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

Proposal Debates

Why are people concerned about gun hunters. Do you take a doe first with your bow? Do you ever hold your Any sex bow tag over because you just couldn't kill the right buck? Have you ever shot a doe with your any sex tag? I think what is happening here is trophy hunters getting greedy and Farmer/insur. people being greedy. There has to be common ground. Let's face it, the problem with population is because of land availability. Most of the population problems persist where there are large pieces of land that allow little to no hunting. Outfitters leasing up a lot of ground keeps people off. People not being able to hunt means less deer killed. If you stop the leasing of land and go back to the way it use to be(asking permission, building trust and working with land owners) you might see more deer killed and populations start to be in check. As you can tell I don't like outfitters.
rambo.gif
rambo.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Why are people concerned about gun hunters. Do you take a doe first with your bow? Do you ever hold your Any sex bow tag over because you just couldn't kill the right buck? Have you ever shot a doe with your any sex tag? I think what is happening here is trophy hunters getting greedy and Farmer/insur. people being greedy. There has to be common ground. Let's face it, the problem with population is because of land availability. Most of the population problems persist where there are large pieces of land that allow little to no hunting. Outfitters leasing up a lot of ground keeps people off. People not being able to hunt means less deer killed. If you stop the leasing of land and go back to the way it use to be(asking permission, building trust and working with land owners) you might see more deer killed and populations start to be in check. As you can tell I don't like outfitters.
rambo.gif
rambo.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the concern is with gun hunters...it's with the majority of hunters who take immature bucks rather then antlerless. The majority of hunters in this state are firearm hunters and they kill the lions share of the deer. In problem areas...ALL hunters need some mandatory encouragement to take more antlerless.
Based on a poll taken on this site...most hunters hunt with both bow and gun.

You are right about access...that has been brought up time after time...but quite frankly I don't see it getting anything but worse.
crazy.gif

There is talk about some type of program where the DNR would attempt to lease land for hunters. I would support the idea but I sincerely doubt that it would work as imagined
confused.gif


Land is ether owned or leased by hunters, outfitters etc. There is no way the state can afford to compete for that land. Most farmers I know already hunt with friends and family...no way are they going to lease it out for the general public to trample thru.

I think many would be unhappy to find that perhaps the farm they have always hunted might itself be leased in such a program...then what??
I hate to sound so negative but i've seen so many ways that people circumvent such programs, like leaving out a strip along the road...so there is no access or leasing wide open farmland and not the woodlots.

I wish I was wrong...but both the DNR and us as hunters must learn to adapt to a very rapidly changing situation when it comes to managing our deer herd. The "old" days are gone...and they are not ever coming back.

BTW...I hunt only with a bow and take 2-3 does in early October every year. Many years I never take a buck at all......
 
Let me be first to admit I hate taxes but I think you need to put high taxes on people who lease their land for hunting purposes and tax the hell out of Outfitters. This would help but some out of business. Then this land would start to open up to people to hunt. If you ask a farmer to let you hunt during the doe only seasons then they shouldn't have a problem with you hunting knowing that you can only kill a doe. There are people who won't even let you hunt during doe only seasons.
 
I was a little surprised to recieve a second reply from Rep. Whitaker who at least was willing to "take a closer look" at the problem and is going to attempt to address it.
If he get's a bill drafted I will keep you informed so that you can either voice your support or dissent for the bill.

Today I drove (and rode) probably 100 miles in Van Buren and Jefferson counties. I saw too many deer. We need to control the does. I have the bill request in and drafting started.

Thanks,
John
 
[ QUOTE ]
Let me be first to admit I hate taxes but I think you need to put high taxes on people who lease their land for hunting purposes and tax the hell out of Outfitters. This would help but some out of business. Then this land would start to open up to people to hunt. If you ask a farmer to let you hunt during the doe only seasons then they shouldn't have a problem with you hunting knowing that you can only kill a doe. There are people who won't even let you hunt during doe only seasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the subject of leasing...lest anyone think it hasn't become much more prevelant...
Our county FSA along with the ISU extension service is sponsering a "Recreational leasing" workshop on June 27th. They will be looking at types of leases, supply and demand, risk management and wildlife improvement. Obviously leasing has garnered a lot of attention
smirk.gif


I personally don't feel that it is realistic to expect our legislators to vote for higher taxes that would apply to the farmers who put them in office.
I do feel it's extremely important to at least attempt to keep a lid on the number of NR tags issued. The IBA has worked very hard on that issue and is another reason to join if one is not a member.
We've discussed outfitters and leasing in other posts and it's a difficult issue. All they have to do is change the signs from "Leased land" to "No Hunting". It certainly is part of the cause for the huge access problems and hence the ability to manage our deer herd.
Finding the answer seems much more elusive then finding the problem...
confused.gif
 
Hadn't read this link in a while- just got my FSA newsletter and posted a note in the other forum. More leasing is on the way.
 
[ QUOTE ]
More leasing is on the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking the other day how long it's been since "leasing" first started around my area. A NR went around and offered farmers $10. an acre and leased up a number of farms. They might only have 10 acres of woods but he paid for the whole 80. News of that spread like wildfire! Even people who had been offered a lease decided to advertise and put up No Hunting signs to make there place off limits to anyone except a paying hunter.

That was many years ago and since then lease rates have went up and hunters and outfitters try to "outbid" one another for prime property. As I drive around my county I have to ask...how can there be MORE leasing? I can't imagine any left to lease? Not all land is leased of course...but it's then owned by hunters or farmer/hunters and still off limits.

I think it's now a matter of landowners figuring out the way to make the most profit with the least liability. One can't help but notice that all this is going on in a county with perhaps the highest antlerless quota in the state. Two things stick out in my mind...1) the county sold out last year, so no doubt the DNR decided to capitilize on this and increase it for monetary benifit 2) that they are finding out that with no public access, the deer herd is nearly impossible to control.

I suspect this situation will spread like a cancer across many areas of the state....and all the problems that go with it.
confused.gif
 
First off I don't think there is a way of taxing or doing anything prevalent to people who lease their ground out. The reason is I know most outfitters will actually pay cash to the leesee if they desire, which goes on alot.

Secondly I haven't read through ALL the posts but my suggestions are definately focus on the problem areas "SOUTHERN IA." I hunted a ton in the east central part of the state this year. I'm here to tell you the deer numbers are way down. I don't care what they say. But I know they think the herd is huge when in Late january there is 50 deer on one food source because that is all there is to eat and they are naturally bunched up.
They need to either lower tag costs or doe only day in first gun season in the counties that DON'T sell out for does. I don't think it should be for tag allotments over 500. The FOCUS needs to be in counties with large deer numbers that don't sell out.
I think those counties landowner anysex tags should be raised to $26 a tag like statewide. This might help offset the revenue slightly. Also it will hit those that we all know that own land in Southern IA that have it for just hunting and the extra anysex tag. Plus it shouldn't be so low priced any way since bucks are not the problem, does are.
But like what has been said on here the biggest problem is access. On that note there should be no unhuntable state park in southern IA. The state is no better than the landowner that doesn't let anyone hunt.
Thinking out loud here and Im sure it would be hated but what about a higher tax for those that own huntable land and don't live within a certain milage of the land. Because lets face it in most cases those that own land and live close control their ground, but people like doctors, NR's, or whoever it may be that just own land to hunt on and kill a big buck are the problems. Just throwin out ideas.
 
[ QUOTE ]
But like what has been said on here the biggest problem is access. On that note there should be no unhuntable state park in southern IA. The state is no better than the landowner that doesn't let anyone hunt.

[/ QUOTE ]

applause.gif
applause.gif
applause.gif
applause.gif
applause.gif


Let me throw county parks into the situation too.
 
Tall Tines

I feel that I must respectfully disagree with some of you statments and ideas, but am gratefull that you have given much thought to this subject. First I don't think that land owner tags should be raised. Remember that with out those land owners there wouldn't be deer for you to hunt. It would also become way to complicated with different counties handling licenses differently and the enforcement after the tags were issued would be a night mare. The cost factor would also have no bearing on an individual that would pay $400,000. for 200 acres to hunt on. $26.00 would not be noticed by either him or the DNR. You must also realize that many of those landowner any sex tags go on does not just on bucks. I don't have any real data for support, but of the people I know and hunt with the over whelming majority of these tags go on does.
On the State Parks issue I tend to agree with you except that I think Park personel should make those decissions. In this general area there are Lake Wapello, Lake Darling, Lake Lacey, and Lake Geode. Of these I know that Lake Darling has a hunt but don't think that the others do, but without severly overcrowding with hunters I don't think these would effect numbers very much either. Any State Park hunt should also be doe only and I think that would limit the number of hunters willing to spend their valuable hunting hours there hunting does.

While not trying to shoot you down, I don't think you tax idea is workable. How is the tax assesor to know that a person owns a property solely for the purpose of shooting a buck every year? How will they know if other hunters are allowed to hunt the property? In other words just because a person dosen't live on their property dosen't mean that they aren't trying to do their part with management. I understand your intent but it just isn't workable. This would be like saying that if you drive more than 5 miles to work you should pay more for your drivers license and more gas tax because you use the roads more than others. You should not be penialized because you must live away in order to support your property and lifestyle that you love by paying additional taxes. Every one knows that I don't like leasing and absentee landowners but sometimes it is unavoidable, and as long as those owner function ethically and within the law they shouldn't be punished.
The good thing about this post is that at least some people are thinking and trying to come up with ideas and that is how the next solution may come about. Keep it up!
 
I believe Lacey Keosauqua State Park will be opened for archery antlerless hunting this year. The state and county parks are an instant source of public access at least for antlerless and ideally with incentives to draw very limited anysex tags.
At one time those parks were meant to be sanctuaries and a refuge for wildlife and visitors alike. Allowing limited bowhunting wouldn't change the peaceful nature of the parks but would certainly add a tremendous amount of sorely needed public access.

There are enforcement concerns but we have those everywhere. How many people will actually hunt a park with no chance ever of getting an anysex tag remains to be seen?

On the subject of leasing...the FSA worshop in VB county has caused all kinds of rumors including one that it will replace the CRP program. It has nothing what so ever to do with any government programs but as I mentioned earlier...news spreads fast around here and false information right along with it.
Let's just say that if there was a landlowner who hadn't heard of leasing before...they have now...
crazy.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
The number of antlerless licenses available for 2006/2007 is 99,850 which are 3,150 less than was available in 2005/2006. The antlerless quotas were reduced in 34 counties, stayed the same in 61 counties and were increased in 4 counties.


[/ QUOTE ]

Rep. Whitaker noted that in most of the state the deer herd (based on the quota) is still rising or at best barely being contained to manageable levels.
Perhaps he is even more keenly aware after his son recently hit a deer with his car
crazy.gif

I really don't expect any further changes to be made in 2006 however it is my hope that if needed, we can have more effective proposals for 2007 then more "special firearm seasons". Keeping an open dialogue with our rep's will certainly help.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Dont know if this helps at all here is a link for bills going through or are in session right now ..

U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Bill Tracker Database

http://www.ussportsmen.org/Billtrack/results.cfm

it seems some of those bills are in there just to raise money and nothing else..

[/ QUOTE ]

This is perhaps a better link to what is going on in the Iowa Assembly:

Iowa General Assembly

This allows you to constantly monitor what bills are up for debate and enable you to easily find Natural Resource Committiee members.

it can be quite frustrating at times to see that yet another bill has been submitted that is not in our best interest...however keeping our heads in the sand can lead to devastating results
crazy.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
The state is no better than the landowner that doesn't let anyone hunt.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not to sound like a jerk here, but is it not the landownder who for the most part feeds the deer for the whole state. So with the rising prices of all aspects of farming they sure as hell have the right to say to no to hunting if they or people they know hunt. Leasing is also a very attractive option when they can gain money to offset their operating costs from of a peice of ground they can't even utilize. Also I happen to know many people who used to allow people to hunt their land, and they chose to abuse this privilage and have their for lost it. Not to mention the people who have lost livestock in my area(at least have the balls to say something when you just cost them a couple thousand at least). These are only a small number of reasons why I feel that a landowner should not be "picked on" when they choose to lease or just plain not allow hunting period.
 
Re: Proposal Debates / Resident Deer changes

I wasn't able to attend the ICN meetings so I'm not sure how discussion went but here is the proposed changes to the Resident Deer Hunting rule:

Proposed Changes

I'm not crazy about HP weapons in the first place and even less enthused about people having vitually unlimited shot clips with the elimination of the 6 shot clip rule
crazy.gif
confused.gif


Some very interesting depredation info including tree damage on CRP plantings that would qualify.

I'm not sure what real advantage it is, since one can purchase almost unlimited tags in problem counties already.

In my area...leasing and landownership transfers to non-farmer owners somewhat dampen the use of HP weapons but dramitically increase the number of deer.

The rule does propose that if land is leased...they cannot get depredation permits.

It also notes that ground blinds shall have 12" blaze orange all the way around them and lists the proposed (subject to change) antlerless quotas.
 
Re: Proposal Debates / Resident Deer changes

If I'm reading the proposal correctly it looks like the Nov season and the Jan anterless season has been eliminated in some counties, even though their antlerless quotas may not have changed? Seems weird, but I wont miss that Nov season.
 
Re: Proposal Debates / Resident Deer changes

[ QUOTE ]
Proposed Changes

Some very interesting depredation info including tree damage on CRP plantings that would qualify.

I'm not sure what real advantage it is, since one can purchase almost unlimited tags in problem counties already.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was determined to be eligible for depredation permits (and probably still am), but due to the red tape/restrictions, I opted for over the counter county antlerless tags.

From the proposal: [ QUOTE ]
Paid antlerless-deer-only licenses for the early muzzleloader season can only be purchased
by hunters who have already purchased one of the 7,500 paid statewide any-deer licenses or
obtained a free any-deer licenses for the early muzzleloader season.

[/ QUOTE ]
Last year I tried to buy county antlerless tags for early muzzleloader season. Since I received a landowners any sex early muzzleloader tag, the DNR said I wasn't eligible for more tags. I contacted a few DNR officials and voiced my displeasure, seeing as how I was told when I had the depredation officer out that a person should hammer the does early in the season as they are the local resident population. So I'm glad to see they have proposed changing this.
rambo.gif


I am somewhat disappointed that they are looking to drop Cedar and Johnson Counties from the late antlerless only season. From the number of deer I am seeing, I feel this is premature.
 
Re: Proposal Debates / Resident Deer changes

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't able to attend the ICN meetings

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I miss them too? When were they?

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