit shouldn’t be an issue.

 

[seven twenty]

I was always told that landowner tags were for people actively engaged in farming and producing crops for income as a business. Supposedly it was to help offset some of the damage done by the wildlife and allowed you to harvest an extra deer on your own property only. When my father and I farmed together we were running around 800 acres across 5 different locations and we only got ONE Landowner tag (ie: dad did) - despite how many acres we had and that it was spread out all over the county. I couldnt get one until I had my own farm in my own name. I really don't think that a 2 acre lot on the edge of town with a couple trees in the backyard should allow you to get a LOT tag - it may be happening but I don't think that is the original intent.

When you register the parcel, you have to claim some sort of ag related income. It’s not necessarily crop specific. You could have an 80 of pasture and timbered draws that you run cattle on. I’m sure there are some that take advantage (orchard trees) but it’s not enough to affect the #’s like some are thinking.

 

[Windlooker]

That’s what’s he’s saying. The LOT was intended to help with crop damage not fruit trees and timber draws. The program has morphed from its intent. I have a friend who gets a LOT for 20 ac of timber as his designated “crop”. Was that the intent of the program? Probably not.

 

[seven twenty]

That’s what’s he’s saying. The LOT was intended to help with crop damage not fruit trees and timber draws. The program has morphed from its intent. I have a friend who gets a LOT for 20 ac of timber as his designated “crop”. Was that the intent of the program? Probably not.

That’s an example of where the current rules need enforced. If he falsified his application in some way, it probably could be addressed. I guess if it’s in TR he can’t argue that he pays taxes on it either. I’m sure he’s not the only one doing it that way.

Trying to get everything but row crop eliminated would be another whole can of worms. It hasn’t been enforced since inception I would guess.

 

[Windlooker]

He didn’t falsify anything. The DNR recognizes timber as a crop that can be harvested. A nursery also qualifies. The DNR and legislature need to tighten it up. Hence this bill.

 

[DMarley83]

Not arguing but I’m going to address some of your points here. As I said before, just because we understand what you’re saying doesn’t mean the rank & file do. They need it spelled out specifically, no different than gun debates.

Are we debating LOT or shotgun season regs? Your first point is all about gun season regs. They’ve been that way from the beginning and our best years were while they were in affect. Things have gone downhill with the proliferation of media and the horn craze. FB & the other Ins Co’s have pushed their agenda also. Even as a LO you don‘t have 3 tags unless you’re using someone else’s tag which could be changed but that isn’t the problem. Again, it’s always been that way even during the best of times. A lot of people still want to shoot their own and will take soup if they don’t. As for the others, eliminating the sharing of tags may slow it but I doubt you’ll ever stop it.

When looking at these small parcels on the map, how do you know that they had/used 3 tags? You can’t see their names. How do you know that they don’t take the LOT only? Maybe they don’t know anyone else that hunts or don’t want to hunt public. It’s their own mini urban hunt. Just because they get a LOT doesn’t mean they are getting the 2 paid. It could also be a larger owner that prefers living closer to town and that is just the parcel they claim. There’s a few different scenarios but without all of the facts, we just don’t know. Without actual data from the State, we have no idea of just how many people are claiming 3 bucks. The State #’s show that LO’s are taking more antlerless with a LOT. 16% of anysex LOT’s were used on antlered deer, not 1/3 and just under 25% of all the issued LOT were filled. So why do we keep calling it a buck tag? More antlerless are shot on LOTs than bucks. The horn hunters are the ones crying because they think someone is getting more than them.

To answer your question on merit or benefit: As stated above, it’s not necessarily an extra buck tag as you call it. It’s only an “extra” if they buy 2 statewide also and we have no #’s to know exactly how many do that. We shouldn’t assume everyone does. The merit/benefit is that they don’t have to worry about access or other hunters. If the heard is healthy, a person shooting one deer on his own land has no affect. People staying home is actually leaving more access for others. Win/win for both. If it is a 3rd tag, it’s being used at “home” and not crowding into the gun seasons. No matter when it’s used, it’s done at “home”. The counter argument here is that a person can just buy a statewide and use it at home which is true but they pay the extra taxes and whatever just like the guy with 40. Not as much but they still pay extra so why discriminate.

As for the scenario of 100 LO’s in a square mile, that’s an extreme idea but think about it. If 10-15 are filling their LOT tags every year than it’s 1 of 2 things. That section is healthy or it’s overpopulated. Either way it’s a benefit to the health of the heard. If we’re talking 3 tags each, then something definitely needs addressed anyway. 30/45 deer off a section annually would probably be a super benefit. Those other 80-90 LO’s aren’t going to be happy with what a heard that size is doing. It’s an extreme scenario and could never happen. Why use it as an example. Let’s be realistic and quit riding the extreme side on these issues. Shock, fear, and awe may get things done but not always the right things.

l’ll also go on record with 2 tags for anyone regardless of status. Maybe keep the LOT floating with a paid statewide for LO’s and 2 season specific for everyone else. The whole debate here is over discrimination based on land wealth. 2 tags for everyone with the LO getting some sort of benefit shouldn’t be an issue.

I gues I must have missed it but in your 6 paragraphs I don't think I saw where anything was good for the resorce?

 

[seven twenty]

I gues I must have missed it but in your 6 paragraphs I don't think I saw where anything was good for the resorce?

Wasn’t trying to make that point, it wasn’t part of the question.

 

[DMarley83]

Isn't that the whole point of the bill?

We have gone too far with our hunting laws and are paying the price for it now.

If we don't start trying to turn that around it's not going to get better....

This bill is far from perfect but at least it is headed the right direction.

 

[hillrunner]

I'm afraid any change you try to make will come up against resistance. Everyone's happy to see rule changes for others but once it affects them........ suddenly they are a victim.
For what is worth, I'm willing to give up:
*my floating LO tag
*my cell cams in season.
*my scope on my muzzle loader

Things I don't use but would like to see go away:
*rifles
*floating youth tags (not for the resource but because I think they have the opposite effect of getting kids hooked)
*in season feeding (let's do this now! No down side!)
*celebrity tags, stupid

I really like the idea of a 2 buck limit for everyone. Landowners can still get a landowners tag but it counts against the 2 buck limit.
Keep thermal drones out of our skies, nothing good will come from allowing that technology. Don't even give an inch on that.

 

[Muskrat24]

Marley, I object quite a bit with the argument that this bill protects the resource. Over harvesting does impacts the resource and herd numbers which the majority of people agree on. If the data 720 shows is accurate, ALL LOT tags account for 16% of buck harvests so how much of a % of that 16% is on under 40 acre parcels? I’m sorry but this just simply is not going to be the saving grace of the Iowa deer herd. Does this bill potentially save some bucks to grow bigger racks, likely a few but “the resource” is deer not racks.

As I have mentioned if we want to clean up the swamp on this go to two bucks for everyone LOT or statewide (not including urban) with LOT floating being the perk for landowners just like Iowa turkey regs are. Anyone not willing to get behind this and call their reps is worried about THEIR third buck not the resource! No way to argue against this paragraph if you are FOR the current verbiage.

BTW I am not defending the 2acre LOT tags and do I think that is a stretch, yes, but I don’t believe this bill is fixing much of anything. Even if we could drill down the data to say how much of the 16% of LOT buck harvests are for people registered on small tracts under 40 acres we have NO WAY to know if they are just putting their home tract down per advice from their COs like posts have stated here and they actually also qualify and hunt on other tracts of larger size because you only have to register on one qualifying tract.

 

[DMarley83]

I'm afraid any change you try to make will come up against resistance. Everyone's happy to see rule changes for others but once it affects them........ suddenly they are a victim.
For what is worth, I'm willing to give up:
*my floating LO tag
*my cell cams in season.
*my scope on my muzzle loader

Things I don't use but would like to see go away:
*rifles
*floating youth tags (not for the resource but because I think they have the opposite effect of getting kids hooked)
*in season feeding (let's do this now! No down side!)
*celebrity tags, stupid

I really like the idea of a 2 buck limit for everyone. Landowners can still get a landowners tag but it counts against the 2 buck limit.
Keep thermal drones out of our skies, nothing good will come from allowing that technology. Don't even give an inch on that.

I think you have an excellent handle on the situation. I agree with almost all (scope on muzzy).

Marley, I object quite a bit with the argument that this bill protects the resource. Over harvesting does impacts the resource and herd numbers which the majority of people agree on. If the data 720 shows is accurate, ALL LOT tags account for 16% of buck harvests so how much of a % of that 16% is on under 40 acre parcels? I’m sorry but this just simply is not going to be the saving grace of the Iowa deer herd. Does this bill potentially save some bucks to grow bigger racks, likely a few but “the resource” is deer not racks.

As I have mentioned if we want to clean up the swamp on this go to two bucks for everyone LOT or statewide (not including urban) with LOT floating being the perk for landowners just like Iowa turkey regs are. Anyone not willing to get behind this and call their reps is worried about THEIR third buck not the resource! No way to argue against this paragraph if you are FOR the current verbiage.

BTW I am not defending the 2acre LOT tags and do I think that is a stretch, yes, but I don’t believe this bill is fixing much of anything. Even if we could drill down the data to say how much of the 16% of LOT buck harvests are for people registered on small tracts under 40 acres we have NO WAY to know if they are just putting their home tract down per advice from their COs like posts have stated here and they actually also qualify and hunt on other tracts of larger size because you only have to register on one qualifying tract.

I dont disagree however those thoughts are not a bill headed to subcommittee.
That is more of a wish list.

This bill is headed to subcommittee and however it does affect a few LOT tag holders what they feal negatively it 100% does not affect the resource negatively.

I have not seen or heard one example of how this would hurt the herd. ...I agree with you this does not solve anything however it is a step in the right direction. If they move it up 1 acre above my own farm so be it. I still vote yes.

The lot tag has done most of us virtually no good because there is almost never a year where all three tags would get filled. Is the lot tag convenient? Absolutely.

No one is against the guy who owns 39acres or 2 acres and thinks he's the problem. This was screwed up from the start. Should never have been the case in the first place.

Maybe we get rid of all together who knows. It's much easier to amend a law than it is to create a new law so we need to band together and get these new conservative hunting law pushed forward before it's too late!

I agree with hillrunner on his list of things he would give up and I would as well.

 

[tall@wide]

I'm afraid any change you try to make will come up against resistance. Everyone's happy to see rule changes for others but once it affects them........ suddenly they are a victim.
For what is worth, I'm willing to give up:
*my floating LO tag
*my cell cams in season.
*my scope on my muzzle loader

Things I don't use but would like to see go away:
*rifles
*floating youth tags (not for the resource but because I think they have the opposite effect of getting kids hooked)
*in season feeding (let's do this now! No down side!)
*celebrity tags, stupid

I really like the idea of a 2 buck limit for everyone. Landowners can still get a landowners tag but it counts against the 2 buck limit.
Keep thermal drones out of our skies, nothing good will come from allowing that technology. Don't even give an inch on that.

I agree with all! Skip, can we not get a bill out there that bans all in season feed/bait? This is a HUGE problem in a lot of areas. I know guys like to supplemental feed, but doing it outside of hunting season will still be available. The only people against this bill would be the actual baiters.

 

[Muskrat24]

I think you have an excellent handle on the situation. I agree with almost all (scope on muzzy).

I dont disagree however those thoughts are not a bill headed to subcommittee.
That is more of a wish list.

This bill is headed to subcommittee and however is does affect a few LOT tag holders what the feal negatively it 100% does not affect the resource negatively.

I have not seen or heard one example of how this would hurt the herd. ...I agree with you this noes not solve anything however it is a step in the right direction. If they move it up 1 acre above my own farm so be it. I still vote yes.

The lot tag has done most of us virtually no good because there is almost never a year where all three tags would get filled. Is the lot tag convenient? Absolutely.

No one is against the guy who owns 39acres or 2 acres and thinks he's the problem. This was screwed up from the start. Should never have been the case in the first place.

Maybe we get rid of all together who knows. It's much easier to amend a law than it is to create a new law so we need to band together and get these new conservative hunting law pushed forward before it's too late!

I agree with hillrunner on his list of things he would give up and I would as well.

Push a bill forward that you yourself agree really does nothing…. Be surprised if this gets any support. Let’s work on something that really matters and does something. I as a resident that this does not impact given my situation would be extremely disappointed if we waste time on this bill to get it passed and then also allow the NR LOT tags to pass or SF 175. Let’s focus our time and effort on something that does matter even if it continues to be on the defensive. And I 100% get where the proposed bill is coming from but the numbers and data clearly show this change does very little to fix the issue we are working toward improving the resource. Passing a bill that admittedly does very little positive, divides hunters during the process and can’t be supported by hard data is a waste of time IMO. And Marley everyone has a right to their own stance and I respect that but the optics here do not look good from the other side of the debate. And as I have stated I fully agree there are some taking advantage of the LOT tags but I would make an argument that it is likely far less than the bucks harvested under shady party hunting tactics by a few bad apples.

 

[abell3]

(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.

A win for the golfers!

 

[iowathumper]

Wow, didn’t think you’d ever see a bill doing good things did you?!?! Been 15++ years of defense, that’s changing!!!
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…. PLEASE WRITE IN!!! & get friends to!!!!

SF 293: “CELEB TAGS GONE!!!!!!”
There was still >10m views promoting Iowa’s Deer hunting by celebs on best of best farms. While draw heads towards 6-7 years & growing!! ABOUT TIME!!!!!!! Governor retains some tags but doesn’t need to give them out & if he/she does- there’s no promotion of the state from those tags. This is GREAT!!!!! No more skipping line, promoting state to millions, getting tags over folks waiting in draw, showcasing the >.001% of best farms “this is iowa hunting” & continuing to build pressure for outsiders to come here. Stops!!! COMMON SENSE is back!!! For now it’s Senator Shipley. EMAIL: tom.shipley@legis.iowa.gov

LINK:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=SF293&ga=91&data=05|02||f1a717a236c640d2a58c08dd4ba26fc2|84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa|1|0|638749883220545986|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ==|0|||&sdata=+KrB2rDtpKBGLQ39cHhYzwBA0WAkGD6g3V6Lownubdk=&reserved=0

2nd: SF 247… LO tags, need 40 acres or more. Common sense again!!! Less than 40 acres: you will have to survive on ONLY 2 buck tags + tons of doe tags & still party hunting. Ok, under 40…. We cannot sustain or justify killing a 3rd buck statewide. No biological reason for it. It’s also being abused where dudes with house lots & tiny acres are getting 3rd buck tags (& yes, filling them elsewhere). Having 2 acres & needing a 3rd buck - this is hurting us & no reason for it based on biology, deer trends, hunting quality/decline, lack of access, etc. Again- COMMON SENSE is back in style!!!
Senators: Shipley, Staed, and Zumbach
Email: tom.shipley@legis.iowa.gov art.staed@legis.iowa.gov & dan.zumbach@legis.iowa.gov

LINK:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=91&ba=sf247&data=05|02||2d1a19c56c9d46306e3e08dd4b8502b1|84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa|1|0|638749756824738563|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ==|0|||&sdata=QnZGf7dwyBO+U8dd8KzGDIbNiTYHDkNZYES7k84ZaHA=&reserved=0

Sent! The Dan.Zumba’s address said bad address

 

[newfarmer]

Sent! The Dan.Zumba’s address said bad address

dans is an automatic reply he’s busy this time of year.
They were really responsive and agreeable with my emails. (Which typically I get fabricated emails back- these ones seemed “real”)