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

NR tags exceed $500

Two points from above. Kbnelson is absolutely right regarding the "type" of NR this will attract. A few years back the average joe would come to Iowa, have a great hunt at a reasonable price, never think of buying ground( because he can'tafford it), and look foward to his next trip in a couple years. Today's NR will have more money, see the resource, look at land prices(which are still behind most of the country) absolutely invest in land, and have the money and networking to influence change in the rules. In the long run this is a loser for Iowa.
Obviously, the DNR did not think about Iowa1's point. How about the Iowa residents, who still have family in Iowa, but had to jump across the line to Missouri or Nebraska to work? Many have good jobs but can't justify $700 to hunt a deer in their home state. Again, not well thought out by the powers in Iowa.
 
The price increase was the best solution when looking at what could've ocurred; doubling the amount of NR tags. To those of you who don't agree with the DNR's decision on increasing the pricing of the tags, what do you think should've been done differently? Just wondering what your thoughts are.
 
Last edited:
Careful

Since we are talking free market, let's assume that the DNR finds the price of equilibrium. That point at which the number of applicants is almost equal to the number of tags available. Let's say that price is $2500. Now you have 6k guys who can afford the $2500 price tag and they will get a tag every year. These guys are going to have the means and the incentive to BUY/LEASE land in Iowa because they can hunt practically every year. So keep raising the tag price if you want, but the scenario may not be what you wish for.
 
From what I understand, the increase in non-resident license prices was initiated in the Iowa Legislature by the Natural Resource Committee, this was not a DNR bill.
 
From what I understand, the increase in non-resident license prices was initiated in the Iowa Legislature
Click to expand...

right, and the Legislature didn't really want to do it either which is why it got done in the catch all bill at the end of the session.

Frankly something had to be done about the DNR's budget and since, unlike most states, IDNR Fisheries, Wildlife and Law Enforcement bureaus do not get any state general fund money for operations (though they did this year because of a major flood related shortfall) license increases are the easy solution.

The Governor said no resident fee increases which is what IDNR initially asked for (along with 6000 more anysex NR deer tags) so there really wasn't much choice.

IDNR is still facing major red ink in the next couple years even after this increase.
 
ibohunt65 said:
Since we are talking free market, let's assume that the DNR finds the price of equilibrium. That point at which the number of applicants is almost equal to the number of tags available. Let's say that price is $2500. Now you have 6k guys who can afford the $2500 price tag and they will get a tag every year. These guys are going to have the means and the incentive to BUY/LEASE land in Iowa because they can hunt practically every year. So keep raising the tag price if you want, but the scenario may not be what you wish for.
Click to expand...

most definitely. I think the IDNR has already set a dangerous precedent, by raising it from 300 and change to 400+ and now to well over 500. I mean, on one hand, it's smart business on their part, they have both a scarce and desirable resources. The sky is seemingly the limit on the revenue they can generate. However, in doing so, they are pricing out the working-class hunters who probably aren't leasing/buying land and ushering in more wealthy hunters who will buy/lease land. I stick to my belief that increasing the tag numbers in Iowa wouldn't have any affect. You will see a more pronounced effect by raising NR tag prices sky high than if you just let more NR's in.
 
The only reason there are problems like what has been discussed in this thread is that Iowa is the best state in the nation for the number of bucks 3 1/2 years old and older. All these problems could easily be solved if other states would wake up and start managing their own deer herds for quality animals like Iowa does. As hunters, we need to keep pressuring our game departments for regulations that lead to better quality herds. I believe the single most important reason why Iowa has the best buck age structure in the nation is that it has a short gun season COMPLETELY AFTER THE RUT. You have a choice of either a 5 day season starting the first Saturday of December, OR a 9 day gun season starting the second Saturday of December. Yes, some breeding takes place in December, but by the first part of December, buck activity throughout the midwest slows down dramatically so bucks are not nearly as visible as they are earlier in the fall, therefore a much greater percentage live to an older age. About the time Iowa's first gun season opens, bucks are for the most part living like hermits. They rest as much as possible, usually in their sanctuary, trying to regain their energy after the rut. This allows a much greater percentage of bucks to live to an older age. I think the only other state that even comes close to excluding gun hunting from the rut as much as Iowa does is Kansas, and what do you know, they are probably the 2nd best state in the nation for mature bucks, even though they allow rifles. Nothing against gun hunting, but if other states would follow the example of Iowa and Kansas with having gun seasons after the rut, every state could have the kind of quality hunting that Iowa does. Gun hunters still shoot a ton of monster bucks in Iowa, but each year a greater percentage of bucks survive, so there are always more in future years. Along with gun seasons after the rut, things like a season limit of one buck per hunter (all weapon types combined), and point restrictions such as a minimum of 4 points on at least one side for bucks to be legal, or a minimum of "ear tip spread" would lead to excellent buck age structure in any state. Then everyone and their brother wouldn't be drooling just dreaming about hunting Iowa.
 
whitetail fanatic said:
The only reason there are problems like what has been discussed in this thread is that Iowa is the best state in the nation for the number of bucks 3 1/2 years old and older. All these problems could easily be solved if other states would wake up and start managing their own deer herds for quality animals like Iowa does. As hunters, we need to keep pressuring our game departments for regulations that lead to better quality herds. I believe the single most important reason why Iowa has the best buck age structure in the nation is that it has a short gun season COMPLETELY AFTER THE RUT. You have a choice of either a 5 day season starting the first Saturday of December, OR a 9 day gun season starting the second Saturday of December. Yes, some breeding takes place in December, but by the first part of December, buck activity throughout the midwest slows down dramatically so bucks are not nearly as visible as they are earlier in the fall, therefore a much greater percentage live to an older age. About the time Iowa's first gun season opens, bucks are for the most part living like hermits. They rest as much as possible, usually in their sanctuary, trying to regain their energy after the rut. This allows a much greater percentage of bucks to live to an older age. I think the only other state that even comes close to excluding gun hunting from the rut as much as Iowa does is Kansas, and what do you know, they are probably the 2nd best state in the nation for mature bucks, even though they allow rifles. Nothing against gun hunting, but if other states would follow the example of Iowa and Kansas with having gun seasons after the rut, every state could have the kind of quality hunting that Iowa does. Gun hunters still shoot a ton of monster bucks in Iowa, but each year a greater percentage of bucks survive, so there are always more in future years. Along with gun seasons after the rut, things like a season limit of one buck per hunter (all weapon types combined), and point restrictions such as a minimum of 4 points on at least one side for bucks to be legal, or a minimum of "ear tip spread" would lead to excellent buck age structure in any state. Then everyone and their brother wouldn't be drooling just dreaming about hunting Iowa.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately a lot of states are not after increasing the age structure of bucks. My home state is a prime example. The public voted against moving the season as 1st choice in a vote the MDC had. AR's was the public's first choice and moving the season was a close second so that is promising!!! Attitudes are changing from what I can tell though so hopefully more will start passing up younger bucks voluntarily.
 
quote: "Unfortunately a lot of states are not after increasing the age structure of bucks"

Yeah, it's too bad but you're right on there. The Wisconsin DNR seems to hate the idea of passing up young bucks. How can an agency that is supposed to be in charge of protecting and improving our natural resources be against QDM? All they seem to care about is the number of deer we kill. You are right, it's up to us hunters to spread the word and show others who don't quite understand yet how important it is to let bucks live to 3 1/2, or better yet 4 1/2 years old before harvesting them. There's nothing wrong with taking one or several younger bucks early in a persons hunting career. I just don't understand how some people can shoot 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 year old bucks for years on end. Shoot a doe instead and let the young bucks live. The deer herd will be much healthier because of it. letemgrow is right, attitudes are changing for the better and I think it will only keep improving as more hunters see what passing up the young bucks can do.
 
The best way I found to get people to see the light on passing bucks is to show a big mature buck in the back of the truck and tell them exactly how I got that buck....by passing up younger bucks, shooting does and putting in my time. Some want to do the same and they try to shoot mature bucks themselves and they end up learning far more about deer than they knew originally.

I also take a lot of video where I pass up younger bucks to let them grow up to help set an example and show that not all bucks that are passed up are shot.

Here are some youngsters I passed up and hope to meet back up with them in a couple years. I guessed both of these bucks at 2.5 and they are prime candidates to turn into real giants!!!



 
Last edited:
This topic always sucks! NR's are getting hosed on tag fees and keeping the NR numbers down is the ONLY way to keep thing from gettting out of hand when it comes to leasing/outfitting and all that would take this sport away from many Iowans. We don't need to attack NR because they love to hunt, just like they should get that we only want to protect what we have. The fees are rediculous and so is the idea of allowing the deer resource to turn into a private one.
 
Last edited:
ironwood said:
This popic always sucks! NR's are getting hosed on tag fees and keeping the NR numbers down is the ONLY way to keep thing from gettting out of hand when it comes to leasing/outfitting and all that would take this sport away from many Iowans. We don't need to attack NR because they love to hunt, just like they should get that we only want to protect what we have. The fees are rediculous and so is the idea of allowing the deer resource to turn into a private one.
Click to expand...

Well said.....:way:
 
protecting iowan's resources? Sure, the deer herd itself is Iowa's resource, but the land is the landowner's resource. Who are you to want to manipulate the system to keep landowners from leasing their land out? If that's the way he or she best feels their property is served, so be it. Those who want to not only jack up tag prices and keep quotas low, but deprive NR landowners from utilizing their rights as landowners are the typical have-nots(again, read:Iowa Bowhunters Assoc. and the like) who are afraid of the change of the hunting landscape to pay-to-play. Fellas, it's reality, whether you like it or not. Talk about NR's cutting back on simple things to pay for the hefty tag price, why not cut back on your stuff to pay for a lease, or make payments on buying land?

I usually try to be reasonable with my arguments and understand the other side, but this is the typical have-nots vs haves argument you see everywhere, like the welfare system. I'n not some troll that comes on a message board to inflame everyone once a year during the application period, I'm someone who cares about deer issues in Iowa. And until the Iowa DNR recognizes NR landowners and ends their Draconian quotas and exorbitant tag prices on NR's, I'll keep railing against the Iowa DNR, IBA, and all the have-nots crying their big crocodile tears.
 
Seems to me the "haves" like to whine more than the "nots" around here.

Glad to see you are applying some of your college education to your arguments. You know....... instead of the name calling you used to do when ya first came here a few year back.:D
 
KBNELSON,

I agree this is the have-nots vs the haves. Residents have it, non-residents don't. It's the typical whine until you get your way festival.

It sounds to me like the only deer issues you have, or should I say, tag issues is getting a permit every year.

I don't see any manipulation going on here, a landowner can lease out their land whenever they want and people will pay it if it is worth hunting.

Nonresident landowners, I don't feel sorry for a bit. Sure it sucks, but if you bought the land solely for hunting and knew you couldn't hunt it every year, what's the problem? I am reasonable as well, I abide by the laws and don't try to change them.

Ends their Draconian quotas and someone who cares about deer issues in Iowa doesn't quite add up in my mind.

Tag prices? Seriously, its not that expensive. I've got twice the price of an Iowa deer tag wrapped up in my bow alone. I know I don't spread my bow cost over a year or two like a deer tag.

The funny thing is this whole argument between both sides is all for the chance at a big buck. If a 150 inch deer was a top end buck in Iowa nobody would care. It's rather ridiculous when you actually stop and think about it. Oh well, you gotta fight for something in life. I guess 30 more inches of bone is worth arguing back and forth all day long on an internet board. No hard feelings, I have it, you simply don't :) I'd be pissed to if I lived in a state where the hunting sucks.
 
The funny thing is this whole argument between both sides is all for the chance at a big buck. If a 150 inch deer was a top end buck in Iowa nobody would care. It's rather ridiculous when you actually stop and think about it. Oh well, you gotta fight for something in life. I guess 30 more inches of bone is worth arguing back and forth all day long on an internet board.
Click to expand...


When did the resident's side of this argument become bone and not access for the common people?

Mr. Nelson needs to give Mr. Hellickson a call, I'm pretty sure they could have a "let's not cater to the lowest common denominator" party.;)
 
River1 said:
When did the resident's side of this argument become bone and not access for the common people?
Click to expand...

When we raised the price of Nonresident tags to $500+ :) No doubt it's going to put some common people out of the drawing and people with more money may view this as an opportunity to increase their draw odds therefore, may be willing to invest in yearly leases decreasing our access. In my opinion, they should of gave them a slight increase and gave us an increase.

I personally would support a price increase to keep the quality of the hunt the same. I still don't view our current tag prices as ridiculous. Most folks can still come up with the money.

People hunt for different reasons. I've hunted long enough to want to only take mature deer and I also hunt does to just hunt deer. The hunting industry as a whole is all about big bone. There is no right answer to this game, just a bunch of opinions.

I would be willing to bet more people are interested in keeping this state a big buck haven with land access being their secondary concern. I don't think most people want to take a step back in the quality of the deer. Everyone can sugar coat it how they want though :)
 
deprive NR landowners from utilizing their rights as landowners
Click to expand...

Residents of Mexico don't have "rights" (other then the basics) when they cross the border into our country and if they buy land here it doesn't afford them any more rights until...

they become CITIZENS

Residents of other states don't have rights in Iowa even if they own property until...

they become RESIDENTS

We defend our countries borders and the rights of our citizens vigorously and each state has been given individual rights that belong soley to RESIDENTS of said state.

I don't blame someone from another country who desires to have the freedoms and oppurtunities that I have to want to live here and I fully understand why someone from another state would desire to live in Iowa.

For ANYONE to suggest that they should have the same rights as I do while remaning a citizen of another country or a resident of another state is ludicrous!

I expect most of us will continue to defend our rights as both citizens and residents from those who seem determined to take them away from us.

We have the right to determine what rights (if any) non-resident landowners might have should they choose to own land in our state.

We have the right to vote for representation who will defend the rights of RESIDENTS

I have an obligation as a RESIDENT to stand beside my fellow RESIDENTS and defend our rights against the arrogant, selfish and greedy who feel they should have the same rights to our resources with out living here.

I am sorry that the cost of NR tags will make it difficult for some people to visit our state and enjoy hunting here, that's regrettable but unlikely to ever be reversed....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom