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

Nonresident deer license increase proposed

Old Buck

Old Buck

Life Member
This is also from the IBA website...

" The DNR also stated that they would seek an increase in the number of nonresident deer licenses to 16,000 per year, essentially doubling what is currently available. Citing a healthy deer herd, with substantial legislative pressure to reduce the size of the herd, as well as the revenue nonresidents will bring into the state; officials felt this was a supportive number."

I think this one deserves some healthy, intelligent discussion. Opinions?
 
Old Buck,

As a NR that comes to Iowa for the people and the chance to hunt mature bucks, I worry about the added pressure.

I also worry about drawing a tag, but without the older deer I dont need a tag, to vist.

Many Thanks

HBH
 
It's all about dollars. DNR Fish and Wildlife Division get their primary source of budget funds from hunting and fishing licenses. They want the $309 x 8000 tags revenue. Screw the deer herd, it's all about money. 2.4 million dollars worth!!!!

And the farmers are gonna want some tags to sell because the deer eat their corn. And the outfitters (who didn't exist 5 years ago) are gonna want some to sell to maintain their livelihood.

It all about money. I don't blame the DNR Fish and Wildlife Division, I think they do a wonderful job with what money they have. I say raise the resident hunting and fishing fees again.
 
I had not read this thread before posting on the other one about license fee increases, but I said I don't want to see an increase in the numbers with lower fees. I know that the DNR is working with little or no money, but I don't think this is the way to raise capital. I live in SE Iowa where we already have problems with lots of hunters after big bucks on declining acres. More NR licenses would mean more outfitters and more leased ground and fewer and poorer quality opprotunities for residents who have helped get our deer herdto where it is. We have paid the bills when there were very few deer to hunt. We pay extra taxes because of the increase in land values because of the hunting rights.

I also believe that our deer numbers are down as a result of increased harvest over the last several years. In this county we have had extra antlerless seasons for several years as well as increased pressure on big bucks because of all the publicity. For the last two years I have not seen 1/2 the number of deer but the quality has been much better.

What would happen if we had different fees for buck and doe licenses. All of the elk states have different fees for bulls or cows. Often the bull license is double or more of the price of a cow tag. If they want to increase the numbers then make 40% buck only tags and the rest doe only, with a random computer pick for the sex. This might help take off some of the pressure of our buck population. I may be just jealous but I don't like having nonresidents coming in killing bucks and residents having to kill does to balance the herd. If we issue 16,000 NR tags at lower prices then everyone of those hunters will be after a big buck and will settle for any buck. Then suddenly we are in the same trouble that Penn. is right now with no older bucks.
 
Great point HBH. Increase NR licenses and do you think most NR hunters will be looking to shoot does? No, but if a smaller 8 point basket rack is good in your home state then he's probably going to get it sooner than later. We need to control does as these mild winters aren't helping.
Issue landowner-controlled antlerless only tags based on population and let them determine which resident/s legally kill the does on their property.
 
Hunt-m-up,
Great point, you beat me to it. If the state wants to reduce the deer population, they might as well kill two birds with one stone. Let the landowners have transferable DOE ONLY permits to allot to RESIDENTS only. If the state is truly concerned with the deer population(which I don't think they are), and if the farmers are truly concerned with the amount of crops they lose each year(which I don't think most are), than this should be a suitable compromise. In reality, I think the state is just looking for some more profit at others expenses, and I think the landowners are hoping to eventually be able to sell their landowner tags over E-Bay, just like Kansas has recently. Can you imagine how pi$$ed off resident Kansas hunters must be every time they see an out of state license drive by during hunting season? I hope it never comes down to that.
CRITRGITR
 
I love coming to Iowa to hunt those big whitetails and will be coming again to hunt the late season with muzzleloader. I understand everyone's opinion on this license issue and am sympathetic to the residents side. Personally I do feel that maybe 16,000 tags would be too many but there can be a compromise at a slightly higher number than the 6500 currently issued. I have no problem paying the fee but at the same time I'm not going to pay $300 for a tag to shot a doe. I can pay $5.50 per doe tag in PA. and there is no difference in an Iowa doe or PA doe. I would gladly shoot a doe in Iowa if they would issue a buck & doe tag with the license as they do in MO. Fellows you have a great hunting opportunity there and I honestly feel that the nonresidents have little or no impact on the deer herd in Iowa. Try having 1 million hunters, as we do in PA, all fighting over the same hunting area, lookig for a couple acres to hunt and you will realize how fortunate you are. I come to Iowa because I know the property I hunt I will have all to myself while I'm there. Here in PA, while hunting pivate ground, I never know who will show up, what neighbor will ride his quad through at prime hunting hours or any number of other things to screw up my hunt. See how hunting is elsewhere and maybe you won't be quite so sensitive to the nonresidents. We all aren't that bad of people, just hardworking, honest folks trying to have a quality hunting exprience.
 
I can fully understand the concern about a possible increase in NR hunters. If I were a resident I would be concerned too. Having said that I have to disagree with the statement about us aliens taking small bucks. Of all the guys I know who apply for Iowa, and there are several, I dont know of one who would take home anything but a 3.5 year old or older buck or a fat doe. Fact is, the vast majority of the time we go home with nothing, and we are all OK with that. We are not able to spend the amount of time that you guys can and we are also OK with that. I really think that the amount of impact we have is minimal at best. Not many guys who are thinking about bowhunting in June and are willing to shell out $320 to hunt maybe a week or in some cases a few weekends are likely to kill immature bucks. Except for a very few slobs, we are there for the experience.
The outfitter issue is a different one and I really dont know enough about that to say anything, so I wont.
 
Everyone has great points and are well taken. I myself was a nonresident hunter this year and I came home with an unfilled tag. I had many opportunities to shoot some decent bucks (trophies in other states) but I made the decision that if I wasn't going to mount it I was going to let it pass in hopes of getting another chance at a bigger buck in the future. I already had meat in the freezer and I was more in tune with the overall outdoor experience and hunt. I wasn't disappointed. The quality of the hunt was excellent. I saw tons of deer including bucks. Our group shot does and over the past five years we have seen a better buck to doe ratio because of this deer management. I would like to see additional licenses but not 16,000. The price to me is steep but it will not discourage me from applying. A decline in the quality deer, leasing and outfitting is what would be discouraging to me.
 
One thing I can't get over is the hunters in the neighboring states "having" to come to Iowa to get a quality hunting experience, read having a better than average chance at a mature buck. Now this doesn't necessarily mean to me that NR's shouldn't be allowed in Iowa, just that it is ironic that surrounding states with many times more deer than Iowa appear to be sub-standard in terms of quality deer. Minnesota, Wisconsin and Missouri occur to me to fit this bill. ( I am sure several hunters in these states will object, but my sense is that folks from these states come to Iowa to hunt big bucks in larger numbers than what people in Iowa go there to hunt big bucks.

Wouldn't everyone be better off if other states would amend their seasons and/or hunter attitudes to allow for more bucks to grow up before getting a ride home in the back of someone's pickup? Simple economics tells me that the more NR licenses issued the more the subject of leasing, NR land ownership, etc., are going to grow. The reality is that mature bucks are a scarce resource and there is apparently a pretty deep market for them. Unfortunately, there only seem to be a few states that NR's target to find these animals. ( Iowa, Illinois and Kansas come to mind for me.)

Thanks for listening...
 
....hummm?....issue twice as many non-resident tags.....guess that means we'll be getting twice as many Arkansas Bubba's to deal with.

If you don't know what I'm refering to....see the posts on the poachers and out of state violators that have been busted...I doubt very much we'll have twice as many DNR enforcement people to handle it....
 
Missouri and Tped,

Great to hear you guys inputs on these subjects. Fact of the matter is, we hunters in Iowa know how good we've got it, and we don't want anything to change that. We know what can happen, as its happened in other states.
When you've got a winning lottery ticket, you want to hide it as best you can so nobody else can tear it up.
CRITRGITR
 
I think this is one topic everyone seems to agree on...R & NR alike. Count me in as another NR completely against increasing NR tag quotas. We have enough states with inferior buck management like my home state of Indiana. And believe me there is an increasing sentiment among hunters that lobby for quality management. I attend our local F&G input meetings regularly voicing my opinion. At least we got IN to go to one buck only, as a result of a poll. It's a small start.

No more tags! And for gosh sake don't ever let your legislature even say the words "landowner transferable tags".
 
FYI,

The proposals shown on the IBA website were from the spring 2002 legislative session. I do not know what is currently proposed.
 
Rembrant
Not all NR are Poachers and Violators.
I am sure some residents break the law also.
 
Leave the NR license price as is except for the antlerless tags. Drop them to $75 - $100.

As far as the tag availability, either inrease the quata of tags but not the quata of antler hunters by 1) giving the either sex hunter two tags, one either sex and one antlerless only or 2) increase the number of antlerless only tags.

Let's face it. As already said, while many are friends and family of residents, the majority of the NR hunters are trophy antler hunters. The only way to reduce the size of the heard is by shooting antlerless deer. I know it is selfish of me but we don't need more NR trophy buck hunters here.

I also question the need to reduce the herd population. Other than the threat of a more rapid spread of CWD, I would rather see more deer.
 
Tnhunter...go back an re-read my post, didn't say "all" NR hunters were the problem....

This will probably start a flaming can of worms...I do a great deal of work in southern states and can tell you the "ethics" I've seen from hunters in these areas leave much to be desired. It seems to be more prevelant in the southern culture. That does'nt mean all southerners are violators nor am I implying we don't have knuckle draggers here.....take a look at the news reports for the last couple of years...see a pattern of where the most outrageous violators are coming from? I believe this has to do with hunting methods and a mind set passed down through the generations.

I receive the Iowa "TIP" report which details violations and offenses....the percentage is on the increase concerning "Out of State Bowhunter's", they're making headlines at a record rate.

By increasing the number of tags it only stands to reason the percentage of violations of NR's will rise proportionantly...the increase in DNR enforcement will not.
 
Issuing more NR tags will not help with the deer population because the vast majority NR are not coming to shoot does (or immature bucks).

More tags will increase leasing and outfitters (the death of hunting for the average joe).
Here in SC we are like Iowa in that more guys come to our state to hunt than our residents go out of state to hunt. The reason is our season runs Aug. 15 thru Jan. 1, unlimited bucks. NR love this, 20 years ago all the timber company land was in a public land program but after NR starting leasing so did the residents. Now to hunt you have to join a lease hunt. The DNR knows that long season and unlimited bucks are not sound managment, but they dare not touch the subject because of the revenues the NR bring in. We sell 18,000 NR license in state half the size of Iowa. I've seen first hand what a DNR selling out can do to the resident hunters that footed the bill for a decent deer herd.

I would rather come to Iowa and hunt every two or three years than not hunt at all because I'm not willing to give an outfitter $5000 for turn key hunt, or $2000 for a trespassing fee.
 
I have a very quality hunting spot here in Wisconsin - a plentiful herd with some mature animals can be found just about anywhere. There are pockets of hunting here that would rival Iowa in terms of numbers of big bucks and I've been fortunate to bag a few big bucks myself. That said, I'd love the experience of coming to Iowa sometime. I cannot afford it right now, but if I ever did get the money and had the opportunity, I would love to.

But the Iowa DNR should first be looking out for the deer herd first, and Iowa residents second. Doesn't seem to me like that's the case. Its all about the almighty dollar and it seems the IDNR is looking to get the easy green.
 
As stated, you have to police your own as well as others!In every part of the country there are people willing to abide by the rules and others who will bend them to there advantage.Does'nt matter what side of the Mason -Dixon you reside on!You don 't think that people there don 't hunt with rifles,listen up on opening mourning of your shot-gun season.I hunt in Indiana,there are quite a few rifles sounding off,as the Penn hunter stated you have private land and everyone waltzs past you all day long,I hunted in Penn. last season saw more trespassers than deer.No repeat of that again,We have to police our own,your lucky your gun seasons don"t last 3 months and if you don"t unite then they will increase the season to control the deer herds for you.In Georgia ,we can shot 10 does and 2 bucks.We have more Florida hunters driving up the price of clubs and so its all leasing here period.No way around it,you just accept the facts and hope you have a decent pine plantation to go and hunt every year,increasing the number of tags and the price only ensures that numerious violators will flock to Iowa for the season.Look at the party hunting issue you-all have.It promotes poaching,since we could have a group of 10 and I shoot 9 bucksw.You worry about a few southerns coming there,when some of your very own slaughter the herd most of you are trying to protect.
wavey.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom