Does anyone else see the problem with the quota system that is suppose reduce the deer herd via does?I read an article recently saying we need to allow more non-resident tags since residents are not filling quota.I agree with doe reduction to decrease population,but I feel the dnr is more about revenue than reduction.First, to charge you full price on first doe tag stops a percentage of hunters.(not me)But if it was really about taking those extra numbers of does out of the herd,the tag could be used all season with any weapon of legal choice.What really got me thinking about this was the nov antlerless season that I did particapate in this weekend.A tag that was good for three days and I would guess not all were filled.How many tags were removed from quota for a three day hunt? Don't get me wrong,not filling a tag is part of the game.I'm just confused about dnr complaining we need to remove more does or the non-residents will.I myself believe they just want a small percentage of the quota #'s to be removed,or they would make some changes to the system.I buy many doe tags for bow and gun and never fill all of them.Sometimes I buy too many in advance to make sure I get them before they are gone.I am sure there is a guy somewhere that wants to buy a doe tag in a county that has none remaining,and a guy who has more for that county than he can use.Sorry so long, just wondering if I think alone.
nannyslayer
New Member
I really wish at the beginning of the year, I could buy 10 doe tags and use them how I wanted.
Doubleaarc hery
New Member
Alright! Finally something I agree with 100%!!!
SEIowaDeerslayer
Well-Known Member
Ditto.
Fishbonker
Life Member
I talked to Willie Suchy (I sure hope I spelled his name right) a couple of years ago about this very thing. He told me the DNR's opinion, he didn't say it was his opinion, was if you had your choice of season on the same tag the hunter would put off hunting becasue they would always have another season to hunt and the tag would never be used. Sort of a "I'll get around to it tomorrow" and it never gets done. He also stated the obvious, it is a money maker for the DNR.
Would you be willing to pay more for a doe tag if it was good for any season/method of take? Now there is a good poll question. And a follow up, "How much more?"
The 'Bonker
Would you be willing to pay more for a doe tag if it was good for any season/method of take? Now there is a good poll question. And a follow up, "How much more?"
The 'Bonker
halielynn1
New Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vrod</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I read an article recently saying we need to allow more non-resident tags since residents are not filling quota.
</div></div>
Trust me on this one, if the DNR allows more non-residents, it will have negative effects on the deer herd.
Take for instance Wisconsin and Minnesota. Both States are over-the-counter license sales for non-resident's. Both states actually have less hunters do to land access.
We noticed this when trying to gain access on land, the owners were saving the land for a friend/relative. What it boiled down to is less pressure and therefore less deer being shot. It one of those things that you have to see to beleive.
Also, the DNR is talking about reducing the CO force. Allowing more hunters and reducing the number of CO's is a recipe for disaster. They can control the issues we have not and they want to add more fuel to the fire!
My final complaint is that 99.9% of non-residents want to hunt in Iowa for one reason - A trophy buck. Tell me how increasing the number of non-resident tags is going to reduce the doe population? I know of a group that apply's for non-resident tags every year. They hunt with some locals. If they do not get drawn for a buck tag, they purchase a doe tag. They party hunt and strictly trophy hunt. The group of 10-15 guys only has 6-8 buck tags, however it's the opportunity to shoot a trophy buck for the price of a doe tag. Once the buck tags are filled, the're done! NO DOES!! Once again, tell me how this helps the deer herd? Oh that's right, the DNR got there revenue so who cares!
</div></div>
Trust me on this one, if the DNR allows more non-residents, it will have negative effects on the deer herd.
Take for instance Wisconsin and Minnesota. Both States are over-the-counter license sales for non-resident's. Both states actually have less hunters do to land access.
We noticed this when trying to gain access on land, the owners were saving the land for a friend/relative. What it boiled down to is less pressure and therefore less deer being shot. It one of those things that you have to see to beleive.
Also, the DNR is talking about reducing the CO force. Allowing more hunters and reducing the number of CO's is a recipe for disaster. They can control the issues we have not and they want to add more fuel to the fire!
My final complaint is that 99.9% of non-residents want to hunt in Iowa for one reason - A trophy buck. Tell me how increasing the number of non-resident tags is going to reduce the doe population? I know of a group that apply's for non-resident tags every year. They hunt with some locals. If they do not get drawn for a buck tag, they purchase a doe tag. They party hunt and strictly trophy hunt. The group of 10-15 guys only has 6-8 buck tags, however it's the opportunity to shoot a trophy buck for the price of a doe tag. Once the buck tags are filled, the're done! NO DOES!! Once again, tell me how this helps the deer herd? Oh that's right, the DNR got there revenue so who cares!
sofakingfast_1
Active Member
you do have a point. but my brother and a few of his friends come from macomb illinois to come hunt with us in iowa and they pay 251.00 to hunt for a doe. no big game trophy hunting. althought that would be nice. we just like deer jerky and brats!!! so i guess our hunting party is part of the 00.1% eh?
Kansasdeerslayer
PMA Member
Here in Kansas, our doe tags are good for all seasons, and it is awesome. And it doesn't seem to have made me lazy. We can get one either sex tag good for one weapon only, and then 5 antlerless tags good for all seasons. I have filled 4 doe tags with the bow, and I plan on filling my last one this weekend with the 30-.06.
Kansasdeerslayer
PMA Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: String Gun Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vrod</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I read an article recently saying we need to allow more non-resident tags since residents are not filling quota.
</div></div>
Trust me on this one, if the DNR allows more non-residents, it will have negative effects on the deer herd.
Take for instance Wisconsin and Minnesota. Both States are over-the-counter license sales for non-resident's. Both states actually have less hunters do to land access.
We noticed this when trying to gain access on land, the owners were saving the land for a friend/relative. What it boiled down to is less pressure and therefore less deer being shot. It one of those things that you have to see to beleive.
Also, the DNR is talking about reducing the CO force. Allowing more hunters and reducing the number of CO's is a recipe for disaster. They can control the issues we have not and they want to add more fuel to the fire!
My final complaint is that 99.9% of non-residents want to hunt in Iowa for one reason - A trophy buck. Tell me how increasing the number of non-resident tags is going to reduce the doe population? I know of a group that apply's for non-resident tags every year. They hunt with some locals. If they do not get drawn for a buck tag, they purchase a doe tag. They party hunt and strictly trophy hunt. The group of 10-15 guys only has 6-8 buck tags, however it's the opportunity to shoot a trophy buck for the price of a doe tag. Once the buck tags are filled, the're done! NO DOES!! Once again, tell me how this helps the deer herd? Oh that's right, the DNR got there revenue so who cares!
</div></div>
Well, all I know is that next year I will be bow hunting Iowa as a non-resident. The IA DNR requires me to purchase a doe tag for $100 along with my buck tag. At that price, I will do everything in my power to make sure that a slick head hits the ground and doesn't get back up. That is way too expensive a tag to not want to fill it.
</div></div>
Trust me on this one, if the DNR allows more non-residents, it will have negative effects on the deer herd.
Take for instance Wisconsin and Minnesota. Both States are over-the-counter license sales for non-resident's. Both states actually have less hunters do to land access.
We noticed this when trying to gain access on land, the owners were saving the land for a friend/relative. What it boiled down to is less pressure and therefore less deer being shot. It one of those things that you have to see to beleive.
Also, the DNR is talking about reducing the CO force. Allowing more hunters and reducing the number of CO's is a recipe for disaster. They can control the issues we have not and they want to add more fuel to the fire!
My final complaint is that 99.9% of non-residents want to hunt in Iowa for one reason - A trophy buck. Tell me how increasing the number of non-resident tags is going to reduce the doe population? I know of a group that apply's for non-resident tags every year. They hunt with some locals. If they do not get drawn for a buck tag, they purchase a doe tag. They party hunt and strictly trophy hunt. The group of 10-15 guys only has 6-8 buck tags, however it's the opportunity to shoot a trophy buck for the price of a doe tag. Once the buck tags are filled, the're done! NO DOES!! Once again, tell me how this helps the deer herd? Oh that's right, the DNR got there revenue so who cares!
</div></div>
Well, all I know is that next year I will be bow hunting Iowa as a non-resident. The IA DNR requires me to purchase a doe tag for $100 along with my buck tag. At that price, I will do everything in my power to make sure that a slick head hits the ground and doesn't get back up. That is way too expensive a tag to not want to fill it.
ironwood
Active Member
I would add that the DNR head recently made it clear that his desire to increase NR quotas is all about revenue. It is simply about the $ and the resident hunter will, in the end, suffer for it. What’s the right answer? Some will gain others will loose. You better be willing to fight hard this year and every year to come too save your Iowa hunting heritage. Finances of other Iowans will make them your opponents on this issue. Are they wrong?
goatman
I hunt days ending in Y
I'm not from Iowa but you guys better fight the DNR on this one. How would about 75% of you like to lose your hunting ground? Outfitters and leases will run you out. Unless you own it. And yes non residents will not take enough does and only create refuges for deer. I would guess that is already happening in Iowa.
GregBickal
New Member
Expired tags suck. The tags should be good for all season. If something comes up, and I cant hunt until next week, I have to buy all new tags, if they are available.
Making me buy a uni-sex tag at $25 first, then to buy the doe tags also sucks.
Having multiple shotgun seasons just sucks. 1 season, and run it for 2 weeks straight. We should be able to hunt Dec 6 & 7th.
Making me buy a uni-sex tag at $25 first, then to buy the doe tags also sucks.
Having multiple shotgun seasons just sucks. 1 season, and run it for 2 weeks straight. We should be able to hunt Dec 6 & 7th.
sofakingfast_1
Active Member
ok my brother has a non-resident doe tag. i have a iowa resident either sex and 2 anterless. if he sees a big bucks and shoots it can i use my tag? or is it different with out of state hunters? he will shoot anything that walks in front of him if he can. just wanted to make sure what the rules are tho...
wegner36
New Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GregBickal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Expired tags suck. The tags should be good for all season. If something comes up, and I cant hunt until next week, I have to buy all new tags, if they are available.
Making me buy a uni-sex tag at $25 first, then to buy the doe tags also sucks.
Having multiple shotgun seasons just sucks. 1 season, and run it for 2 weeks straight. We should be able to hunt Dec 6 & 7th. </div></div>
i believe that the 2 seperate seasons is a good thing and is neccessary, 100,000 people hunt first season and 70,000 hunt second, throw them all into the same pot and their will be a lot of fighting over ground, and a lot more lead flying, the idea of two seasons makes sense to me, but thats just my opinion.
Making me buy a uni-sex tag at $25 first, then to buy the doe tags also sucks.
Having multiple shotgun seasons just sucks. 1 season, and run it for 2 weeks straight. We should be able to hunt Dec 6 & 7th. </div></div>
i believe that the 2 seperate seasons is a good thing and is neccessary, 100,000 people hunt first season and 70,000 hunt second, throw them all into the same pot and their will be a lot of fighting over ground, and a lot more lead flying, the idea of two seasons makes sense to me, but thats just my opinion.
jjohnson
Well-Known Member
In my area I don't think it would make that big of a difference whether you could use them for any season. The majority of the people around here don't buy doe tags because they won't pay extra for one. That doesn't mean they're not shooting them though. And we don't sell out.
Raising the NR quota would be VERY VERY BAD. IMO
Raising the NR quota would be VERY VERY BAD. IMO