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

Poachers and NR tags? READ!

I guess I don't see the problem with drawing a tag every other year for a non-resident. Unless I've read the numbers incorrectly, 12,000 out of state hunters applied for 6,000 tags, which works out a tag every other year. I'm afraid that once the numbers start to increase at a more constant rate and the state sees more and more money every few years, that logic and understanding will go out the window. The fact that we can't get the resident fee increase is what really bugs me. I've never believed the "too many deer" theory that the state uses to justify the changes they make in licensing numbers, when in fact it all comes down to the money. I wish they'd just come out and say they want more money from us instead of trying to create other ways to get it. I would gladly pay an increase for my tags, and I'll also pay for one of the guys who doesn't feel he can afford it. 35 bucks doesn't buy much anymore these days, but it might be enough to keep a good thing from slipping away from us.
CRITR
 
The more I look at OneCams suggestions the more I like them. It solves many problems or potential problems. This whole post started due to some crooks and DNR individuals and the media implying that the law was wrong. If we need to change the law, how do we do that to solve some problems while also not creating new ones? The bottom line is these folks broke the law and will not get any crying towels from me. I could care less if they go down the creek without a paddle. They knowingly did it to themselves.

Supertec - I sure hope that the people have read your replys. This is what we need to know as none of this will get solved here but can get solved by getting involved elsewhere.
 
I hunt with out of state hunters, both gun and bow. The bowhunters hunt for horns, and have little desire to harvest a doe. The gun hunters would like to harvest a buck, but tend to be more willing to shoot does.

I doubt the dual tags would be a great management tool for the archery tags, but I think they would be great for the gun hunters.

I don't know for fact why the archery cap is in place, but using hunters as a management tool, the percent of archery hunters that go home empty handed is probably much higher than gun hunters. Higher numbers of gun hunters equals higher number of deer on the ground
 
I think your proposal has great merit Onecam. As a non-res, yes I would like to see an increase in the the number of anysex tags issued. Yes I would be interested in also having the option to take a doe on a combo tag. A price increase wouldn't scare many out-of-staters away. I look at the cost increase as an access fee or a payment to the state for use of the land, whether it's public or private. I would encourage you to take this proposal forward, and find a sponsor. If positive supporting correspondence from non-residents would help, let us know how we can pitch in. I think where there is temptation you will always find folks who make the wrong choice, and this may help eliminate some of that.

Just got to say, although this has been a very serious thread, I had to chuckle when I read the phrase "temptation tags"
grin.gif
 
I think if the state would focus on bringing back more CRP (granted it's federally funded) Iowa could get back into being one of, if not the top PHEASANT states in the country. Pheasant hunters come in larger numbers, they don't have to worry about drawing tags and they can hunt all season long! Nobody argues about who shot the biggest rooster or what it scored, just good 'ol fashion pheasant busting stirring up millions of dollars for our economy and heck no one complains about hitting them with their car. I think personally there's more money to be made off of pheasant hunters than deer. Granted we need to preserve our deer herds but putting a little emphasis back on pheasants wouldn't hurt either.

I hardly can read the DesMoines Register anymore with their liberal spin they put on every story.

My 2 cents

Pupster
 
Supertec- 10yr NR IBA member here. I send my money because I can't be more involved.

Loesshillshunter- Be careful what you wish for with earnabuck. Until youve experienced this management tool like I have first hand you have no idea how it screws up the hunting for the year. Myt area in WI this year was EAB. How would you like all the good ol boy shotgunners out making drives through you r area to get thier does on Halloween weekend. Stay away from this idea at all costs!!!!!!!!!

One cam- Incredible proposal!! Let me know if I can be of help with it. The feeincrease is not too severe and the doe tag would help farmers with the deer problems. Being able to purchase antlerless liscenses over the counter would be great as well.

We were going to head down to
iowa on a Holiday season hunt this weekend but all the tags sold out this week. I checked the IDNR website and thier are 600 resident antlerless tags left for the county I hunt. Seems ridiculous that the DNR can't get my $130 when these tags are going to go unused. This system needs to change.

WI Shedhead
157RAtinybuck-thumb[1].gif
 
Earn a buck would suit me, as long as residents participate too. Raise the fees for NRs if you wish. $400, $500, or $1000. I will pay whatever it takes to hunt my land. The delicate part of this is that you will be fueling that which is detested so much throughout this site, that is making hunting a sport of the elite. It seems that anything goes, as long as it is directed at the NR hunter.If you make those NR tags $1000, the self centered side of me would be delighted, but the ethical side of cutting out my fellow hunters would be ashamed. This is a tough, tough issue............
180B&C
 
I agree that it is inevitable that the number of NR tags will increase...much to my chagrin.

I also agree that the 2,500 NR doe tags are just that, a "temptation". I'm willing to bet that at least a full third of these tags are illegally used to harvest a buck.

Why not make it 8,500 any-sex combo-tags - 17,000 tags in all, a 100% increase in tags issued.

I think they ought to raise the NR combo-tag price to $600. An Iowa buck is as much a trophy as a New Mexico Elk, if you ask me.

I for one would be happy to pay $35 for an any-sex tag...if it helps to protect resident hunters.

'Bonker, I think that's a great idea, regarding the DNR management of leased land and outfitters...
waytogo.gif
 
I hate to admit it, and yes it discriminates, but the way I meant it was "earn a buck" for NR's only and only during one of the shotgun seasons. I know I'll take some heck from you 180 and other NR's but this is just a thought. And just think, if it was implimented for NR's you may get to hunt your land every year!
 
Im for whatever you guys want to do, as long as I can either sex hunt on my land. I want to help in any way I can. Earn a buck, $1000 tag, what ever, so we can all have a quality experience.
smile.gif

180B&C
 
I like avidhunters numbers best of those I have seen, but am not sure an increase to $600 seems necessary. The $35 residence fee seems more than resonable as well. 170000 NR tags as combo sound like a larger increase than it is and includes NR in the herd management. I would like to see the 35% bow cap remain in place. I believe controlling the season the grouth in hunters move to is important. Gun hunters may be more likely to fill the bonus doe tags.

I am enjoying this exchange , now what do we do with it? I am going to attach a link to the commity chair and cochair.
 
Still waiting for some numbers DC.



Amazing, the Mid America Hunting Association alone has 19,600 acres leased in our state.

They also have 122,405 acres leased in Kansas!!

89,475 acres in Missouri!!

I could be wrong, but I don't think those states have the same trophy recognition Iowa has.

http://www.ks-mo-hunt.org/


The Iowa DNR has us listed as having only 270,000 acres of public areas. These are not all timber and upland. This includes marshes and other usage areas along with no hunting access refuges.

http://www.iowadnr.com/wildlife/wmamaps/pubhunt.html#public
 
Onecam,
I would disagree with the plan you are proposing. Increasing nonres tags just to do away with "temptation tags" is obsurd. Thats like rewarding a child for being bad. There are way to many nonresidents buying doe tags with no intention of ever shooting a doe in the first place. I use to apply for a nonres tag and was more than happy with the current system. If I was gonna pay the money for the tag, I want the guarantee of knowing there will be a good chance of me shooting a big buck when I do get there. Everyone keeps saying that money will win out, thats fine let it win, just dont destroy what makes it so valuable. The 35% cap is another strong tool used to keep the hunting at a level that is great for everyone. To say it discriminates against our fellow bowhunters is a selfish statement. The guys who wish to lift the cap are the ones who probably already have land and it wouldnt effect them to such a great extent. In fact it would probably help them. More QDM around there ground, more big bucks for them. Thats where the real discrimination is at. Also, I would like to see some numbers on what the actual deficit is for the DNR. Why all of a sudden is money a issue?
My solutions:
Increase resident and nonresident prices for anysex tags.
Offer Nonres doe tags only during the special late antlerless season.
Keep the 35% cap on tags alloted to bowhunters.
 
The DNR ought to list them on eBay and let the market decide what they are worth. Is this a great country or what?
 
Thought I would reiterate that I just threw some figures together to create discussion. It's not an official proposal per say ...

One thing I would guess that an official proposal will come through for an increase of at least 2,000 any sex tags based on two areas of concern;

1. DNR funding
2. Population control

I would rather the IBA come up with a or support a "second option" proposal which will cover the above issues and be in the best interest of the Iowa bowhunter.
waytogo.gif


ScottIC - I really like your idea for moving all NR doe tags to the late season but I wonder what that would do for sales? I'm sure the DNR thought this through as well - "temptation" tags
grin.gif
 
I doubt a conservative number of tags will satisfy those who are pushing for them.

As far as DNR funding and population control being concerns, can we consider that population control is a concern?

Iowa's chief deer biologist Willy Suchy said himself that the herd reduction plan is working and the residents have done a good job. He mentioned it would take a few more years of this plan, but things were looking good.

As far as funding, it's hard to believe there are no options other than increasing NR tags.

Why should the hunters have to carry the whole burden?
 
That's why I suggest they keep the total number of NR hunters at 8,500 - just combine an antlerless tag with an any-sex tag. In effect the increase in overall tags is 100% = which looks really good on paper
grin.gif


Of course the increase in any-sex tags is only 42%. When the reality is that a lot of these "temptation" tags are being used on bucks anyhow...so there would be little to no change - same number of hunters, with hopefully more does taken which benefits the QDM in Iowa.

In short:
0% change in number of NR hunters
100% increase in number of NR tags issued
42% increase in number of "official" any-sex tags
9% increase in price of combo-tags ($549 to $600)
35% increase in price of resident any-sex tags ($26 to $35)

this results in a:
208% increase in NR revenue ($2,455,750 to $5,100,000)
35% increase in resident revenue ($4,420,000 to $5,950,000)
38% increase in overall DNR revenue ($7,982,161 to $11,050,000)...imagine how much public land the DNR could buy then?
waytogo.gif
 
I thought everyone might get a kick out this. Below is my email.

I am sure this is not the first email you have received on this subject and I hope it is not the last. Let me say your article is a complete disgrace to laws of this state and to all nature lovers. Your article creates a aura that the poachers is the story is the victim is absurd. These individuals knew what they could and could not harvest when they came to Iowa, and the notion that they were too tempted to resist is just an excuse to ease their conscience.

Your article is the exact reason I will never subscribe to the Des Moines Register.

Here is the response I received a few minutes ago.
evil.gif


I understand your feeling the way you do, but my intent was not to portray this guy as a victim. It is not too often that a person who has been convicted of a crime opens up and talks about what he or she did. I felt it was an opportunity to show the thinking behind the poachers as well as how strong the lure of the big buck is because of national media coverage and hunting videos as well as the Albia Buck. I also point out in the article the sizable fines and damages that had to be paid and the fact this guy said he and his friends deliberately chose to ignore the law and got caught. I feel understanding why people do what they do can give all people an insight into why some things happen. As hunters and nature lovers we should not be putting our heads in the sand and pretend this doesn't happen. My family has had wildlife poached on our land by local Iowans no less, and it is not good, nor do I feel sympathy for the poachers. But understanding them may help people make decisions about what to do about the problem. I am neutral as a reporter to whether more out of state tags should be offered. And believe it or not, I have had as many positive e-mails on the article as negative ones. I stand behind the way I wrote the article and feel it was well balanced, including DNR officials, legislators, a hunter opposed to increases, as well as the poacher himself. I hope my next article is more to your liking. Thanks for your feedback and I'm so glad to hear you read the Register.

wstupid.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom