OFFENSE!! 2 Bills to support!! SF 293 & SF 247 EMAIL IN!!! What a great change!!!!
I don't like the LOT bill. My main reason is the return vs cost is not there. Look at how much it's dividing hunters. We should focus on bills that don't single out/divide hunting groups. I agree that's a utopia idea, that's never going to happen. I guess what I'm really getting at is, we should go after bills that don't divide the people paying money into the IBA/ISC - getting DNR more power in hunting decisions, getting rid of late antlerless only season, reducing anterless tags. If we single out/divide the people paying into the IBA/ISC, then we're going to lose the people that feel like their money went to pass a law they didn't want. When we say we need to reduce buck tags, then it should be everyone only gets 2 buck tags. I already see the writing on the wall after this bill, it's going to be a 1 buck per year bill, unless you're a landowner, then you get 2. If only 2 bucks per year is good, then everyone should be 2 bucks per year. If 1 buck per year is good, then everyone should be 1 buck per year. We're dividing "like minded, IBA/ISC funding" hunters up. I get it, we're not all going to like whatever bills that are generated, but can't we shoot for less polarizing ones? I know they might be harder to get.
Windlooker
Well-Known Member
For 22 years here I’ve read very few shoot 3 bucks, never do it. Now, many don’t want to give up the third tag while claiming divisiveness, but few use it, what’s the issue?
We watched as nrlos were stripped of their archery doe tag and party hunting, that was ok. I find it hypocritical.
Also, I’d like to know how many who buy a LOT with small acreages actually hunt those parcels. I guarantee there’s a ton of abuse there hunting property other than theirs
I think landowners sacrifice a ton and should get a third tag and it should be an 80 acre minimum.
We watched as nrlos were stripped of their archery doe tag and party hunting, that was ok. I find it hypocritical.
Also, I’d like to know how many who buy a LOT with small acreages actually hunt those parcels. I guarantee there’s a ton of abuse there hunting property other than theirs
I think landowners sacrifice a ton and should get a third tag and it should be an 80 acre minimum.
Last edited:
Not allowing a LOT to someone with less than 40 acres and allowing a LOT to someone with more than 40 acres is ridiculous. IMO it needs to be the same for all. The size of your parcel should not determine LOT availability. I agree that something needs to be changed. I am a resident land owner that gets a RLOT and I personally would be fine with everyone going to 2 antlered deer per year max. Yes, that would impact me directly. Some have referenced the turkey tag allocation and I think that is spot on. I don't get to shoot 3 tom turkeys each year just because I own land.
hillrunner
PMA Member
I'm guessing farm bureau would throw a massive stink if we tried to take away landowners tags from farmers. I think it'd be an easier sell if they could still get that tag but were limited to 2 bucks a year just like all hunters. I'm for that option btw.
Skip has gone to painstaking lengths to explain why LOTs on smaller acreages have a greater impact. If you can't at least acknowledge that he has a point, you are either blinded by self-interest or you're not bothering to even consider the other side of the argument.
Skip has gone to painstaking lengths to explain why LOTs on smaller acreages have a greater impact. If you can't at least acknowledge that he has a point, you are either blinded by self-interest or you're not bothering to even consider the other side of the argument.
hillrunner
PMA Member
What about banning feeding in season? That has been brought up several times in this thread and on others, but I don't think you've commented on it. Is there a reason we can't get this done? Seems like a no brainer to me.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?”
tall@wide
PMA Member
Banning in season baiting would increase age structure and stop the cheaters..I'm all for it!
DMarley83
DMARLEY83
Ì stand strong on the fact there def should be an acreage min for a land owner /tenant tag. 2 acres is 295' x295'. Put a stand in the middle of it you can cover every inch of it with a bow!
Always thought the min was insane! Even when I only owned 2 acres!
I will support every bill that potentially helps the future of our sport in our state!!!!
I hope to God my kids don't have to say remember when!
Always thought the min was insane! Even when I only owned 2 acres!
I will support every bill that potentially helps the future of our sport in our state!!!!
I hope to God my kids don't have to say remember when!
singlecoyote
Proud member of the IBA
Skip, it's not just about getting to shoot a 3rd buck. It's mostly about getting to hunt all the seasons that you would like to as a land owner. As a land owner, we can hunt every season. I DO NOT WANT TO LOSE THAT!
I’ll be honest, that is the only reason I have bought one the past two years so I can legally take my kids during youth and then the rest of the seasons. Is there another way to legally do this without LOT?
I sure hope that the people supporting the acreage change also vehemently oppose SF 179 because the decreased buck harvest from the increase in acres to 40 acres will be whipped out by OTC LOT tags for NR family members that could then party hunt and NOT count to the NR tag allocations…
Ishi
PMA Member
We have a bill to allow more LOT for NR and a possible bill to take resident LOT away my oh my…. this is not good
Confused in Iowa
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
I originally kind of agreed with the whole thing about how a large landowner could/should have the 500 + tags with current regs and all that depending on how it was divided and stuff but looking back on it that argument falls apart pretty quick too. There is absolutely nothing that limits how many people could hunt a given property. In reality there is basically an unlimited number of tags available to be used on any property in this state as far as the regs are concerned. Whats worse? 20 guys with 2 tags on 100 acres or one guy with 3 on 39?? Again, I understand the logic behind the bill but anyone can poke holes in whatever we come up with if it isn’t across the board. I also think the statistics to support this bill are completely flawed. Whether you believe that was intentional or not is up to you. The DNR currently does not request the amount of land a LO/Tenant has access to. Only the acreage for the qualifying parcel is requested and known.
Last edited:
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
No kidding!!! Rip tags away from res!!! Make it easier to sell our state out!!!! Every buck has a price tag on it. Lets make it easier for them. Totally agree with the well intentioned bill but history says we could get screwed somehow.
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
How many more hunts could a large landowning outfitter sell if his neighbors that owned less than 40 acres had a little less opportunity than before??? Just pointing out another flaw
Well any chance SF 179 would be one small step for the other side to open the door to all LOT NR family members for all seasons…. Can anyone tell me why our IOWA elected officials have 2-3 proposed bills that benefit NR!?!?!?
Wasn’t the NR quota 4000 or 4500 just a few years ago?? Now we are at 6000 and wanting MORE non-quota NR tags…. I hope you can see why I am questioning the 40 acre bill. Again I agree 2 acres is a joke but I FIRMLY agree that sometimes defense is the best offense and there are a few bills this year that need A LOT of time and effort.
If anyone is involved I. The 65-35 NR draw to random draw debate I’d propose 90-10. That is what most Western states are to allow some chance to draw every year while still giving most weight to high point holders. 35% random is a slap in the face to the high point holders and another pro to the non devoted NR. HF 388 proposed bill to clarify what I am talking about.
Wasn’t the NR quota 4000 or 4500 just a few years ago?? Now we are at 6000 and wanting MORE non-quota NR tags…. I hope you can see why I am questioning the 40 acre bill. Again I agree 2 acres is a joke but I FIRMLY agree that sometimes defense is the best offense and there are a few bills this year that need A LOT of time and effort.
If anyone is involved I. The 65-35 NR draw to random draw debate I’d propose 90-10. That is what most Western states are to allow some chance to draw every year while still giving most weight to high point holders. 35% random is a slap in the face to the high point holders and another pro to the non devoted NR. HF 388 proposed bill to clarify what I am talking about.
Last edited:
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
You are a little off on how the draw system works. It’s just a 65/gun 35 bow spit out of total tags for each zone. Most points in both bow and gun pool are drawn first.
Nevermind…. I get it now
Read the legislative post HF 388.