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

Options for 2006?

sureshot1,
I didn't say you had to switch agent's. Just tell them your thoughts and that you are considering it! But if you say it you better be willing to back it up if they don't change their position! If enough people did that the word would get to the upper management people it needs to! If it looks like their position on an issue is going to hurt their bottom line they will change their stance. I don't jump to conclusions, just state facts. Reguardless of your agent's personal views, your premium's are paying for the lobby that affects the law's proposed and passed in this state. I am not trying to hurt your mom, or the agent's your talking about, we just need to get the word through to those that are "higher up" and through your agent's and farm bureau's pocketbook is the best way. When an agent stands to loose multiple policies over an issue like this they get on the phone to their superiors and pass the word on! Money (or the loss of it) is a great motivator.
 
After doing a weekend poll of friends and neighboring landowners in my area I found the following:

1) More then half the deer they killed were small bucks...just because they can.
2) 95% of them will not hunt other then the first weekend in Dec.
3) They are all farmer/landowners and do not allow public access
4) When asked if they would still hunt if it was antlerless only the first day or perhaps the first weekend...they all answered "yes...their just deer"

I sat with my son while he hunted this weekend and went for a drive Sunday evening at dark. We saw so many deer you would think season had never opened. Most of these deer will not get seriously hunted again this year.
The lions share of the deer are killed opening day of shotgun season. If you want to compel hunters to take more antlerless deer the answer is obvious.

If are trying to take more antlerless and less antlered...why give away landowner anydeer tags...and charge for antlerless???
Landowners hold the key to the entire situation where I live, and I can assure you the DNR cannot "buy" access from them at any price.

Since it's now common knowledge that most NR antlerless tags are being used by NR to hunt " legally" and kill bucks tagging them with a resident or MO tag. Why not give out more/cheaper tags to them...but ONLY in the late season when they cannot hunt bucks?????

The face of Iowa deer hunting has changed. It's no longer "open range" and access opportunities are very limited. Very large tracts of land are now owned by hunters, resident and NR alike. Their are few, if any, antlerless deer... taken on this ground, in effect creating huge sanctuaries.

Mr Suchy you have a tough situation in SE Iowa and I'm afraid you will have to come up with some tougher policies. We can all talk about QDM, takeing does, leaving young bucks...but quite frankly MOST people around me aren't listening...AT ALL!!

Every night my wife drives all the way home from work 45 mph running the gauntlet of deer dashing across the road. Our neighbor has hit 3 deer within a 1/4 mile of our drive way. For most here its' not IF you have hit a deer...but how many!
The crops on our farm are severely damaged each year. So I understand all sides of this issue.
I east sleep and drink big whitetails, I'm a landowner and I take my does in October when the weather is nice. There is no way in this world that I will let others hunt my land in Nov. when I bow hunt nor in the late season when they might take a buck that has shed. The only time I would consider it, would be during shotgun if certain days we're antlerless only.
Obviously you don't have any confidence that the changes made during 2005 will have any legitimate effect or you wouldn't be throwing out ideas for new changes...already.
All I can tell you...from someone who lives in the heart of a "problem" county...it isn't working and it's not going to work. If you have even the slightest doubts...come take a drive with me after the last season!
No one, most likely including me, is going to like any serious possible solutions...but I suspect we will all adjust and get over it.
I will send a letter to my Rep's and attend meetings as well.
Goodluck!
 
I agree with DBLTREE. The LANDOWNERS FREE TAGS NEED TO BE ANTLERLESS!! AT least for a couple of years. There is NO REVENUE LOSS, free tags, and the tag goes directly after the problem. If you have an antlerless tag in possesion during the regular season then the INTENT will be to shoot does. Rarely do you find a buck that has dropped during shotgun season or late muzzleloader. In the southern counties give them 2 or 3 free landowner antlerless. And also in the southern counties, are these farmers with reported crop damage to the DNR being charged for depredation tags??
 
[ QUOTE ]
And also in the southern counties, are these farmers with reported crop damage to the DNR being charged for depredation tags??

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes and there are forms that need to be filled out to get them. My take is that the DNR wants the farmer to enlist the help of other hunters rather than "fixing" the problem themselves. The farmer can give the forms to hunters who fill them out, include a check and mail them off. In theory, this doesn't cost the farmer any money and opens hunting oppurtunities for the general public. If the hunter is successful, he has to fill out a harvest report. I feel the paperwork bogs this approach down (besides the cost).
 
Tracker

I don't have any real numbers but I can't beleive that making all land owner tages antlerless could have any real impact. I don't know if you are aware, but currently of the 3 land owner tags available only one can be any sex. Land owners can get a doe tag for the shotgun seasons and one for the January late season and one any sex for any other season, then they must buy tags for the same prices and restrictions as anyone else. I also would hazard to guess that way over half of the free anysex tags go on anterless deer anyway, at least that has been what we have done for years. I don't think we should restrict a person hunting on their own land from shooting a deer that they have probably raised right along with the buck that you would want to shoot also.

Iowaqdm
One thing I have been impressed with about this whole post is that for the most part folks have been sharing real ideas and suggestions and not just blasting each other or the DNR. We might not always agree on all points but to get any where we need to be rational and positive in our approach as this post shows we can be. Maybe this post can help take the blinders off us and even some within the DNR and present another solution to the problem instead of just adding seasons and selling more tags.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have any real numbers but I can't beleive that making all land owner tages antlerless could have any real impact. I don't know if you are aware, but currently of the 3 land owner tags available only one can be any sex. Land owners can get a doe tag for the shotgun seasons and one for the January late season and one any sex for any other season, then they must buy tags for the same prices and restrictions as anyone else. I also would hazard to guess that way over half of the free anysex tags go on anterless deer anyway, at least that has been what we have done for years. I don't think we should restrict a person hunting on their own land from shooting a deer that they have probably raised right along with the buck that you would want to shoot also

[/ QUOTE ]


couldn't have said that better myself
 
Good point bowmaker. I too have nothing to base numbers on. I was just going off the theory that if they were 100 percent antlerless tags, they would have to be used 100 percent against antlerless deer. It would be an interesting poll, can a moderator or someone start a poll to see how people have used their landowner tags this year. Give the options of buck, doe, or unused. I'm curious....
 
My thoughts on the landowner tags were not to eliminate the anydeer tag but rather then pay $12 each for the 2 extra antlerless tags, give them ALL out for 2 bucks and charge 24 for the anydeer. It would only offer to change mindset and not likely have any effect on the overall situation.
I beleive when all is said an done we will find that Mr Suchy has only one viable option that will have the desired large scale effect being sought and one that many would prefer not to mention.
I beleive you will see the first day of shotgun season being changed to antlerless only...for starters, perhaps eventually the whole weekend. I can only hazard a guess....
He knows that many hunters will applaud such a move and those that don't will get over it.
As Patty Loveless sings "lifes about changing...nuthin ever stays the same......
 
Bowmaker,
I couldn't agree with you more. This kind of dialog will hopefully solve all our problems without making land access issues worse.
 
$1 antlerless, increased HUSH support, landowner access bonus bucks.
 
I go up to Upper Michagan every year and Deer Hunt they have QDM areas, maybe we should look a some areas where there are less deer as QDM zone Six point or better?

And the areas that need more does taken make the tag $ 12.00 you'll sell more that way.

For some at $27.00 for the first tag they may only want to buy one tag because of the cost (one doe out of the herd) at $12.00 that same hunter may buy two for $ 24.00 (takes two out of the herd) you'd lose - $ 3.00 from the old system but more does harvested.
 
I think we should ask the insurance industry to comment here or invite them to publish their stance. Maybe a dialogue with them would help both sides as I could see negotiations that would help all involved- DNR, farmers, insurance, drivers, & hunters but all need to be ready to bargain.
 
WJS - I keep seeing one phrase in the cons section of your options that jumps out at me "loss of revenue". What is the revenue number that the state is trying to acheive anyway? It can only be considered a loss if we are benchmarking it against a set number that we want to acheive. So if this kind of logic is what deters us from being able to make sound decisions then , no offense meant to you, we would be better off having an accountant controlling this situation then a qualified biologist. Does this make sense to anyone else? Why do we continue to pay are representatives money to debate a solution to a simple problem? Why are we even worrying about what a tag should cost? That would be like charging someone who is on fire for a water hose! Deer population is not the biggest problem. Our problem stems from the lack of intelligence guiding the system. If we can't use common sense and take care of the problem then lower the prices for god's sake. Just quit trying to tell us how we all should be responsible and kill more does and then turn around cater to those who promote Iowa Trophy hunting like it is the "norm" everywhere here in Iowa. I apologize for being cranky. I will stop when I make a enough money to buy 1000 acres of hunting ground in Monroe County!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Why are we even worrying about what a tag should cost?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the legislature will not fund the fish and wildlife division of the DNR with tax dollars. When Joe Taxpayer funds it instead of Joe Hunter/Fisherman, then maybe wjs wont need to worry about what those tags cost. It is an unfortunate system, but they and we are stuck with it.
Still, cheap doe tags will encourage people to shoot more of them. Catch 22.
 
Outfitter any sex Depredation tags, That's the ticket. Maybe like 50/outfit?
grin.gif
 
With the deer population epidemic that the "whole state" is experiencing it would seem logical that the entire state help to take care of the problem. (financially) So in short your point is well stated. I don't want to come across to harsh yet I do think we are dealing with a very large problem that starts at the State House. I realize most of the people who enjoy this forum truly want to focus on the joy of deer hunting, me included, but I feel that if we continue to be snowballed into believing that deer populations are too high when we don't have a scientifically sufficient way of calculating the numbers it is useless for us to buy more tags. The reason it is useless is that as long as the state thinks there is potential revenue, unfortunately necessary according to the fact that we the hunters are apparently responsible for taking care of the DNR Wildlife Division, then they will never do anything to back off the sale of deer tags. My only hope is that there are enough educated intelligent people out there who a responsible hunters and are people who are willing to take a stand for what is truly right. Most of us spend well over $75 - $100 annually on hunting licences. Think about how many other people you know who do the same. Now, figure how much money is being generated as revenue by the state and ask yourself just how easy it was for them to make it? Would you allow the state to assess income taxes to you based on rough prediction such as deer harvest counts? What if when you were expecting a state tax refund how does a close guess sound when it comes to getting you your correct refund? It is our responsibility to ask these tough questions. Willy is in a tough spot when it comes to this situation. He has to take it from both ends. I do respect the fact that he took time to attend the fall festival for the IBA this summer and also for his participation on this forum. I guess as a whole I figure we need to have all these issues remain very visible. Hunting as we know it is changing right before our very eyes. It is turning into the rich man's sport and the state is taking advantage of it and us. If we all spent as much time upholding the values and traditions of ethical hunting as we do just hanging our treestands in the year we would all be better off.
 
Isn't it funny how the tag costs alone. I can go to Missouri and shoot an out of state antlerless cheaper than I can shoot a resident antlerless here? Yes I did fill an antlerless tag this year ~ If you want me to shoot more lower the price. I have more than I can eat with the 2 tags I purchased. Maryland allows all the does you can shoot for $5 ea.

The extra seasons and new seasons are a joke. All they are are a fundraiser for the DNR pockets. When we got checked during shotgun season. We talked about the tags being one piece instead of two as in the past. My statement to the Adair Co DNR officer was "Go back to spliting the tags in 2 halves and make one an any-sex one an antlerless only." His reply, "Never happen, They won't make enough money."

Money for what? Do they really think that the hunters will go out and shoot antlerless only? This is what will have to happen if the population continues to get out of control. The DNR thinks that they could simply have an antlerless only year ~ Most hunters I know ~ simply won't go or the poaching that is already out of control will only get worse.

I do agree that all landowners tags and depredation tags should be antlerless only. They get free or reduced tags to cut the herd. Yet how many of them fill them with that "BIG buck" on their land so they can hunt wherever with the any-sex tag.
 
Here is another one for all of the hunters out there.

Make the antlerless tags good starting October 1st and good until the last day of the last season. As long as you take the antlerless with the proper weapon, it is a legal kill. Bowhunters could use the same tag during shotgun season to get it filled.

Only 2 issues with this. By doing so more antlerless tags would be filled, less would be purchased. Goes back to the money thing for the DNR. Second, The IA DNR won't be able to tell State Farm Insurance that they sold 1500 antlerless tags for Dallas Co, 1500 antlerless tags for Adair Co, or 2000 antlerless tags for Guthrie Co. See this makes them look good in the eyes of big business, what it doesn't tell them is maybe there were 300 antlerless killed in Dallas Co.

It all goes back to politics and money. Someone please tell me I am wrong, but I don't see any other reason for why it is set up the way it is.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The IA DNR won't be able to tell State Farm Insurance that they sold 1500 antlerless tags for Dallas Co, 1500 antlerless tags for Adair Co,

[/ QUOTE ]

in adair county, they have barely sold half the antlerless tags in the past. what do they to to remedy the situation? raise the antlerless tag quota. the DNR refuses to do anything constructive to solve the problem, if it comes at the expense of losing a dollar
 
teeroy,
You hit the nail on the head. As I posted previously, when I talked to the director of the DNR all he could say was the DNR could raise all kinds of money by increasing the number of NR tags. If the DNR had their way they would let 20,000 more NR in just to line their pockets. And so they can increase their budget each year. They could care less if the average resident couldn't hunt because every tree in the state had been leased or was owned by NR's.
mad.gif
Let alone how many does were harvested in any given county. If they were truely interested in decreasing the herd they could give away the doe tags in counties where there are problems and in two years would have the populations under control with the exception of the land not accessable due to being leased by outfitters or owned by NR's/residents not allowing others to hunt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom