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

NR party hunting to be eliminated

I get all sides of this debate. I truly do. Totally understand.
I want the guys who are NR’s & pissed off to think about a reality that will impact them or folks like them …. Again - this isn’t my opinion on what happened - it’s opinion on what will happen now… this is gonna force them to decide: 1) do I sell? or 2) do I move there? The REALITY is - there’s a lot of guys who have or are moving here. They don’t wanna deal with the NR regs. I don’t blame them. I’m that guy 25 years ago. I love this state and I moved here. From the Government Perspective (I am not saying I agree or disagree) they would say “a lot of these folks are moving here & now contributing tax payers 365 days a year and voters- WIN!” “Those that are mad & don’t move here- ok…. There’s a lot that are so who cares”. I honestly think that’s how they look at it in basic terms. They are getting thousands of new residents who will make the move & come with $ to contribute year round. VS folks on welfare or sucking off the system. These are the exact people states want to attract.

If it were ME as a NR…. I’d be pissed. I’ll be 1000000% honest….. I’d sell & go buy in KS. Or maybe 1-2 other states. Based on regs- I’d sell or move here. There’s other states where u can buy way more land for way less $ & be hunting mature bucks EVERY YEAR. KS is gonna get MOST of the “pissed off guys that sold their iowa farms” going there imo. Exactly what I’d do as a NR. I would have done it before this though. I woulda done it 5 years ago.
On ECONOMICS….. there’s still a lot of guys moving here & the land prices are TOO HIGH & OVERVALUED as it is. This migration has pushed prices up. The NR regs keep the demand somewhat tame. If the regs got more liberalized - the prices would go to the moon. They are already out of whack. Take emotions out & think of the ECONOMICS (limited land & growing demand) & walk through iowa land prices in your mind. It’s gotten bananas as it is. Doesn’t matter your feelings about it one way or another…. The land & demand for it is CRAZY…. I sure hope we find some balance somehow. Complex to say the least.
 
So now a NR gun hunter can still buy a doe tag, but CAN'T shoot does or a buck on resident hunter's tag... (including the "Bonus" doe tags)

Up until now a NR COULD shoot does or a buck while party hunting...

So when the NR anterless tag holder was doing this...shooting a buck while party hunting, with a Resident hunter's cheap buck tag....the DNR technically was losing a bunch of money...

So how long before the Legislature and DNR increases the number of NR Any Sex tags from 6000 per year to...???, to compensate for this?

Is the end result not the same?... a NR hunter shoots a buck, with a legal tag....but the DNR gets the $348.50 in fees for a buck tag when they do this. Plus $149.50 for the doe tag.

Versus a Resident hunter throwing their cheap tag on the buck that was shot by the NR while party hunting.

How many NR doe tags are purchased during the gun seasons for "party" hunting? Just multiply that number by $348.50, and that let's you know how much money is being lost when a single NR party hunter shoots a buck, and a Resident party hunter tagged it.
 
newfarmer said:
Well remember, party hunting is only the allowance of others to tag deer for someone. You can group hunt- but if you only have a doe tag, you are only shooting a doe. There are groups here late muzzy that group hunt, perfectly legal. Once they shoot a deer, they are done carrying a gun.
Click to expand...
Got to love how ambiguous the laws read. I've even had conservation officers interpret the same law differently. We might need clarification on the last statement about the hunter being done carrying a gun. I have been told by the Des Moines office and conservation officers that even walking by yourself in a group of a people without a gun is considered participating in the hunt and would be illegal if party hunting is banned for NR. Again I'm not positive on this but based on what I've been told in the past I would say the person is done hunting after they fill their doe tag if they're a NR.
 
So, someone is trying to drive down demand by decreasing NR access to lower land prices to increase affordability for residents ??? That’s the underlying premise??
 
Earnhardt said:
So now a NR gun hunter can still buy a doe tag, but CAN'T shoot does or a buck on resident hunter's tag... (including the "Bonus" doe tags)

Up until now a NR COULD shoot does or a buck while party hunting...

So when the NR anterless tag holder was doing this...shooting a buck while party hunting, with a Resident hunter's cheap buck tag....the DNR technically was losing a bunch of money...

So how long before the Legislature and DNR increases the number of NR Any Sex tags from 6000 per year to...???, to compensate for this?

Is the end result not the same?... a NR hunter shoots a buck, with a legal tag....but the DNR gets the $348.50 in fees for a buck tag when they do this. Plus $149.50 for the doe tag.

Versus a Resident hunter throwing their cheap tag on the buck that was shot by the NR while party hunting.

How many NR doe tags are purchased during the gun seasons for "party" hunting? Just multiply that number by $348.50, and that let's you know how much money is being lost when a single NR party hunter shoots a buck, and a Resident party hunter tagged it.
Click to expand...
I believe the DNR will lose money as the NR will not buy a doe tag anymore or invite a local Iowa resident to hunt with him. Keep in mind buck tags are fixed/capped . So there’s no chance for additional revenue.
 
newfarmer said:
Well remember, party hunting is only the allowance of others to tag deer for someone. You can group hunt- but if you only have a doe tag, you are only shooting a doe. There are groups here late muzzy that group hunt, perfectly legal. Once they shoot a deer, they are done carrying a gun
Click to expand...

Party hunting is just that . It’s meant to hunt as a group . You have 8 tags everyone hunts until they are filled . Minnesota has the same thing . Otherwise if you shoot a deer, you can’t hunt anymore.

When it comes to archery, Muzzy, etc.. I don’t believe in party hunting. Gun season is when families get together. Deer camps. It’s more than just hunting. Drink beer, have venison chili … They hunt together, there’s thousands of deer camps in Minnesota.

Same in Iowa. It’s strange that the DNR would do this ? They were coerced by some group and honestly the motive is selfish.
 
Hardwood11 said:
Party hunting is just that . It’s meant to hunt as a group . You have 8 tags everyone hunts until they are filled . Minnesota has the same thing . Otherwise if you shoot a deer, you can’t hunt anymore.

When it comes to archery, Muzzy, etc.. I don’t believe in party hunting. Gun season is when families get together. Deer camps. It’s more than just hunting. Drink beer, have venison chili … They hunt together, there’s thousands of deer camps in Minnesota.

Same in Iowa. It’s strange that the DNR would do this ? They were coerced by some group and honestly the motive is selfish.
Click to expand...
But the difference in party hunting versus group hunting. Party- 1 person can fill 8 tags. Group- 1 person can only fill 1 tag. No one is saying (I assume) they can’t group hunt. They just have to shoot their deer only (again- just how I interpret it, not saying I’m right)
 
Hardwood11 said:
Party hunting is just that . It’s meant to hunt as a group . You have 8 tags everyone hunts until they are filled . Minnesota has the same thing . Otherwise if you shoot a deer, you can’t hunt anymore.

When it comes to archery, Muzzy, etc.. I don’t believe in party hunting. Gun season is when families get together. Deer camps. It’s more than just hunting. Drink beer, have venison chili … They hunt together, there’s thousands of deer camps in Minnesota.

Same in Iowa. It’s strange that the DNR would do this ? They were coerced by some group and honestly the motive is selfish.
Click to expand...
I love the traditional atmosphere and care less if i shoot a deer, buy a stack of doe tags and let the kids hunt.
 
Sligh1 said:
I get all sides of this debate. I truly do. Totally understand.
I want the guys who are NR’s & pissed off to think about a reality that will impact them or folks like them …. Again - this isn’t my opinion on what happened - it’s opinion on what will happen now… this is gonna force them to decide: 1) do I sell? or 2) do I move there? The REALITY is - there’s a lot of guys who have or are moving here. They don’t wanna deal with the NR regs. I don’t blame them. I’m that guy 25 years ago. I love this state and I moved here. From the Government Perspective (I am not saying I agree or disagree) they would say “a lot of these folks are moving here & now contributing tax payers 365 days a year and voters- WIN!” “Those that are mad & don’t move here- ok…. There’s a lot that are so who cares”. I honestly think that’s how they look at it in basic terms. They are getting thousands of new residents who will make the move & come with $ to contribute year round. VS folks on welfare or sucking off the system. These are the exact people states want to attract.

If it were ME as a NR…. I’d be pissed. I’ll be 1000000% honest….. I’d sell & go buy in KS. Or maybe 1-2 other states. Based on regs- I’d sell or move here. There’s other states where u can buy way more land for way less $ & be hunting mature bucks EVERY YEAR. KS is gonna get MOST of the “pissed off guys that sold their iowa farms” going there imo. Exactly what I’d do as a NR. I would have done it before this though. I woulda done it 5 years ago.
On ECONOMICS….. there’s still a lot of guys moving here & the land prices are TOO HIGH & OVERVALUED as it is. This migration has pushed prices up. The NR regs keep the demand somewhat tame. If the regs got more liberalized - the prices would go to the moon. They are already out of whack. Take emotions out & think of the ECONOMICS (limited land & growing demand) & walk through iowa land prices in your mind. It’s gotten bananas as it is. Doesn’t matter your feelings about it one way or another…. The land & demand for it is CRAZY…. I sure hope we find some balance somehow. Complex to say the least.
Click to expand...
This here. As a Kansas Resident, this is gonna push out so many resident hunters. I wish Kansas would go back to not guaranteeing a NRLO a tag every year. It is killing us. Too many guys I know have been pushed out of the game and aren't coming back. This is part of the reason hunter numbers are down. Fewer guys hunting more states. There is no room for hunter numbers to grow...
 
As this debate gains steam what’s the position of the IBA , Iowa Conservation Alliance and other Iowa sportsman’s groups? Residents are affected as well.
 
Windlooker said:
As this debate gains steam what’s the position of the IBA , Iowa Conservation Alliance and other Iowa sportsman’s groups? Residents are affected as well.
Click to expand...
This isn’t going to be a public debate or a position by any group or person. The lobbying groups will not have a say in this officially. IBA & ISC are learning about this the exact same way as u are. This wasn’t a bill that was up for debate.
According to some more sources- it cleaned up already established law. Apparently the law or bill (guys who have read a bill know it’s full of tons of verbiage & a long document) had that language in there already & it never reflected correctly on regulation booklet. In any regs- u clean them up to correctly fit the law- there’s clearly no public debate or lobbying position there because the laws aren’t being changed. See what I mean? I’m just explaining what I’ve been told. This has nothing to do with ISC or IBA’s position. The only way they (or ANY group or citizen) can have a say in it is if a new bill comes out to change the laws. My suspicion is, if that happened, it could be a debate over party hunting all together. No clue if it will happen or what’s next.
Bottom line or Conclusion when it comes to ISC, IBA, etc- whether u like the change or don’t like the change - the ISC & IBA had no say on it and will not have a say on it unless a new bill is introduced.
 
Hardwood11 said:
Party hunting is just that . It’s meant to hunt as a group . You have 8 tags everyone hunts until they are filled . Minnesota has the same thing . Otherwise if you shoot a deer, you can’t hunt anymore.

When it comes to archery, Muzzy, etc.. I don’t believe in party hunting. Gun season is when families get together. Deer camps. It’s more than just hunting. Drink beer, have venison chili … They hunt together, there’s thousands of deer camps in Minnesota.

Same in Iowa. It’s strange that the DNR would do this ? They were coerced by some group and honestly the motive is selfish.
Click to expand...
I agree, but seems most are worried more about trophy bucks versus the whole deer herd. You buy 8 tags and all 8 tags get filled, what's the difference if a couple people in your group just wasn't in the right place and didn't get a shot at a deer, but still get a deer to eat? I think if you did away with party hunting during shotgun season, less deer will be shot and we might see more counties start doing the late January season. I'd much rather see party hunting versus more late antlerless seasons.
 
Sligh1 said:
This isn’t going to be a public debate or a position by any group or person. The lobbying groups will not have a say in this officially. IBA & ISC are learning about this the exact same way as u are. This wasn’t a bill that was up for debate.
According to some more sources- it cleaned up already established law. Apparently the law or bill (guys who have read a bill know it’s full of tons of verbiage & a long document) had that language in there already & it never reflected correctly on regulation booklet. In any regs- u clean them up to correctly fit the law- there’s clearly no public debate or lobbying position there because the laws aren’t being changed. See what I mean? I’m just explaining what I’ve been told. This has nothing to do with ISC or IBA’s position. The only way they (or ANY group or citizen) can have a say in it is if a new bill comes out to change the laws. My suspicion is, if that happened, it could be a debate over party hunting all together. No clue if it will happen or what’s next.
Bottom line or Conclusion when it comes to ISC, IBA, etc- whether u like the change or don’t like the change - the ISC & IBA had no say on it and will not have a say on it unless a new bill is introduced.
Click to expand...
Whoever made this decision better not hunt other states ? Hypocrites. Put a 3 or 5 year wait on that Dipshi# out of state hunting plans. Elk, deer, bear—nope you get an extra 3 or 5 year wait . Sorry buddy eye for an eye !

If he fishes in Minnesota, he can only keep Carp !!
:)
 
Here’s my take. Federal and State legislatures pass a broad bill, let’s say at the federal level, we want cleaner water. This is passed with little detail, it’s called enabling legislation, leaving the detail or rules to the appropriate agency. In this example the EPA would then dictate the rules listing them in the federal register for public comment. Very few know about this and don’t comment. These rules become effective without legislative approval. Most rules are not approved by the senate or house at state or fed level. Another example every crp rule doesn’t go through congress. The dept of agriculture leaves it to the fsa.

My sense is this is similar. Years ago the nrlo doe archery tag was eliminated by rule not a bill. There’s some broad legislation out there where the dnr can change rules as they see fit to accomplish a goal. That said I do feel this was influenced by a group. This doesn’t happen on a whim.

I respectfully disagree about the voice of the IBA or ics. They have stroke to influence by rule or bill if the change isn’t right. My .02.
 
I've heard the original purpose of party hunting was population control. Population control is managed thru doe harvest quotas.

Party hunting evolved to be a loophole for some people to buck hunt every year. Sitting in different parts of farm (or maybe not even around), paying people for tags, etc etc was never the intent.

Perhaps limiting party hunting to doe only is fine and solves many concerns
 
IowaBowHunter1983 said:
I've heard the original purpose of party hunting was population control. Population control is managed thru doe harvest quotas.

Party hunting evolved to be a loophole for some people to buck hunt every year. Sitting in different parts of farm (or maybe not even around), paying people for tags, etc etc was never the intent.

Perhaps limiting party hunting to doe only is fine and solves many concerns
Click to expand...
Maybe in Iowa I don’t know. In Minnesota the reason they keep it is tradition, families hunting together, deer camps etc…

I would love to see Iowa and Minnesota allow it, but you are only allowed to tag one buck total ! Thats it ! One buck…

Antlerless could be whatever the group wants.
 
Hardwood11 said:
Maybe in Iowa I don’t know. In Minnesota the reason they keep it is tradition, families hunting together, deer camps etc…

I would love to see Iowa and Minnesota allow it, but you are only allowed to tag one buck total ! Thats it ! One buck…

Antlerless could be whatever the group wants.
Click to expand...
I know the culture you speak of. Michigan was same way. I've never really seen the "deer camp culture" in Iowa. Obviously it exists to an extent. Just a gigantically reduced level compared to some other places. People in Michigan would "go up north" to deer camp. Looking back it's really funny to me cuz "up north" is exponentially worse hunting. But seeing all the vehicles with deer strapped to roof heading back south after firearm season was entertaining as a kid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom