Hypothetical poll question

[JNRBRONC]

Maybe it would make prices go down...

Temporarily......

 

[ironwood]

All the DNR has to do is put an end to this party hunting on buck tags during shotgun season. That would be enough to save a lot of bucks.

Besides who would hunt if you could only shoot does??????????? So I don't think it would work.

This is not even sound thinking IMO. The bulk of Iowas deer harvest comes from the shotgun seasons. If the IDNR doesn't make good harvest number there will be additional pressure to get more liberal regulation to increase harvest numbers. How about a rifle season during the rut. We better all be doing our part to keep numbers in line. If your county offer additional doe tags do your part!

I already manage and take more than my share of does while pasting younger bucks. Am I missing something here or is my view off.

 

[JNRBRONC]

Am I missing something here or is my view off.

Yes, Mike, you are missing out on being selfish. You should want to shoot a huge buck so bad that you force others to not shoot "them smaller bucks" so that they grow up to be deer you deem worthy of shooting, as you know what is best.

 

[Iowabowtech]

I used to party hunt and enjoyed it at the time. Not my cup of Joe anymore but there's some solid traditions involved with it for many. I am wondering if I have a possible reservation about the use of landowner tags for party hunting however. To me, they seem like their own beast that require certain things to me met in order to obtain...residency, acreage and land use, registration, etc. Just seems like if it takes certain paramaters to acquire, then perhaps they, or maybe a "family member" as defined in the regs, should be the ones to use them. I guess where I'm really going with this is there'd be one less avenue for a little homespun almost outfitter type of hunt for those who use them in that fashion with the intent to do so. Anybody have thoughts on this?

 

[JNRBRONC]

Besides who would hunt if you could only shoot does???????????

Me. I find killing a mature doe just as challenging if not more than shooting a rut crazed buck that is making stupid mistakes because he is thinking with the wrong head.

Plus, I suffer crop loss.

 

[archery95]

Crop loss is a problem I agree.But the loss can be cut down considerablly if the farmers would harvest the crops sooner.There is still hundreds of acres of standing corn around my area.It could have been harvested a month ago.That would have been a month less crop loss.It don't make a lot of sense to leave your corn in the fields till Christmas them cry about crop loss.

 

[venison_fan]

Crop loss is a problem I agree.But the loss can be cut down considerablly if the farmers would harvest the crops sooner.There is still hundreds of acres of standing corn around my area.It could have been harvested a month ago.That would have been a month less crop loss.It don't make a lot of sense to leave your corn in the fields till Christmas them cry about crop loss.

You must not know much about farming. There are many different reasons for the crops to still be in. A lot of the corn a month ago was moisture testing above 30%. Some in the high 30's. By the time they pay to dry corn that is that wet, they make almost no money on their crop. The little bit more they lose to animals is minor compared to not making any money at all.

 

[venison_fan]

I used to party hunt and enjoyed it at the time. Not my cup of Joe anymore but there's some solid traditions involved with it for many. I am wondering if I have a possible reservation about the use of landowner tags for party hunting however. To me, they seem like their own beast that require certain things to me met in order to obtain...residency, acreage and land use, registration, etc. Just seems like if it takes certain paramaters to acquire, then perhaps they, or maybe a "family member" as defined in the regs, should be the ones to use them. I guess where I'm really going with this is there'd be one less avenue for a little homespun almost outfitter type of hunt for those who use them in that fashion with the intent to do so. Anybody have thoughts on this?

I think this is probably happening, but how often? The regs already state that the person whose name is on a tag has to be the one with it in his possesion, party hunting or not. I can't carry your tag in my pocket. Aside from the rest of us helping the DNR to police this kind of thing, I'm not sure what else can be done.

 

[Liv4Rut]

Besides who would hunt if you could only shoot does??????????? So I don't think it would work.

I was being sarcastic with this remark. I'd still be out there shooting does, I plain love shooting deer. However, there would be a large percentage of people that would simply not hunt if they couldn't shoot a buck. I bet I know at least 20 guys that will not shoot does period. They want a buck for the pull barn. I guarantee you I will hear at least five times from different people the old, " yeah I had to pass at least 10 does before this 6 point came through then I took him out." I also do not think you would have all 6000 nonresidents coming to Iowa next year if they could not shoot a buck.

I do not believe you should be able to fill someone else's buck tag period. Once I shoot a buck on my tag I am personally satisfied for that season, is that really selfish? Shoot one buck for that season and be done. I think not. I could easily go out over the next few weeks and shoot 5 or 6 bucks and a pile of does with the big groups of guys I know but to me that is being selfish. The guys in these groups bought tags, why wouldn't they want to personally fill them? I know I want to fill every tag I buy. If you filled your tag be happy with what you shot. For all of you guys that shoot tons of does on your own farms, when you do this are you doing it to help out the state or are you bettering your chances at growing mature deer? Who doesn't want to see a ton of deer every sit? If you don't like seeings tons of deer every sit, there is a hidden reason why you are shooting tons of does off of your farms. Maybe crop damage? If you really want to help out the state head out to NE or SE Iowa and shoot a ton of does. The DNR is pushing hard for high harvest numbers in these areas. I can tell you great public land to whack does all day long in. I have never once in my life thought I just helped out the state after shooting any deer.

 

[JNRBRONC]

You must not know much about farming. There are many different reasons for the crops to still be in. A lot of the corn a month ago was moisture testing above 30%. Some in the high 30's. By the time they pay to dry corn that is that wet, they make almost no money on their crop. The little bit more they lose to animals is minor compared to not making any money at all.

:way::way:

 

[JNRBRONC]

I already manage and take more than my share of does while passing younger bucks.

Here's your answer guys!! Buy and/or lease your own place and practice QDMA instead of trying to force others to implement your "master plan".:way:

 

[Nobody]

I can't believe I am reading this... restrict someone from doing what THEIR life requires to possibly help YOU get a bigger deer? I guess that is the same philosophy of the Elite that think we need govt control of health care too.

Farmers farm when they can, thats as silly as saying that you can only hunt from 10am until 2pm- Freedom comes in many forms

Point restrictions are the quickest way to garbage herd quality. Poor genetics will be the result and large deer will be less frequent, not more.

The Highway road bill is large enough to put up control fences along high speed paved roads, look at the stretch on the E side of Des Moines on Int 80... there are no deer kills for miles due to that fence. Eliminate freedom of movement for the animals, not the people!

I am happy with any deer anyone of you kills, even if I wouldn't have harvested it. If you are happy, I am happy for you... leave it at that and let People make their own harvest choices! Guys who manage good blocks of ground do see more big deer and usuaslly harvest more big deer... they do this with out govt intervention or regulations. Do the work, pay the price, sacrifice and it will happen for everyone naturally.

 

[perch44]

one bad year(rut) and every one is crying about no deer. there will be deer dont worry.

 

[bowmaker]

While on the surface you suggestion might sound good, in the long run it would be horrible for deer hunting. If you shoot only does for 2 or 3 years to let the little bucks grow up where does the next generations of little bucks come from. Any male dominated population can't stay viable for long no matter what we are talking about. I have long said that this horn worship is bad for deer hunting and is what has spawned the huge amount of commercialization of this sport. It drives the camo clothing, newer high tech bows, scents and lures, decoys, and the high recreational land prices and lease prices. Every ad says you need this new gadget to be able to kill a trophy like on the front of the package. 20 Years ago who would have paid $20.00 for 5 slugs to shoot out of a $1200.00 dedicated slug gun and scope combo? I could go on but you get the picture.

The other problem is where do we draw the line as to what exactly is a trophy buck now. When I started deer hunting in 1974 I would bet that there weren't 25 people in Iowa who could actually score a rack. Then a trophy was a 10 point or a 14 point whether it was on a 2 year old or an 8 year old buck. You just never saw enough bucks to be able even guess at a score, so it wasn't an issue to almost all of us. Now with our on going quest for bigger and better bucks through QDM, food plots, supplemental minerals, and selective genetic breeding, we have created a situation where a 150" buck is kind of a cut off point. While they aren't hiding behind every tree the percentage of bigger bucks is much higher now that in 1974. Now many hunters either scorn a 125" buck or try to tell every one that we shouldn't shoot them so they can grow up to 170" in a couple of years. In your scenario if we let those little bucks all grow now do we use 170" as the cut off point and then will the trophy hunters say if we would just let those little 160" grow a couple of years, just think of the bucks we could have. The "BUCK OF A LIFE TIME" 25 years ago is now one that we might let go another year so he can "mature". Does anyone besides me see the folly in this whole mind set?

How about another suggestion. For those hunters who want to shoot trophy bucks would you buy a trophy buck only license at a higher price, say $126.00, and then pay an extra trophy fee that could be pumped back into the IDNR deer enhancement programs? Then if you were only eligible for the trophy license once every 3 years or so wouldn't that also increase the numbers of trophy deer? If these licenses were the only ones that could legally harvest a true trophy buck, then those bucks would not be getting killed by just average run of the mill deer hunters or youth hunters, or even the dreaded party hunters. Then all the rest of us average hunters who just like to hunt deer could get a non-trophy license to shoot does, buttons, spikes, or even up to 145" bucks ( because they really don't measure up to a trophy any more) for the $25 or $30 that they run now. I think that would increase the numbers of trophies available and decrease the amount of competition for them. What do you think?

While on the surface my suggestion might seem ridiculous to many it has as much chance of a successful outcome as others I have heard, such as antler restrictions, closed seasons, and rifle hunting. Maybe a little tongue in cheek but still another thought path to explore. Lets not get so hung up on the size of the horns that we loose out on the hunting traditions we have grown to enjoy.

 

[perch44]

love it well said bow maker

 

[sep0667]

I would say Yay! You guys have to remember that we are only talking about two years. Yes there will be a lot more bigger bucks but it will get back to normal. I would be all for it.