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

new hunting regs??

M

M Salow

New Member
Hello everyone,
I was talking to an DNR friend of mine today he made the comment to me about a perposed new deer hunting reg they (DNR) are kicking around to get the deer heard reduced
He said they are thinking about for 2003 everything will stay the same but for three (3) yrs after that we will get anterless tags only.
we will not be allowed to shoot any buck in any season. At first I didn't believe him but he assured me that they are thinking about it . He said that I wouldn't believe how much pressure they are getting to "cut the herd in half" from Ins. companys and some of our legislators.
I couldn't believe that they would even consider this I told him that was one sure way to cut the Hunter numbers in half.
After thinking about this for a while just think how many "booners" would be out there if we let all the bucks grow for three more yrs??
Just food for thought
shocked.gif

rockband.gif
rockband.gif
 
I know that in some states they have the "earn a buck" policy where they must shoot a doe first in order to shoot a buck. I would be in much more favor of this than the option listed above. Bottom line is, the DNR should be doing what's best for Iowa's deer heard, not what ins. companies are pushing for. Just my 2 cents.
 
Waukon1, I like that idea. The urban hunts that are serious about cutting herd numbers do that. They require a doe to be harvested before you qualify for a buck the next year drawing. But I wonder how they'd be able to "check the does", currently they are not staffed to handle that.

IaCraig
 
Hello, anybody home at the DNR? Obviously not...if this is really what they're thinking. I find it hard to believe this is more than just a casual conversation or rumor. They better check for lead paint, radon, etc. in DM if this one passes. BlindSow get ready because Iowa just became Poacher Paradise if this one goes thru. Try to police this one. Especially in the 2nd and 3rd years. I don't mind so much the idea of doe first then buck tag, but doe only will not have the effect they think it will. Unless the liberal knuckleheads other motivation is to eliminate hunting...
 
i will guarentee that it won't happen for the fact of the money loss that the state would experence from not having any out of state hunters. that would be on of the stupidest things they could even think about. if they would maybe lower the doe tag prices maybe more people would buy them. i would feel sorry for any taxidermist, because i am sure for most of them that, that is there bread and butter of the business
 
Just lowwer the price of doe tags and make more avialable.I shot 3 does and 1 nice buck this past season and my season was done 11-5.When they issue 200 tags for 1 county and they are sold out.that means maybe 100 does were taken.I know some hunters that had doe tags and still let them go by.I love hunting and killing deer so you know I wish I could have filled the tags they had legally.
Hey,I want to help.But,lets do it right.
 
I would like to see us go to a earn a buck situation.Shoot a doe first,then you've earned your chance at a buck.IMO,best of both worlds.
 
For those of you who would be pleased by putting a dent in the pricey outfitter/leased land business..
It seems to me that the earn-a-buck program would likely hit them hard.
While we're at it....point restrictions, anyone?
 
Sounds good to me, i can wait 3 years to kill a large buck.But I thought the DNR was broke, hows this gonna help their financial situation if half the people dont go hunting and non residents wont come here for a doe?Sounds kinda fishy to me, im not gonna get to excited about it till I hear something for sure.
 
First of all I don't think changing the price of doe tags would do anything but cost the DNR money. You can currently get two doe tags for $36.00, or about the price of 2 carbon arrows. Cost is not the problem! Even if they cut the price in half that would only save the individual $18.00, not enough to matter, but would cost the DNR millions, enough to really matter. If you hunt all the seasons available you can get 11 deer with only 3 being antlered bucks. How many deer can anyone eat? It might help if there were some kind of a Hunters Feeding the Hungry program, but state meat inspection laws prohibit it in Iowa.

On the surface the earn a buck idea sounds good, but there are several problems. I don't like the idea of check stations and that is the only way to impliment or enforce such a program. I think check stations and point limits would make criminals out of some other wise good hunters. How many of us would shoot the doe that a 180 class buck folowed to our stand? How many young hunters can tell if they just shot at an 8 or 10 or 11 point buck? How many dead deer would be left in the woods because they couldn't be legally checked in because they were killed out of order?

I don't mean to be negitive about some of these ideas with out an alternative soluition, but I'm not convinced that the deer herd needs to be reduced. I just don't see nearly as many deer here over the last two years as in years gone by. Four of us just spent the week end hunting antlerless deer. Out of about 32 man hours in the timber we saw a total of 11 deer, killed one and missed two. This was a combination of sitting in stands morning and evening and small drives during the day. During the first shotgun season we saw similar numbers. I haven't seen any population or total harvest numbers but I think it would be interesting.
 
Really want to do what's best for the Iowa deer herd? Then I suggest we return to "micromanaging" the state herd...not "macromanaging" it. While most of you talk about way too many deer, in our area of the state I think our population is down significantly from previous years. This is not just a "gut feeling". It is based on detailed hunt records from the past 12 years. Number of deer seen per hunt is down...way down! And it's not just me saying so. I feel if the DNR doesn't return to at least some "antlered only" tags in the NW corner, we'll see dramatically smaller herds very soon. Maybe just what the Farm Bureau and insurance industry want, but not a bright future for hunting. I understand that many of you in other parts of the state have a completely different herd, which is why I believe the DNR does need to rethink the "blanket" policy for deer tags...especially shotgun seasons. Just my 2 cents worth.

NWBuck
 
Iam here to tell you the DNR does listen to the insurance companys.The insurance companys threaten to take the state to court if they didnt reduce the deer here in michigan and during the last 4 years issued so many doe tags that our deer numbers are down around 70% in my area.
I hope thay dont go too far in iowa also.
cussing.gif
 
One thing Sportsman can do is try to put together a Hunters for Hungary Program that will pay for the deer processing shot by hunters and give the meat to the needy.

Alot more does would be taken in the urban hunts, but also statewide if they had some financial help with the cost of processing.

The same insurance companies wanting to cut the deer herd need to help make this a reality.

I don't know how the National Hunter for Hungary program is setup financially. But I would envision an eager individual could setup a committee and organize a local banquet and auction similar to DU, PF and NWTF. The money raised would be controlled locally or statewide and be given to area USDA lockers for each deer processed and given to an approved food bank or mission house.
 
Are the car deer accidents up because there are more deer or more cars driving more miles? I bet nobody will tell us that answer, I am sure they could figure it out.
I feel that if the insurance companys are tired of paying claims on car hit deer they could easier put it in the policy that they would only pay " X number of dollars " per deer claim, except on personal injury. Don't tell me they can't do it that way because half the time they call claims " acts of GOD " or they just raise the rates to make up for their losses. If the deer herd numbers go down are the insurance companys going to lower the rates? I personally feel there is more to this than anyone is telling. NW Iowa I still see some deer dead along the roads but the numbers I see while I am out are way down.

If the law was no bucks for three years just think how much they could charge for a buck tag at the end of three years?
Al
 
I also dont see as many deer as I used to.I think the weather the last couple years has played a role in this but I also believe they might be getting carried away with the doe tags.Im also in Nw Iowa not to far from NWbuck actually.3 years ago you could watch 20 or 30 deer come into a field on any given night, the last two years and escpecially this year they just werent there and i hunted a lotta different places the last 4 months.

Hunters for the hungry is a great organization but with lockers not willing to take deer and those that do raising the prices it would be a hard program to fund these days.Since CWD came around our rendering works quit taking the carcasses and the locker had to work out a deal with the landfill.The price of processing went up 100$ a deer unless you bone it out yourself and with the food being given to homeless shelters and such im sure theres safety issues with them taking boned out meat.A friend of mine took a boned out deer in and it cost him 199$ for processing, without the 100$ charge for getting rid of the carcass.Take that times every deer donated throughout the state and your talking some major overhead for such a project.Like i said, thats here, prices very well could be lower in other parts of the state.

point restrictions i like.It really doesnt take that much to take a close look at a deer to see if its got 4 or 6 points.Earn a buck i dont like for the reasons already mentioned, check stations, to hard to enforce etc...

I really dont think theyd even attempt to make it doe only statewide for any length of time.Theres just to many things that dont make sense about it.Loss of money, more poaching as we get more bigger bucks, hurting other business's, lockers, taxidermists, sporting goods stores etc..Just my opinion though
 
Bowmaker,Do the math.I spent over $100 to hunt deer.Muzzle tag,2 antlerless tags and 1 reg. bow tag.linsence ,stamps...
3 years ago I spent half that with linsence 1tag and stamps.
These doe tags are pure money.The DNR doesn't feed and raise them.In other words,how does the DNR lose money.They make more money selling more tags.The deer pop. will double and triple this coming spring.So I don't worry about how many there are now.Lowering the price on doe tags will make an incentive to take more.And add to the #'s from 200 to 300 and it comes out the same.
I would like to say I like things the way they are.And really don't think anything will happen on this subject.
If the DNR is not getting enough $ then we need to keep the money from the politicans.I herd they use DNR $ for women that have husbunds that beat on them.If I heard wrong, please let me know.
 
The New Hall Locker takes deer for Hunters Helping the Hungry. You take the deer to them and fill out a form. You pay $25 and your meat is given to those less fortunate. The regular price for processing is $60.

So the program is out there you just have to find the lockers participating in the HHTH.

BowHunt'nFool
 
Maybe Vilsack will get back those four $100,000.oo bonuses he handed out and give it to the DNR.That's enough for at least 8-12 peoples salaries.
 
I seriously doubt anyone in the DNR is that stupid to make a proposal like this. It would never get support from sportsmen in the state. They could kiss that non-resident deer tag money goodbye, which means people in the DNR being fired for lack of funds. If the DNR wants more does killed then they can issue more doe tags. I had friends wanting to come down and shoot a doe on my property during the late muzzleloading or special late season and could not get a tag as all were sold.
 
Insurance companies could kick in the cash for alll the nonresident tags that didn't sell, support the DNR for 3 years, and fund antlerless tags for all if they thought it would make them (by saving them) money. I wouldn't underestimate their number crunchers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom