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

turkey hunting harvest tag!

N

nontypical

Guest
Just wanted to let everyone know that we were told at are n.w.t.f banquet by a d.n.r official that you will not have to get a harvest tag for your bird after it is shot.
This was stopped at the statehouse not to long ago.If there is a d.n.r official using this board maybe they can answer the question's on this subject better then I can,I really do not know all the detail's on it.
Good hunt'in
nontypical
 
It's true. In the legislature's infinite wisdom they shot down the DNR's attempt to get more accurate and timely harvest data to better manage our wildlife resource.

They thought that the proposed ELSI check-in would put too much of a burden on hunters to find one of the 800 plus ELSI vendors scattered throughout the state to check-in their turkey. This also kills the deer check-in for this upcoming fall.

Doug Clayton

State Conservation Officer
 
I am in full agreement with BLind Sow. It is a shame that the ELSI check-in was shot down. It may not have been the best system for collecting data but it sure beats our sampling system in place now.

Does anyone know where the opposition came from? Surely it was not hunters and or conservationists? Who penned the opposition bill and who sponsored it? We need to get them OUT of our legislature.

DC
 
My opinion is that it probably comes down to us not wanting to be told what to do or making a little more effort out of something we think is okay as it is.

I know myself that I personally have not supported this but am willing to change my pattern to accomodate the DNR if they think it is a good plan and bother to explain it to me. I know from attending public meetings with the DNR in the past that the majority of Iowa hunters are not in attendance. I would guess there are probably a lot of hunters out there that are less informed or concerned about the benefit of this info to the DNR that may have expressed their concerns about it. Just like the ratio of Iowa Bowhunters versus members of the IBA. What is it 10% or so?
 
Of the surrounding states, only South Dakota and Iowa have no big game check-in policy. I grew up in Minnesota and have successfully hunted turkeys in Missouri, where check-ins are required. It's no hassle whatsoever. Both MN and MO require you to bring thre animal into the check station, Iowa's proposal just required you to come in and fill out some info--you didn't need to bring the animal in. It would have been easy, much more acurate than the current system and would have given the DNR a lot of quality information.

There are certain people in our legislature that feel the DNR is a loose cannon and will object to just about anything the DNR proposes--whether it's a good idea or not, simply because it's the DNR.

Especially after the dove issue, some legislators are scrambling to make themselves look good to the hunters, so they think if they "stand up to the DNR" they can come home from Des Moines and tell us how they "fought against tough DNR restrictions that would merely hassle hunters." They think by pitting us against the DNR it will make them look good. It just goes to show how ignorant our legislature is when it comes to conservation management issues.
 
It is tremendously unfortunate for sportsmen in Iowa that a real conflict has developed between the IDNR and legislators. Sportsmen and wildlife are the losers.

The IDNR has brought this upon themselves. The department has had the attitude that they do not have to answer to any citizen or legislative direction. I am not sure what started the fracas, but the deer population issue was one of the first that I am aware of.

I do not believe that legislators should attempt to micromanage animal populations. That is best left in the hands of professional biologists. However, these biologists should be receptive to citizen inputs. The perceived attitude that if you do not have a degree in animal biology your concerns are of no value does no good fostering the departments public relations.
 
Great point.Hey guy's wether you thought this would be a hassle or not it would have been better in the long run for everybody.It would have given the D.N.R the info they needed to better manage the resource.We all need to stand together and believe in what are D.N.R is trying to do,I think they have proven themself's,look at what they have done so far and I think you will begin to relize how good we have it here at home.I just hunted turkey's in Arkansas and believe me I came home thanking the lord for our hunting here in Iowa.
Sorry to go on and on but I think we all need to quit questioning our guy's and back them up and believe in what there trying to do.Write your state rep and let him know what you think on the subject and where you stand.
Nontypical
 
I guess I miss the importance of registering turkeys for Bio data. Turkeys are a pain in the butt and are everywhere. I see no way to even control there numbers, and there numbers will always be high. Tags are for the whole state so no zone control can be used. Why spend money doing this when we need that money to buy land. I don`t see the ELSI folks doing this for free. And as far as the 800 + ESLI systems, where are they, Wal-mart, sporting good store etc. I can not see myself dragging a dead turkey throught Wal-mart to have it checked. Most states that have check-in station have them at "Bob`s General store". Why waste the funds on a animal that will never be able to be controlled. The data will be a great source of finding out where the big ones are mostly shot, but I do not support creating hot spots myself. So, why do we need to report turkeys ?

Not-so
 
Nate

On Monday I was talking to my district supervisor and he mentioned that he attended the legislative breakfast in his area last Saturday. One of his legislators said that even though he had 15 hunters tell him they were in favor of a license increase for residents (and none spoke against it) he still opposed any increase because he calls it a tax increase. So much for voting what your constituents want.

Doug
 
This is just a theory, but I wonder just how much the retailers had to defeat this new process. This would create more work for the retailer with out making anymore sales off of the hunter, they have already purchased there gear. I know that the process wouldn't take much time to do, but that all adds up if you do 1000 tags or more in a weeks time and you know that there are places that will do much more than that.

Just my opinion and I mean nothing bad to someone that might be a retailer, and I could understand where this might be a problem for some retailers.

Just one more thing, I was in favor of the new process and even checking in the actual animal if needed. I feel that this might help elimanate this crazy season selection process. If the DNR had adequate info on each species it might do away with short hunting seasons and lengthen them, like turkey season with short first and second season.


later
Doug

[This message has been edited by Chipguy (edited 04-26-2001).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom