I understand, you could ask a variation of this question in 10 different ways.
Poll Question #8: Would you support legislation to eliminate a buck tag
- Thread starter IowaBowHunter1983
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
If single buck tag is the best thing ever, then make it a single buck tag. No second buck tag for land owners because single buck tag is the way to improve deer age/ structure.
Yes, I'll support single buck tag. No, i won't support single buck tag for non land owners and two buck tags for land owners.
Sent from my SM-S711U using Tapatalk
Yes, I'll support single buck tag. No, i won't support single buck tag for non land owners and two buck tags for land owners.
Sent from my SM-S711U using Tapatalk
Daver
PMA Member
I am pretty close to neutral on this, but would consider it foolish to do only this in isolation. In my area...older bucks are very scarce now and no one I know shoots 2 bucks per year, let alone 3.
Additionally, three of us contiguous LO's are already shooting ZERO bucks a year the majority of the years now, after EHD hit 2023. Note, my son has shot 2 total bucks, 1 in 2023 and 1 in 2024, on my farm.
But the point is that we are already BELOW a 1 buck per year harvest rate AND older buck numbers continue to slump. This regulation would do NOTHING, all by itself, to help in our area.
Additionally, three of us contiguous LO's are already shooting ZERO bucks a year the majority of the years now, after EHD hit 2023. Note, my son has shot 2 total bucks, 1 in 2023 and 1 in 2024, on my farm.
But the point is that we are already BELOW a 1 buck per year harvest rate AND older buck numbers continue to slump. This regulation would do NOTHING, all by itself, to help in our area.
seven twenty
PMA Member
The selfishness is showing.
The definition of what everyone means when they say “one buck” tag needs to be better defined. Are we getting a “single” anysex tag and are limited to a single deer or are we asking for a single antlered tag and a seperate antlerless tag? Everyone proposing a “one buck” limit, what exactly are you asking for?
The definition of what everyone means when they say “one buck” tag needs to be better defined. Are we getting a “single” anysex tag and are limited to a single deer or are we asking for a single antlered tag and a seperate antlerless tag? Everyone proposing a “one buck” limit, what exactly are you asking for?
There are multiple options on how you can answer on poll. It means whatever you want it to.
DMarley83
DMARLEY83
So your willing to give up one buck tag to support the cause but think a land owner should give up 2 tags to show the same support?
Whats the logic?
tracker
Life Member
That's awesome to have such a disciplined neighborhood if that is the agreed intent and not because you haven't seen anything. I am truly jealous
Daver
PMA Member
The problem is that not everyone similarly restricts themseves.
seven twenty
PMA Member
The logic is that if we are going to a “one buck” state then it needs to be across the board. No exceptions. Why should any group be treated differently.
LOT’s were created to be used as depredation tags, not for collecting wall art. If needed, depredation tags are still available so giving up the LOT shouldn’t be an issue.
I haven’t seen a “buck” tag in 40 yrs, are we being asked to give up a tag or just an antlered deer? Giving up a tag would make the most sense if we are serious about helping the population also.
Thinkin Rut
PMA Member
This is how I voted and my thoughts. This would be a win win for landowners...few kill 3 bucks so it would be no hair off their ass if the guys in the cheap seats are restricted to one and we get 2. If one buck is needed, it's needed throughout.
I been hunting in the same private land for 24 yrs and the owners farm about 3k acres but in all that ground there's only about 10 acres total in timber or what I would call huntable land. So I have about 5-6 different treestand spots. The good thing is that their all about a mile or two apart so having trail cams works for me very well in trying to find what I would call a mature bck..atleast a 4.5...I've always got a shotgun tag and of all these yrs I've only killed 2 bcks in one yr. In my opinion I dont think giving up a tag and only being able to have one tag is gonna do anytng...running all my cams I know whats there for deer #s and of all these yrs the last 2-3 yrs its just been destroyed from ehd mostly...but the problem is see now is that there isn't enough deer in this area for the amount of gun hunters that hunt it....last yr I watched a huge section that had 4 deer run out of it by the first 15 person group that pushed it.....then through out the day 2 more groups of 10-15 guys each pushed it and nothing else was in there....now thats atleast 20-30 guys hunting just 4 deer.....to me there's way to many gun hunters for whats out there to hunt..my opinion is there needs to be limited gun tags available to these county's that aren't great quality countys...
The argument is that going to a one buck state would greatly improve deer age/structure. Indiana gets used often as an example. If we truly believe that going to a one buck state will improve deer hunting, then I can support that - going to a one buck state.
The argument loses a lot of validity (in my opinion) when you say go to a one buck state but allow landowners to shoot two bucks. If it's really that great to go to a one buck state, then let's go to a one buck state, no exceptions. Indiana doesn't allow landowners to shoot two bucks.
This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, but that's my initial response/thought, and I'm sure a lot of other non-landowners would have the same reaction. I get there's two different ways to look at it - landowners giving up 2 tags to nonlandowners only giving up 1. I see it as 2 to my 1 as a lot bigger difference than 3 to my 2 tags (current status). The only way I see 1 buck rule ever working is if party hunting is eliminated. I'd also argue that eliminating party hunting is going to be a challenge in it's own and doing that in itself would greatly help the situation. In other words, eliminating party hunting would be 60-70% of the gains of going to a single buck state. We'd be better off tackling partying hunting first before trying to go to a 1 buck state at the same time.
iowavf
Well-Known Member
Question to all the non landowners who's asking landowners to give up an anysex tag. Do all of you hunt only public land, or do you hunt on private property? If you hunt private property, think about how your hunting would change only hunting public? I don't really think the extra anysex tag a LO has is killing that many bucks. I don't own land and thank full a landowner is making it possible for me to hunt private land.
I don't understand that question. Does your landowner also hunt their land and use their landowner tag to shoot deer themselves? I'd say the majority of permission hunters get to hunt land because the landowner doesn't hunt themselves, therefore those landowner tags go unused. That's the case in my situation. I am thankful for hunting there and do a lot of work for them to show my gratitude, although he always says he's thankful, but it's not required.
I also thought the original intent in the landowner tag wasn't to reward non-farming recreational landowners with an extra buck tag. It was to allow landowners (farmers) an opportunity to harvest an additional deer to mitigate crop damage at a reduced rate. It's now morphed into I paid a lot of money to have recreational land, it's expensive, I pay taxes and I put in food plots to help the deer, so I deserve an extra buck tag.
I also thought the original intent in the landowner tag wasn't to reward non-farming recreational landowners with an extra buck tag. It was to allow landowners (farmers) an opportunity to harvest an additional deer to mitigate crop damage at a reduced rate. It's now morphed into I paid a lot of money to have recreational land, it's expensive, I pay taxes and I put in food plots to help the deer, so I deserve an extra buck tag.
I'm a landowner but would happily vote for 1 buck tag if it would bring the herd back. I would be interested to know the percentage of landowners willing to give up that extra tag. I suspect most of the people voting for 1 tag, including landowners, don't own land. much like the people that vote yes on the referendum to raise property taxes don't actually own property. I have also never shot more than 1 buck anyway