and who is responsible for the deer numbers and quality being torn apart? Lets see.... you certainly aren't blaming the NR's they only get a few thousand licenses every year.... hmmm maybe the DNR they are Big Brother, might as well blame them for making the rules to play by and gee they only increased permits by 140,000 annually over the last 5 years ,hmmm... all those politicans in DM that always have their hands out, I guess it could be their fault...anybody else left to blame???
and who is responsible for the deer numbers and quality being torn apart? Lets see.... you certainly aren't blaming the NR's they only get a few thousand licenses every year.... hmmm maybe the DNR they are Big Brother, might as well blame them for making the rules to play by and gee they only increased permits by 140,000 annually over the last 5 years ,hmmm... all those politicans in DM that always have their hands out, I guess it could be their fault...anybody else left to blame???
Kansasdeerslayer
PMA Member
You guys want to keep raising prices, fine. You have already had a 50% increase for NR since I hunted there 4 years ago. You have about priced me out of coming back to my home state.
4 years ago...
2 pref points- $20
hunting license plus habitat fee-I think it was $90
Buck tag-$232
Doe tag-$100
Total $440
Today
2 pref points- $104
hunt license-$125
tags-$426
Total- $655
I believe in supply and demand, if you can continue to get this for the tags, then by all means get top dollar. I personally am not willing to pay this much for a whitetail hunt when all I hear is how the numbers and trophy quality continues to go downhill. I have good bucks here in my own backyard. I will stay home and hunt cheap. My wallet is getting thinner every year.
4 years ago...
2 pref points- $20
hunting license plus habitat fee-I think it was $90
Buck tag-$232
Doe tag-$100
Total $440
Today
2 pref points- $104
hunt license-$125
tags-$426
Total- $655
I believe in supply and demand, if you can continue to get this for the tags, then by all means get top dollar. I personally am not willing to pay this much for a whitetail hunt when all I hear is how the numbers and trophy quality continues to go downhill. I have good bucks here in my own backyard. I will stay home and hunt cheap. My wallet is getting thinner every year.
risto2351
Well-Known Member
I agree with you completely on this.
As a resident I spent $2500 just in gas this year going to and from my hunting areas.
Factor in the gear that I buy at the local sportshops (right JJ
),groceries at the stores why i am at my hunting area, seed from the Iowa based company etc.
I do think that residents should be given preferential treatment and keeping the numbers down where they are now is perfect. If they raise them it will not directly affect the license revenue but other revenue from the areas I mentioned above plus others.
I do have friends that come every three years to hunt here so I am not anti NR and they agree that the three year wait is definitely worth it.
BJohnson
Well-Known Member
I agree 100% with this comment. As I have stated in previous years, as residents if we want to really "contribute" to the preservation of the hunting quality in this state we need to be prepared to pay more ourselves. Obviously DNR revenue is going to face some challenges in the near term with want I would anticipate to be a declining license revenue related to pheasants and also possibly deer as animal numbers seem to be on the decline in both cases. The pure hunting enthusiats will continue to buy tags with declining numbers but the "weekend warrior" license revenue might take a hit. Either way (with or without a tag price increase) I predict a declining tag sales future for the DNR revenue stream so you might as well enlist a resident tag increase to help compensate for the lower tag sales. This (resident tag price increase) was out there a couple years ago anyway and was delayed once the economic stresses hit.
Simple math is creating a difficult position for the DNR from a funding prespective. I don't like this future landscape any more than most IA resident hunters but I think we need to be realistic about what the reasonable options are that we can present as alternatives to argue against the NR quota increase.
There are not alot of good options out there so we need to hope for the "least worst" options to be chosen by the DNR.
loneranger
Well-Known Member
DNR needs to tap into other, USERS, as well as hunters and fishers,,,like bike riders and Park users. State park near me sees 30,000 participants a month. That is 30,000 vehicles a month. They pay nothing to use the facilities. Of coarse they think their taxes are paying for it. New bike trails around my place are full of users all summer too.
loneranger
Well-Known Member
Not picking on NRs for the downward herd. All forces involved with the" Less deer is Better",,,,mentality.
Kansasdeerslayer
PMA Member
Can someone tell me how many NR tags were sold in 2010? I can't find the info on IA DNR website.
letemgrow
PMA Member
I am sitting on 3 pp's (all for 10 bucks a piece), but with the price increase, I just cannot pull the trigger to get a tag since 600 bucks will do a lot for habitat improvements on my own farm.. :way:
Nontypcl1
Member
I couldn't agree more with the above quote.
I just don't think increasing the price of resident or non-resident tags is the answer. The DNR needs to find another way to increase funds. There are many people that benefit from work the DNR does and its not just hunters and fisherman. Hunting and fishing licenses will always be the major cash cow for the DNR but you can't always put the burden on them when times get tough. I also don't think raising the NR quota is the answer either.
Here's how I see it...
Sure, I could probably afford to pay a little more for hunting licenses and tags but I think this will end up as a never ending cycle. In my opinion it doesn't matter how many more non-resident tags they issue. It won't make a bit of difference how high they want to jack the price of hunting and fishing licenses or NR and resident deer tags. Sure they may get a good flow of money right away but in a couple years I'll guarantee you the same story will be heard. "We need more money." Then once again the Iowa hunter and fisherman will be on the hook again to pay the tab.
That being said. I don't have any good ideas on what to do to solve the DNR's budget shortfalls. However, I can tell that we need to think outside the box on this one. The DNR needs to find another solution to solving their budget problems. It just doesn't seem right to put all the burden on the hunters and fisherman.
Sorry for the rant, just my honest opinion.
dedgeez
death from above
They aren't after does now! As of the last DNR meeting that I attended, something like 7% (don't quote me on that number but it's very close) of NR doe tags are filled! So to me it's pretty clear that the DNR is not using NR as a management tool to help with does. We all know why people come to Iowa to hunt, and it sure as hell isn't for a doe! That's like saying "i go to the strip club for the buffet"..........
jclaws
PMA Member
[QUOTE
IA should keep the same setup they do now if they want to remain the top big buck desination. Heck why not raffle off some of the tags so then a few pay 5,000 or more....that covers a lot of regular nr's and raffle off all the govenor's tags if they don't already.[/QUOTE]
I dont know how many they sell but they do sell some and i beleive that they call them conservation tags.Im pretty sure that 1 of them sold for about $9000.00.I cant find much information on them though.
IA should keep the same setup they do now if they want to remain the top big buck desination. Heck why not raffle off some of the tags so then a few pay 5,000 or more....that covers a lot of regular nr's and raffle off all the govenor's tags if they don't already.[/QUOTE]
I dont know how many they sell but they do sell some and i beleive that they call them conservation tags.Im pretty sure that 1 of them sold for about $9000.00.I cant find much information on them though.
Packnasty
New Member
I just wrote my letter. I would love some feedback before I find more recipients and send it out:
Representative Van Engelenhoven,
I am writing to voice my discontent over a proposed bill I have recently been made aware of. I have read from a couple of different sources that Governor Branstad and the new DNR Director have voiced support of increasing the number of non-resident deer licenses sold in Iowa, though I have been unable to find any such bill online.
I have a couple of concerns if we are to rely on the deer in the state to attract tourism. For one, it is important to remember that Iowa was founded upon the Public Trust Doctrine, in which each Iowa resident is an equal owner of every deer in the state. The Department is entrusted by the citizens of Iowa to protect the herd. Secondly, non-residents won’t shoot does. This makes management of the deer herd much more difficult. Third, more lands will be closed through hunting leases and non-resident landowners. I knock on doors to gain access onto lands, and it has proved very difficult to gain access on private property. Adding additional non-resident tags can be a slippery slope, and lead to a scenario where the sport is accessible only to those with financial means.
I know many hunters who are worried that the population is facing a steep and uncontrollable decent. They are worried that the State’s herd does not support its reputation, and is in danger. I understand their concern; however, I am fine with the herd size as is. I understand that there are certain social tolerances that must be considered when managing the overall deer herd size, and I am aware that there is a balance point. I think it is important to remember that various State programs have decimated the pheasant population, and could potentially be doing the same with the deer population.
If you support additional non-resident tags, I would respectfully urge you to recommend measures to counter the potential effects on the herd. Non-resident “antlerless only” tags must be discontinued. These tags are cheaper and easier to draw…yet data shows that these tags are rarely filled. Many “hunters” will utilize these tags and cheat the system by shooting a buck and allowing a resident to tag it. In addition, the system that allows resident landowners to shoot 3 bucks per year is ridiculous. It is my goal every year to shoot 1-2 deer per year, which provides me with more than enough meat to get me through the year. If we wish to harness the economic potential of the sport, these are two specific measures that should certainly be discontinued.
The hunting community of Iowa does not want any such bill to pass. Such an action is no way to make up a budget deficit. I hope you would take the concerns of myself and other concerned hunters to the Natural Resource Committee to be heard.
Respectfully,
My Name.
Go Pack!
Representative Van Engelenhoven,
I am writing to voice my discontent over a proposed bill I have recently been made aware of. I have read from a couple of different sources that Governor Branstad and the new DNR Director have voiced support of increasing the number of non-resident deer licenses sold in Iowa, though I have been unable to find any such bill online.
I have a couple of concerns if we are to rely on the deer in the state to attract tourism. For one, it is important to remember that Iowa was founded upon the Public Trust Doctrine, in which each Iowa resident is an equal owner of every deer in the state. The Department is entrusted by the citizens of Iowa to protect the herd. Secondly, non-residents won’t shoot does. This makes management of the deer herd much more difficult. Third, more lands will be closed through hunting leases and non-resident landowners. I knock on doors to gain access onto lands, and it has proved very difficult to gain access on private property. Adding additional non-resident tags can be a slippery slope, and lead to a scenario where the sport is accessible only to those with financial means.
I know many hunters who are worried that the population is facing a steep and uncontrollable decent. They are worried that the State’s herd does not support its reputation, and is in danger. I understand their concern; however, I am fine with the herd size as is. I understand that there are certain social tolerances that must be considered when managing the overall deer herd size, and I am aware that there is a balance point. I think it is important to remember that various State programs have decimated the pheasant population, and could potentially be doing the same with the deer population.
If you support additional non-resident tags, I would respectfully urge you to recommend measures to counter the potential effects on the herd. Non-resident “antlerless only” tags must be discontinued. These tags are cheaper and easier to draw…yet data shows that these tags are rarely filled. Many “hunters” will utilize these tags and cheat the system by shooting a buck and allowing a resident to tag it. In addition, the system that allows resident landowners to shoot 3 bucks per year is ridiculous. It is my goal every year to shoot 1-2 deer per year, which provides me with more than enough meat to get me through the year. If we wish to harness the economic potential of the sport, these are two specific measures that should certainly be discontinued.
The hunting community of Iowa does not want any such bill to pass. Such an action is no way to make up a budget deficit. I hope you would take the concerns of myself and other concerned hunters to the Natural Resource Committee to be heard.
Respectfully,
My Name.
Go Pack!
Crimson Arrows
Well-Known Member
Well said and well done! I am a resident landowner and support only one buck per year. In fact, after I received the numbers from the neighboring properties after shotgun season, I decided to not allow anymore hunting late season on my farms.
I want my nephews and hopefully my kids to enjoy the same hunting we have experienced one day and at this rate, I worry.
I am having a non-resident friend from Oregon come in the next year or two hunt with me and I think he has two points now. He has waited to come here and the mystique of waiting and the potential for what awaits is part of the draw of this great state. We can't lose that.
If we continue, not only will we reduce the value of what we have, it may be very difficult to get it back.
I want my nephews and hopefully my kids to enjoy the same hunting we have experienced one day and at this rate, I worry.
I am having a non-resident friend from Oregon come in the next year or two hunt with me and I think he has two points now. He has waited to come here and the mystique of waiting and the potential for what awaits is part of the draw of this great state. We can't lose that.
If we continue, not only will we reduce the value of what we have, it may be very difficult to get it back.
risto2351
Well-Known Member
I dont know how many they sell but they do sell some and i beleive that they call them conservation tags.Im pretty sure that 1 of them sold for about $9000.00.I cant find much information on them though.[/QUOTE]
Is there anyway a bill could be brought up doing away with the Governor's tags or redoing the system?
If so how does one go about it?
Seems like they have bills for everything else.
letemgrow
PMA Member
I realize that too, just meaning that if they up it to another 6,000 nr tags available it will get worse from that perspective. :way:
Kansasdeerslayer
PMA Member
I am in favor of protecting what you guys have up there. I know here in Kansas, we are fast on the path of Illinois. I don't want Iowa to become like us with unlimited NR tags.
That being said, I get tired of hearing how non-residents are hurting the trophy quality in Iowa. There were 60,000 bucks harvested this year. I don't know what the success rate was for NR, but I would bet it was well below 25%. So out of 60,000 bucks less than 1,500 of them were killed by NR. Thats less than 3%. Even fewer does were taken.
I am not arguing that there are not many negative side effects to allowing more non-residents into your state. But hurting the deer numbers and the trophy potential is not one of them. If you guys want good numbers of trophy whitetails, you need to go to a one buck system. One buck tag good for all seasons, like a landowners tag. I guarantee that would make a huge difference in mature buck sightings, but don't guess that there are very many residents that would be interested in doing this.
That being said, I get tired of hearing how non-residents are hurting the trophy quality in Iowa. There were 60,000 bucks harvested this year. I don't know what the success rate was for NR, but I would bet it was well below 25%. So out of 60,000 bucks less than 1,500 of them were killed by NR. Thats less than 3%. Even fewer does were taken.
I am not arguing that there are not many negative side effects to allowing more non-residents into your state. But hurting the deer numbers and the trophy potential is not one of them. If you guys want good numbers of trophy whitetails, you need to go to a one buck system. One buck tag good for all seasons, like a landowners tag. I guarantee that would make a huge difference in mature buck sightings, but don't guess that there are very many residents that would be interested in doing this.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
Better Iowa buck hunting across the board
packnasty and huntyak: Now you are talking, I will support those letters all the way, because you are willing to criticize the 3 buck limit for landowners. If residents were more willing to show that they will decrease their own limit for the good of Iowa deer hunting, I have no problem with the limit on tags for NR.
Do the math, on how many bucks that would save, thanks guys I think this is a huge step to working with NR...hopefully more residents will see that a buck limit of 3 per person, plus party hunting is beyond it's years...:drink2:
I'd also like to see the late season rifle season abolished (too many shed bucks shot) as pointed out in the other thread by Sligh.
packnasty and huntyak: Now you are talking, I will support those letters all the way, because you are willing to criticize the 3 buck limit for landowners. If residents were more willing to show that they will decrease their own limit for the good of Iowa deer hunting, I have no problem with the limit on tags for NR.
Do the math, on how many bucks that would save, thanks guys I think this is a huge step to working with NR...hopefully more residents will see that a buck limit of 3 per person, plus party hunting is beyond it's years...:drink2:
I'd also like to see the late season rifle season abolished (too many shed bucks shot) as pointed out in the other thread by Sligh.
Last edited:
nannyslayer
New Member
Crimson Arrows
Well-Known Member
I agree with this as well. A father/son that hunts my farm mistakenly shot a shed buck last year and they are very protective of my farm and always try to do the right thing. After that, before I had to say "no more rifle" they beat me to it and decided to not participate in the late season hunt anymore, regardless, as they really thought it was a doe and still feel bad about it.
I always enjoy seeing February roll around as more sheds show up and the rifles get put away. :way: