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

The Gov and Drury's together ??

Not a hater, just thought it was beneficial that we know that the Gov. spent some time afield and did it in an environment that does not reflect most of our personal situations. This is helpful info. to know when or if we choose to communicate with the Gov's office regarding deer hunting related topics.

Actually, I watched the Drury "roundtable discussion" video in it's entirety last winter and I was actually happy to hear Mark's perspective on herd management and tag allocations. It sounded to me like he (Mark) had a lot of respect for what the IA DNR has done with the state's herd over the long term. I do hope the Gov. gives the IA DNR a little more weight in regards to the final 2012 management plan compared to what transpired in 2011.
 
Last edited:
I personally don't think folks are haters who are frustrated to what's happened in upper 2/3rd's of state when Gov shot down DNR recommendations this year. I think it's absolutely fair criticism, appropriate here and I don't think that crosses the line of "haters". I can't speak much for anything else BUT on that issue, I am empathetic to a lot of guys positions and how the Gov has impacted their hunting with what went down last year & the continued hammering of areas this season that didn't need it.
 
I will pose a question to some with alot more knowledge than I on this.

Did the Gov look at the budget situation and have to make the tough decision to leave tag numbers as they are against the DNR recomendations to help with income? just asking
 
Scott said:
Im a hater, the governor and especially the Drury's do not have the average hunter in mind.
Click to expand...

I'm getting very close to being a hater.

Sent using IW app
 
wapsiguy said:
I will pose a question to some with alot more knowledge than I on this.

Did the Gov look at the budget situation and have to make the tough decision to leave tag numbers as they are against the DNR recomendations to help with income? just asking
Click to expand...

That is a great question and I honestly don't know the answer to it. I do know when I wrote in about taking the DNR's recommendations and getting rid of late antlerless season, etc- I was told the MAIN reason (in his pre-written response) was he didn't want to increase deer #'s & create more accidents and damage, etc. Something along those lines and i don't recall income being the main reason in the response I got from his office.
 
wapsiguy said:
I will pose a question to some with alot more knowledge than I on this.

Did the Gov look at the budget situation and have to make the tough decision to leave tag numbers as they are against the DNR recomendations to help with income? just asking
Click to expand...

Can't get the link to work. Go to page 2 of the regs. It gives a graph on where the money from tags go.

None of the money goes to other state agencies. So they say. So keeping tags high isn't justified with other budget issues..

Sent using IW app
 
Last edited:
I do agree that the late Jan season needs to go AND the tag numbers should be dropped.

I love to deer hunt too but in my life sometimes it gets pushed down the list because of more important things like family, friends and work and I believe that is what has happened with Iowa. JMO
 
the drurys have no idea what the state's deer herd is like. they hunt on thousands of acres managed for deer. nothing like the rest of the state. i'm sure they were in the gov's ear about increasing NR tags, and tags for NR landowners
 
wapsiguy said:
Should they?, they being the Drury's
Click to expand...

They should if they are masquerading as the face of the Iowa hunter. Legally Drurys probably can't even vote for Branstad but they are ones he seeks out to go hunting with? Seems a little too convenient for both parties.
 
wapsiguy said:
Should they?, they being the Drury's
Click to expand...

Yes they should. Because if they don't then only the "landed gentry" will have ground to hunt and the average hunter will become extinct. Then who buy their DVDs or the products they shill? The few people left who can afford to hunt?

From a business persepctive they should be doin all they can to promote land access and herd management for the average hunter, the main source of their income.
 
Plus look at all that didn't sell. I believe they (the gov and foi) will use to try and push the NR tag increase again.


Check my math but I added up the leftover tags to be 35,469. Unsold tags bring in no money. Why keep them high if they don't sell anyway?


County ID County Name Limit Available
1 ADAIR 2400 1281
2 ADAMS 1950 807
3 ALLAMAKEE 4500 1747
4 APPANOOSE 3300 1310
5 AUDUBON 100 0
6 BENTON 1000 0
7 BLACK HAWK 0 0
8 BOONE 650 0
9 BREMER 700 0
10 BUCHANAN 250 0
11 BUENA VISTA 0 0
12 BUTLER 0 0
13 CALHOUN 0 0
14 CARROLL 100 0
15 CASS 1300 495
16 CEDAR 1300 0
17 CERRO GORDO 0 0
18 CHEROKEE 0 0
19 CHICKASAW 450 0
20 CLARKE 2500 797
21 CLAY 0 0
22 CLAYTON 5800 1837
23 CLINTON 1200 0
24 CRAWFORD 300 0
25 DALLAS 2700 987
26 DAVIS 3600 1708
27 DECATUR 2800 1344
28 DELAWARE 1550 182
29 DES MOINES 2000 1056
30 DICKINSON 0 0
31 DUBUQUE 2000 0
32 EMMET 0 0
33 FAYETTE 2500 456
34 FLOYD 0 0
35 FRANKLIN 0 0
36 FREMONT 1500 651
37 GREENE 150 0
38 GRUNDY 0 0
39 GUTHRIE 3300 840
40 HAMILTON 100 0
41 HANCOCK 0 0
42 HARDIN 200 0
43 HARRISON 2500 788
44 HENRY 2000 1012
45 HOWARD 350 0
46 HUMBOLDT 0 0
47 IDA 0 0
48 IOWA 1200 0
49 JACKSON 1800 0
50 JASPER 1700 53
51 JEFFERSON 2150 887
52 JOHNSON 2000 0
53 JONES 1500 0
54 KEOKUK 1900 464
55 KOSSUTH 0 0
56 LEE 2500 1079
57 LINN 1900 0
58 LOUISA 1500 525
59 LUCAS 2800 154
60 LYON 0 0
61 MADISON 4000 1268
62 MAHASKA 1350 0
63 MARION 2250 0
64 MARSHALL 500 0
65 MILLS 1350 0
66 MITCHELL 0 0
67 MONONA 2500 958
68 MONROE 3000 1140
69 MONTGOMERY 1300 0
70 MUSCATINE 1700 198
71 OBRIEN 0 0
72 OSCEOLA 0 0
73 PAGE 1800 708
74 PALO ALTO 0 0
75 PLYMOUTH 100 0
76 POCAHONTAS 0 0
77 POLK 1500 0
78 POTTAWATTAMIE 2100 144
79 POWESHIEK 650 0
80 RINGGOLD 2600 1176
81 SAC 0 0
82 SCOTT 800 0
83 SHELBY 400 0
84 SIOUX 0 0
85 STORY 500 0
86 TAMA 650 0
87 TAYLOR 2650 818
88 UNION 2100 787
89 VAN BUREN 5400 2826
90 WAPELLO 2150 833
91 WARREN 4200 465
92 WASHINGTON 2250 617
93 WAYNE 3000 1448
94 WEBSTER 100 0
95 WINNEBAGO 0 0
96 WINNESHIEK 3500 1526
97 WOODBURY 2500 776
98 WORTH 0 0
99 WRIGHT 0 0

Sent using IW app
 
Fishbonker said:
Yes they should. Because if they don't then only the "landed gentry" will have ground to hunt and the average hunter will become extinct. Then who buy their DVDs or the products they shill? The few people left who can afford to hunt?

From a business persepctive they should be doin all they can to promote land access and herd management for the average hunter, the main source of their income.
Click to expand...

Fair enough Bonker.

I understand this is a forum for discussion but it seems there are too many people who are convinced that they have all the answers when in reality they do not and neither do I.

Hopefully I didn't p.o. too many on here because I really enjoy this site :)
 
Good discussion...my main point is that the REAL enemy of the Iowa deer hunter is not the politicians, Branstad or otherwise, so much as it is the lobbying organizations that have pushed HARD for greater deer harvest and the two primary entities doing the pushing have been the Farm Bureau and the insurance groups.

It was weak of Branstad to cave last year and not adopt the DNR recommendations of lowering tag availability but it sure wasn't his intiative to mess around with deer tags, that was the Farm Bureau. I am fairly sure that Branstad could care freaking less how many deer there are out in the country, that is until some key lobbyist is banging on his desk demanding that we kill 'em all before they eat all the crops and dent all the cars, etc.

BTW, we should be quite thankful to be have solid people like Tom Litchfield involved with the DNR, think about how screwed we would be without someone like that in there fighting.

I am neutral on the Drury's and I totally understand why A LOT of deer hunters in this state are frustrated because it is quite clear that #'s are down hard in a lot of areas...BUT...let's keep focused on the real culprits...and the Farm Bureau is way at the top of that list. Also, I watched quite a bit of the Drury/DNR roundtable discussions last year and my recollection was that they pretty fairly represented what I think many of us here would say too. FYI - all 8 of those sessions can be watched via the Iowa DNR website if you are interested.

Bottom line...the future of our deer herd has turned into a political game and we need to get in the game if we hope to see positive changes.
 
The stache lost some serious points in my book over the whole episode over the antlerless tag numbers.

I like that he went hunting. That's a good thing. It just would have made a lot more sense if he would've hunted a bit more average farm and taken a doe.

I just think it's a little hypocritical for him to be hunting a deer factory like that considering he's made proactive efforts to ensure low deer densities.

That being said, I will give the Drury's the benefit of the doubt and hope that they took that opportunity to speak plainly about the state of the deer herd.
 
Daver said:
Good discussion...my main point is that the REAL enemy of the Iowa deer hunter is not the politicians, Branstad or otherwise, so much as it is the lobbying organizations that have pushed HARD for greater deer harvest and the two primary entities doing the pushing have been the Farm Bureau and the insurance groups.

It was weak of Branstad to cave last year and not adopt the DNR recommendations of lowering tag availability but it sure wasn't his intiative to mess around with deer tags, that was the Farm Bureau. I am fairly sure that Branstad could care freaking less how many deer there are out in the country, that is until some key lobbyist is banging on his desk demanding that we kill 'em all before they eat all the crops and dent all the cars, etc.

BTW, we should be quite thankful to be have solid people like Tom Litchfield involved with the DNR, think about how screwed we would be without someone like that in there fighting.

I am neutral on the Drury's and I totally understand why A LOT of deer hunters in this state are frustrated because it is quite clear that #'s are down hard in a lot of areas...BUT...let's keep focused on the real culprits...and the Farm Bureau is way at the top of that list. Also, I watched quite a bit of the Drury/DNR roundtable discussions last year and my recollection was that they pretty fairly represented what I think many of us here would say too. FYI - all 8 of those sessions can be watched via the Iowa DNR website if you are interested.

Bottom line...the future of our deer herd has turned into a political game and we need to get in the game if we hope to see positive changes.
Click to expand...

Ya gotta fight fire with fire or in this case ya gotta fight a lobbyist with a lobbyist and the best way to do that is join the IBA or any group that is affiliated with the Iowa Conservation Association. We don't have the number of lobbyists the FB has but a voice is still a voice as long as it is backed up with contacts from constituents.

An I agree with your view on Mr. Litchfield. He is passionate in his efforts on behalf of the deer herd in Iowa and the deer hunters of Iowa.
 
Consider it done!! I was a member once but let it lapse. I will take care of that. That is the least we can do.
 
Branstad owns his own little deer sanctuary where it shouldn't be too tough to get a shot at a good buck or to shoot a pile of does. Of course, walking out his back door on his own lto hunt doesn't get any PR, as compared to doing it with hot-shot TV types where it is filmed, replayed on cable or DVD's, blogged about, then debated on various outdoor related websites. Hmmm, wonder what his motivation was???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom