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

Season over December 31

They still have January antler-less season? What ? Why … ? I thought most doe tags were sold out ?
 
Finally have a nice snow to sit out on the last day of the season even though the trek in didn’t seem worth it. So I’ll again say no you can’t take away the end of my muzzy season. Someday we will get a nice snow that sticks all through December like years ago. People talk about the shed bucks that get shot but think of all the good and great bucks lost due to bad hits during bow season. I bet it would be pretty close in comparison. Just part of the game on both aspects.
 
Hair&Scales said:
I think you are looking at it wrong. If the reasoning for having 2 weekends for gun 2 is so that working guys can have 2 weekends to hunt then as of now that would reason that 90 percent of guys would be hunting 2nd gun right now according to your logic.

Different guys pick different factors.

Gun 1 benefit deer are not yet pressured.

Gun 2 benefit if you land manage a lot of deer get pushed into your ground from gun 1, weather may be benefical, example snow on ground.
Click to expand...
I see your point, but still think the main reason people choose gun 2 now is for 2 weekends. I still contend most (non landowners/managers) will take gun 1 given your new options. Only way to know for sure is to implement it and see what happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HWC
Sligh1 said:
literally “everyone” in Se iowa I talk to is pulling their hair out due to outfitters. I’ve got a pile of buddies in my old stomping ground of VB county & spoke with a guy last week who had THREE different outfitters next to him!!!! One is bad enough. 3!!!!
Here’s what i don’t get…. I don’t know of ONE near me. Not one. How are there that many in that area?!!?!? Zone 6 or whatever - the tags are by definition limited. The ONE question or concern I’d have & I have zero information & not making accusation…. But…. If I hear “they churning guys through”…. Might just be that. OR- they taking guys through without tags (doubt it but possible). Party hunting loop hole. Or they are taking Resident hunters? Or there’s that much demand that there’s a never ending list of guys wanting an outfitted hunt. All 3 of the last add clearly totally legal.
I’ll say this to ANYONE who has not been around outfitters…. I’ll piss some guys off but I’m not the one trying to profit off this & all I can do is be honest…. Outfitters are a plague 9 out of 10 times. Ruin an area. Cancer to an area.
On other side of it- there is the “1 of 10” that do it right. & in full transparency- there’s 2 on here I would fit into that category- limited & conservative. For 90% though- it’s a complete disaster. I would sell my farm in a nano-second if I had an outfitter next to it. I’d rather have state land or guys doing gun pushes. Sounds crazy but it’s true. Gun drive dudes don’t usually cherry pick the best genetic bucks & miss most. They aren’t out all season pounding the land with countless hunters like outfitters. Outfitters are the absolute worst neighbor I’ve personally been around. & this is vast experiences in IL, IA & KS - complete train wreck.

BOTTOM LINE:
Do I wish they all went away? Absolutely!!!!!! Would I ban them? NO. I don’t think that’s right from a legal standpoint. Would I sell my land or leave an area if they were around me? ABSOFRIGINLUTELY!!!!!!!!
DO WE NEED TO ALLOCATE MORE TAGS TO OUTFITTERS AS A STATE? HECK NO!!!!!!! & because they are a SPECIAL INTEREST that cares about $ over the resource - they will pay lobbyists or donate to politicians for their special tags added. & WE, AS A STATE & RESIDENTS WILL SAY: “NO!!!! OUR STATE IS NOT FOR SALE”. By definition, outfitters reduce & eliminate access to resident hunters. Which at its current level - runs into the NR allocation. & it’s already problematic enough. They target best gen bucks & usually before maturity. Destroy neighborhoods. Ruin access to residents.
Do other activities or hunting trends do some of the same thing in various cases? YEP. But- we DO NOT need to give them MORE TAGS to increase their # & exacerbate the problem we already have!!! The #1 issue: access for residents to quality hunting land. Leave our Frigin regs and tag allotments alone!!!!! U wanna outfit ….. Illinois has been for sale for decades…. Enjoy that dumpster fire for outfitting there. Ruined most areas.
In all fairness…. Not here to eliminate outfitting- but sure as heck ain’t gonna sell this state out & throw more tags at them!!!! Leave this state alone!!!!
Click to expand...
I know a lot of resident hunters that don't hunt any more because they lost their land to outfitters leasing up everything. We lost the land we hunted for 3 generations due to this. It sucks. I agree we don't need guided hunts/outfitters in Iowa. This isn't ALaska or even Colorado/New Mexico. I also agree no cross bows. Or if using a cross bow you aren't allowed to in November. And I would also be on board with going back to primitive muzzle loaders. I love my muzzle loader but rarely get time to use it and I understand it's really cheating. Hell I would be fine if they made it recurves only if you want to bow hunt the rut. Too many in society as a whole are always going for the easiest route. Whether it be hunting or the magic diet pill. I only have access to 30 acres of land but am still on board with making things harder.
 
Rjack said:
I see your point, but still think the main reason people choose gun 2 now is for 2 weekends. I still contend most (non landowners/managers) will take gun 1 given your new options. Only way to know for sure is to implement it and see what happens.
Click to expand...
We would for sure do Gun 1 if not for the 2 weekends. I think about anyone without large private access would do the same.
 
Hardwood11 said:
They still have January antler-less season? What ? Why … ? I thought most doe tags were sold out ?
Click to expand...
I understand the sentiment completely.

we are doing it on one farm. It is desperately needed. It's impossible for DNR to make regulations that make sense on a county level let alone a state level. I'm not sure what the answer is.
 
IowaBowHunter1983 said:
I understand the sentiment completely.

we are doing it on one farm. It is desperately needed. It's impossible for DNR to make regulations that make sense on a county level let alone a state level. I'm not sure what the answer is.
Click to expand...
If you get any extra I would take a deer or two. I know some like to give extras away. Turns out my wife loves deer steaks so I didn't get to make as much jerky as I wanted. And I got shut out on late bow/muzzle loader. I am regularly in Centerville area as well as Newton, Iowa City, and Washington areas depending on where you are.
 
IowaBowHunter1983 said:
I understand the sentiment completely.

we are doing it on one farm. It is desperately needed. It's impossible for DNR to make regulations that make sense on a county level let alone a state level. I'm not sure what the answer is.
Click to expand...
If not for EHD drastically changing our population this year, we too would have been a probable on doe harvest in our neighborhood. I get that much of the rest of the state really should be subject to "additional" harvest...but in some areas, it is needed. Again, it is a moot point for us now because of EHD, but prior to that, all of the cooperating neighbors were planning on hammering does this year.

There is NO WAY that the DNR can make regulations that fit every area properly...but I hate to see the "tool" taken away from everyone. Meanwhile, there are people that will keep shooting as long as they can gets tags and have little sense as to what they are doing to a local population. It's a real conundrum.
 
Hair&Scales said:
Each season would have 1 weekend. If you didn't change anything else, landowners would still have 10 days or two weekends during shotgun to fill their tags.
Click to expand...
One brilliant thing iowa did …. Broke up gun seasons into FOUR options. Alleviating the pressure during those gun seasons. Early ML, gun 1, gun 2 & late ML. If any state has some seasons without a weekend & some with - gives hunter’s the CHOICE. Pick your season.
MI - Nov 15 has been the opener for as long as I can remember. It’s an ARMY … with the stated goal to eradicate any antlered deer. & it’s incredibly effective!!!! Everyone out at same time for same season. A decade of this…. My season was done Nov 17. 2 days of guns…. Every buck was dead or dug a hole & hiding in it til spring!! Completely pointless to go out after that. It’s gotten slightly better since: 1/3rd hunters QUIT, some guys pass 1.5’s & guys locked up every drop they could. Beyond that- u could not design a worse season, date & army to let any bucks escape. Almost none did & not much better today except for above reasons. Nothing to do with REGULATIONS!!! Hunter’s had to just quit at such large rates that some bucks started to slip by. U know how pathetic that is?!??? Shift guns back 14 silly little days & go to 1 buck- state would be lights out - night & day better. Same with countless others. If we look at temperature differences on 14 days- it’s maybe 1 degree on average. One of these states has to get their heads out of their butts & change. I wonder what it’ll take for MI for example….. it will not be long until 50%+ of the hunters quit. Dnr & legislature are on course for a train wreck. They’re too busy sniffing rubber cement & huffing gas in Gretchen Whitmer’s garage to even look at the tracks. 100mph to a cliff at end of the tracks…..
 
Rjack said:
I see your point, but still think the main reason people choose gun 2 now is for 2 weekends. I still contend most (non landowners/managers) will take gun 1 given your new options. Only way to know for sure is to implement it and see what happens.
Click to expand...
Guess I've never heard the reason for two weekends during second season was for working people? I thought the reason for a longer second season was because the deer could be scattered from already being hunted first season so they give the option for second season to be longer to try and spread the hunters out. Would be a mess if 80% of the shotgun hunters all went during one season.
 
Daver said:
If not for EHD drastically changing our population this year, we too would have been a probable on doe harvest in our neighborhood. I get that much of the rest of the state really should be subject to "additional" harvest...but in some areas, it is needed. Again, it is a moot point for us now because of EHD, but prior to that, all of the cooperating neighbors were planning on hammering does this year.

There is NO WAY that the DNR can make regulations that fit every area properly...but I hate to see the "tool" taken away from everyone. Meanwhile, there are people that will keep shooting as long as they can gets tags and have little sense as to what they are doing to a local population. It's a real conundrum.
Click to expand...
Ive said before (not sure if this post or a different one) its a shame that the DNR cant break the state down just into quadrants/zones. County by County is, in my opinion, some of the problem. If I bought a tag for zone A, and could hunt 4 counties, would that make the population better? take some stress off the access by widening the areas? I get that its been super simple to use the counties as reference points. Or even like they do with waterfowl, make north zone and south zone- just to help break some stuff up. I know I dont have the answers in this 45 seconds of typing, but I think enough spitballing there could be something that made sense.
 
newfarmer said:
I also think depredation tags need a real hard look. Neighbor shot 41 deer during 1st season with 12 guys in the group, in a buck only county for first (but depredation tags shoot whatever) that seems like an alarming problem too
Click to expand...
I talked with a guy who hunts Mills county and he said the deer are nonexistent, yet the main landowner he hunts on still requested and received 15 depredation tags and expects to fill them all. Insanity.
 
Not that I agree or disagree, but you need to look at the farmer's view also. I'm a hunter, not a farmer who owns land, or a farmer who pays cash rent and doesn't like crop damage.
 
iowavf said:
Not that I agree or disagree, but you need to look at the farmer's view also. I'm a hunter, not a farmer who owns land, or a farmer who pays cash rent and doesn't like crop damage.
Click to expand...
but the thing is- and why I say it needs to be looked at- the deer arent the ones actually doing the amount of damage they claim. I do farm, my dad farms, talk to all my neighbors. I KNOW coon are doing way more damage versus the deer, and again, why I say it needs to be looked at. Not "taken away"- just actually verified and looked at. Especially in areas that are non-existent for deer- makes zero sense there can be "that much damage"
 
newfarmer said:
but the thing is- and why I say it needs to be looked at- the deer arent the ones actually doing the amount of damage they claim. I do farm, my dad farms, talk to all my neighbors. I KNOW coon are doing way more damage versus the deer, and again, why I say it needs to be looked at. Not "taken away"- just actually verified and looked at. Especially in areas that are non-existent for deer- makes zero sense there can be "that much damage"
Click to expand...
I agree with you on causes of damage. I just don't care for hunters complaining about what a farmer does on his property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom