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

SF581 IT AIN'T DEAD YET

When you are 500 deer under quota, that can and will cause concern in certain counties. I personally would rather see does shot from Oct.1-Dec 31. Wouldn't everyone? Has the IBA ever considered pushing for NR landowner doe tags (not buck) so more does are harvested. How about some solutions so the 500 number does not appear again? I mentioned this a few years ago, and there was luke warm interest. Has to be quite a few NR in Monroe and Appanoose Counties?

Remember the tag for a doe is pushing $360 for a NR. Affordable doe tags in counties with high deer population would be a common sense move in my opinion,....maybe these January seasons go away?
 
deerhunter93 said:
I emailed Rozenboom expressing my concerns even though it's futile at the moment.

Drew,

The reason I wrote the bill is because I believe the deer population in some parts of Iowa is out of control. Right now there are 40 deer carcasses visible from the road on Highway 163 between Oskaloosa and Des Moines. In Monroe and Appanoose counties, in my district, the problem is even worse.

The primary intent of the bill is to request a study on the environmental impact and economic impact of high deer populations. I want the DNR to do the study but I also want input from Iowa State Extension, the Iowa DOT, and the insurance institute. We all value the wonderful deer hunting in Iowa, but there is a cost to that. I want to know what that cost is.

You mention hunting with rifles. Please understand that, with that part of the bill, this refers to the special January season that is permitted only in those counties that have not harvested the DNR’s harvest target for that year. For example, the DNR harvest target for Appanoose county in 2021 was 2700 deer but only 2200 were taken. That left 500 deer more than even the DNR wanted. This season is not for hunting in the traditional sense but for population control, and the extra season does not compete with the traditional hunters.

There is more detail in the bill, but this explains the main parts of the bill.

Regards,
Click to expand...
I would say that is a solid reply. I can't argue with him, in the main...at least as far as what he replied to. Now then, I have been driving out and about more in the last month or so than I normally do. Yes, there are plenty of deer carcasses in the ditches in a variety of places. He is not wrong in saying that there are at least some places with excessive deer numbers. Yet...some of the regs in that bill are very bothersome. I think that is probably a product of the legislative process, think sausage making, unfortunately.

Deer populations vary widely in our state, some areas are chock full and other areas aren't. It's hard to regulate it all from a state level.
 
Hardwood11 said:
When you are 500 deer under quota, that can and will cause concern in certain counties. I personally would rather see does shot from Oct.1-Dec 31. Wouldn't everyone? Has the IBA ever considered pushing for NR landowner doe tags (not buck) so more does are harvested. How about some solutions so the 500 number does not appear again? I mentioned this a few years ago, and there was luke warm interest. Has to be quite a few NR in Monroe and Appanoose Counties?

Remember the tag for a doe is pushing $360 for a NR. Affordable doe tags in counties with high deer population would be a common sense move in my opinion,....maybe these January seasons go away?
Click to expand...
While our overall deer numbers are not as high now as they were in mid-aughts, 2005-2009'ish, from what I see...there are definitely pockets in the state that are whack. If I was a farmer, or SUV driver, gardener, insurance company, etc, in those areas I would legit be trying to get those #'s down too.

Ironically, to a large degree IMO, it is a focus on growing and taking the most mature bucks possible that greatly contributes to this...whether those "big" landowners are R's or NR's. There are lots of people that really restrict doe harvest/"interference" on their prized deer hunting ground and don't take out but a fraction of the does that they really should, IMO. So...here we are.

I would definitely support more affordable doe tags for all.
 
Hardwood11 said:
When you are 500 deer under quota, that can and will cause concern in certain counties. I personally would rather see does shot from Oct.1-Dec 31. Wouldn't everyone? Has the IBA ever considered pushing for NR landowner doe tags (not buck) so more does are harvested. How about some solutions so the 500 number does not appear again? I mentioned this a few years ago, and there was luke warm interest. Has to be quite a few NR in Monroe and Appanoose Counties?

Remember the tag for a doe is pushing $360 for a NR. Affordable doe tags in counties with high deer population would be a common sense move in my opinion,....maybe these January seasons go away?
Click to expand...
I dont think its going to matter in many areas what they do with regulations. R or NR most landowners that have ground for hunting, or even landowners that dont want people hunting, arent going to start whacking and stacking does. The opposite is what happens. IMO in many areas/counties they could issues 1,000,000 anterless tags to nonresidents alike and they still are only going to sale the same amount as always.

Even though it may not always be in the best interest of the herd or growing the biggest bucks, when I hunt the more deer i see the more fun I have.
 
Just because the DNR allocates 2700 doe tags that doesn’t mean the want 2700 does harvested. They allocate for hunter loss and success. If success rate was 100% they wouldn’t be allocating 2700 does tags, it’d probably be close to 1000 if not less.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Congressmen (Rozenboom) said target harvest ? There were around 1000 does shot in Appanoose County ? So I’m not sure if he’s talking total harvest or what ?
 
Last edited:
Defeat to everyday hunters & small landowners. No way around it. A win for insurance companies, IFC & the handful of Rozendoom’s buddies that are in his ear that want all deer killed.

The way it will get reversed: when the guys “hunting the 40 acres” see their hunting go to crap. Or degrade. Their eyes open & realize what legislation passed after it sweeps through a few seasons. Only way it reverses. Enough little guys have their land & deer population pummeled. It will happen in many POCKETS & we will hear the repercussions in about 2-3 seasons. Be an interesting few years watching & then hearing the complaints that WILL follow from those guys.

Yes- agree- most “managed land” will not feel repercussions. Most landowners with common sense don’t need Rozendoom &
the clueless political class dictating their populations.
I suspect the “little guys” will say stuff like this in 3 years…. “Guys, let’s buy up all the doe tags to stop this insanity”. Just wait ;).


Rozendoom’s rationale & why this was passed is deeply flawed, political garbage 101 & his whole argument is filled with holes. I’d gladly blow holes through his rationale with far better solutions than what just happened. Sucks.
Keep on fighting the fight!!!!!

***From above…
So- ur county has 4 months of season & likely gets “plenty of pressure”…. Come mid January - u see below LINK & ur county has “500 doe tags left” (which is likely due to most guys going “we killed as many as needed over 4 months, I’m done”)…. Now anyone can grab rifles & come pummel your county & buy up “500 doe tags”. Down south, it was the trucks who flocked down from Des Moines often times. Deer drives, long shots, you name it. “Shed buck hunting season” is back!!!

View Iowa Hunting Quotas | Go Outdoors Iowa

gooutdoorsiowa.com gooutdoorsiowa.com
 
Last edited:
Political goals will be achieved one way or another ie NRLO access, crossbows, rifles etc. Sometimes diplomacy, middle ground, and the lesser evil is wise. When the only result is getting hit by a stick choose the smaller one. The Art of War. Fight, retreat or negotiate based on the terms, the enemy, and long term goals of the parties. In this case the government flexed.
 
Last edited:
The above amendment has been replaced by yet another. I'll decipher it and edit this post with the details. First quick read is not good.

EDIT: This is my third attempt at an edit. The two finger swipe in the track pad some how dumped the other two. Suffice it to say the NR disabled tags would increase from 25 to 75 which necessitated the increase to 125 NR tags, so all of the increase goes to NR disabled hunters. There is a part that strikes straight wall from non ambulatory and replaces it with any "hand gun or rifle described in section 481A. 4." I could not find any thing in code section 481 as it is listed as "Reserved" so I imagine thats a typo of some kind, but this is the only mention of changing to centerfire. I think the original would still be in play at .223. Again I'm not 100% sure as it is very difficult to switch between the bill and the amendments to try and figure them out.

Here are links: <Amendment to the amendment> <Original bill> You'll need to have both links open and switch between all of them to try and make sense of it.

BTW, the author of the original bill proposed this amendment as well.

EDIT the EDIT: The bill with the amendment passed 45-0 and is back in the House. Like a game of ping pong.
 
Last edited:
Arec must enjoy being the only one in a group with a particular view. 95% of posts are about using rifles for deer hunting on a site that is at least 95% against it.
 
Rjack said:
Arec must enjoy being the only one in a group with a particular view. 95% of posts are about using rifles for deer hunting on a site that is at least 95% against it.
Click to expand...

There’s nothing wrong with having a difference of opinion. I’ve explained, multiple times, why arbitrary caliber restrictions amount to government overreach. I’ve also explained why the appropriate knobs to tune to manage the health of our deer herd are the following:

1. Which deer may be harvested
2. How many deer may be harvested
3. When those deer may be harvested

How those deer are ultimately harvested is inconsequential. If the healthy harvest quota in my county is met by hunters using their .30-30, their traditional archery equipment, their modern archery equipment, or a damn slingshot, it doesn’t matter.

A harvested deer is a harvested deer. If our deer harvest totals are out of whack, adjust the aforementioned knobs until we reach the appropriate number of harvests.
 
It’s not about the healthy harvest numbers. It’s about a potential trophy shed buck being shot in January. This place is about trophy hunting not deer hunting. It is what it is.
 
Windlooker said:
It’s not about the healthy harvest numbers. It’s about a potential trophy shed buck being shot in January. This place is about trophy hunting not deer hunting. It is what it is.
Click to expand...

That goes to my point. The third deer herd healthiness tuning knob in my post is when those deer may be harvested.

If we are having a problem with trophy bucks being harvested after they’ve shed, the issue is with the timing of the season and not the method of take.

That said, I hunt to fill my freezer first and for trophies second.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom