Other states stepping up

[Sligh1]

For sure we both could care less about shooting bucks, we’ve both taken our share over the years, but if he could get some reduced rate doe tags I’d be happy with that. I bet if they let NR landowners get those there would be plenty of them more than happy to shoot some does and help manage their farms. We talked about selling one of the farms here and buying one in Kansas but my buddy down there is saying it’s becoming a mess down there as well with all the parceling out and landowner tags if you own an 80. I would propose maybe nonresident landowners in Iowa can get a tag if they own a 120 or more that would keep some of these farms from getting split up as well I think. Or instead of the outfitters getting an extra 500 tags that they’ve been pushing for every year maybe they should have a separate pool for nonresident landowners so at least the wait would be more manageable like three years or so opposed to 5 plus for a bow tag that it’s built up to now because of all the 40’s and 80’s being sold. Something’s gotta give for sure. It can’t just be a black or white issue. Times are definitely changing everywhere. I think on a management side of things they’d be better off, giving nonresident landowners some tags opposed to all of them giving up and up their farms to cash out. That’s gonna make things way worse in the grand scheme of things IMO.

I own in KS. I stay far away from areas that got broke up into 80’s. Ruins them!!! Tons of areas with big landowners. Just buy bigger and don’t split it up.
Iowa would lose if we made the min acreage any less than say 320-500. There needs to be no more incentives but anything under that- that’s what everything will be. Make it high acres & ground would be put back together!!!! But…. It would also be all gobbled up by out of state millionaires. There’s so little of it. If u made the minimum “160 acres” ….. every farm would be 160 acres in short order (not 100% but the vast majority). Iowa can’t play with that fire when we under 8% timber & R’s losing access worse each year.

KS has way more overall habitat than iowa, way more big landowners & unlike IA - it’s good across the whole state. Iowa is mainly: Southern tier & the east & west ends along rivers. Rest has very little. The amount of ranches in the thousands of acres is staggering in KS. Biggest private farm in KS: over 42,000 acres, in iowa it’s under 4,400 acres. Across that state- filled with 1000-10,000 acre tracts. Avoid stuff by KC & u in middle of no where… huge tracts, guaranteed tag for LO’s & mature deer. If I didn’t live in iowa- it would be kansas 1000000%!!!!! I personally think that state is INSANE for having an 80 acre minimum. It really should be “500” or whatever. That will ruin & has ruined a lot of the eastern part by KC. Still ton of area left. Hope they wise up before it’s too late. I’d absolutely lock up a nice size KS farm in heartbeat … & be hunting it EVERY YEAR.

Best thing that could ever happen…. WI, MN, MI & MO get common sense regs!!!! Deer hunting would be “SOLVED” …. Would take all the folks fleeing there out of our draw too!! NR’s would want to go there & they might have to put a limit on how many they took. Granted- that’s so much area & such a high deer population - that influx of quality would be dream scenario for our sport. It would be like making the equivalent of “25 more Iowas” …. Demand for quality would finally be met!

 

[Sligh1]

December gun season and 1 buck limit period- no exceptions and Missouri would probably be the top state.

MO- best potential of any state in the country - PERIOD!!!!! Would be #1 by a long shot!!!! Iowa is probably #1 in reality with our tiny bit of timber & small deer population. Just top 2 counties ALONE on MO’s North end of the state would blow away any state in the country!! 1 buck. Dec 1 gun season. Lottery for NR tags - MO would have best deer hunting any person has ever witnessed. Residents would have experiences like they’ve never dreamed of!!! That state could charge $5k per NR tag & they would sell. Limit the NR’s & residents would be sitting on a DREAM scenario for EVERYONE!!!

 

[Hardwood11]

I’m in different camp on license fees and tags. I think they are too high and hope they don’t go up much at all!

Out of state hunts are important in creating a future outdoorsman, young and old. Budgets are tight for many young guys, especially if they have children. I hate to see guys priced out of hunts.

I have been surprised to see the acceptance or even encouragement of pushing fees higher.

 

[Sligh1]

I’m in different camp on license fees and tags. I think they are too high and hope they don’t go up much at all!

Out of state hunts are important in creating a future outdoorsman, young and old. Budgets are tight for many young guys, especially if they have children. I hate to see guys priced out of hunts.

I have been surprised to see the acceptance or even encouragement of pushing fees higher.

For IN STATE RESIDENT hunting- I agree- fees should be as low as possible. Kids should have opportunities to have good quality hunting in the state they reside in for a reasonably low cost.
Where I might differ is this… traveling OUT OF STATE is a luxury. No one “needs” to travel to another state for a buck or a bull, etc. On the other hand, residents do need to hunt for meat in some cases. Many Lower class can’t afford to travel to another state to hunt. If it comes to kids- make the state they reside in - high quality for the resource & access. Something kids will be able to frequent - local hunting. Kids have school, work, sports, etc. Going out of state on big game hunts is likely a short, rare exception & a unique reward for a kid. Why, clearly, the vast majority out of state hunts are done by grown men.

Here’s why I’m for other states charging me way way way more than my home state …. Residents need all the incentive & favortism to hunt & enjoy the resource they own. If there’s an abundance & more space & game than they need…. Take in NR’s & take em in cheap if there’s that abundant a resource. But when residents of say, Colorado, those that live there & own the elk, are over run with NR’s & their resource, experience & access is suffering…. Prices have to be driven up to 1) reduce the pressure on that limited resource & 2) maybe…. Use higher revenue dollars to fund things to improve the struggling situation. SUPPLY & DEMAND. i don’t know the western dynamic inside & out. But- I know the pressure on the resource continues to get worse. Not better.

So- prices should reflect that pressure. There’s only 2 ways a state can charge “big $”….. 1) the quality of the resource & experience is higher than other options or 2) the resource is being degraded or depleted &/or opportunity for that states residents is dwindling- so prices are raised to lower demand. That’s the bright part of having 50 states …. Some manage things well, some are a disaster. We can vote with our feet. Don’t like CO…. Go to another state. One that will most likely limit tags & increase prices if this same trend & pressure on the resource continues.

Don’t know the answer to this one but…. What states can u buy low cost OTC elk tags? MT, UT, NM, AZ, ID, WY, DAKOTAS, WA, OR, etc ?? I’m sure some are. It seems like everyone I know is always putting in for points to hunt the higher quality areas in a lot of these states.

 

[Hardwood11]

I think when your kids get older and ready to hunt and fish in other states, you will see my point Skip. I agree on all your other points, as usual we agree on 90% of the issues!

I’ve rarely seen a state get better when the license fees are higher . Look at Iowa, we just had a 10 page thread on how the quality has decreased ? License fees are up, what benefit did Iowa get out of that . Maybe higher DNR salaries? Did Iowa add a bunch of public land—No ?

I’m just not seeing the advantage?

 

[tall@wide]

I think when you kids get older and ready to hunt and fish in other states, you will see my point Skip. I agree on all your other points, as usual we agree on 90% of the issues!

I’ve rarely seen a state get better when the license fees are higher . Look at Iowa, we just had a 10 page thread on how the quality has decreased ? License fees are up, what benefit did Iowa get out of that . Maybe higher DNR salaries? Did Iowa add a bunch of public land—No ?

I’m just not seeing the advantage?

I see your point. I think quality is decreasing all over the USA though (even worse outside of Iowa). I think the main culprit is technology. It has enabled people to shoot bucks that otherwise would have survived therefore reducing quality. I think Iowa leading the way on good regulations makes it the most desirable state in the country because we have better age structure. If other states become like Iowa regulation wise, it will make Iowa less desirable than it is now, which in turn could actually hurt us. They may need to gain additional revenue somehow due to less demand in Iowa (which could hurt our current beneficial regulations). All speculation and just a guess.

 

[JNRBRONC]

I’m in different camp on license fees and tags. I think they are too high and hope they don’t go up much at all!

Out of state hunts are important in creating a future outdoorsman, young and old. Budgets are tight for many young guys, especially if they have children. I hate to see guys priced out of hunts.

I have been surprised to see the acceptance or even encouragement of pushing fees higher.

Supply and demand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[newfarmer]

I’m in different camp on license fees and tags. I think they are too high and hope they don’t go up much at all!

Out of state hunts are important in creating a future outdoorsman, young and old. Budgets are tight for many young guys, especially if they have children. I hate to see guys priced out of hunts.

I have been surprised to see the acceptance or even encouragement of pushing fees higher.

I didn’t have to give up out of states- but if you draw, it’s hard to pencil out with 2 little girls at home. I figure I can buy points until they are older and then maybe get into some sweet places but if prices do keep going up, I will go after “what I want” versus just anything. I’m ok with whatever happens, again, it’s more about the state taking care of the resources versus me.

 

[Hardwood11]

Supply and demand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand your point, I was an Economics teacher in my younger days.

The principle applies for business profits. As an outdoorsman what do we get by increased costs set forth by the state ?

As mentioned before …have the increases helped the hunting and fishing ? To be honest, many of the top salary $$ that benefit from this are liberal state employees—who do not make the best decisions?

Limiting tags might help the resource, I’ve never seen the cost increases benefit the hunter or angler in many states.

South Dakota might be the exception.

*A guy getting excited by paying twice as much for a deer tag or elk tag just doesn’t register with me. It might with you ?

 

[letemgrow]

If Missouri Residents had their way, they'd have Iowa's regs. Lot's of angry Missourians because of OOS hunters and land owners. Drove up land prices, filled public hunting areas. OTC tags are cheap compared to other states, although they do continue to raise them slowly.

Back in 2003 or right around that time, they had surveys ( I received one) and public forums to talk about what option to go with moving forward.

The options were APR's, move the season and earn a buck...and maybe leave it as it is.

My vote, and what I mailed in was to move the season, but they went with APR's as the top general consensus from what I've gathered.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

If Missouri Residents had their way, they'd have Iowa's regs.

Is that accurate? I always thought there was majority consensus against moving the season. I know in Michigan the topic of moving gun opener has historically been met with strong opposition.

 

[Bucksnbears]

Is that accurate? I always thought there was majority consensus against moving the season. I know in Michigan the topic of moving gun opener has historically been met with strong opposition.

I'm guessing the farthest north states have thier seasons earlier because of the weather.
I've seen blizzards all but shut down whole deer seasons in Mn/ ND.

 

[Hardwood11]

I'm guessing the farthest north states have thier seasons earlier because of the weather.
I've seen blizzards all but shut down whole deer seasons in Mn/ ND.

Minnesota has some support for moving the gun season back one week . It’s about 50/50 for and against.

I heard the chances of going to Thanksgiving or later are slim to none !

One week later would help a few small bucks survive.

 

[deerdown]

Is that accurate? I always thought there was majority consensus against moving the season. I know in Michigan the topic of moving gun opener has historically been met with strong opposition.

I should have clarified/specified, they are in favor of raising prices on and limiting NR tags. No, I don't believe they are in favor of moving the gun seasons. They are of the mindset that NR are the debil's.... They take no blame.

 

[Sligh1]

More folks want to move gun back each day. As old school ages out of hunting, younger take over. & the more folks hear and know “MO could be amazing & better than IA or KS if we moved gun back”…. That understanding is GROWING & chances for change grow each day.

Iowa can’t sit here & take in every state’s fleeing population. We can’t change our regs because other states have ruined their resource. We for sure cannot take our directions from those that allowed their states to be ruined and want us to change our regs to accommodate their wishes. That’s not directed towards anyone on here. It’s just how any political matter should hold firm when those with broken systems want to take their habits & view to other places & continue the things that have ruined their resource. Same thing when folks flee California to Red states but end up voting the same way that ruined CA. They did it to OR & WA. We can’t allow that to happen in iowa. This state needs to keep the regs, quotas, seasons, weapons, etc in line. If anything - dial it back!!! Not expand anything!!!! Even our great state has gotten worse in last decade. We need relief. Other states need a complete rehab!!!! Anyone on outside (respect u all & I love NR’s) that does want to change iowa for XYZ interest…. Please, use that effort to fix the state you live in. You’re always welcome here but your states need massive fixing & far before iowa needs to liberalize our seasons to any extent.

 

[Butch973]

What I don’t understand is everyone is against the late season high power rifle doe seasons which happen to usually be in the southern counties where most of the NR own their big recreational farms because the doe tags never sell out. Wouldn’t you rather have those landowners be able to get some reduced fee doe tags so they can help manage their farms better which in turn will hopefully not leave tags left over to decimate the shed bucks and what not with those high-power rifles after January 10? Cant have your cake and eat it to there has to be some sort of compromise.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

What I don’t understand is everyone is against the late season high power rifle doe seasons which happen to usually be in the southern counties where most of the NR own their big recreational farms because the doe tags never sell out. Wouldn’t you rather have those landowners be able to get some reduced fee doe tags so they can help manage their farms better which in turn will hopefully not leave tags left over to decimate the shed bucks and what not with those high-power rifles after January 10? Cant have your cake and eat it to there has to be some sort of compromise.

defiantly! Sell doe tags at resident rate. What's the downside?

 

[Butch973]

defiantly! Sell doe tags at resident rate. What's the downside?

Exactly! There is none! At least ya know the tags are gonna get filled with does and not just used to party hunt for a buck!

 

[Hardwood11]

What I don’t understand is everyone is against the late season high power rifle doe seasons which happen to usually be in the southern counties where most of the NR own their big recreational farms because the doe tags never sell out. Wouldn’t you rather have those landowners be able to get some reduced fee doe tags so they can help manage their farms better which in turn will hopefully not leave tags left over to decimate the shed bucks and what not with those high-power rifles after January 10? Cant have your cake and eat it to there has to be some sort of compromise.

Absolutely should be in the equation. Iowa has a good system overall.. but this has to be reviewed.

I think Iowa should max out the resident Buck limit at 2 bucks .. one as landowner.

 

[newfarmer]

Absolutely should be in the equation. Iowa has a good system overall.. but this has to be reviewed.

I think Iowa should max out the resident Buck limit at 2 bucks .. one as landowner.

I would love to see Iowa as a 1 buck state and an extra for LOT over “x” acres for NEW parcels (that might be hard to track?) but if you eliminated LOT all together, you’d lose a lot of small farms to ag or who knows, developers.
I’m also in favor of reduced doe tags for all NR LOTs, and also saw someone mention put the “extra” tags that outfitters want and give the NR Landowners a better chance. Again- I think there needs to be some acreage stipulation or year stipulation. I will never claim to have the answers, but I do enjoy NR hunters that know more than most of the locals. Iowa wants to keep trending the right way - I think they’d be on to some good stuff here