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

True $ value of a NR Tag

Reading the information from the DNR, it appears that more does need to be harvested in numerous areas. What would be the problem with allowing NR to harvest some does each year on thier own land? It seems that would be in step with the goals of the IDNR and be good management locally.
 
Last edited:
ibohunt65 said:
Reading the information from the DNR, it appears that moe does need to be harvested in numerous areas. What would be the problem with allowing NR to harvest some does each year on thier own land? It seems that would be in step with the goals of the IDNR and be good management locally.
Click to expand...


NR landowners can get antlerless tags every year for their land, many choose not too.

Don't guess I can blame em at 200 bucks a tag. I do think that NR landowners should be able to purchase Antlerless tags at the same price as residents.
 
I bowhunt, this year they moved all licenses to shotgun season. So I can't use my bow to harvest an antlerless deer on my place. So, I don't. The price is rediculous too.
 
ibohunt65 said:
I bowhunt, this year they moved all licenses to shotgun season. So I can't use my bow to harvest an antlerless deer on my place. So, I don't. The price is rediculous too.
Click to expand...

If tags are available for any season and the deer herd truly needs thinned, then those tags/seasons should be used, IMO.

I do agree that NR antlerless tag prices are out of line.
 
Last edited:
  • Deleted by N/A
Show…
Nanny, a NR landowner can only buy ONE antlerless tag per year regardless of the size of the tract they own. On bigger tracts one tag doesn't get it done.
 
The PROBLEM is that YOU bought land in a state that has tried its best to keep YOU from deciding to do so. I hear I was "hoping" it would change or I figured they would grant a landowner more permission to do blahh blahh blahh. If YOU (NR landowners) are still whining about prices of doe tags/buck tags or whatever because of state greed, LOOK IN THE MIRROR. Just because YOU bought the land doesnt mean YOU should be able to manage it for a discount. That why it is what it is, they really don't care about YOU.. Get over it.

The way I see it, if that 20% of Iowa land was still in residents hands - there would be 6000 NRs coming in each year without any problem trying to find a place to hunt.. PEACE.
 
  • Deleted by N/A
Show…
Lets see, I bought the land hoping they would change the rules. Maybe you should have bought land in PA and hope they change the rules where you live. I don't feel a bit sorry for you.
 
Haven't been on the site in over a month and just have to laugh when I come back and the same topic is getting hashed over....again. hahaha.

:D
 
THEBAD said:
I think all hunters tags who use a outfitter should go for the cost of what this one sells for...If outfitters are making money off of Iowas resources they should have to pay a premium for all their customers tags.
Click to expand...

whats the big deal about outfitting? because they're operating a legitimate business and serve clients, just as a fast food restaurant, law firm, or car dealer would? more ignorance..
 
Jdubs said:
Nanny, a NR landowner can only buy ONE antlerless tag per year regardless of the size of the tract they own. On bigger tracts one tag doesn't get it done.
Click to expand...


I was not aware of that, thought it was how ever many the county quota is.

I'm not sure what to think about this subject anymore. People will fight their life away trying to change rules to suit them best.

I see that Knelson has something about a democrat in his signature, so I gues you are a democrat? (Hence, trying to change the rules to suit yourself?) ;)
 
Here is another tidbit. If a large tract is owned by more than one owner only one can apply for the NR landowner antlerless tag. So, if 4 guys own 1,000 acres only one guy can apply for the NR landowner tag. Of course each of the 4 can apply for ONE NR antlerless tag assuming they are available.
 
nannyslayer said:
I was not aware of that, thought it was how ever many the county quota is.

I'm not sure what to think about this subject anymore. People will fight their life away trying to change rules to suit them best.

I see that Knelson has something about a democrat in his signature, so I gues you are a democrat? (Hence, trying to change the rules to suit yourself?) ;)
Click to expand...
Isn't that the truth! It would not surprise me if he wanted us to provide him with healthcare also.
 
And if a nonresident landowner draws an any-sex tag, and buys the mandatory antlerless tag along with it, you're done too. No second antlerless tag even if you're a landowner. But who would want to get addt'l tags anyway at their ridiculous price? Some adjustments really do need to be made. Landowners should be able to get up to a certain # of antlerless tags without an issue; say 1 for every 25-acres. And at a reasonable cost.
 
Leftover tags

In 2008 there were 8536 antlerless tags left over from the county tags that were never purchased. In 2007 there were 8821 tags not purchased. In 2006 there were 4828 tags not purchased. I imagine that the number of tags for each county is set based on the number of deer that the DNR determines needs to be harvested so the population will be reduced to meet the long term goals. Note: Not all counties had tags left over, this is just the totals for the state.
 
magnus said:
And if a nonresident landowner draws an any-sex tag, and buys the mandatory antlerless tag along with it, you're done too. No second antlerless tag even if you're a landowner. But who would want to get addt'l tags anyway at their ridiculous price? Some adjustments really do need to be made. Landowners should be able to get up to a certain # of antlerless tags without an issue; say 1 for every 25-acres. And at a reasonable cost.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There's no incentive, especially on big farms, to shoot does if the tags are $200 a pop. On bigger farms, you might need to shoot 20+ does just to keep the population stable. $4k+ just to manage your herd is asinine. Whatever state it is, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, doe tags should only cost what it takes to print them out or make them. If the DNR's are serious about getting the population down, drop the prices. Then again, if they were really serious, they would just open the season Sept 1, any weapon, until the end of January. Their deer would get shot.

Democrat? I laughed out loud on reading that one.
 
kbnelson, easy solution to your problem. Instead of spending $4k+ a year, why not get some locals to take out the problem. Problem solved. It isn't the State's fault you won't let Residents hunt your land to help you manage the deer population. Sorry. I got a better Idea. Why not sell your land in Iowa invest in land where your from and manage it to the way you like it. You would save enough money over the years to come here every three and hunt on public or a out fitter. If your worried about managing "your" herd here from a far, just think how good you could make it where you live. I just don't understand why people come here from out of state and buy land, when they could probably purchase a bigger tract where they live and manage it the way they want, right out their back door.
 
Last edited:
Correct, the deer "belong" to the people of the state of Iowa. Why are the people of the state of Iowa so neglecting to manage their herd then? Knee-jerk answer is to say all the non-residents are buying up all the good hunting ground and squeezing out residents but you and I both know that's not true, so think before you hit "Submit Reply".

Sell the land? Another knee-jerk reply. Let more residents in. Strike two. Ask any landowner, resident or otherwise whether they want to just let people in to hunt their ground. Not happening. It's too hard to find the right guys who actually respect the property and are willing to shoot does and let the right deer walk. We are fortunate to have one resident that bow hunts our farm, but anyone else? Wouldn't happen. Too many guys have come in and shot 2 1/2 year old bucks or not taken care of the place to our standards. It's about like letting someone come and stay in your home.

I've said it before, the real threat to hunting opportunities in Iowa isn't non-resident hunters, it's agriculture. Farmers are not only driving up the price of land, but slowly clearing habitat away to put in 2 or 3 more rows of corn or squeeze an extra acre of soybeans out of their fields. I haven't heard of any non-residents buying land at $4,000/acre in Northeast Iowa. The only ones doing that are driving prices and taxes up are resident farmers. And you'd be hard pressed to find any non-residents removing prime habitat when they are buying land. If anything, they're adding to it. Iowa has some tough choices to make in the next few years, whether to go the route of WI/IL/MN/MO and move towards recreational properties or keep on the course of farming the heck out of every acre of land flat enough to run a 24-row corn planter on.
 
KB,
Answer the question why not sell in Iowa and buy in your home State? You would be able to manage your own land at home. Farmers are buying land to make a living on. 90% could care less if you shoot a 110" 2 year old or a 200" 6 year old, they just want the deer gone. So, I doubt that they are running up their own cost because of out of state deer hunting fanatics. So, I ask you again, why not buy land in your home State. You want to change our laws to fit your need, why not change the laws in your home state to fit your own agenda. You knew the laws here, why spend so much time and energy here when it is apparent you needed to in your home State.:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom