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

Poachers and NR tags? READ!

As a non-resident hunter of Iowa, and a hunter in general, I must say that the article is very disturbing. Poaching is poaching no matter what the reasons. Criminals will always try to justify their criminal acts. In the end they're still breaking the law no matter how they attempt to justify it.

Although I might disagree with some of the current policies such as non-resident landowners (either sex) tags, cost of doe license, inability of non-residents to purchase doe license concurrent with either sex tags, etc., I knew all these rules prior to participating and am compelled (and required)to abide by them.

Although it is my personal opinion that some accommodations could and probably should be made to those that have made a vested interest in the State of Iowa by investing in land and the wildlife that inhabit that land, I am opposed to a general increase in non-resident either sex tag allocations and cannot for one minute believe that increases in the allocation would reduce the number of poaching incidents. If there is data to support that claim I would love to see it.

Two years ago my wife drew an either sex tag and I purchased a doe tag so that I could hunt with her. Although I feel the tag was (is) overpriced I played by the rules and killed a large doe. Closely following the doe I killed, and within easy bow range, was a 160" buck which I would have loved to have taken. But that would have been against the law. So I took some video of him and considered it a privledge to capture him on video and help the overall health of the herd out by taking the doe.

Rut
 
This is good conversation ...

These are rough figures but it looks as though the DNR deer license revenue is as follows

Resident
Bow and Gun 170,000 tags @ $26 = $4,420,000
69,151 antlerless tags assuming avg of 3 per hunter
- 23,050 @ $26 = $599,300
- 46,401 @ $11 = $507,111

Totaling $5,526,411

Non Resident

Bow and Gun 6,000 tags @ $309.50 = $1,857,000
2,500 Antlerless Tags @ $239.50 = $598,750
Totaling $2,455,750

$5,526,411 not figuring landowner and celeb tags etc

I'm not certain what the current deficit is but I would speculate $2 million would be an agressive revenue goal.

Here's one idea that I may support ...

Increase NR Tags to 10,000 but do away with antlerless tags. Additionally increase the fee to $350 and include an antlerless tag.

10,000 @ 350 = $3,500,000 or an increase of $1,044,250
* additional antlerless licenses can be purchased from county quota for $26 each
** remove 35% cap for bowhunters

Increase Resident either sex licenses fees $9 to $35 @170,000 = $5,950,000 or an increase of $1,530,000
Keep antlerless fees the same

Totaling $2,574,250 in increased fees

What are your thoughts?
 
So it could potentially be 100% NR gun tags or 100% NR bow tags? Slim chance it would be 100% either way but is that a potential?

The 'Bonker
 
This whole thing in the article is ridiculous. I'm trying to think of a good letter to the editor on this and many of your quotes are good ones. If they say that a solution is the amount of either sex tags should be doubled, I could say all sorts of things like; NO MORE NON-RESIDENTS, or NO MORE ANLTLERLESS TAGS FOR THE NON-RES! Both of those options eliminate the TEMPTATION that these criminals succumbed to. Yes, they are criminals no matter how we look at it. They robbed all of us legal hunters (both resident and non-resident) of something that they had no right to.

OneCam, I like you proposal. I have no problem with a few more non-res hunters sharing the resource that we have. Until now, I had no problem with them getting an anterless tag. Now, I have a big problem with that. These goof-ups may have screwed up what may have been a good thing for many law abiding non-res hunters. I also think us residents are willing to pay more as was hinted a few years ago but shot down by our government. As silly as it sounds, we should demand to pay more!
 
150, your quote "I could say all sorts of things like; NO MORE NON-RESIDENTS, or NO MORE ANLTLERLESS TAGS FOR THE NON-RES! Both of those options eliminate the TEMPTATION that these criminals succumbed to. "
As a NR, I would suggest you say whatever you wish in the editorial. The fact is I have serious doubts about anyone leaving their home state and driving 1000 or more miles to kill a doe. Does are abundant in every state now and I dont need to go to Iowa to kill one. We let resident hunters kill ample numbers of does on our land because we cant get tags to do so. Most NR land that I know of is not mis-managed. Your experience may be different. I would suggest the IBA spend some money on education. Many hunters may not see overpopulation of does for the problem that it is.
My 2 cents.
confused.gif
 
I hunt elk in New Mexico trophy areas and have to pay a premium for that,so its only fair that NR should dish it out for what we consider our state to be one of the best.
 
Why propose any increase in NR tags until there are some sound numbers known on current leasing and outfitting?

It would be wise to have outfitter licensing and regulations addressed prior to an increase.

Also, how would this money be used?

We should have some stipulations in place as to how this money will be used to benefit IOWA hunters?

ie. using it aggressively for public land aquisitions.

Some big questions need to get answered.

Look before you leap, or you might be shoulder deep in sh!*.
 
Great idea One Cam!

Although I am a biased resident, I believe a nr tag for $350 is still a fair price when you consider the quality of deer we have here.
 
River Bttm Boy, you may assume whatever you like...the facts have been delivered to the right people...and I owe you nothing. If you really wanted to know the truth, you would have researched the data yourself instead of spreading hearsay and propaganda.

Everyone will get to see the facts and data I have compiled - but not likely on this site.

Poaching is assinine as is ignorance.
 
Poaching is poaching. It makes my day every time I hear of some idiot that got caught. Even Billy Custer (Rubys husband) got caught in 2003. Law is law, more $ to go towards Iowas wildlife.
I don't have any problem w/ NR paying over $300 for a buck tag. No one is forcing any NR to come here to hunt. If they want to come here & dig at our Gold Mine , then they can pay to do it. All we really have to offer is whitetail deer. No elk, wild boar, mulies, bear or anything else that a NR would pay good $ to hunt.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone will get to see the facts and data I have compiled - but not likely on this site.

[/ QUOTE ]

DC-

I, for one, would love to see some of this "factual information" you keep bragging about. Serve it up, send it via a PM, do something to back all your talk up. I look forward to seeing something concrete that we can discuss rather than throwing insults and personal opinions back and forth between all of us.
 
How many of you actually are non-resident/resident IBA members? How many of you actually have been to a IBA meeting? How many of you actually know what the IBA is all about? All the programs that we run/support? I'm getting tired of everyone using the IBA as a escape goat for all these posts. I see a select few people on here that are bashing the IBA and blaming us for this or that, when you have no clue what you are talking about. I have dedicated 1000's of hours to the IBA, Archery in Schools, Mid Iowa Archers, and this fine site. It is called payback. What do you do to give back to the sport of archery, and bowhunting? I want to ensure that my kids and future grandkids have a place to hunt in Iowa without paying trophy fee's or going with a outfitter. I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, but the IBA has some of the most respected individuals in the state running it. We are in constant contact with the DNR, HUSH, TIP, Lobbyist, Legislators, etc. So we are well informed at all times. I guess my point to this post is get involved, it does no good sitting there pissing and moaning about issues til your blue in the face, do something about it!
 
River Bottom Boy, I agree with you about licensing of guides/outfitters. How can a potential client be assured they are dealing with a reputable (honest) guide/outfitter with out some sort of yard stick? I'll even go further. If a land owner wants to lease his land for hunting they must list their land with the DNR as being leasable. The DNR should then step in and do a QDM type survey and set goals for how many deer and of which sex can be harvested off of that piece of ground. There would of course be a fee for this that the land owner would pay to the DNR. Once the survey is complete the land owner could sign a contract with a licensed outfitter/guide who would then file the contract with the DNR and the guide/outfitter would have to supply verifiable data to the DNR that they are meeting their herd control goals. Also the guide/outfitter would need to provide the names of their clients to the DNR to be sure that they are legal to hunt. The guide/outfitter of course would have to pay a fee for their license and a per client fee to the DNR. All of this would help pay for administration of the lease/outfitter/client system and any extra monies realized, I'm sure the legislature could assess fees high enough to ensure extra monies were built into the system, to purchase more ground for public hunting. This would also give us a firm number on how much land is being leased for hunting. Wouldn't do much for NR landowners but the pay to play folks would help not only the "family farm" but the family hunter as well.

The 'Bonker
 
supertech,

Well said! I've pointed out before, if it wasn't for the IBA we'd have a gun season during rut like some other states. I don't agree with them on every issue but I still think my dues are some of my best spent dollars because I want to see this sport continue and that is what they are about.

Onecam,

Great idea. I thing the any sex and antlerless tag combo has a lot of potential. Non-residents can feel like they are chipping in with doe control without burning a very expensive buck tag. Outfitters could require or at least request that their clients help chip in on qdm. I'm not seeing the down side right now. Anyone else see a problem with a combo tag?
 
Again this is just my opinion but NR increases are inevitable. As I see it the above plan only increases NR tags by 1,500 - remember we currently allocate 8,500 NR tags (2,500 of which are "temptation" tags).

Still not sure if I support the increase but wanted to put something out there to stimulate conversation.

Other opinions or ideas?
 
Onecam, I'll ask you again, how do they divy up the bow and gun tags? Other than that you have a pretty good plan.

The 'Bonker
 
What would you guys/gals suggest?

Again just my opinion but I would rather favor the bowhunter with tag allotments.
 
I think a smaller increase to say 8500 tags with a combo priced at $400. I'd like to understand the 35% bow limit better. Why is it in place? Why should it be removed?
 
How about at the deadline they look at total number of apps and split them as they are applied for. In other words lets say they are gonna give out 10,000 NR tags and 20,000 applied. Of that 20K 15K are bow and 5K are gun. Then they should issue 75% bow and 25% gun or 8K bow and 2K gun. The numbers are ficticious, and so is my math.

Just a thought.

The 'Bonker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom