sep0667
Land of the Whitetail
I believe it is 6000.
The Future of Iowa Hunting - Rumors Flying
- Thread starter String_Gun_Shooter
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
I believe it is 6000.
I-state_hunters
New Member
Longtime reader, firs ttime poster.
I felt inclined to respond to this for several reasons. First, many times I get the feeling that most of us Iowans want nothing more than to keep NR out. But as a hunter I have many dreams, I dream of huge elk mounts over my fireplace, moose bear, and many other big game animals that are not found in Iowa. Two years ago I was able to make my first big game hunt in SW Colorado for Elk, and it was amazing. But I wonder, if the resident hunters of Colorado had the same attitude where would I be?
I am a land owner in iowa and definitely have major disagreements with the way that the DNR runs thier tags. What I'll post here is just the NR stuff. Each year many people travel to Iowa to hunt our famous whitetail, and for a lot of them it is a amazing trip, similar to my first elk hunt. The things I dont understand is a NR doe tag is more here than a NR Mule Deer Buck in CO, a Elk Cow in any state, etc. I am for lowering the cost of NR does tags but putting a cap on issuing them, and really who cares if it is lottery or OTC? The buck tags are fine how they are.
Lastly, why if you are a land owner in Iowa that lives out of state cant you get a LOT tag? Makes perfect sense to me, you help the local economy by paying taxes (property) and buying land, second, you are hunting land that you manage, and lastly you arre increasing tourism revenue which many small towns desperately need.
I guess my quesiton is what is everyone's beef?
I felt inclined to respond to this for several reasons. First, many times I get the feeling that most of us Iowans want nothing more than to keep NR out. But as a hunter I have many dreams, I dream of huge elk mounts over my fireplace, moose bear, and many other big game animals that are not found in Iowa. Two years ago I was able to make my first big game hunt in SW Colorado for Elk, and it was amazing. But I wonder, if the resident hunters of Colorado had the same attitude where would I be?
I am a land owner in iowa and definitely have major disagreements with the way that the DNR runs thier tags. What I'll post here is just the NR stuff. Each year many people travel to Iowa to hunt our famous whitetail, and for a lot of them it is a amazing trip, similar to my first elk hunt. The things I dont understand is a NR doe tag is more here than a NR Mule Deer Buck in CO, a Elk Cow in any state, etc. I am for lowering the cost of NR does tags but putting a cap on issuing them, and really who cares if it is lottery or OTC? The buck tags are fine how they are.
Lastly, why if you are a land owner in Iowa that lives out of state cant you get a LOT tag? Makes perfect sense to me, you help the local economy by paying taxes (property) and buying land, second, you are hunting land that you manage, and lastly you arre increasing tourism revenue which many small towns desperately need.
I guess my quesiton is what is everyone's beef?
Yes that is correct.6000 NR ANY-SEX tags.But I saw the final figures from the DNR report last year.There was almost 15,000 NR deer tags sold total.(including antlerless tags).I would have no problem with then raising the NR alottment if they would make it impossible for a NR to hunt with just a doe tag.Make shotgun seasom like bow season.
To many NRs buy a doe tag because of party hunting and they know they can take home a big buck without having to draw.
Thats why the antlerless tags are as high as they are.If they were $25,who would even put in for the draw for gun season?
To many NRs buy a doe tag because of party hunting and they know they can take home a big buck without having to draw.
Thats why the antlerless tags are as high as they are.If they were $25,who would even put in for the draw for gun season?
I-State hunters...I will try my best to answer your questions.
First where out west can you buy a cow elk tag and legally bring home a 400'' bull?
Secondly as far as NRLO getting a land owner tag goes?you would have hundreds of people from all over the country buying a 40 acre piece of ground just to get a free tag.Where does the DRN win come out on that?They would get $0.
And if you are a resident landowner why in the world would you want a NR landowner getting the same privledges as you are.There suppport in the communities is minimal.No school taxes.No road use taxes.They can't vote for lawmakers or local bond or issues.I don't think they should get anything different that any other guy that puts in for the draw.
First where out west can you buy a cow elk tag and legally bring home a 400'' bull?
Secondly as far as NRLO getting a land owner tag goes?you would have hundreds of people from all over the country buying a 40 acre piece of ground just to get a free tag.Where does the DRN win come out on that?They would get $0.
And if you are a resident landowner why in the world would you want a NR landowner getting the same privledges as you are.There suppport in the communities is minimal.No school taxes.No road use taxes.They can't vote for lawmakers or local bond or issues.I don't think they should get anything different that any other guy that puts in for the draw.
singlecoyote
Proud member of the IBA
The access to ground is the issue. More NR's means less ground for residents.
Iowa ranks #48 in federally own land with 0.8% of the state (450,000 public hunting acres).
The top ten are (not all federally own land is "Public Hunting")
1. Nevada 84%
2. Alaska 69%
3. Utah 57%
4. Oregon 53%
5. Idaho 50%
6. Arizona 48%
7. California 45%
8. Wyoming 42%
9. New Mexico 41%
10. Colorado 36%
The bottom 5:
50. Connecticut 0.4%
49. Rhode Island 0.4%
48. Iowa 0.8%
47 New York 0.8%
46. Maine 1.1%
Iowa ranks #48 in federally own land with 0.8% of the state (450,000 public hunting acres).
The top ten are (not all federally own land is "Public Hunting")
1. Nevada 84%
2. Alaska 69%
3. Utah 57%
4. Oregon 53%
5. Idaho 50%
6. Arizona 48%
7. California 45%
8. Wyoming 42%
9. New Mexico 41%
10. Colorado 36%
The bottom 5:
50. Connecticut 0.4%
49. Rhode Island 0.4%
48. Iowa 0.8%
47 New York 0.8%
46. Maine 1.1%
DOR
Life Member
Where is the link for that info. I'd like to have that. I'm a NR and I agree that allowing unlimited access is the worst thing that could happen to the "have nots". Which is me!
AZHunter
Iowa Boy At Heart
Where is the link for that info. I'd like to have that. I'm a NR and I agree that allowing unlimited access is the worst thing that could happen to the "have nots". Which is me!
I'm not disagreeing with the access issue and concern at all, but one thing to keep in mind and put these numbers into a little more perspective is that these numbers only represent federal land in each of those states. Most western states, including (and especially) here in AZ have a great deal of State Trust land that is open to public use for hunting and fishing (its not open to just any public use, which is a HUGE misconception), but that land alone, drastically increases the amount the public hunting/fishing land available, along with several Land Owner Access programs. That's why you often see me post that AZ is approx. 70% or more public land. I just wanted to put it in the overall public land perspective (out west, at least) before someone mis-uses or mis-represents data.
As I said earlier, I fully support Iowa's current regs and would hate to see land bought up quickly by NRs, limiting access for residnents and NRs, alike. Yes, I've considered buying land back there, but I don't ever see myself expecting anything more than what I deserve as a NR landowner (the chance to get drawn once-in-a-while). That doesn't include the ability to hunt it every year, just having my own place when I do get drawn (I'd let a few friends back there on it, FREE). I just wanted to get the whole public land available numbers cleared up a little.
cedar creek
Banned
Well; i'm an Iowa landowner, and i'm against any increase in NR tags. That includes the NR landowners. Now we have a new governor who is hell-bent on digging Iowa out of the hole. I'm not saying Brandstad can get the NR tags increased on his own, but we all know the special interest groups that have been fighting hard to have the same rights as residents. If they are such friends of Iowa; why don't they live here?
All i know; is i can see the value of my land increasing tremendously! It might even be a good idea to pick up another parcel before the gates are opened. At least i'll be smiling all the way to the bank. And i'll have that extra money to hunt out of state after our hunting goes to hell!
All i know; is i can see the value of my land increasing tremendously! It might even be a good idea to pick up another parcel before the gates are opened. At least i'll be smiling all the way to the bank. And i'll have that extra money to hunt out of state after our hunting goes to hell!
risto2351
Well-Known Member
No need debating until the legislation hits the table.
Then do your part. :way:
Governor cannot do anything if the majority of the people want it to stay the same.
Our elected officials have learned that they work for us not the NR
plain and simple.
Altiman94
Member
I can't honestly say I'm against an increase of NR tags. 2,000 more won't make much of a dent in anything. Especially considering only 35% of those will be bow hunters. So you will go from 2100 bow hunters to 2800 bow hunters. These are as many people get turned away as get tags each year.
We have to remember that many of us travel to other states to hunt. While their residents may feel the same way, we need to understand the situation. Fact of the matter is, if you are worried about the harvesting of animals, we need to limit what happens in the shot gun seasons. That's where the bulk of deer (big and small) are shot.
The way I see it-raise the # of NR tags, but use that money to acquire some more public land for us all to enjoy. I want to be able to hunt CO/WY/etc.
It's too selfish for us to not allow any hunters in our state. I'm guessing more land is leased up by Iowa residents than by NR's anyhow. I know plenty of guys that lease land not far from me that live next to me.
We have to remember that many of us travel to other states to hunt. While their residents may feel the same way, we need to understand the situation. Fact of the matter is, if you are worried about the harvesting of animals, we need to limit what happens in the shot gun seasons. That's where the bulk of deer (big and small) are shot.
The way I see it-raise the # of NR tags, but use that money to acquire some more public land for us all to enjoy. I want to be able to hunt CO/WY/etc.
It's too selfish for us to not allow any hunters in our state. I'm guessing more land is leased up by Iowa residents than by NR's anyhow. I know plenty of guys that lease land not far from me that live next to me.
AZHunter
Iowa Boy At Heart
That statement, alone, is one of the best perspectives I've seen in any resident vs. non-resident discussion anywhere. Yes, I've been guilty of cussing NRs, but its not the NRs faults. Its a product of AZ hunting regs. Interestingly, those same regs, which do not currently favor NR hunters, were derived a few years ago because NRs and out-of-state outfitters didn't like the 10% cap on NR tags. They sued AGFD over the cap, wanting more NR tags. So in response, AGFD basically made it even tougher and more expensive for NRs to go through the process (its hard to explain it all here). If I want to hunt with any of my buddies or family that live elsewhere, I have to go there because its too tough or too expensive to get drawn here as a NR. So anyone who wants to come to AZ and hunt the big bulls, huge muleys, and great Coue's whitetail we have can thank all of the NRs who didn't like the way it was! Take home lessons: 1) sometimes, NRs who don't like a particular system shoud learn to be happy with the system before they ruin it for everyone; and 2) just about every resident hunter will be a NR somewhere, so they shouldn't look down on NRs too hard or make life difficult for NRs (something about treating others as you wish to be treated or do unto other as you wish done unto you; I'm pretty sure that was written in a pretty important book once! :way
Last edited:
I personal don't have a problem with an increase of NR tags.Increase them to 10,000 for all I care.IF and this is a big IF.If they would stop party hunting and make it so as a NR you COULD NOT have an antlerless tag in your possesion without also having an any-sex tag.
I really have no clue how it can be monitored the wayt it is.EXAMPLE: A NR doesn't get drawn for a shotgun season so he buys a doe tag and comes to hunt with residents on a party hunt.He shoots a buck and tags it with someone's any-sex tag.On his way home a game warden see the rack sticking out of the box of the pick-up.He pulls him over to investigate.The guy has a deer in his possesion that doesn't even have his tag on it.How is the game warden supposed to decipher if its legal or not.
It just give poachers and thieves an out.
If they just made it so the deer in your possesion had to have your tag on it would be a lot better.At least you wouldn't have people coming to Iowa from Florida or California if they knew they could only take home a doe.All other states are that way.I can't go to Wyoming with a cow elk tag and shoot a big bull and put someone else's tag on it.
I really have no clue how it can be monitored the wayt it is.EXAMPLE: A NR doesn't get drawn for a shotgun season so he buys a doe tag and comes to hunt with residents on a party hunt.He shoots a buck and tags it with someone's any-sex tag.On his way home a game warden see the rack sticking out of the box of the pick-up.He pulls him over to investigate.The guy has a deer in his possesion that doesn't even have his tag on it.How is the game warden supposed to decipher if its legal or not.
It just give poachers and thieves an out.
If they just made it so the deer in your possesion had to have your tag on it would be a lot better.At least you wouldn't have people coming to Iowa from Florida or California if they knew they could only take home a doe.All other states are that way.I can't go to Wyoming with a cow elk tag and shoot a big bull and put someone else's tag on it.
letemgrow
PMA Member
As a NR, I think they have it set right. They have a premium product (mature bucks) and charge a premium price. They keep the tags alotted down so demand stays up. No different than the oil companies
Besides, IA is not like other whitetails states, the whole state is not like southern IA for instance so premium hunting land is not covering the entire state. Keep it the way it is so residents still have a place to hunt. They go to that system and there will be many more NR's buying land up there...heck I may sell my place 2 miles across the line and do the same!!
Raise the residents tags a buck or two a pop and nr's 20 a pop if need be. The 500+ for the bow tag was a little steep for me last year so I put that money in food plots/apple trees on my own place instead. IA is worth the price of admission tho on the right place.
Besides, IA is not like other whitetails states, the whole state is not like southern IA for instance so premium hunting land is not covering the entire state. Keep it the way it is so residents still have a place to hunt. They go to that system and there will be many more NR's buying land up there...heck I may sell my place 2 miles across the line and do the same!!
Raise the residents tags a buck or two a pop and nr's 20 a pop if need be. The 500+ for the bow tag was a little steep for me last year so I put that money in food plots/apple trees on my own place instead. IA is worth the price of admission tho on the right place.
Last edited:
antlerfreak
New Member
Your telling me if resident tags went up to 500$ you would stop hunting.
The price we pay now or even 500$ is less than anything els I can think of doing that gives me as much enjoyment. what els can you spend that kind of money on and get 3 months of entertainment. Unless your one of those guys that buys 20 doe tags, has all the latest and greatest equipment and spends thousands every year only to Kill what you call "just a white tail". Im sure there is a limit for everyone, but I would guess the majority would spend way more on tag fees if needed.
Someone said the amount of leased ground is by the majority of residents. Im sure thats true but I would like to know what the percentage really is. When it comes down to it, there is a number of buck tags that the DNR gives out each and every year for residents and non residents, Who cares how many NR come to hunt as long as each and every resident is guarenteed to get there buck tag or tags, And as long as there is a way to keep NR from buying and leasing our land to the point that some poor kid growing up will never have a place to hunt.
On the other hand, this is America, (at least for now) land of the free, and if you wnat something bad enough theres alway a way to get it. Since when did anything come easy or free. Ya it may have been great back in the day when you could nock on any door and get permission to hunt a farm. What els in this world works that way, put in some work, pay for what you love, if it isnt worth it to you then dont complain, take up golf.
Its just like AZ. I know I wont ever hunt a giant Bull there, because Its not worth it to me, but If it was I know I could.
but what do I know, thats just my morning rant
Shoot2Kill
Active Member
Duh, don't you watch the outdoor channel? People pay that much coin because there is a Booner behind every tree that comes right out at 20 yards in the broad daylight the first day of your hunt!
I wish the fees were lower...I grew up in IA, lived there 25 years and left to explore the world. Settled in MN 10 years later and now will most likely never be an IA resident again and as long as I have kids to feed I doubt I'll ever pony up that kind of coin to hunt deer when I can still hunt them here for under $30 even knowing throughout much of MN the deer season cannot even begin to compare to what I had growing up. Heck I was even going to buy an antlerless tag to shotgun hunt with a lifelong friend for the first time in 10 years but with kid #2 on the way even the cost of that tag was insane for a doe...but I see why the DNR did it that way.
risto2351
Well-Known Member
Archery,
You may not have a problem but what about the next generation?
They may need a place to hunt to pass on the tradition?
With less and less CO's the chances of the slobs getting caught are very slim.
AZHunter
Iowa Boy At Heart
Who cares how many NR come to hunt as long as each and every resident is guarenteed to get there buck tag or tags, And as long as there is a way to keep NR from buying and leasing our land to the point that some poor kid growing up will never have a place to hunt.
Its just like AZ. I know I wont ever hunt a giant Bull there, because Its not worth it to me, but If it was I know I could.
but what do I know, thats just my morning rant
I think that first statement might just be the best summation of this entire discussion. If I were to ever move back to Iowa and become a resident again, I think that would be my biggest concern right there. I'm pretty sure its the main concern of all residents, if I'm understanding people's posts correctly. Well said, IMO.
As for hunting giant bulls in AZ, if you ever do decide its worth it, Antlerfreak, give me a shout. We've got some of the biggest in the country down here. Of course, I don't blame any NR for staying away since the $151 NR license is mandatory to try to get drawn for the $595 elk tag (cow tags same price btw :thrwrck
. One consolation is that you get all but $7.50 of your $595 back and you get a bonus point for next year. There is always the option of getting the most of your NR license by getting an OTC archery deer tag and we can go chase good muleys or Coue's whitetail! :way:
KSHUNTER
PMA Member
I completely understand your complaints about allowing NR Landowners qualify for a landowner tag.
Im from Kansas, and the regs have changes to allow more NR hunters, and for them to qualify for landowner tags. Now if a NR owns or buys 80 acres or more, they can buy a Hunt Own Land permit over the counter. Im a banker so Im always watching real estate sales and reading different publications to monitor land prices. I can tell you there are a lot of NR buying land for hunting. Also a NR tag cost $322 ar NR hunt own land tag only cost $77.
I wonder how long this trend of NR buying hunting land will continue??
How many tags did Iowa allow NR in 2010? Kansas allowed 21,102 tags, and there where left over tags after the draw so they where sold on first come first served basis.
Im from Kansas, and the regs have changes to allow more NR hunters, and for them to qualify for landowner tags. Now if a NR owns or buys 80 acres or more, they can buy a Hunt Own Land permit over the counter. Im a banker so Im always watching real estate sales and reading different publications to monitor land prices. I can tell you there are a lot of NR buying land for hunting. Also a NR tag cost $322 ar NR hunt own land tag only cost $77.
I wonder how long this trend of NR buying hunting land will continue??
How many tags did Iowa allow NR in 2010? Kansas allowed 21,102 tags, and there where left over tags after the draw so they where sold on first come first served basis.