Emails sent. Supporting both bills
OFFENSE!! 2 Bills to support!! SF 293 & SF 247 EMAIL IN!!! What a great change!!!!
Mine went thru. Got an auto reply back, but it went thru.
gsquared23
Member
The reason we can never improve things is because everyone is looking out for their own singular best interest. That guy with 39 acres is butthurt that he loses his 3rd buck tag, and so opposes the entire deal. Instead of understanding this is a small step in the right direction and is a (small) net positive, and that a “perfect” law doesn’t exist. The other side is fine making the laws more liberal one tiny step at a time. Your “don’t step on snake” avatar/bumper sticker doesn’t scare them one bit.
lunker99
Active Member
Why do people assume that people who are eligible for landowner tags are all getting 3 any sex tags in a year? Know some casual hunters that the one landowner tag is the only tag they get for the year. Often they will fill it with an antlerless deer as they are not trophy hunters. They don't hunt every season as many on here do but still enjoy a couple hunts a year. Believe there was data that was shown earlier that the people I know like that aren't outliers and there are many more people that get landowner tags with the same approach. Far more fall into this category than the ones getting 3 any sex on two acres that seems to be the main scare tactic for driving this. I'd be a little concerned with alienating the casual hunter segment of the hunting population with bills that have minimal impact as we may need their support for legislation that will have real impact in the future.
Haven't seen it mentioned nearly as much, but early on in the thread it was brought up that this would also help open up access for hunters. Not sure that this would help that either. Understand the theory that shortening some people's season options that there will be additional time that land isn't hunted. In reality though, if those people didn't already allow hunting access for others, they would have the same reasons to not allow access in the future as well.
Haven't seen it mentioned nearly as much, but early on in the thread it was brought up that this would also help open up access for hunters. Not sure that this would help that either. Understand the theory that shortening some people's season options that there will be additional time that land isn't hunted. In reality though, if those people didn't already allow hunting access for others, they would have the same reasons to not allow access in the future as well.
I was going to type a very similar post to the one above. This shows how it will be so hard to make meaningful changes. Most of the people that are fighting for change the hardest have the least to worry about in their own situation. The analogy about if 5 acres should allow a landowner tags then why doesnt the 500 acre landowner get 100 tags kind of hits home. My simple solution would be make a 2 antlered buck limit for everyone.
Thinkin Rut
PMA Member
Leave it alone but once you kill your 2 you're done. I like that.
I also like the 80 acres to qualify for a LO tag also but previous LO's should be grandfathered in. That might help with the segmentation problem also.
deerhunter93
Well-Known Member
I don't own land but I do the urban hunt and have done the urban hunt for probably close to 20 years now. For the last three years I have had an urban buck tag in my pocket, a statewide archery tag, and then the option of buying a gun buck tag (didn't buy one). I killed one buck the first two years and then killed two with my bow this year. I can't remember another year where I have ever killed two bucks in one year in my 22 years of hunting, a handful of which I've had the opportunity to buy three buck tags (archery, gun, urban).
My folks have owned 41 acres for probably 5 years now. I believe my Dad has bought a landowner buck tag all five of those years and has never filled it. He also does the urban hunt and had the ability this year to kill four bucks (LOT, archery, gun, urban) - he killed one buck.
Just because guys can buy and fill the tags, doesn't mean they are. If requiring a 40 acre minimum would stop fragmentation I'd be all for it. However, I just don't think it's going to make a big difference in the grand scheme of things. I don't lean hard one way or the other on this one.
My folks have owned 41 acres for probably 5 years now. I believe my Dad has bought a landowner buck tag all five of those years and has never filled it. He also does the urban hunt and had the ability this year to kill four bucks (LOT, archery, gun, urban) - he killed one buck.
Just because guys can buy and fill the tags, doesn't mean they are. If requiring a 40 acre minimum would stop fragmentation I'd be all for it. However, I just don't think it's going to make a big difference in the grand scheme of things. I don't lean hard one way or the other on this one.
Not sure how this really hurts the casual hunter that only goes on a couple hunts per year. They can still do that with their statewide tags, only difference would be the price difference between LOT and statewide tags.
singlecoyote
Proud member of the IBA
Skip, one thing that the LOT tag does is it facilitates harvesting management bucks, bully bucks, etc. Take away the LOT tag and that will lower the ability and willingness to harvest those bucks.
I agree with that. As it sits though… anyone can shoot a “great genetic giant” & use their 2nd tag for a management buck. & as it sits right now…. Party tags for gun seasons are transferable.
I need a LOT of management bucks shot between all the farms…. I sat with or had trusted folks bring kids out, wounded veterans or buddies - every year…. We get almost every management buck without issue.
On Kansas farm- which is “big” …. Needed about 10 management bucks shot…. I’m allowed ONE tag & no ability to transfer tags. Had buddies, kids & trusted locals hunt & we got about every single one of them. When it’s a 1 buck limit.
I do totally agree with u but I also see so many ways to get this done. For one management buck we want to shoot- I bet there’s 10 guys that want to hunt them. Seriously.
On another note not regarding above- just in general… there’s literally going to be a portion of folks that protest ANY change with any bill. On this…. One group might say “well hardly anyone even uses 3 buck tags!!” ….. which a simple response could be “what’s it matter if 1 is removed then?” Others might say “we allow 3 buck tags for LO’s. Many states have gone to 1 buck. Let’s go to 1!”
There has to be compromise in anything!!! & practicality for passage. Everything has minor changes, a collective of minor changes that combine into major impact OR small changes that put us in Right direction. Just like DOGE “we found $1.9B in waste!!!” …. Not gonna change a thing. Keep going though!!! We can’t keep spending like we have been & finally a group is fighting back, for GOOD!!!! You know how many people are going crazy that they are doing this?!?!? TONS!!!!! “You’re gonna take $$$$ / XYZ away from ME!!!!” Elon & Trump will get trashed & raked through the coals for trying to reform things. Things that aren’t sustainable & spending that’s got way out of hand in last 25 years…..
IMHO- hunting has done kinda the same thing…. It’s been degraded in last 15-20 years. It’s been pummeled by pressure & regs that aren’t sustainable. Need relief. Hunters are saying “we need some changes”. For first time, you have groups that came together to START on this. This stuff is minor vs other issues. This is the first time we’ve seen lots of groups & legislators say “let’s try our best to do the right thing for the resource”. Is it perfect? NEVER WILL BE. I’ll tell you though…. If we attack those trying to do good & never allow for any changes proposed for good…. We won’t get them to help again. This is all about momentum. Small changes, make things better little by little & keep going…. The “bad guys” have been doing this for 20-30 years now & have won. They have the momentum & confidence. They got crazy stuff through …. We better have some positive debate & constructive discussions quick so the good guys can actually get some wins. If we attack each other & piss & moan about silly minor things…. We just won’t get support later when we need to change bigger items. Does it mean we can’t tweak above? NOPE. We can. ( & maybe later we get rid of a 3rd LO tag for all - who knows. & ya- I still can’t seem to get a response to the merits of those with 2 or 5 acres being allotted an additional buck tag vs a non-landowner but personally sick of silly bickering). we need some unity & support behind the good guys or all you will see are the bad guys keep rolling with madness. They have the decades of wins behind them & they will keep coming. Don’t empower them. We need to keep beating their a$$e$ but we also need to stop with the friendly fire on our side.
Honestly- biggest change in Iowa the last 20 years has been the doe slaughter, followed with CWD killing, then the plethora of EHD outbreaks.
Landowner tags- in this scenario- are literally nothing. Doe tags are what truly need to adjust to get back to quality of the herd first and foremost. I said before- you let that one buck go and you still only have one deer the next year.
Technology- you can argue that all you want- at the end of the day- 1 buck is one buck.
I’ve also said there needs to be substantial changes to the regs before an acreage is put on it. Let me be very clear- I’m all for giving up a tag BUT it’s got to be what’s good for the actual landowner/hunter in Iowa. Just by adding the 40 acres, you really are dividing small/large hunters that DONT have these types of conversations. Again- I’ve got over 40 owned- but not as one piece. Shitty- but whatever. Now the next person that hasn’t had these conversations on here pry are going to throw more fits.
DNR officers could be to blame as well for how people register their pieces- maybe get that all on the same page too.
I personally think tenant tags should go out the door- how badly is that abused? That would really be the starting point. Get rid of tenant tags and leave actual landowners alone. Let’s see how the tags adjust. Again- depending on how it’s presented could divide the masses in a really bad way for the state of Iowa- even though it’s meant for the greater good. Baby steps- and unfortunately seems like a pretty large step.
I also think (I admit I don’t know) that if someone gets dep tags, they absolutely should not get LOT too. I think several pieces to button up- then let’s put “total” acres owned first. Then parcel size. Etc.
Like I said- I am not against the thought of losing a tag- but lots of pieces need to be closed first before it does literally any good. I talked to my neighbor who owns 37 acres- he said he will talk to the farmer and “rent” 41 acres to still get a tag. So people are still going to find ways around with the current regs until that part gets addressed.
Here’s what I’m hearing or maybe close to some possible “bottom line solutions”…
1) lower quotas for shooting Deer
2) 2 buck tags max for everyone period
3) late shed buck season gone that’s here due to CWD killing.
The parts we have to react to: 2/3rd’s of state have had massive forest, timber destruction & a NET removal of countless thousands of CRP acres. EHD research funding is the only thing we can realistically do on that front aside from practices LO’s can do that can’t be legislated. Technologies, new weapons & new seasons over the last 20 years are also a BIG impact to our resource - like em or not- they are.
With a lower deer population & harvest in half …. It’s still half as many bucks. I wholeheartedly agree the does are the major keys to populations but the fact is, a buck is obviously still one deer & they are uniquely targeted by hunters. It would make absolute logical sense to reduce 1 buck tag & also reduce “2-3 doe tags” in areas that are hurting for deer #’s or a balanced age structure. It does NOT just have to be does. Going from 3 to 2 is not some wild change that just screws up all hunters & the system. **if you really want to make doe populations INCREASE….. go to 1 buck if that’s the goal. Guys almost stop shooting does (reference Ohio) as they don’t want to screw their chances up on a buck by whacking does. Just side tangent
We always have to look at things like they were the OPPOSITE…. If we had a 2 buck limit right now & a group came in to change it to a 3 buck limit - would anyone be in support of this????? IMHO- it would have single digit % support & no chance. If it were 2 bucks & we said “if you have 2 or 5 acres, you could get a 3rd buck tag”…. It also would get almost no support. Neither one would have a chance of passing & would die immediately- PERIOD. (Anyone disagree with this??? ). If they are that absurd as to the support to implement them- that’s an extreme political motive to explore & eliminate things like that which exist currently. There’s zero justification or fact based merits for it. If we want to get it so the whole state goes from 3 to 2…. If we can’t at least start here, that kills the prospect of doing that. If we want to piggy back on EVERYONE so we go all out from 3 to 2 statewide, I’d welcome it. & that’s taking something away from ME. For the greater good- then I’m on board! By starting by saying “there’s little or no merit for a guy with 5 acres to get a 3rd buck tag & will now have 2 buck tags” …. This is easy. This is minor. This is how momentum starts. The amount of folks who will have their season turned upside down due to this is tiny. It will remove the killing in thousands (we kill what? 50k bucks statewide?) of bucks & stop a fairly wide spread abuse/complaints from hunters to dnr, alleviate pressure on land, allow for bucks to be tagged by other hunters & fit into the biological balance of how many bucks can be shot off xyz acres while retaining a balanced age structure. There’s just so little credibility in opposing this IMHO that this one should be “ok, EASY, done, what’s next that we can fix?”
Part of my argument is don’t hide behind “for the betterment of the resource”. If this is for moral victory “well they just shouldn’t get a LOT any sex on only 2-5 acres” then own it. There is clear data that shows the LOT tags have under 16% harvest so the 2-5 acres have a very small effect because if we could break down the data how much of that 16% is actually covered by this bill. In most cases the counties still allow additional doe permits so optics are that the bill is trying to save a buck for a “real” landowner. I don’t disagree about the 2-5 acre LOT tags are a joke but what are they truly hurting in the way of “the resource”?? This is another let down of our elected officials IMO, do your job and make meaningful change. With this bill elected officials are gonna come back and say”well look at what we did for you” ie nothing, and then justify to themselves passing more NR tags…. I’m sorry but this bill is smoke and mirrors for a pat on the back to do nothing other than “well they just shouldn’t get one, they just shouldn’t”…. How many bucks are actually harvested on small acre tracts, and how many of those are by an any sex LOT that has also tagged two bucks on statewide tags. That number is how this bill affects the buck resource. If this bill was pitched as a way to stop small tract owners from getting ANY LOT license I could have bought the “resource” argument but all discussion has been about the any sex LOT license.
Last edited:
good post!
& REMINDER folks…. There’s 2 bills here. To make things simple, I’d say the Celeb tag bill fixes 95% of the issues for the celeb tags. Please write in on this!!!
From above, concise beliefs for myself & some basics of how the political process works and good things change:
1) it is for the betterment of the resource. There are a “sizable” amount of bucks killed on these tags.
2) so this COULD start with 4-8 groups in a room. Maybe a few of em have the proposal to eliminate 3 bucks to 2. & Lower the amount of does to be shot. You have to understand that 9 out of 10 times the result/reality is: “let’s start here. At an easier spot. If this goes through without chaos ….. then we’ll go for next bills: “no more shed buck season”. Maybe it’s “3 to 2 buck tags”. “Reduce doe quotas in xyz cases”…. Leads me to this….
3) in our world, we don’t get the complaints on the abuses of this…. Maybe it’s Dnr chasing folks who shouldn’t really qualify. Or use tag elsewhere. Or the flack caught to legislators for no access to land. It’s not just our group at table. Many groups wanted this & when we support them, they support things that are important to us. For example, getting rid of shed buck season… that will likely be driven by us. We need support there. Give support HERE - it helps us when we need support THERE.
I am not saying this one bill changes Iowas deer hunting night & day & this is the end game. Do I think 2 or 5 or 7 acre chunks getting a 3rd buck tag is crap & has negatives with it? YEP. This is a start that fixes a smaller issue that Absolutely will bring us to a better place to fix bigger issues. To “fix iowa” for example (stuff we all would generally want or the big issues)…. It probably will be a combo of something like 5-7 smaller bills and 2 bigger bills. & yes, I fully admit, I want us to win every single one of them & understand the reasons why we need to win the smaller ones. ******REMEMBER: There’s 2 bills here, not one!!!!! Please make sure u supporting the celeb tag bill too!!!!!
This is purely a question- How many tags is this going to actually fix? Again- if someone has over 40 acres- they can STILL hunt those small pieces. If they want to "rent" ground- They can STILL hunt those small pieces. So using the acreage without the true information on the backside literally is gaining nothing. Again- I rent a piece over 60 acres, but my DNR told me to register my home piece of 17 acres. Not my 30 acre, and not my rental piece. Sure, I can change it to my rental piece, but my DNR officer does NOT want to have to sit and track down rental pieces. Especially if you rent 10 pieces and can hunt all of them plus the small pieces- if you are driving down the road during shotgun and he stops for a check, then hes sitting there taking valuable time while other things are happening. (literally his words) (My hunting farm is 2 hours away, my rental is 30 minutes the opposite way of my hunting farm- so a large area in between. 5 counties of separation)
Like I have said 30 times in this post, and I know you are all getting sick of it, starting small would be the change of Landowner Only on the deed for the ground for tags, and eliminate tenant tags. Guarantee that would fly through without hardly any opposition- because the people abusing it wouldn't be able to really complain right? and I think it would be the easier way to get it to go through actually, then keep pushing through for the change of the rest.
Again- I could back a 1 buck state or eliminate LOT altogether- but would need to clean up the verbiage of LOT first and close the loose ends that this doesnt fix. Again, just my opinion and nothing will change my opinion on that. I think you see a drastic change in abuse if this actually goes through unfortunately
I like the LO change so it’s LO only. U have a valid point there.
Loosely- off top of head & loose recollection of the data. The tags under 40 acres are in the thousands (3k? 9k? Can’t quite remember).
kills are very likely in the high hundreds to possibly thousands off those. That’s not nothing when we kill 100k deer a year statewide & roughly half are bucks. Let’s say it’s “1,000 bucks” & let’s say “50k killed”. That example is 2%. Is it an insane figure? NO. Is it nothing? For sure not…. 1,000 more bucks that make it or could be shot by another hunter.. IMO that’s worthy. There’s other things we aren’t considering too…. The HUGE amount of flack & ammo NRLO’s use “so the dude with 5 acres can get a THIRD BUCK TAG but I can’t get 1 with 500 acres?!?! Cmon!”
I’ll look into the math if LO’s only. Agree with u there. Making this for LO’s only could be a very good adjustment. Id personally like no 3rd buck tag which is a far broader net. But very good point.
I will add this last thing…. MOST bad regs were spun with “this isn’t a huge change”…. Say, “straight walls can shoot further but this isn’t going to cause that many more bucks to be shot”. & technically it didn’t. Same with MOST bad bills…. Little by little we got 6-7 small bad bills that hurt us badly…. Straight walls, cheap doe tags, smokeless ML’s, shed buck season, little to no response to ehd, etc. All together all the little bills made a big impact
The Big ones: -“kill em all!” Crazy quotas from Brandstad days. -“dnr now has no power or opinions on regs” -“EHD hitting us & devastating herd”
What’s changed in last 20…. Access to quality land & packed land. LOT tags absolutely impact this. Quality of experience, balanced age structure & abundant game…. Hurt on multiple levels & yes LOT tags do have impact here as well. More so impacted by unlimited tags rained on people but LOT tags were part of this. Habitat loss…. Very hard to regulate this other than supporting forest reserve & encouraging folks to put marginal ground in CRP.
The big changes will be: no more shed buck season combined with lower doe quotas. Going from 3 to 2 buck tags would help. Going from 3 to 1 would be majorly impact to the herd, access, etc.
How we tackle each of these & in what order…. Long discussion & which big things we fix … we keep thumping & this will probably be 2-5 years to get a lot of this done
breckhawk
PMA Member
I rarely post anymore but had to jump in on this one.
I'm one of the ones that this will affect. I live on my 16 acre hobby farm where we have fruit trees, vegetables, and alfalfa. 9 acres are in alfalfa. Under the proposal I would lose my landowner status.
I couldn't care less about losing the landowner tag. Never have I harvested 3 bucks in a season....however.....
It makes zero sense that someone with 40+ acres should get a 3rd buck tag...but smaller landowners like me should not. What gives them more of a right to a 3rd buck tag than me? Its a constant struggle to keep deer off my vegetables and trees. There are 10+ deer in my alfalfa every night during the fall. In my neighborhood this was expected...if anything I'm happy the deer are there...but the spirit of landowner tags is to help landowners 'control' the population on their property. It certainly isn't bucks that are on my property every day though
Either limit everyone to 2 buck tags or leave it alone. Giving people that own more land (and are thus considered wealthier) more buck tags than the little guys is bad optics. I will never support that. No matter how 'good' the intentions are.
If we want to be equitable and fair about this you need to take away the 3rd anysex tag completely. Landowner tags should be doe only IMO. 2 buck tags for EVERYONE is plenty. I don't care if you are a landowner of 10,000 acres. Sure...give landowners of 40+ acres the floating tag option for 1 of their 2 tags.
Cutting out the small farmer/landowner from the option of a 3rd anysex tag but leaving the big landowner the 3rd anysex tag, and then saying some of us need to make this sacrifice for the greater good, is just a crock IMO. To also say that we 'have to start somewhere' is also bologna. All this is going to do is divide hunters.
Rip it off like a bandaid if you want to make real change. Cut everyone down to 2 buck tags. Leave it cut and dry. No room for interpretation. We have enough loopholes out there as it is. Make this as easy as possible for our limited DNR and government to police. The more we ask of them to 'interpret' the more government is needed to enforce. That's the last thing we should want.
I'm one of the ones that this will affect. I live on my 16 acre hobby farm where we have fruit trees, vegetables, and alfalfa. 9 acres are in alfalfa. Under the proposal I would lose my landowner status.
I couldn't care less about losing the landowner tag. Never have I harvested 3 bucks in a season....however.....
It makes zero sense that someone with 40+ acres should get a 3rd buck tag...but smaller landowners like me should not. What gives them more of a right to a 3rd buck tag than me? Its a constant struggle to keep deer off my vegetables and trees. There are 10+ deer in my alfalfa every night during the fall. In my neighborhood this was expected...if anything I'm happy the deer are there...but the spirit of landowner tags is to help landowners 'control' the population on their property. It certainly isn't bucks that are on my property every day though
Either limit everyone to 2 buck tags or leave it alone. Giving people that own more land (and are thus considered wealthier) more buck tags than the little guys is bad optics. I will never support that. No matter how 'good' the intentions are.
If we want to be equitable and fair about this you need to take away the 3rd anysex tag completely. Landowner tags should be doe only IMO. 2 buck tags for EVERYONE is plenty. I don't care if you are a landowner of 10,000 acres. Sure...give landowners of 40+ acres the floating tag option for 1 of their 2 tags.
Cutting out the small farmer/landowner from the option of a 3rd anysex tag but leaving the big landowner the 3rd anysex tag, and then saying some of us need to make this sacrifice for the greater good, is just a crock IMO. To also say that we 'have to start somewhere' is also bologna. All this is going to do is divide hunters.
Rip it off like a bandaid if you want to make real change. Cut everyone down to 2 buck tags. Leave it cut and dry. No room for interpretation. We have enough loopholes out there as it is. Make this as easy as possible for our limited DNR and government to police. The more we ask of them to 'interpret' the more government is needed to enforce. That's the last thing we should want.
Hair&Scales
Active Member
Here’s what I’m hearing or maybe close to some possible “bottom line solutions”…
1) lower quotas for shooting Deer
2) 2 buck tags max for everyone period
3) late shed buck season gone that’s here due to CWD killing.
The parts we have to react to: 2/3rd’s of state have had massive forest, timber destruction & a NET removal of countless thousands of CRP acres. EHD research funding is the only thing we can realistically do on that front aside from practices LO’s can do that can’t be legislated. Technologies, new weapons & new seasons over the last 20 years are also a BIG impact to our resource - like em or not- they are.
With a lower deer population & harvest in half …. It’s still half as many bucks. I wholeheartedly agree the does are the major keys to populations but the fact is, a buck is obviously still one deer & they are uniquely targeted by hunters. It would make absolute logical sense to reduce 1 buck tag & also reduce “2-3 doe tags” in areas that are hurting for deer #’s or a balanced age structure. It does NOT just have to be does. Going from 3 to 2 is not some wild change that just screws up all hunters & the system. **if you really want to make doe populations INCREASE….. go to 1 buck if that’s the goal. Guys almost stop shooting does (reference Ohio) as they don’t want to screw their chances up on a buck by whacking does. Just side tangent
We always have to look at things like they were the OPPOSITE…. If we had a 2 buck limit right now & a group came in to change it to a 3 buck limit - would anyone be in support of this????? IMHO- it would have single digit % support & no chance. If it were 2 bucks & we said “if you have 2 or 5 acres, you could get a 3rd buck tag”…. It also would get almost no support. Neither one would have a chance of passing & would die immediately- PERIOD. (Anyone disagree with this??? ). If they are that absurd as to the support to implement them- that’s an extreme political motive to explore & eliminate things like that which exist currently. There’s zero justification or fact based merits for it. If we want to get it so the whole state goes from 3 to 2…. If we can’t at least start here, that kills the prospect of doing that. If we want to piggy back on EVERYONE so we go all out from 3 to 2 statewide, I’d welcome it. & that’s taking something away from ME. For the greater good- then I’m on board! By starting by saying “there’s little or no merit for a guy with 5 acres to get a 3rd buck tag & will now have 2 buck tags” …. This is easy. This is minor. This is how momentum starts. The amount of folks who will have their season turned upside down due to this is tiny. It will remove the killing in thousands (we kill what? 50k bucks statewide?) of bucks & stop a fairly wide spread abuse/complaints from hunters to dnr, alleviate pressure on land, allow for bucks to be tagged by other hunters & fit into the biological balance of how many bucks can be shot off xyz acres while retaining a balanced age structure. There’s just so little credibility in opposing this IMHO that this one should be “ok, EASY, done, what’s next that we can fix?”
Yes!
Again- just because I like the respectful debate here. I fill my LOT tag this year- I am registered on my 17 acres. Where did it come from? My 17? My 30? My rental 60+? There is, I assume, zero data that tells anyone that people are legitimately shooting them on 2 acres? Just simply they are getting tags because they are registered on 2 acres? Am I right with that? (serious question) Once I register one piece, there is no input into other pieces that I am hunting (or wasnt when I registered). Maybe we add in that?
And that rental thing- I still dont agree with that (never have) from when I saw some guys in the local town, getting tags from a landowner because they were "renting" the woods to hunt.
I do believe we are on the same page with a lot of the stuff, but man it presented terribly.