JUNIOR
Active Member
Yeah that's right. Thanks, couldn't think of the name. You located down there?
Last edited:
- Status
Dbl.throat_patch
dbl.throat_patch
LMAO at "hard core guys" and "single shot rifle". Condescend much? Like that has ANYTHING to do with this conversation.
The only buck harvest the LO tag could possibly have an effect on is the LAND owner. LO tags can not be legaly used anywhere but on the LO's land. It does not qualify them to party hunt anywhere but on there own land.
As "hardcore" as you are, it's your choice to hunt bow and late muzzle. A true "hardcore" hunter and steward of the land and deer, WOULD sit home during the gun seasons!!
Last edited:
12pointWoody
Member
I am a bowhunter and a late muzzleloader, I also get a doe tag for shotgun 2 this year I did harvest 3 bucks due to the party hunting rule. One of the guys in our group has a son that is not what you would call smart he has an IQ of 51 and just gets a tag so that he can go with and walk and be a part of the group. He allows anyone. In the group to use his tag Buck or doe doesn't matter to him. Our group has 8 guys in it. We harvested 6 deer and hunted 8 properties inside a 20 mile radius of our home town. 5 deer were harvested by our group 2 mature bucks, one younger Buck and 2 does. I don't see a problem with the party hunt system when it is done with some discretion and harvests are kept to proportionate levels
150 Class
Well-Known Member
Love it!
I have bought 3 buck tags for over the last 10 plus years and I have never killed over one buck a year and alot of years I get don't even get a deer. I just like the outdoors and I am usually hunting for one buck. It has always been the thrill of the chase, I could care less about eating tag soup as I figure being able to hunt about every season is worth the tag and the money goes to good cause.
I had three buck tags (like usual), and all three went unfilled. The current LOT system works fine. My only issue with it is that you have guys with five acre parcels that are able to get way too many doe tags which are not included in the quotas. As a landowner, I think these extra doe tags are rediculous.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
Ryan--Your post seems to have been overlooked, but I believe it is the most important reason Iowa is in the spotlight nationally...you make an excellent observation!!. Name another state where a film crew (Outdoor Channel guys) can buy a nice chunk of land 300+ acres for an affordable price--manage it--taking 2-3 bucks off it every year.Lots of good footage to work with.
I know it is one of the reasons Lakosky moved to Iowa from MN, Drury/Lindsey same thing. If the limit would have been one buck, well I don't know things could be different and maybe they don't own or manage 1000 acres or more?
Last edited:
risto2351
Well-Known Member
Hoosier I will agree to disagree with you on how limiting buck tags will help our overall situation. Just because I have three tags doesn't mean I have to fill them knowing I still have another tag for that special one.
The only flaw in our system now is that in certain areas we have over harvested our resource and now we need to back off in those areas to get it back to a level that everybody is happy with.
That level is what everyone needs to come to grips on.
The DNR needs to fight that fight with Branstad to make it happen. IMO.
Sorry Ol' Chap! I missed the part where you specified Non-Resident!!! Reading it that way, I totally concur!
Enjoy your weekend
bradley
triplebeam
Originally Posted by LIV4RUT
I personally would not be opposed to a one buck rule if the tag was good for all seasons. It would really make a guy think, should I be shooting this if it is my only buck tag or not.
My thoughts exactly but now I am dumb because I stated my opinion!
I personally would not be opposed to a one buck rule if the tag was good for all seasons. It would really make a guy think, should I be shooting this if it is my only buck tag or not.
My thoughts exactly but now I am dumb because I stated my opinion!
mplane72
PMA Member
Almost against my better judgement I'm posting my thoughts.
I would not be opposed to 1 buck for EVERY resident. I do not think the number of buck tags we have now is the cause of our population issues but I do think that it would lead to an overall higher buck age class average and would make things kind of interesting. Personally, once and IF I put a buck on the ground the next one would have to be bigger and or significantly older. I've been deer hunting for five years now and never put 2 down in one season.
One thing that would make me leery of cutting resident buck tags is that some in the DNR would then push to increase NR tags to increase revenue.
As far the the LO tags. I have said before that I really don't agree with them from an ideological stand point. If we are managing under the North American Model it just does not sit right with me that on group gets something the rest can't have? If all the residents own the free ranging Iowa deer herd why does one group get a chance at one more buck then the rest of us? Full disclosure, at this time I do not own rec ground. I plan on changing that once a few things change but having an extra tag does not even figure into my motivation to own ground.
I also think some of you are possibly under estimating the effect of the LO tag. While many here may not fill 3 tags a year I think it's safe to say that your motivations to hunt are different then the majority and your a bit more thoughtful about what you put your tag on. A lot of farmers get that tag and just throw it into the hat with the rest of the tags for shotgun, especially in areas like where I do most of my hunting and antlerlees tags sell out long before shotgun season.
To be clear the LO tag is way down on my list of concerns regarding our deer hunting. I understand it's reason for being and don't expect it to go any where. The FB would freak if someone actually had the stones to try and change it. Just like any Government program that favors a select few over the many, once you start giving it's hard to stop.
I would not be opposed to 1 buck for EVERY resident. I do not think the number of buck tags we have now is the cause of our population issues but I do think that it would lead to an overall higher buck age class average and would make things kind of interesting. Personally, once and IF I put a buck on the ground the next one would have to be bigger and or significantly older. I've been deer hunting for five years now and never put 2 down in one season.
One thing that would make me leery of cutting resident buck tags is that some in the DNR would then push to increase NR tags to increase revenue.
As far the the LO tags. I have said before that I really don't agree with them from an ideological stand point. If we are managing under the North American Model it just does not sit right with me that on group gets something the rest can't have? If all the residents own the free ranging Iowa deer herd why does one group get a chance at one more buck then the rest of us? Full disclosure, at this time I do not own rec ground. I plan on changing that once a few things change but having an extra tag does not even figure into my motivation to own ground.
I also think some of you are possibly under estimating the effect of the LO tag. While many here may not fill 3 tags a year I think it's safe to say that your motivations to hunt are different then the majority and your a bit more thoughtful about what you put your tag on. A lot of farmers get that tag and just throw it into the hat with the rest of the tags for shotgun, especially in areas like where I do most of my hunting and antlerlees tags sell out long before shotgun season.
To be clear the LO tag is way down on my list of concerns regarding our deer hunting. I understand it's reason for being and don't expect it to go any where. The FB would freak if someone actually had the stones to try and change it. Just like any Government program that favors a select few over the many, once you start giving it's hard to stop.
Last edited:
Still Huntin
Member
I'd say get rid of the party hunting rule. Someone can just go out and shoot however many bucks they can have a gun tag for. Buying tags for wife, kids, and dog then go out fill them for themselves. Some people respect the rule but others also abuse it.
JUNIOR
Active Member
I agree, need to go after tag numbers, no need goin after party huntin.
-iabowhunter-
New Member
If the deer numbers continue to decline each year party hunting will get restricted. Big groups shooting everything that moves isn't helping the population...
Why is this post over 20 words? You will never get to 100 if you type so much!
JUNIOR
Active Member
What's the difference between 10 party hunters and 10 muzzloader hunters?? They both have the same amount of tags, can only fill those 10 tags (unless other tags were bought, but you know what im sayin). The only difference between them is the type of gun and the way deer are bein hunted!
hoosierhunter
Active Member
It forces hunters to be more selective with the buck they harvest.
On another more and not directed at you Jr.
I don't see any good argument for needing to fill someone else's tag other than what everyone complains about on here... Being self serving...
JUNIOR
Active Member
Yes so tell me this, how is being able to fill one of your group members tags (your party tags) hurting deer population? Again its the number of tags that hurts the population, not the style of hunting!
- Status