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

NR RE: TO DONT BE AN IDIOT........

S

shackdaddy

New Member
i dont really care what some people think of what im about to say and i know some nr have made some good comments about this situation but here are mine.... i use to live in the great state of iowa. i got to experience the wounders of an iowa deer season. i no longer live in iowa but i am in the process of purchasing land in iowa. i do not feel bad at all for buying land that i might only get to hunt every 3 to 5 years. i know the the type of deer that come from iowa and i would never want to see that change.... the one thing that i will promise and the friends that i do have on this site that do live in iowa will say for me is that they will always have the right to hunt the land that i do purchase....

once i purchase some land i will never bitch or complain about hunting it every 3 to 5 years. i could care less. my friends that live in iowa can hunt it for me. all my friends understand qdma and thats how it is.... i am so tired of hearing nr complain about how its not fair that they dont get to hunt their land every year or they use some type of loophole in the system to get to hunt every year. in my eyes its all bulls@@t.....

lets face reality..... iowa is, in my world, the best state in the u.s to hunt big bucks and as hunters, residents or nr, we should want to keep it that way and stop letting our own reasons get in the way of that.....

this is getting rediculous... we are all hunters... we are all the same... we shouldnt have different websites againest each other... if anything we should have websites againest the antis.... if we all put the time and effort we spend bi$ching about iowa into the antis we would be better off....

maybe people should think about that.... iowa is a great big buck state and in my thoughts we should all want to keep it that way. i know im going to get sh$t for this but oh well....

this is getting old.... we are all the same in the end....
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shackdaddy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this is getting rediculous... we are all hunters... we are all the same... we shouldnt have different websites againest each other... if anything we should have websites againest the antis.... if we all put the time and effort we spend bi$ching about iowa into the antis we would be better off....

</div></div>

If only it could be that easy. The famous quote comes to mind " Can't we all just get along?"

Good Luck getting your land. The job must treat be treating you all right out there. Either that or you married money /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
 
I agree the bitching gets old!
If this is your dream----don't wake up!!!
 
I agree with shackdaddy. A lot of time and money is going to be spent into fighting this, and my opinion is it wont stop until a rule will change that will affect all of us. I fear the results may be something that lowers the quality of the present state of hunting for res/nr alike. I dont think offering nr landowner any sex tags is the answer, although maybe there is amount of acerage that it wouldnt bother me. It seems to me residents should decide what would preserve the quality but offer at least increased doe harvest opportunities for nr landowners. I think the number of nr landowners is increasing, and if we dont start to work together toward some common ground on this issue the farm bureau and dnr will make the decision for us..
 
Fair enough shackdaddy.

But in the same respect....I don't ever want to read Res whining and complaining about NR landowners and the lack of doe they shoot. Which seems to be a common occurrence around here. Residents want capped NR tags-which is fine. Residents want NR landowners to be treated just like any other NR-which is fine. Residents want to keep their 2 buck system-which is fine. With those items stated above and with the current regs and prices for NR tags that are in place.....don't place the blame on the NR either.

If you want all things equal, that's a good compromise right?
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stump Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fair enough shackdaddy.

But in the same respect....I don't ever want to read Res whining and complaining about NR landowners and the lack of doe they shoot. Which seems to be a common occurrence around here. Residents want capped NR tags-which is fine. Residents want NR landowners to be treated just like any other NR-which is fine. Residents want to keep their 2 buck system-which is fine. With those items stated above and with the current regs and prices for NR tags that are in place.....don't place the blame on the NR either.

If you want all things equal, that's a good compromise right? </div></div>

I think it is a good compromise. The one thing you forgot to mention is that it is the NR owning the land and not allowing others on it to maintain a quality deer herd that would be the worst. A guy owning 500 acres, that hunts every 3 years and kills 2 deer in those 3 years is a huge problem. However, if a guy establishes a relationship with some locals or relatives and allows them to harvest 1 buck a year and a whole pile of does (maybe even 2 guys) then we wouldn't have the complaining about the lack of does a NR landowner shoots. This is a very very very simple thing to solve and there is no way in hell that NR landowner's hunt would be any different in terms of having a chance to harvest a mature buck when he does draw a tag, by allowing 1 or 2 guys to hunt and maintain his land.
 
to add to Jarin's comment

the NR land owners can find a reputable hunter who understands QDM and put him in charge of the property in his absence, have that "land manager" report to the land owner on a regular basis and keep stats, logs, and journals of the properties output and in return give the guy the right to kill his bucks on that property each year. the size of bucks killed should be up to the landowners descretion (sp) i see this as a win/win situation!

if i were a NR landowner, id be happy to have someone watch over my land and work on the number of does, and in return, id be very happy to allow that individual(s) take a couple sets of horns for thier work!

jmo
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THA4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">to add to Jarin's comment

the NR land owners can find a reputable hunter who understands QDM and put him in charge of the property in his absence, have that "land manager" report to the land owner on a regular basis and keep stats, logs, and journals of the properties output and in return give the guy the right to kill his bucks on that property each year. the size of bucks killed should be up to the landowners descretion (sp) i see this as a win/win situation!

if i were a NR landowner, id be happy to have someone watch over my land and work on the number of does, and in return, id be very happy to allow that individual(s) take a couple sets of horns for thier work!

jmo </div></div>


I agree!!!!!

If I had land out of state I would greatly appreciate having someone watch over it in my absence and report to me on the quality of the deer herd on a regular basis. In return I would let him and his family hunt it on a resonable basis with timely reports as to how the hunting was going.

If they would do their part to keep off trespassers and keep an eye on the land, I would be more then happy to let them take a few deer each year off of it.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jkratz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I think it is a good compromise. The one thing you forgot to mention is that it is the NR owning the land and not allowing others on it to maintain a quality deer herd that would be the worst. A guy owning 500 acres, that hunts every 3 years and kills 2 deer in those 3 years is a huge problem. However, if a guy establishes a relationship with some locals or relatives and allows them to harvest 1 buck a year and a whole pile of does (maybe even 2 guys) then we wouldn't have the complaining about the lack of does a NR landowner shoots. This is a very very very simple thing to solve and there is no way in hell that NR landowner's hunt would be any different in terms of having a chance to harvest a mature buck when he does draw a tag, by allowing 1 or 2 guys to hunt and maintain his land. </div></div>


Ahhh, but see. Your still pinning it on the NR landowner.

1)If the carrying capacity of the land ISN'T compromised and you don't see sick and diseased deer running all over, then is it your view, something you read in a magazine or something you saw on QDMA TV that says what a "well balanced" herd should be? Maybe the NR landowner likes to see a lot of deer and isn't over taken with horn envy. Just a thought.

2)Should a NR landowner manage HIS land how YOU want him to manage the land? After all...he's the one that owns it.

In all of this, there just seems to be a whole lot of wanna be land managers out there taking and looking at what they deem as serious attempts to TELL someone how and why they should manage THEIR land. Why wouldn't all of you guys think it's a great idea for NR landowners to match up with Res hunters to "help" with their deer problems. LOL!! I would too. Just gives me more, unpressured land to hunt on when the landowner can't hunt. It's a brilliant plan...it really is.
 
I would not let anyone tell me how to manage my land ever.

If someone wanted to make an educated suggestion then I would listen, but I would call the shots 100%.

I paid for the land and I am paying the taxes, so whatever I say would go.

But, it would be nice to have someone watch the land since you probably live 4+ hours away.

I would have no problem having a good friend or family member hunt it in turn for keeping an eye on it.
 
Ahh, but see. Your still looking at only how it will effect you. not the big picture

I believe this is the point:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">lets face reality..... iowa is, in my world, the best state in the u.s to hunt big bucks and as hunters, residents or nr, we should want to keep it that way and stop letting our own reasons get in the way of that..... </div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> maybe people should think about that.... iowa is a great big buck state and in my thoughts we should all want to keep it that way. i know im going to get sh$t for this but oh well.... </div></div>


In the big picture these changes WILL effect the state. Do you look at Pike County Ill. and think that is a good thing. Go there and try to hunt with out deep pockets and see what happens. The only difference here is all the non residents comlpaining already have there piece and dont care about the state as a whole... period
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stump Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jkratz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I think it is a good compromise. The one thing you forgot to mention is that it is the NR owning the land and not allowing others on it to maintain a quality deer herd that would be the worst. A guy owning 500 acres, that hunts every 3 years and kills 2 deer in those 3 years is a huge problem. However, if a guy establishes a relationship with some locals or relatives and allows them to harvest 1 buck a year and a whole pile of does (maybe even 2 guys) then we wouldn't have the complaining about the lack of does a NR landowner shoots. This is a very very very simple thing to solve and there is no way in hell that NR landowner's hunt would be any different in terms of having a chance to harvest a mature buck when he does draw a tag, by allowing 1 or 2 guys to hunt and maintain his land. </div></div>


Ahhh, but see. Your still pinning it on the NR landowner.

1)If the carrying capacity of the land ISN'T compromised and you don't see sick and diseased deer running all over, then is it your view, something you read in a magazine or something you saw on QDMA TV that says what a "well balanced" herd should be? Maybe the NR landowner likes to see a lot of deer and isn't over taken with horn envy. Just a thought.

2)Should a NR landowner manage HIS land how YOU want him to manage the land? After all...he's the one that owns it.

In all of this, there just seems to be a whole lot of wanna be land managers out there taking and looking at what they deem as serious attempts to TELL someone how and why they should manage THEIR land. Why wouldn't all of you guys think it's a great idea for NR landowners to match up with Res hunters to "help" with their deer problems. LOL!! I would too. Just gives me more, unpressured land to hunt on when the landowner can't hunt. It's a brilliant plan...it really is. </div></div>


I will have to disagree with the first point as the health of the herd is in jeopardy when you get huge refuges for deer to be on, as blue tongue and CWD are inevitable in areas like this, just look at the areas around Madison, WI. To many deer and not enough hunters to take them ultimately cost them any chances at a quality hunt.

Additionally, if you have a NR owning land and not holding up their end on doe harvest then you have the insurance companies and FB chimming in and getting regs changed, it has happened and will continue to happen. I will let a NR landowner and any landowner manage his land however he wants, but when the DNR is breathing down our necks to shoot deer or we are going to see serious changes that includes everyone, residents, non-residents, land-owners and non-landowners.

My family owns land and we are lucky enough to have a great farmer to watch over it when we are not around, keeps the tresspassers out, plants food plots for us, etc etc. He treats us good and we return the favor by treating him good. However, if he wasn't around I can gurantee I would establish a relationship with someone in the area to watch over it in exchange for hunting rights as there are way to many people that would take advantage of the ground otherwise.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will have to disagree with the first point as the health of the herd is in jeopardy when you get huge refuges for deer to be on, as blue tongue and CWD are inevitable in areas like this, just look at the areas around Madison, WI. To many deer and not enough hunters to take them ultimately cost them any chances at a quality hunt. </div></div>

Blue tongue and CWD don't just "show" up because there are more deer. If either are going to happen, they are going to happen whether you have 1 deer or 100. Blue tongue comes from insects and CWD would have to be brought in from an outside source. So sorry, I don't buy either of those as relative to any of this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Additionally, if you have a NR owning land and not holding up their end on doe harvest then you have the insurance companies and FB chimming in and getting regs changed, it has happened and will continue to happen. I will let a NR landowner and any landowner manage his land however he wants, but when the DNR is breathing down our necks to shoot deer or we are going to see serious changes that includes everyone, residents, non-residents, land-owners and non-landowners. </div></div>

My apologies as I don't know the complete story on all of this, but maybe you can explain it to me in a nut shell.

Are the areas where the insurance companies and DNR complaining about state wide? Are they isolated to the areas where NR's seem to own more land?

What is surprising to me is that IA doesn't have registration stations?! How does anyone know what the deer herd actually is? I don't know how many times I've read on here...."Well, I better call in my tags even if I didn't shoot anything so the DNR "thinks" we shot more deer than we did". With thoughts and mentalities like this that I'm sure are state wide....Who really knows what the accurate numbers are? What are herd numbers based on?
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stump Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

What is surprising to me is that IA doesn't have registration stations?! How does anyone know what the deer herd actually is? I don't know how many times I've read on here...."Well, I better call in my tags even if I didn't shoot anything so the DNR "thinks" we shot more deer than we did". With thoughts and mentalities like this that I'm sure are state wide....Who really knows what the accurate numbers are? What are herd numbers based on?</div></div>

Stump Shooter,

I'm going to disagree with you on this one. I think if MN had a call in or online option to register deer more deer would be accuratley registerd as harvested. I think online or call in registration would lead to increased accuracy of deer herd and harvest estimates.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bushman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stump Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

What is surprising to me is that IA doesn't have registration stations?! How does anyone know what the deer herd actually is? I don't know how many times I've read on here...."Well, I better call in my tags even if I didn't shoot anything so the DNR "thinks" we shot more deer than we did". With thoughts and mentalities like this that I'm sure are state wide....Who really knows what the accurate numbers are? What are herd numbers based on?</div></div>

Stump Shooter,

I'm going to disagree with you on this one. I think if MN had a call in or online option to register deer more deer would be accuratley registerd as harvested. I think online or call in registration would lead to increased accuracy of deer herd and harvest estimates. </div></div>

In what way? Mind elaborating a bit?
 
I think a lot of people fail to register there deer harvests in MN as it's "too much work" or "a pain in the butt". I think people would be more apt to register if they were able to do a call in or online registration. Just my opinion. But it's in the works according to the MN DNR. A new vendor will be taking over in a couple years and that's part of the contract.

Like i said, it's just my opinion.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bushman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think a lot of people fail to register there deer harvests in MN as it's "too much work" or "a pain in the butt". I think people would be more apt to register if they were able to do a call in or online registration. Just my opinion. But it's in the works according to the MN DNR. A new vendor will be taking over in a couple years and that's part of the contract.

Like i said, it's just my opinion. </div></div>

Since the installation of all the ELS machines, registration of your deer became a quick, painless thing to do. For those who deemed it "too much work" are simply lazy. In the old days and back when actually the registrar came out to see and identify your deer....there wasn't much you could get away with even if you attempted it. I fear that if we go to a call in/online system....guys will just quick head home, call in their deer which you know will be a doe and then slice and dice. How much more tag recycling will go on? Who knows I guess. I don't see where a call in or online system holds someone accountable. You just need to make it from the field to your house. Instead of from the field to the registration station and then to your house. Outlaws will always be outlaws no matter the system I guess.

Interesting topic though.
 
Shack, you made an excellent point in your post, and that is simply your management statement.

The fact is, our state for the most part has accepted the fact that keeping your doe numbers down and passing on the smaller bucks increases the health of your deer herd which leads to bigger deer, both in terms of size of rack and body size. Due to the natural range of a whitetail, it only takes a small area that is strictly managed for half a decade to start showing results on a much larger scale due to bucks ranging out and spreading their genetics. Its a domino effect, and due to our passionate and educated sportsmen in this state we have been able to build one of the most desired deer herds in the country. Are we ready to give all that we've accomplished up?

I read an article in North American Whitetail yesterday and it was about an area of Oklahoma that had a very poor deer herd, but a wealthy man bought the land and intensively managed it by only shooting does for several years. Last year a 200" giant was taken off the land, with many more bucks seen on the land with similar genetics. Oklahoma is not known for their large deer, but with just a decade of good management monsters were produced.

On other websites I see people complaining from other states that they have to shoot the first 120" deer they see because for their area that is a big deer. If those states' natural resources department would take an active role in educating its sportsmen like this state's has then they too would see an increase in the size of deer and wouldn't long for hunting Iowa. Just what I think, and probably many others probably feel that way as well.

I own my own land and am a resident of Iowa, but I also have been fortunate enough to build some good relationships with farmers over the years, to the point that in some cases the farmers have turned down out of staters attempting to lease property so they can hunt simply because I treat their ground very respectfully and that they don't believe in paying to hunt. It wasn't easy getting that kind of permission. It also wasn't easy getting the herd of deer on the properties I hunt to where they are now. I love this state, and I know there are resident members on this site that do as well and love deer and deer hunting as much as I do. It should be a privelege for out-of-staters to come here and enjoy what we have helped to create. The system is fine the way it is, let's just hope it stays that way.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stump Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Blue tongue and CWD don't just "show" up because there are more deer. If either are going to happen, they are going to happen whether you have 1 deer or 100. Blue tongue comes from insects and CWD would have to be brought in from an outside source. So sorry, I don't buy either of those as relative to any of this.

</div></div>


I agree about the origin of both diseases, but my statement stems from the fact that high deer density areas are more prone to epidemic outbreaks, such as the case in WI. Not a coincidence that the biologist believe the best way to reduce the risk of CWD is to reduce the number of deer per square mile, as was the suggestion made to southern WI when the outbreak first occurred. The outside sources that need to be brought in for CWD already exist and with high density deer areas an outbreak could be catastrophic for that portion of the state. Although a worst case scenario and probably not all that likely to happen, it has happened in other areas of the country and I am sure they thought the same thing at one time.

As far as the push by Insurance companies and the FB, this has been an ongoing theme in IA and IL for sometime. The FB is sick of crops being destroyed and the Insurance companies are sick of paying for car/deer accidents. So they of course push and push and push for more deer tags and alternatives to resident deer herd management to decrease the # of deer.

So far the resident hunters have answered every call from the DNR to harvest the required #'s to manage the deer herd, yet many these lobbyist continue to complain about it, because some select areas (many times refuges owned and not hunted by NR and city limits area) have an over abbundance of deer. Again there are very simple solutions to these problems, like the city limits hunts that are now occurring and greatly helping the deer problem.
 
Iowa is a great state. couldnt wait to leave when i was a kid, moved all across the country and then some! took 17 years to figure out what I was missing. moved back home to raise my kid`s . my first year here I watched my brother inlaw (fallguy) and his buddy (one cam) do alot on secret planning of deer hunt`s . keep in mind that i had never hunted deer and thought qdm were just letters out of the alphabet. 2nd year of living back here i started to think that they were nut`s about deer hunting ! thats when they took me shotgun hunting . QDM, THIN THE HERD, 130+, were all foreign to me. shoot a doe they taste better! I understood that. anyway after that I got a bow and joined Iowawhitetails,the rest is history . 6 doe, 1 buck is my ratio in 4 years. dnr makes the rules for a reason , we just need to follow them. I know my meat legal!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom