Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Poachers and NR tags? READ!

ironwood

Active Member
The Des Moines Register has an article this morning that makes four out of state poachers sound like victims due to our unfair licensing laws. I am not sure if the copy can be moved here for viewing but you all need to read this. The whole thing comes off as a political add to increase NR tags. I would think NR hunters would not want criminals to be their spokes people, all hunters from every where should be unhappy with this reporting style. State Rep. Mary Lou Freeman needs contacted as well based on her comments (residence opinion). The reporter for the DM Register was Juli Probassca-Sowers jprobasco@dmreg.com . She should be contacted for using criminals like poor victims in her story.

Could someone if possible move the rags article here and post this Reps. Email address.
 
Taken from the DM Register web-site:
Outdoors

Iowa's bucks attract out-of-state poachers

Issuing more 'any-sex' licenses could ease the problem and increase revenue, officials say.

By JULI PROBASCO-SOWERS
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
December 29, 2004

Louisianan Lanvin LeBlanc fell prey to Iowa's big buck lure this fall.

He and three hunting partners each had Iowa licenses to kill deer without antlers - and only deer without antlers - but they encountered numerous trophy bucks while bow hunting in Appanoose County last month. Finally, they could no longer resist.

"We kept seeing big bucks go by," said LeBlanc, 47. "There were several I didn't take aim at. But then we just made the conscious decision to go ahead."

They got caught, were ordered to pay nearly $20,000 in fines and damages, and had to turn over thousands of dollars worth of bow-hunting equipment, along with the four prized buck heads that they were so tempted by in the first place.

LeBlanc and his friends had obtained licenses to hunt does in what has become the premier state for bucks with world-class antlers - a status that has caused game officials, legislators and hunters to take opposing sides about how many out-of-state hunters should be allowed to share Iowa's bounty.

This year 12,166 hunters from other states applied for the prime "any-sex tags," which allows them to bag a single buck or doe.

Last year, state wildlife officials asked legislators to double the number of those licenses from 6,000 to 12,000, which would have brought in $1.8 million more for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. The request was denied. This year the department will propose a more modest increase.

LeBlanc, a shrimper from Lafitte near New Orleans, said he gladly would have paid $70 more for an any-sex tag. But he, like 6,165 other out-of-state hunters who tried to get the sought-after license, had to settle instead for the $239.50 antlerless-only license to be able to hunt deer in Iowa. A lottery system is used to determine who receives the $309.50 any-sex licenses each season.

"I hunted in Alabama for 25 years. You sit in a hunting box and wait for a deer to walk by. That's not real hunting," said LeBlanc, who has hunted in Appanoose County for five years.

"In Iowa it's real, just like what you see in the hunting videos," he said.

Conservation Officer Randy McPherren, who helps cover the Appanoose County area, said doubling the number of any-sex licenses for out-of-state hunters would be the right approach.

"We've been issuing more and more citations to nonresident hunters since the temptation of Iowa big bucks has grown," he said. "I had a case from North Carolina a couple of years ago. They had purchased doe tags and were coming in with no interest to shoot does.

"From the enforcement end, it is very difficult to catch someone when he has a license to be there. The antlerless-only tags create too much of a temptation," he said.

Natural Resources Wildlife Bureau Chief Dale Garner said officials this winter will ask the Legislature for an additional 2,000 any-sex, out-of-state licenses. Costs in the department are going up and there has been a squeeze on the budget. More license revenue would help support more programs, he said.

State Rep. Mary Lou Freeman, R-Alta, chairwoman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said she would favor a modest increase.

"If we can target out-of-state licenses to areas of the state where people want additional hunters, we might be able to get something out of committee," she said.

Iowans who oppose an increase, such as bow hunter Scott Rolffs of Lynnville, are upset that more hunting outfitters and out-of-state hunters have purchased or leased Iowa land. Iowa, where less than 1 percent of the land is open to public hunting, has traditionally been a state where private landowners allow others to come onto their property to hunt.

"Probably close to 2,000 acres of land I once hunted is now being used by people from out of state," said Rolffs, who hunts in southern Iowa.

Rep. Richard Arnold, R-Russell, who also serves on the House Natural Resources Committee, also is opposed to an increase in the number of hunting licenses.

"I represent the hunters, the people in my area, and they don't want more out-of-state hunters," Arnold said. "They tend to buy up the land. This shuts hunting areas off to local hunters."

Still, the sale and leasing of land for hunting, as well as visits by out-of-state hunters, have economic benefits for rural areas.

LeBlanc said he spends around $1,500 for a four- or five-day hunting trip in Iowa. A federal survey shows out-of-state hunters spend an average of $225 to $250 a day on items such as gas, food and lodging.

"I really do like to come to Iowa. I love the people there, they are so friendly," LeBlanc said. "I feel badly and am embarrassed about what we did. It never happened before and it won't happen again."

Poaching hot line

Anyone who sees deer being illegally taken should call the Turn in Poachers Hotline. The majority of complaints to the hot line each year are deer-related. The number, answered 24 hours a day, is (800) 532-2020.

DAMAGES: Anyone, resident or out of state, caught taking a buck without the proper license will be fined according to the size of the deer's antlers. The damages can range from around $4,000 to $20,000 for larger-antlered deer. The cost for taking a doe illegally is $1,500.
FINES: Charges for taking a deer illegally are considered misdemeanors and carry a maximum fine of up to $100 plus costs, which comes to $147 maximum for each incident.


Out-of-state deer costs

ANY-SEX TAG: $309.50, which includes the cost of a deer license, a regular small-game hunting license, habitat fee and processing charge. This tag allows the hunter to kill a buck or a doe.
ANTLERLESS ONLY: $239.50, including the same licenses and fees as the any-sex tag. However, this tag allows the hunter to only hunt deer without antlers. Usually that means harvesting a doe, but occasionally a young buck who has yet to grow antlers.


DAMAGES: Anyone, resident or out of state, caught taking a buck without the proper license will be fined according to the size of the deer's antlers. The damages can range from around $4,000 to $20,000 for larger-antlered deer. The cost for taking a doe illegally is $1,500.
FINES: Charges for taking a deer illegally are considered misdemeanors and carry a maximum fine of up to $100 plus costs, which comes to $147 maximum for each incident.


Out-of-state deer costs

ANY-SEX TAG: $309.50, which includes the cost of a deer license, a regular small-game hunting license, habitat fee and processing charge. This tag allows the hunter to kill a buck or a doe.
ANTLERLESS ONLY: $239.50, including the same licenses and fees as the any-sex tag. However, this tag allows the hunter to only hunt deer without antlers. Usually that means harvesting a doe, but occasionally a young buck who has yet to grow antlers.
 
Unbelievable! "finally, they could no longer resist"What baloney. These guys came here with only one intent, to break the law by shooting a buck. Shame on the DNR officer, the reporter and Mary Lou Freeman for putting a spin on this story to increase non- res tags. Parading these guys as victims is over the line.
 
my e-mail to the reporter
"Juli,
Poaching is a crime. I doubt that your article would have been as sympathetic had you been writing about a criminal that "gave in" to the temptation of your household goods because they were just so tempting. This was not a mistake or error, these poachers bought anterless tags and traveled hundreds of miles to hunt here. Not one but four times they broke the law and should be branded with the title they deserve. Criminals."
 
Nobody wins in that situation. That is a very disturbing article indeed. I've seen more and more out-of-state people buying and leasing land around our family's farm and we're not even in a "big buck" county persay. Not good, that's for sure.
 
This article is a shame and a disgrace to the entire hunting community. All of you know I support a reasonable increase in anysex tags for the NRs, but there is absolutely NO justification for this by victimizing a criminal. I will definitely email my 2 cents.

I am also appalled by Mr. Scott Rolffs' comments. If you are going to make statements like that, you better have the numbers to back it up. Hearsay will get you no where.

I will be sure to forward actual numbers by acre to the Des Moines register and all of the Reps.

This article is full of misrepresentations, and as a hunter I am embarrased.
 
I called Julie this morning and left a few messages. Waiting to hear back from her..........
 
The underlying point here is MORE MONEY . Even the DNR guy say's it. I don't blame him for that, it would benefit all DNR guys. But at what cost to us. Us being resident hunters. Plus, talking ignorant legislators into voting for this increase because it would help decrease the deer population will probably work. I'm sure there's enough urbanites there that no absolutley nothing about herd management that think this is a good long term solution. I'm afraid this will come down to everything else in government....... MONEY TALKS
 
If money talks the DNR should be very happy to have collect the fines from these NR poachers. Enforcement with fines to increase revenue should be more beneficial than increasing NR numbers and reducing available resources for Iowa residents.
 
DC,

Could you post your numbers, how you come about them, and how you know them to be factual?

No response to my post...I'll just assume you have no facts.

Thanks

Mike
 
It's like telling your wife you had to cheat on her because that women was just so tempting. She wouldn't buy it.. And I'm sure most people are smart enough to see through this BS article.
 
It's hard to express how disturbing this article really is.

Here are some facts:

- Iowa is becoming a very popular destination by Non Resident Hunters

- Iowa hunting land values have sky rocketed in the last decade

- Iowa hunters feel threatened by the possibilities of losing hunting ground due to land purchases and leasing.

- Iowa filled it's quota of 2,500 NR antlerless tags this year - $598,750 revenue

Now for my opinions ...

- $239.50 is alot to pay for a doe tag - especially considering the temptations

- Non Residents can legally purchase a doe tag during shotgun season and party hunt with the boys

- The DNR is correct in stating allocating more any-sex tags will reduce the violations of hunters buck hunting with doe tags. Naturally these hunters will draw buck tags.

Good Discussion items

- If we increase the buck tags are we increasing revenue for the state or re-allocating the "doe" tag purchases to "buck" tag purchases?

- Should we increase NR doe tag quota?

- Should we increase NR buck tag quota and do away with NR doe tags?
waytogo.gif
or better yet make a doe tag available with a NR buck tag?

- Are there other solutions to our DNR budget short-fall?
 
IMO the best solution for the DNR short fall is to include a small percentage of our EXISTING state taxes to go towards DNR programs!!!


Just the other day I signed a petition for this at R&R Sports in Clinton.
 
More non-resident licenses = more leased ground = more deer.
Which is not what the DNR wants or the insurance companies want. And I don't want, because the buck to doe ratio is to high now. How do I come up with my formula. Well the several plots of leased ground that I know about is leased for one reason. To hunt trophy bucks. And no other hunting is allowed. So few does are getting shot on these 300 - 1500 acre leases all over the state. Too many does! But, I keep donating my money to help keep the deer population in Iowa in check. Interesting.
 
Onecam,
IA DNR expected 135,000 hunters afield for shotgun deer. We have 50,000 plus turkey hunters each spring. Add $10 to the resident hunting license or tag and you have the $1.8 million- now will residents step up to the plate?
 
The way the story reads to me is that the law enforcement officer appears to have resigned himself to the notion of illegal behavior in the form of poaching. ( I do acknowledge that his comments may not be presented in proper context BTW. I know from first hand experience that what one says to a reporter and means to convey is not necessarily how it shows up later in the papers. ) But the way the story reads to me it sounds like a major cop out, no pun intended.
smile.gif


If what he really meant to say is that it is inevitable that a hunter poaches due to the temptation of a large buck present, I wonder if he would feel the same way about a jewel thief that stole a diamond because it was too big. Either way, poachers are criminals and do not deserve sympathy.

When there are thousands of hunters and only dozens of CO's, enforcement is going to be an issue to be sure. But I sure hope we aren't just shrugging our shoulders, so to speak.

The sympathetic tone may well be the work of the reporter who just sprinkled in some quotes to suit the story. If I went to say Louisiana duck hunting and shot way over my limit because I was tempted because there were so many, I am still a poacher. I would not expect a sympathetic response and a corresponding increase in the daily bag limit to accomodate my lack of self control.
 
As a resident deer hunter, yes I would be more than willing to pay more for my any-sex tags to hunt within the state and shore up DNR shortfalls AS LONG AS SUCH FUNDS WERE NOT DIVERTED TO OTHER AREAS OF THE BUDGET. I also agree with the previous post which said that big leasing operations tend to under-harvest the areas under lease. It is a simple business equation regarding maintaining the "inventory" for future revenues.
 
One Cam

First I disagree about the DNR being correct that more buck tags would reduce violations. Unless we only issue NR tags as anysex we will have the same poor criminals being tempted to kill bucks with doe tags because we will still have NR with only doe tags with all those bucks walking by. The total number of tags won't change the number of violations, only the ratio.
Some of the other think questions are good ones. What if Iowa were to increase some what the number of anysex tags and then become an automatice draw state where if you didn't get an anysex tag you got an antlerless tag. Applicants would send in the full fee for anysex and if unsucessful then would be issued an antlerless tag and a refund for the difference. The state would sell the full allotment of all tags at full price and could tell exactly how many doe tags would go to all NR zones, increasing revenue. This might help cutdown on the number of applicants over the anysex limits and bring in more serious and lawabiding hunters willing to pay their way up front. It should also cut down on the 2 or 3 year wait for a NR to draw. We could also require some sort of proof of participation of those drawing doe tags before they are considered for a buck tag in future drawings. This is not a completely thought out idea at this point and I know there are flaws but it could be a start.

One last thing about these fine southern boys who just gave into temptation. I hope the don't ever take their wives to Hooters for a meal. Can you see the drooling temptation as waitresses walk by and the mahem when they finally give in.
 
Yes, it's time for resident hunters to step up. We haven't had an increase in price since 1992, the one dollar recently was to pay for electronic issuing. C'mon guys, a modest increase won't keep anyone from affording a tag. For the price of a couple arrows or boxes of shells, we can get the DNR off this non-res quota increase. To keep everyone satisfied, we need an increase in anysex tag price and a decrease in the price of the first doe tag. Then insurance companies and farmers can't say we aren't promoting a bigger doe kill, and the DNR gets more revenue. Let your senators and representatives know you support this! They are being pulled in different directions and would appreciate some input from their district.
 
Top Bottom