POLL: MOST BENEFICIAL REGULATION CHANGE?

[Sligh1]

Maybe I'm an oddball, have access to LO tags, but haven't harvested a buck in several years, so it would be tough to not at least have the opportunity for Archery, Shotgun and ML. How many other LO's are in the same boat of rarely taking a buck with all 3 tags?

Agree 100%!!!!! If we did go to 2 LO tags…. Probably would be floating so u could use any season. There’s also why I don’t think it’s a hard sell…. ME: “oh darn, I can only shoot 2 bucks and hunt 4 months to get em in 5 or so deer seasons”. Big nothing.

 

[Sligh1]

I am around “casual dudes” & around the whole state with “hard core guys”. Overall…. I’d say 90% are somewhat to very frustrated with where we at this year or recent years.

I’d say, anecdotally (with lots of experience though & being across state) ….. 70 to ??? Maybe 90% of state is “too low on deer pop” & I’d say 50% or slightly more is saying “dude, our deer #’s are way low or wiped out”. There’s several pockets I know of “very high” but - IMO- it’s less than 1% of the state. Now if u are around those unique areas - anyone might think “iowa has too many deer”…. It’s so regional. The crazy high densities exist but they are such a small geographic area vs rest of state. Don’t reduce quotas in those high density areas of course.

IMHO- the lowest hanging fruit is getting population back up. & yes, I’m saying it: we have some parts of the state with very few deer. & yes, no deer = new hunters quit followed by seasoned hunters down road. U have to have game to keep excitement. How many guys were crazed pheasant hunters back in 80’s - 90’s? What happened in 2000’s when they gone. Almost everyone quit!!! This ain’t complex. & yes, the state is very concerned about the new hunters quitting. VERY! Are they concerned about insurance companies, farmers & farm bureau? YES. But hunters quitting has their attention. More animals to RETAIN hunters is a BIG issue!!!!
NOW, on that issue alone: can we satisfy both groups??!?!?! YES!!!!!!!!!!!! 1) get populations to even “decent levels” in areas almost void of deer. 2) reduce quotas in most counties so we can get #’s up in areas “struggling”. Instead of 2500 tags…. Lower it to 1500 for example. Whatever….. it’s too low in MOST areas. 3) FARMERS, FARM BUREAU & INSURANCE….. A) farmers that complain are put in DNR’s walk-in list to shoot deer. Online lists. Or enroll full time into walk-in hunting. B) we still do have depredation tags for the guys who just love to complain & hate deer. I hate it but it exists for those guys & they can’t say there’s no solutions. C) right now CO’s have standing lists of those wanting to shoot does. D) educate on all the solutions available & also educate on COON DAMAGE that deer get Blame for. There’s zero reason a farmer or farm bureau should complain with tools we have now & could add. LAST- INSURANCE COMPANIES: mainly a myth…. They just raise the rates. They really don’t care. Its a big nothing. A Wash. when folks say “insurance companies” they really mean Farm Bureau. & like we just stated- there’s solutions!!!!!! & dirty secret #2….. I’ve spoke with many at farm bureau. It’s 5-15 angry farmers that drive all this “kill all the deer”. & heck- those angry guys could pry get $5-10k in leasing land & require doe killing if it’s really about $. It’s a non argument if we apply all the solutions. Last: deer collisions…. It’s really a myth & premiums adjust accordingly. But if it truly was…. ROI on deer fence on expressways is staggeringly good. Ottumwa has some. By iowa falls…. South of mason city. On & on …. Cost vs any road maintenance or construction cost is tiny!!!!! They spend 5-10x that on flowers, shrubs, grasses, etc. We have very little timber so running deer fence on high speed areas along forest is actually a TINY TINY TINY cost.
There’s just so many other solutions. U lose hunters, resident hunters: now THAT is a HUGE economic impactor!!!!!! Lose em & lose billions of dollars long term. & see how happy those angry farmers are when no hunters to control deer #’s.
IMHO- lightening of deer quotas with solutions to farmers is the best bang for buck out of the whole list. & yep- it’ll create more big bucks with more bucks period & allow guys to shoot does & save a buck doing it. Get those populations up statewide & helps about 5-6 issues we face.

 

[Tmayer13]

I would be all for lowering the antlerless quotas in some areas but there is the issue of how do you regulate it if a specific area or farm has a big population of deer? Typically the deer are in that one area because of something they like; habitat, food, pressure...whatever it would be. Well you are not going to change that particular farm to get those deer to disperse to other parts of that county. That habitat will most likely remain good enough to hold the animals(I am talking about guys who enhance their farms for deer).
So let me put it like this: I own 1000 acres in Adair County. I have done TSI, food plots, natives, ponds, etc. I have a more than healthy deer population. Go out and see 50 deer regularly. BUT Adair county has ZERO doe tags available. So now I cannot shoot a few more deer that I would want to shoot and probably would need to so I can keep the der numbers in check on my particular farm. How would I be able to say "Hey Mr DNR officer, I need 3 doe tags for late season this year"?

Now 1 mile down the road, my buddy owns 500 acres. He is basically a row crop farmer but has some draws and a little timber but doesn't really do any type of habitat. So his deer numbers are VERY low in comparison. He is saying "No more doe tags for a few years, I cant even shoot a deer now". So he is calling the same DNR officer saying "Whoa! No more tags".

How can they possibly regulate what to do in this situation. It looks like the herd is over populated in one spot and under in the other spot?

Also my next point may seem brash but its real. I frankly don't want to retain all these hunters. Its damn near impossible to find permission land, getting very hard to find leases and the public is getting over run. I WANT some of these "new" hunters to quit. I want some of the ground to free back up. I know its sounds selfish but its the truth. I will gladly pay 3x the license fees if that meant less tags were issued.

So to answer the OG questions:
Make IA a 1 buck state would help.
Reduce the antlerless tags would be good but can also be a slippery slop depending on the farm
Most definitely remove party hunting(which is quite possibly the dumbest law ever created)
Remove Shed buck season

 

[Hardwood11]

If you want great deer hunting in Iowa. You’d keep the gun season in December. That’s the key! Cut back on the Muzzy season, and it’s over on December 31!

One buck tag & one doe tag per person. You then work with landowners (with 40 acres) of more on additional doe tags, or an additional buck tag .. if warranted.

Sacrifices need to be made, or nothing will improve !

 

[sure shot]

I'm against the 1 buck rule, and I'll argue that unless you also get rid of party hunting, it will have very little impact on buck age structure. That will only affect the people that archery and gun hunt. I'd say if someone is bowhunting, the chances of them being more selective on bucks exists. I'd say the majority of young bucks are shot by the orange army that only gun hunts. You limit people to 1 buck tag a year, but allow party hunting, it's going to make no difference to the gun only hunters. The reason it has helped other states is they don't allow party hunting.

Also, everyone on here bringing it up, also points out that LO should get 2 bucks. If it's really a great idea, we should hold everyone to that rule.

In my 20 plus years hunting iowa, I've shot 2 bucks on one year, but I enjoy being able to go out after a buck with both my bow and gun. I'd like to see the statistics on how many people double up every year. I'd assume the DNR has that data.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

 

[sure shot]

Also, deer hunting was the best in the early 2000s when the population was higher, therefore we are better off going after increasing the overall population by limiting doe tags.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Rjack]

What actually does "1 buck" mean? Can I only buy one any sex tag per year so I would have to pick only 1 of early muzzy, bow, gun 1, gun 2, and late muzzy?
Or, I can buy 2 (or more) of these but can only fill one with a buck?
I am more in favor if it is the 2nd option.

 

[Thinkin Rut]

Also, everyone on here bringing it up, also points out that LO should get 2 bucks. If it's really a great idea, we should hold everyone to that rule.

This illustrates how fragmented the deer hunting world really is and how hard it will be getting anything changed or stopped. It's LO against non LO, it's shotgun hunter against bow hunter, resident against non res, compound vs Crossbow and on and on. I voted for one buck and would eat my LO for that but I'm sure that sure shot would see that differently if he were a LO.

 

[newfarmer]

What actually does "1 buck" mean? Can I only buy one any sex tag per year so I would have to pick only 1 of early muzzy, bow, gun 1, gun 2, and late muzzy?
Or, I can buy 2 (or more) of these but can only fill one with a buck?
I am more in favor if it is the 2nd option.

I would assume if the state switched to 1 buck, it would be a floating tag...

 

[newfarmer]

This illustrates how fragmented the deer hunting world really is and how hard it will be getting anything changed or stopped. It's LO against non LO, it's shotgun hunter against bow hunter, resident against non res, compound vs Crossbow and on and on. I voted for one buck and would eat my LO for that but I'm sure that sure shot would see that differently if he were a LO.

It really is exactly as you describe. However, as landowners contribute habitat, you have to give something. Now that being said, I do think it needs to be a LANDOWNER. Not tenants, not renters, ONLY the landowners. That is where that gets abused beyond belief.

 

[Rjack]

I would assume if the state switched to 1 buck, it would be a floating tag...

That would be a big reduction in revenue - unless the price goes up significantly. I generally by 2 or 3 any sex tags each year - and 90% of the time I only fill one or zero.

 

[Thinkin Rut]

landowners contribute habitat

Landowners deserve another tag...Just because I would forfeit mine, I'd never ask of anyone to do the same!

 

[Hardwood11]

Also, deer hunting was the best in the early 2000s when the population was higher, therefore we are better off going after increasing the overall population by limiting doe tags.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

But keep in mind the changes since 2000

Cameras, fancy permanent blinds, better deer stands, straight wall rifles, high end muzzleloader, early Muzzy seasons, youth seasons, bigger & better food plots, more $$ dedicated to hunting.

It has to be more than just doe tags, in my opinion.

 

[sure shot]

It really is exactly as you describe. However, as landowners contribute habitat, you have to give something. Now that being said, I do think it needs to be a LANDOWNER. Not tenants, not renters, ONLY the landowners. That is where that gets abused beyond belief.

As a non-landwoner, I still contribute to habitat on the private ground I have permission on, along with 2 acres of food plots.

As far as the divide, I agree. I haven't put any money towards the lobbyist effort yet, mainly because I'm concerned that it will go towards laws that I don't want. I'm not saying I won't contribute, but this discussion here is one of the reasons I haven't.

I would be all for a floating 1 buck tag, but I'm not sure how well that would work as I see it causing confusion/error. I see people buying a gun tag, shooting an archery buck and thinking they can still fill their gun tag.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

 

[sure shot]

But keep in mind the changes since 2000

Cameras, fancy permanent blinds, better deer stands, straight wall rifles, high end muzzleloader, early Muzzy seasons, youth seasons, bigger & better food plots, more $$ dedicated to hunting.

It has to be more than just doe tags, in my opinion.

More deer means more bucks, which means more 2.5 year old, 3.5 year old, 4.5 year old, etc.

I don't think the age structure of bucks is much different than back then, and if anything, it's slightly better now as more people are "more" selective on the buck they shoot.

I think your argument would only make sense if there was a lower age class now, meaning more mature bucks getting shot and not bucks in general.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Hardwood11]

Sure shot —I guess I don’t think the age structure is better ! … but it depends on location. EHD was not around in 2000 either . That’s a huge factor

 

[Thinkin Rut]

Amen to more deer but I doubt it will fly with farmers and insurance companies. If the move is to less deer then it's obvious less buck tags to insure a pleasurable hunt. How we get there is the real question. Put a premium on a second tag? That would be a huge fight from the less wealthy and the urge to fill it would be greater. Maybe a second tag draw? The price is still going up to satisfy the DNR. Points? Second tag quotas to match county deer populations?

 

[iowavf]

I'm against the 1 buck rule, and I'll argue that unless you also get rid of party hunting, it will have very little impact on buck age structure. That will only affect the people that archery and gun hunt. I'd say if someone is bowhunting, the chances of them being more selective on bucks exists. I'd say the majority of young bucks are shot by the orange army that only gun hunts. You limit people to 1 buck tag a year, but allow party hunting, it's going to make no difference to the gun only hunters. The reason it has helped other states is they don't allow party hunting.

Also, everyone on here bringing it up, also points out that LO should get 2 bucks. If it's really a great idea, we should hold everyone to that rule.

In my 20 plus years hunting iowa, I've shot 2 bucks on one year, but I enjoy being able to go out after a buck with both my bow and gun. I'd like to see the statistics on how many people double up every year. I'd assume the DNR has that data.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

Bow hunter's might be more selective because after all the season is 61 days long compared to say 5 days or 9 days of the shotgun seasons? I know the deer numbers were very good around the late 90's and 2000, but just look around your areas you hunt now and see how much habitat is gone? Nothing against big farmers, but they buy land to make money from which means they want to farm every inch. Small timbers, brushy areas, old farmsteads, and even fence rows are gone. Even the bigger cities have expanded and took over the small farms of the past.

 

[Sligh1]

High deer population areas:
1) will not be managed by SOME folks as u could give them unlimited tags & they wouldn’t fill them.
2) are “incredibly rare” if we looked across state & also realized, 75% of counties are too low. Pry half are almost void of deer. It’s a sliver of the landscape “too high”. It exists, no doubt, but it’s an extreme exception across iowa. (Yes, I’ve seen some pockets in van buren & a few other counties for example)
3) again: give the solutions to farmers/lo’s!!!! Offer the depredation tag program- which does exist right now!!! It’s a SOLUTION we have TODAY!!!!! U call dnr biologist - they assess damage & u get tags. I keep hearing guys say “farmers won’t go for it”. If they have the tools or utilize what’s there today- it literally is not an issue!!!!!! Dep tags, dnr office waiting list to shoot does, paid for walk-in hunting & we can create a list online of farmers that will allow does to be shot. To say there isn’t obvious multiple solutions is crazy!!!
4) I wanna repeat…. The TINY crop damage done (yes, I said it) from deer…. Which could be solved (see #3!!!) is a drop in the bucket vs the $ brought in from hunters, gear, tags, hunting activities or the hunting economy at large. Grow the deer herd- grow the economy, amount of bucks, tag sales, etc. Use some of those funds for the programs that get does shot on land where they are too high. The simple economics on this is a clear winner with more deer. NET results: way way way more profitable with more deer. This can be a WIN/WIN. More deer & more solutions for those that have issues
5) REMEMBER - 99% of this landscape is not dealing with this!!!! N of 80….. 95% of farms don’t even have a deer on them!!! No trees. Every drop dozed in possible. No crop damage, nothing!!!!! @ <8% timber statewide, I don’t think even 10% of our timbered areas have major issues. Which is .8% of our landscape & I don’t think it’s even near that high. It’s little pockets all over but it’s a tiny area overall…. Offer more tools or just educate to use the tools already available today!!!

 

[Ishi]

If you have FB go to the ISC ( Iowa Sportsman Club) page. They posted a question on what regulations or rules people would like to be changed!
Over 600 replies some with grit and many that are just crazy! It’s clear we all don’t think the same on what we think is best! I’m sure the ISC organization is banging their heads on the table and laughing at some of the comments but at least they are getting people to start thinking that things must change..