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

The Future of Iowa Deer Hunting and a One Buck Limit

JNRBRONC said:
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 $.
Click to expand...
Speaking of going to a movie...I am not really a movie watcher and rarely make it to a theatre, but my wife and I went a couple of months ago and I was SHOCKED by the price of concessions, particularly popcorn. OMG, a large popcorn and drink would bust a $20 bill all to heck!

I too would like to see prices lower for kids and young hunters, but as adults...I can't think of anything that we do that is as cheap as a deer tag. (Note - I am only talking about the tag cost, not the other billion dollars we spend on equipment, etc. :) )
 
T_Max said:
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.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying but that's apples/oranges. The owner of the land doesn't own the animals that are on there.
Rabbits, deer, turkey, etc.
I was more saying from an entertainment side of things, that tags are dirt cheap compared to other forms of entertainment out there, when you break it down.
 
I totally agree with that sentiment. But I also think they should be cheap since you already have made a substantial investment. Not just landowners either. A general resident pays income taxes and other taxes throughout the year. A good portion of that goes to causes they don't agree with or use, so it doesn't hurt for them to get a discount for the things they do use. Just an alternative opinion. Not even necessarily mine, but I think it is valid.
 
T_Max said:
I totally agree with that sentiment. But I also think they should be cheap since you already have made a substantial investment. Not just landowners either. A general resident pays income taxes and other taxes throughout the year. A good portion of that goes to causes they don't agree with or use, so it doesn't hurt for them to get a discount for the things they do use. Just an alternative opinion. Not even necessarily mine, but I think it is valid.
Click to expand...
Fair point. I think small increments every year of every other year should just be implemented regardless.
cost of living increase type of increase.
fully transparency, im a NRLO and would be fine if they doubled the cost of the NR tag. I've said this before. It would be a huge revenue boost that they could spend on gaining public lands for the residents or whatever else makes the most sense.
 
If it were a one buck state could you pay double/triple for a floating tag and normal price if you just wanted one season or would that be a crap show? I guess I could get behind a slight overall increase on reg tags, LO tags and NR tags but I would not be favor of drastic increases for any of the three. If my wife knew what I spent on tags for myself and my 2 sons she would slap me silly. lol
 
Personally, the only way I'd get behind a one buck annually concept in Iowa, would be if it were a floating tag that would roll into each consecutive season, until it was filled. If the masses here want it so badly, then they should concede to it being a floating tag.

I'd also like to see the 'Youth' age range of 0 to 15 raised to 18 or even 21, but that won't happen.

For taking my kids 2 days of shotgun deer hunting annually, Ol' pops is on the hook for supplying 4 people with food, gas, cloths, boots, guns, ammo, tags, licenses, knives, etc. etc. Kids grow, so cloths and boots rarely fit year to year. Kids eat like horses. Kids burn through ammo. Kids lose knives. etc. etc.

It's more expensive than taking a 2 day vacation and staying in a nice hotel fellas.
 
Those of us who are die hard deer hunters will pay whatever the tag price but the average person which is 80%+ of the guys who deer hunt won’t. So if you want to push the cost envelope you better be prepared to loose some of those hunting privileges you cherish. Because when you no longer have a large enough voice you will loose. Just like trappers have now lost the privilege of using foot hold traps in 10 States.

I believe there are around 220,000 hunters in Iowa total. Of those 160,000 hunt deer in Iowa. Of those around 60,000 are bowhunters. Iowa has a population of 3.2 million. If we continue to loose hunters because of recruitment or retention then we will risk loosing privileges. If 15 years from now there are 160,000 hunters, and 100,000 deer hunters and of those 40,000 bowhunters and our State population is 5 million. What is going to stand in the way of groups that want to end the use of bows? What if there are 120,000 hunters, 80,000 deer hunters and only 30,000 bowhunters and our State population is 8 million? Who do you think is going to win the battle in Des Moines over shooting poor brown eyed deer in Iowa with a bow?
It took 30 years to get a dove hunting season passed in Iowa because of one lady and a bird watching group I won’t name that fought it. It didn’t pass until after she passed and it still took a couple years.

You guys better quit planning your own demise because of a big buck lust and focus on getting populations back up and keeping tag costs as low as we can for the resident hunters. Otherwise our hunter retention and recruitment numbers will fall even faster than they currently are as will our voice.

We need to make hunting and fishing the most affordable thing for residents and their families to do in Iowa. We need to grow or at a minimum maintain our outdoorsman numbers. If we don’t we will put ourselves in a position to loose the very thing we cherish.
 
iowaqdm said:
Those of us who are die hard deer hunters will pay whatever the tag price but the average person which is 80%+ of the guys who deer hunt won’t. So if you want to push the cost envelope you better be prepared to loose some of those hunting privileges you cherish. Because when you no longer have a large enough voice you will loose. Just like trappers have now lost the privilege of using foot hold traps in 10 States.

I believe there are around 220,000 hunters in Iowa total. Of those 160,000 hunt deer in Iowa. Of those around 60,000 are bowhunters. Iowa has a population of 3.2 million. If we continue to loose hunters because of recruitment or retention then we will risk loosing privileges. If 15 years from now there are 160,000 hunters, and 100,000 deer hunters and of those 40,000 bowhunters and our State population is 5 million. What is going to stand in the way of groups that want to end the use of bows? What if there are 120,000 hunters, 80,000 deer hunters and only 30,000 bowhunters and our State population is 8 million? Who do you think is going to win the battle in Des Moines over shooting poor brown eyed deer in Iowa with a bow?
It took 30 years to get a dove hunting season passed in Iowa because of one lady and a bird watching group I won’t name that fought it. It didn’t pass until after she passed and it still took a couple years.

You guys better quit planning your own demise because of a big buck lust and focus on getting populations back up and keeping tag costs as low as we can for the resident hunters. Otherwise our hunter retention and recruitment numbers will fall even faster than they currently are as will our voice.

We need to make hunting and fishing the most affordable thing for residents and their families to do in Iowa. We need to grow or at a minimum maintain our outdoorsman numbers. If we don’t we will put ourselves in a position to loose the very thing we cherish.
Click to expand...
To avoid the above, seems like we need to get behind "the right to hunt" initiative, H.J.R 1
House Joint Resolution 1-Introduced HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION By FISHER HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa providing that the people of the state have a right to hunt ,fish, trap, and harvest wildlife.
 
JNRBRONC said:
To avoid the above, seems like we need to get behind "the right to hunt" initiative, H.J.R 1
House Joint Resolution 1-Introduced HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION By FISHER HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa providing that the people of the state have a right to hunt ,fish, trap, and harvest wildlife.
Click to expand...
This was in the recent IBA Week 3 Legislative update email:
HJR 1 - Right To Hunt, Fish and Trap (F) - This joint resolution proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa providing that the people of this state have the right to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to reasonable laws enacted by the General Assembly and reasonable rules adopted by the Natural Resource Commission that promote wildlife conservation and management, that maintain natural resources in trust for public use, and that preserve the future of hunting, fishing, trapping and harvesting wildlife. Approved by subcommittee. Referred to Natural Resources Committee.

Link to the NRC above survived the copy/paste. Get after them, Guys. Let your feelings be known.
 
Sligh1 said:
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”.
Click to expand...
#3- raise doe tags too, otherwise people WILL continue to shoot does and keep our numbers low.
I said it way earlier in the post, I dont believe one buck is the answer. Sure, maybe it will be, but first and foremost we need numbers of the herd raised. As a different poster mentioned, our technology is far superior now than 20 years ago- so even one buck, will we ever see "that" big of an increase? Or- are our expectations that shattered from a few years ago that we simply cannot understand what truly needs to happen to help the herd?
I will use my father in law as a worst case example- he will shoot EVERY DEER HE CAN, as long as he has a tag. He DOES shoot 3 bucks a year, BECAUSE HE CAN. None over 130". I am ALL for getting rid of a tag somehow and somewhere, but as I will stand behind, LOT DO need to stay because of Iowas CRITICAL habitat. I dont believe acreage is a good gauge to base the tag off of, but I do think something needs to change in the program. I will be honest, I signed up and NO ONE ever came out and looked at my ground, has checked in since I signed up, etc etc. What prevents anyone from signing up?
My next bad example- My second cousin and his dad (i dont really know them well so I will say it) They BOTH get tags- one as a LOT, and one as a TENANT. Another reason- I think the LOT system needs to be DEED NAME only, no LLC, nothing. Simply the name on the deed. Sure, give it to kids some say- but if they have a floating tag, they dont need a LOT. My opinion. Yes, sure, helps them get outdoors, etc. Once again, you open the door to more more more, where do you draw the line? Where do you teach the future sportsmen and women that the resource is LIMITED. Its not hunt until you tag out, there will be unfilled tags. Thats just as important to teach, and you cant tell me differently.
My last bad example- my Brother in Law lets a pile of people onto his land, he has told me (I have zero proof other than his word) he let his neighbor just sign up for a tenant on his ground. So he can get LOT tags. Again- the LOT system needs to be highly looked at and adjusted and I do think that would help in quite a few areas. I also think depredation should be looked at more and more as other animals causing the damage. My neighbor got way to many tags for literally not having many deer around.
Sorry, more of a rant to get that off my chest- but I do think just the general revamp of some of the programs would help.

We talk about technology being better- my brother in law has that Garmin range finding site (I think thats the one) brags all the time how easy it is now. He has 7 tower blinds with heaters, plucks off his deer that he wants with "ease"... I dont use a rangefinder today at all, I do use a compound but switching to recurve this year. I have cell cameras on my property that is 2 hours away, but normal cameras on my home farm. I wish all cell cameras would be "midnight send only" or even midnight/noon... I think there are a lot of things that could tweak to really help- anyway- sorry for a long winded rant that really pry didnt gain much help in the conversation
 
If we’re talking raising money for the DNR, let’s just raise the state sales tax .375% and let the $$$ roll in. Raise it a half a % and they can use the extra 1/8 for administration fees. There is no excuse for a constitutional amendment to sit dormant for 15 years.

In 2010, 63% of Iowa voters approved a constitutional amendment to create the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund, a permanent and protected funding source for Iowa’s communities and natural places. More than ten years later, the Trust Fund sits empty, requiring a sales tax increase of 3/8 of a cent for funding. If funded, the Trust Fund would generate at least $171 million annually and provide farmers, local communities and state agencies with reliable and accountable funding.
 
seven twenty said:
If we’re talking raising money for the DNR, let’s just raise the state sales tax .375% and let the $$$ roll in. Raise it a half a % and they can use the extra 1/8 for administration fees. There is no excuse for a constitutional amendment to sit dormant for 15 years.

In 2010, 63% of Iowa voters approved a constitutional amendment to create the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund, a permanent and protected funding source for Iowa’s communities and natural places. More than ten years later, the Trust Fund sits empty, requiring a sales tax increase of 3/8 of a cent for funding. If funded, the Trust Fund would generate at least $171 million annually and provide farmers, local communities and state agencies with reliable and accountable funding.
Click to expand...
Quite some time ago, I contacted a local D Rep (MM) and she told me she wasn't backing this. She said if I wanted to support the DNR, I should buy the special vehicle license plates......
 
Obsessed said:
Personally, the only way I'd get behind a one buck annually concept in Iowa, would be if it were a floating tag that would roll into each consecutive season, until it was filled. If the masses here want it so badly, then they should concede to it being a floating tag.

I'd also like to see the 'Youth' age range of 0 to 15 raised to 18 or even 21, but that won't happen.

For taking my kids 2 days of shotgun deer hunting annually, Ol' pops is on the hook for supplying 4 people with food, gas, cloths, boots, guns, ammo, tags, licenses, knives, etc. etc. Kids grow, so cloths and boots rarely fit year to year. Kids eat like horses. Kids burn through ammo. Kids lose knives. etc. etc.

It's more expensive than taking a 2 day vacation and staying in a nice hotel fellas.
Click to expand...

No, tags should not be floating from year to year if not filled. Pay for the tag each year.

15 years of age is old enough for youth tags. Many, many reasons why. Buy your 16 year old kid that tag and license... It's memories that will last a lifetime.

Yes, raising a family is expensive. And yes, "ol dad" is on the hook for all expenses. That's true for their entire life until they move out. Don't know why this is an issue. If you can't afford it don't go hunting. If your kids don't love it then don't make them go. I'm so confused on this ideology of thinking. What are you mad about?? That you had two kids and now it's expensive when you go so activities? Are you mad you have to buy a $30 tag each year?
 
abell3 said:
No, tags should not be floating from year to year if not filled. Pay for the tag each year.

15 years of age is old enough for youth tags. Many, many reasons why. Buy your 16 year old kid that tag and license... It's memories that will last a lifetime.

Yes, raising a family is expensive. And yes, "ol dad" is on the hook for all expenses. That's true for their entire life until they move out. Don't know why this is an issue. If you can't afford it don't go hunting. If your kids don't love it then don't make them go. I'm so confused on this ideology of thinking. What are you mad about?? That you had two kids and now it's expensive when you go so activities? Are you mad you have to buy a $30 tag each year?
Click to expand...
SMH... No, not float from year to year. Float from season to season, within the same year.

As for the rest, I was sharing my differing opinions and viewpoints, so take your lecture and stick it up your ass, bub.
 
abell3 said:
You're comments in this forum warrant responses. If you can't have conversation without getting angry maybe this isn't for you..
Click to expand...
I've been here a while, bub.

I can't help it if you inaccurately interpret my comments as 'getting angry'. Yet another lecture. I already addressed where you can place those.

I can obviously afford to take my kids hunting, and of course it's a choice of mine to do so, otherwise I wouldn't do it. I didn't feel I had to make these two statements, but I was mistaken. I shared my personal expense & experience associated with 2024 deer hunting to provide some background support for my opinion that tag and license prices should not be increased, as it will turn off more than it will increase revenue.

I believe my shared opinions represent more of the 'common man' on here than what I consider an 'elitist', but I'm sure there are several who would disagree, and sometimes my comments may not sit well with folks.

Responses are welcomed. Lectures are not.
 
Obsessed said:
I've been here a while, bub.

I can't help it if you inaccurately interpret my comments as 'getting angry'. Yet another lecture. I already addressed where you can place those.

I can obviously afford to take my kids hunting, and of course it's a choice of mine to do so, otherwise I wouldn't do it. I didn't feel I had to make these two statements, but I was mistaken. I shared my personal expense & experience associated with 2024 deer hunting to provide some background support for my opinion that tag and license prices should not be increased, as it will turn off more than it will increase revenue.

I believe my shared opinions represent more of the 'common man' on here than what I consider an 'elitist', but I'm sure there are several who would disagree, and sometimes my comments may not sit well with folks.

Responses are welcomed. Lectures are not.
Click to expand...
Still wondering what you consider a small fortune to buy tags and licenses for you and your kids to go hunting?
All the gear, guns ammo, etc. I am not interested in.
Just the cost for tags/licenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom