The Future of Iowa Deer Hunting and a One Buck Limit

[jkratz5]

Some real good points here - doing shots would be fun. Gotta feeling I would run some broadheads thru my arms thou - can go spear instead!!

I do think there are lots of changes that could help the herd overall for residents and based on what I have heard from guys on here and good friends it seems like something needs to happen in terms of less season, Reducing harvest, etc

I don’t think a word of mouth will do it unfortunately - I think the DNR has to step in, change regs, and continually monitor and adapt. Unfortunately there will be an over harvest as long as it is allowed is the only point I really was trying to make. Voice your opinions, a few year sacrifice might be the best thing that could happen for the deer!!!

 

[Daver]

I'm not convinced that a higher population will magically bring us back to the good old days everyone remembers. There are plenty of states with high populations. I think it's more complicated than that. The hunter has become far more efficient at targeting bigger bucks and there are multiple factors making that the case.

FWIW, I am very much persuaded this way ^^ too. The amount of "intentionalness" nowadays that goes into the harvesting any given buck is FAR BEYOND today where things were 20 years ago. There are many reasons why IMO, with cell cams and other technology combined with a tremendous amount of high quality advice and instruction...there are very few deer living year to year on up to age 5+ that people aren't choosing to leave alone.

Hunter behavior is the primary thing that has to change IMO, either via regulation and/or personal choice, for us to restore the mature buck action we once saw so commonly.

 

[Sligh1]

Lawmakers are shortsighted morons if you get to know them. There are a finite amount of deer available. If they increase the NR allocation, they HAVE to decrease the Resident allocation. They don't seem to realize the consequences of that. This, as usual, comes down to hunters being their own worst enemies though. If guys have to hunt deer in 5 states, they must realize they are displacing a hunter in each state they travel to. Is that supposed to help with hunter numbers nationwide? Come on... I'm telling you right now, if Kansas put it on the ballot whether to even allow hunting, I would vote no. I live here, pay taxes here, built my life here. I didn't do it to preserve the right of the wealthy few to travel the country to hunt their preferred game. I would also apply for every depredation tag I could get my hands on and kill every spike I could. Spiteful? Yep...

Edit: Its not appropriate to label all lawmakers shortsighted morons. That is an unfair assessment. MANY lawmakers look for the often shortsighted politically expedient solution rather than attempt to create a long-term vision for their constituents.

your state needs the equivalent of Iowa Sportsman’s club. It would stop all this craziness easily as you have facts on your side. Right now… you get these special interests & $ lunatics that ask for anything under the sun & there’s such little opposition!!! That’s only reason they can get this garbage through!! Some big boys in KS need to organize or that state is gonna be flushed down the toilet. Residents especially will be screwed & hunting just get way worse. Very “easy” to fix if some hunters in that state can get off their butts & do a touch of work to save that place.

 

[Obsessed]

Haven't read through all 4 pages of posts, but a one buck limit would sell a lot less tags annually IMHO, which the state will not go for.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Haven't read through all 4 pages of posts, but a one buck limit would sell a lot less tags annually IMHO, which the state will not go for.

Not necessarily. They don't need to carry over. And easy ways to make up the revenue.

 

[Sligh1]

Regardless if you’re for it or against…. REVENUE is one issue that I will say, isn’t really part of the equation IMHO. State is actually doing extremely well financially. DNR is far more motivated by a quality resource, retaining hunters, new hunters and they are very focused on ACCESS PROBLEMS. Legislators are not hammering for higher DNR revenue either - or at least I have never heard one peep of that.
Focus of state & dnr IMO, top issues: ACCESS!!! Abundant game & quality experience to keep hunters coming back. Next is kinda Same thing…. game & quality + access for NEW hunters.
Then…. Balancing all this with the “kill em all” lobbyists at farm bureau.

 

[iowaqdm]

Not necessarily. They don't need to carry over. And easy ways to make up the revenue.

I am curious on how you think the DNR or the State of Iowa will make up the lost revenue? Every bow hunter I know gets a second tag either shotgun or ML tag. If we cut doe tags to get the population up and we are only allowed one buck tag how do you propose making up the lost revenue? Not only the lost revenue from license sales but also the economic loss when guys aren’t buying gas, food, lodging, equipment, ammo etc to go out hunting during another season to fill that second buck tag. You are talking about millions of dollars just in lost license sales for the DNR and tens of millions in economic losses for businesses and the State. I’d like to hear how you think this revenue will be easily made up???

Because my bet would be adding crossbows during archery and increased NR tag allotments.

Guys pushing this one buck State reminds of the old saying…
"Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face"

Just quit shooting does to let the population recover, pass young good genetic bucks, and shoot old culls. It is really that simple. Just as Skip pointed out. The thing that will help the most is increasing the population. If you get the population up you will have more bucks and ultimately more bucks that get to an older age class.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

I am curious on how you think the DNR or the State of Iowa will make up the lost revenue? Every bow hunter I know gets a second tag either shotgun or ML tag. If we cut doe tags to get the population up and we are only allowed one buck tag how do you propose making up the lost revenue? Not only the lost revenue from license sales but also the economic loss when guys aren’t buying gas, food, lodging, equipment, ammo etc to go out hunting during another season to fill that second buck tag. You are talking about millions of dollars just in lost license sales for the DNR and tens of millions in economic losses for businesses and the State. I’d like to hear how you think this revenue will be easily made up???

Because my bet would be adding crossbows during archery and increased NR tag allotments.

Guys pushing this one buck State reminds of the old saying…
"Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face"

Just quit shooting does to let the population recover, pass young good genetic bucks, and shoot old culls. It is really that simple. Just as Skip pointed out. The thing that will help the most is increasing the population. If you get the population up you will have more bucks and ultimately more bucks that get to an older age class.

Tons of things that could be done on revenue front if it was a concern (which it's not)

Increase resident tag cost
Increase NR tag cost and get wait time on tags back down to a couple years.
Make LOT tags the same price as regular tags
Charge hikers, bird watchers, dog walkers, etc for access to public lands. Hunters shouldn't be only ones footing the bill
Tons and tons of ways to do it.

 

[Obsessed]

I'm not privy to the political discussions driving legislature, but believing politicians when they say loss of revenue isn't a big issue, seems a bit naieve.

Seems logical to me that avid hunters are more apt to buy additional tags, (no 1 buck limit), than new hunters are to buy initial tags, (1 buck limit). No matter what the deer population and quality is. And good luck addressing the access issue. Private land is locked the F down, and we've done that to ourselves. Got to pay to play!

 

[Obsessed]

As for increasing prices or taxes, etc. for enjoying the outdoors... That's a great idea. NOT!!!

Example: It cost me a small fortune to buy licenses and/or tags for myself and 3 of my kids last year just to gun hunt a couple of days. Making the venison we harvested WAY more expensive than the best beef a guy can buy. My kids love hunting, but every one of them would have chosen not to go, if they would have had to pay for their own way, and I wouldn't have gone without them. All of the bullshit associated with modern day deer hunting has already turned me off of it.

So yeah, go ahead and raise those prices and see what happens. The opposite of what it was intended to do in raising revenue. Not to mention pissing off the bike riders, walkers, bird watchers, etc.

 

[JBAGS]

As for increasing prices or taxes, etc. for enjoying the outdoors... That's a great idea. NOT!!!

Example: It cost me a small fortune to buy licenses and/or tags for myself and 3 of my kids last year just to gun hunt a couple of days. Making the venison we harvested WAY more expensive than the best beef a guy can buy. My kids love hunting, but every one of them would have chosen not to go, if they would have had to pay for their own way, and I wouldn't have gone without them. All of the bullshit associated with modern day deer hunting has already turned me off of it.

So yeah, go ahead and raise those prices and see what happens. The opposite of what it was intended to do in raising revenue. Not to mention pissing off the bike riders, walkers, bird watchers, etc.

Tag prices are too low, across the board and have been there for too long.
How much do you consider a "small fortune" to buy 4 deer tags and enjoy the outdoors?
Entertainment costs money, not many ways around that.

 

[Obsessed]

Tag prices are too low, across the board and have been there for too long.
How much do you consider a "small fortune" to buy 4 deer tags and enjoy the outdoors?
Entertainment costs money, not many ways around that.

Licenses were mentioned too. The point being my kids already would choose not to go, vs paying for their own. Increasing prices will turn more off, including myself as a loving father trying to spend a couple of days making memories with my kids.

 

[iowaqdm]

Tons of things that could be done on revenue front if it was a concern (which it's not)

Increase resident tag cost
Increase NR tag cost and get wait time on tags back down to a couple years.
Make LOT tags the same price as regular tags
Charge hikers, bird watchers, dog walkers, etc for access to public lands. Hunters shouldn't be only ones footing the bill
Tons and tons of ways to do it.

Increasing resident tag costs will decrease licenses sales and affect hunter retention and recruitment. Short term gain with real long term negative consequences.

I like the idea of raising tag costs for non-residents to generate more income. The demand is there and they will sell out. I would like to see the NR tag allocation decreased by 35% to slow demand for NR recreational land purchases and outfitter leasing by increasing wait time to draw. If it takes 6-8 years to draw a tag that will slow NR land purchases and outfitter leasing. They will then look to other States to buy or set up their outfitting business.

Increasing LOT tag cost won’t fly with Farm Bureau. That’s not happening.

Charging hikers, bird watchers, dog walkers to access public ground. While I like the idea of them having to purchase a habitat stamp just like hunters to use the ground that our licenses paid for. A similar thing was tried in the late 80’s early 90’s. They were called State Park stamps. I believe they were $5 to $10 for the year. They went on your car windshield. That only lasted a few years before the public outcry caused the legislature to get rid of it. Good luck on that one. That will go over like a fart in church!

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

No problem at all keeping prices for youth status quo. I can 100% see a valid argument there. More involved the better.

I think you look at "entertainment", anything for kids, the cost of a hunting license that is good for several months is exponentially cheaper than nearly anything you can take your kids to do these days.

 

[Sligh1]

DNR is a LONG ways from maximizing revenue!!! I’m not saying im for or against any of this but if they wanted to maximize revenue…
1) 6,000 NR deer tags have up to a 6 year draw time & demand. This is simple economics 101 on that…. Double the price & keep increasing it until There’s an every year draw. Again- I’m not saying I’m for it but government should/could be dictated by economics over emotion. If revenue is the goal, bet they make em $5k a tag & the 6,000 would still sell out. I actually don’t want that but there’s a strong argument for government to use supply & demand economics on a limited resource. 6,000x$5,000= $30,000,000. Buys a pile of ground or could be used for a lot of conservation work.
2) increase the amount of auction/charity tags to 150. Still extremely limited & as long as it stays very low, wide spread support will remain because: Dnr gets half & other half stays in iowa to increase activities, conservation & causes that benefit citizens of this state. They were bringing $30-40k…. Say it drops to $25k…. $3,750,000 total & dnr gets half that.
3) 1st buck tag for residents: normal price. Next buck tag: $300. It’s not a necessity to shoot a 2nd buck & this would put a premium on it to bring in a pile across the state. “I don’t wanna buy it”….. ok, don’t buy it or go buy a doe tag instead.
4) .25% sales tax added to: bows, fishing items, guns, ammo & other hunting/fishing related items. That alone would bring in a huge sum of funds to pad anything the dnr needed to do
5) increase all penalties by 50%…. Poaching, trespassing & other violations. There again, that alone would bring in a massive windfall

Not saying I’m for or against any of these things. Clearly they are more complex & would need to pass. 1 or 2 of Above could pretty easily pass though & “SOME” of them could easily be called “common sense”.

 

[T_Max]

Government can't look at it from the perspective of maximizing revenue as priority one otherwise the auction tag number should be in the thousands. A pure capitalistic approach would be what generates the most revenue and big money wins that every time. What they need to do is find a way to associate a dollar amount with the enjoyment their residents get from utilizing the resource. Sounds weird, but lets say you leave $3,000,000 on the table annually by not crushing the resource. Find a way to say, "but it leads to over $4,000,000 for Iowans enjoying the resource." That is probably a terrible way of expressing that, but politicians would understand it. Seems arbitrary and it probably is, but in a world where apparently everything has to be about money, we need to make it about money...

 

[JBAGS]

Licenses were mentioned too. The point being my kids already would choose not to go, vs paying for their own. Increasing prices will turn more off, including myself as a loving father trying to spend a couple of days making memories with my kids.

Ok, but what did you pay? I have an idea but I don't want to speculate.
IMO, it wasn't that expensive compared to other forms of entertainment.
As years go by, everything goes up in price, that's life. They should have been raising prices slowly for years, and nobody would bat an eye.

 

[JNRBRONC]

IMO, it wasn't that expensive compared to other forms of entertainment.
As years go by, everything goes up in price, that's life. They should have been raising prices slowly for years, and nobody would bat an eye.

Talking to a fellow hunter yesterday who was a little miffed about a $33 deer tag. My comment was that I hunted 50 hours on it, so less than a dollar an hour. What else would I be able to do as entertainment for that kind of money? Not going to a movie, not going out to eat, been a long time since I went bowling, but bet I couldn't do that for the $.

 

[JBAGS]

Talking to a fellow hunter yesterday who was a little miffed about a $33 deer tag. My comment was that I hunted 50 hours on it, so less than a dollar an hour. What else would I be able to do as entertainment for that kind of money? Not going to a movie, not going out to eat, been a long time since I went bowling, but bet I couldn't do that for the $.

Kinda my exact point.
Movie used to be $5, now it's $15
Bowling used be $1 per game, now it's $3
Rent a pickleball or tennis court for $10/hour
I could go on and on. Prices have gone up over time, especially in the last few years.
The price of a tag and license is cheap when you break it down to how many hours you can use the tag. If you only hunt 1 or 2 days, yeah, maybe a little bit more cost but still not a break the bank scenario.

 

[T_Max]

Playing Devil's advocate here, but does the owner of the movie theater have to pay to go to the movie? Does the owner of the bowling alley have to pay to go bowling? But the landowner has to pay to use their land? I understand the "shared" resource that is wildlife, but a guy should expect a discount.