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

The Gov and Drury's together ??

I don't see a problem with this at all. Why jump to conclusions and assume the worst? Like Iowa Buckeye stated, would you rather see an anti running our state? I think it's great that he went out and killed a buck, regardless of who it was with. As far as the Drury's go, I don't see what they have done to the state of Iowa that's so negative? I haven't heard them publically state that they wish the amount of NR tags should be raised? And as far as governor's tags go, it's not their fault that our state issues them, and allows Terry to get one every year. If they are supposed to be given to promote the state of Iowa, then I would say giving one to Terry does just that (although I realize that some people don't think Iowa needs promoted anymore). I'm not saying I agree with the governor tags, that's a totally different issue.....let's just not assume Doomsday to the outdoors in Iowa is going to occurr because of one hunt.
 
What the Gov should have done is hunt on one of his hardcore Farm Bureau members land.....you know the type. The farms that are a sterile barren wasteland void of cover and wildlife.
 
What the Gov should have done is hunt on one of his hardcore Farm Bureau members land.....you know the type. The farms that are a sterile barren wasteland void of cover and wildlife.

Saw another fencerow being tore out today :(
 
Why would he hunt in a mostly ag area where it is farmed fence-row to fence-row? I would assume HE is not an idiot and knows the deer numbers are not too high in those areas.
Maybe he should've hunted in a Wal-mart parking lot vs. the Drury farm?
 
Since The Farm Bureau is hollerin about the crop loss to farmers, the Govenor should have helped out those poor farmers. Too many does,,,too many deer on those farms. He should have shown the way...
 
Iowa_Buckeye said:
Why would he hunt in a mostly ag area where it is farmed fence-row to fence-row? I would assume HE is not an idiot and knows the deer numbers are not too high in those areas.
Maybe he should've hunted in a Wal-mart parking lot vs. the Drury farm?

Because they are the ones HE is catering to.

Live in the house you build I think is what most are getting at.

Sent using IW app
 
I really am not taking any extreme or some rash outlook on this.... I just think it's fair game to point out the irony & frustration in regards to a single person or administration that just "shot down" the DNR recommendations last year- the guy who took executive power to tell the DNR- "NO, we're not listening to you" - took FB's side. What happened is many areas in state had larger amount of does shot, etc because of him. He decided to allow far more does to be shot and I do find it a bit ridiculous that how big a battle was there from him to shoot more (or same) amount of does- he didn't shoot one. Then he travels to an extremely amazing & populated area- which looks nothing like the areas he directly impacted through his political power & did the opposite of what he basically is "legislating" happens everywhere else. Seems hypocritical, ironic and motive driven.
It's easy to get to extremes on this discussion OR distracted with outlandish comments or wild narratives BUT... The fact is: he impacted a lot of folks in the DEER COMMUNITY directly this last year & this seems like an appropriate place to voice it. On another note, I disagree with Governor tags- for a variety of reasons BUT that's not a DIRECT part of this discussion BUT I can even understand how that can come up. This is a politician and to no surprise, a political discussion around deer hunting and management came up.
 
I really am not taking any extreme or some rash outlook on this.... I just think it's fair game to point out the irony & frustration in regards to a single person or administration that just "shot down" the DNR recommendations last year- the guy who took executive power to tell the DNR- "NO, we're not listening to you" - took FB's side. What happened is many areas in state had larger amount of does shot, etc because of him. He decided to allow far more does to be shot and I do find it a bit ridiculous that how big a battle was there from him to shoot more (or same) amount of does- he didn't shoot one. Then he travels to an extremely amazing & populated area- which looks nothing like the areas he directly impacted through his political power & did the opposite of what he basically is "legislating" happens everywhere else. Seems hypocritical, ironic and motive driven.
It's easy to get to extremes on this discussion OR distracted with outlandish comments or wild narratives BUT... The fact is: he impacted a lot of folks in the DEER COMMUNITY directly this last year & this seems like an appropriate place to voice it. On another note, I disagree with Governor tags- for a variety of reasons BUT that's not a DIRECT part of this discussion BUT I can even understand how that can come up. This is a politician and to no surprise, a political discussion around deer hunting and management came up.

My thoughts exactly. It is funny and ironic. Yeah he went hunting that's great. But I still don't care for the guy. Last spring he was extremely quick to shoot down the IDNR's recommendations of lowering the doe harvest in many areas and eliminating doe seasons. I sat in on one of his town meetings last summer and his demeanor when the doe tags was brought up seemed very harsh. Like the DNR was insane for even thinking about reducing the tags. That showed me enough not to like the guy. Like I said before he could care less about the outdoorsmen imo. He's gonna have to do a heck of a lot more than going out and shooting a deer to gain my respect.

Maybe I'm jumping the gun but we'll see what happens this year when the DNR tries to lower the tags again.
 
Let's hope he listens a bit better this upcoming year.....otherwise, things could get very ugly (uglier) than they already are in many parts of our state.
 
The gov is not the one farming fence-row to fence-row. And he is obviously not the one shooting the does either!!!! : ) Not sure how he 'built that house'.... I'm not sure this 'drastic drop' in the deer harvest back to what it was before the population got out of control is a result of this one year of not reducing doe tags in certain counties either.

If I was making my living off of farming, I would also be putting in as much crop as I could. I can't fault them one bit for farming every inch of their ground. The fact is, folks may need to travel a little farther if they are wanting to find good deer habitat if it is disappearing around them. Yes, this means you may have to do some work to gain access.

It'sa shame some folks have to work at filling their tags again. It was becoming similiar to a gohper shoot just a few years ago.
 
I put it as simple as possible.... Im not gonna set here and type out a big long explanation.

Your right it was getting too easy for many to enjoy deer hunting. It should be saved for the privileged and the elite :confused:
 
Last edited:
I try to keep things to myself when it comes to politics, so all I will say is I remember Culver out hunting plus he was the govenor who signed into law a major change in who can get a permit to carry.

I think the biggest problem in this country, and with our representives (we have made them this way) they change and shift to vote along party lines instead of doing whats right.

Why else would you go against the DNR, they are the hired experts.

I am changing to Independent, and I like R. Paul more every day....
 
I don't need to see 30 deer a night to enjoy a deer hunt. If you do, you are hunting for the wrong reasons IMO. Or maybe haven't been hunting all that long and are just spoiled due to the population in the past 5 or so years.
I only saw 5 tonight. And now there are only 4.......
Someone said something earlier about the gov should have hunted one of the average northern farms. I looked, and all the counties in the north central and north west part of the state don't even have doe tags available. Not sure how you can cut down on zero???
 
Someone said something earlier about the gov should have hunted one of the average northern farms. I looked, and all the counties in the north central and north west part of the state don't even have doe tags available. Not sure how you can cut down on zero???

Being that every tags sold is an either sex tag thats certainly not the case.Wasnt all the long ago that many of the deer tags sold in this area of the state were buck only.We did have extra doe tags available which I assume your refering to up untill a couple years ago.

I personally dont care where or with whom the Gov. went hunting, I dont have anything against the Drurys and dont really know much about them.I do care what happens with the deer herd where I live and me, and my friends and my kids have to hunt.And Ive been hunting deer in this area for 30 years and have seen a lotta changes in that time.

The DNR asked us to lower the deer herd by shooting does, the year this started they went so far as to threaten to cut out buck tags if we didnt comply.It was a threat printed right in the regulation booklet for that year.Hunters did what they wanted, more does were killed and slowly the population was brought down over a couple years time.And for awhile I was a big fan of the herd reduction.More people were shooting does, less people were shooting smaller bucks and about 3 years ago things seemed to be at a ideal point for the deer, the farmers, and hunters in this area.There were bigger bucks running around, even the most deer hating farmers in the area were commenting on how much less crop damage they had, there werent dead deer littering the highways and you could still stand a reasonable chance of seeing deer when you were out.

Two years ago you couldnt find a big doe, everything was dinks and people started shooting the smaller bucks again.Shotgun season they massacared the bucks and the few decent does we had running around and by late muzzleloader season there were scattered groups of small does left.

Last year was when things got noticeably bad, I hunt a lot, almost every day and night through bow season and the late season.I didnt fill my bow tag and wound up not buying a muzzleloader tag.

This year was the worst Ive seen in 30 years of hunting.Many people didnt bother to buy tags and many that did didnt fill them.You could sit for days and not see a deer.The deer you did see were all small and even the bucks you seen were noticably smaller, the average deer in years past would have been a small 6 or 8 pointer, this year I seen more spikes and 4 pointers than ever before.

Ive been in touch several times with the DNR concerning this.They have given me some vauge answers mostly concerning habitat loss and harvest numbers.Only problem is Ive seen this same amount of habitat substain many times this many deer and they were healthy.They pointed out the harvest numbers werent that much lower, while this may be true the quality of the deer killed was much lower, and again the shotgun hunters that make up a large percentage of the yearly harvest in this area massacered a lot of yearlings to fill thier tags.A substantially reduced herd and a steady harvest of them isnt neccassarily a good thing.

Before anyone gets me wrong Im not hating on the DNR, I simply see flaws in the information they gather and the information they pass on.And Im not blaming the shotgun hunters for anything, its hard to be picky if you want to kill a deer and only get a couple days to do it.And the emails I recieved indicated Im not the only one whos contacted them about this, and theyre hands are tied if our politicians wont act on thier recomendations.The emails they recieve will be used in legislative sessions and they recomend if you want changes to contact your elected officials.

Im not to worried about what Ive seen the last few years if something is changed soon, deer numbers can rebound fast as theyre very adaptable.I am more concerned that if something doesnt change soon next year, and the following year, etc..... are gonna really suck and theyll have to go to the opposite extreme to get deer numbers back somewhere close to what they should be, buck only tags, lottery, etc...And yes, every either sex tag given out is a license to shoot does, when the majority of the does you have to pick from are yearlings somethings not quite right in the equation.IMPO
 
Coming from a state that never had quality hunting,,by that I mean mature animals, I see the same trend in Iowa. Except for a few farm counties at the bottom of that state, most deer I saw ,my friends still see ,are yearlings. Once people get used to shooting them, it is what is expected and accepted.`Iowa has a trophy reputation. This can continue with all the hunt ranches and deer farms, paid hunts,leased large tracts. For the rest of the smaller parcels, and gun hunters that could care less about quality, seeing mature deer will continue to diminish in areas.As stated before,,it comes down to what the public wants. Hold off,,let them grow, or take whatever you see. No matter what the number or kind of permits are out there.The DNR from my previous state, encourages does to be taken. Always says there are plenty of deer, and quality hunting. I guess alot of hunters believe it.
 
Even with the amount of doe tags available...it's up to US (hunters) to do what we feel needs to be done. In this case, it's shoot fewer does and pass the smaller bucks. The DNR has already asked us to do this and if the .gov decides not to lower the amount of doe tags availabile then we need to limit the # of deer shot.

I know it's hard b/c we all enjoy the meat, but it'd be horrible to not see any deer the next season.
 
Top Bottom