So your only agenda is to keep stirring a pot you don't even care about. Tell me; do you own farm land in Iowa? Or just a liberal who believes everybody is entitled to do as they please where they please.
I'm a conservative, that owns his own hunting property, that believes the real threat to hunting quality and equality is close minded people like you. I'm not encouraging using tanks and artillery to hunt deer. I'm supporting the opportunity for others to use pistol ammo in a rifle format.
Landowners don't seem to have an issue with rifles being used to hunt coyotes.
I don't know of any farmers who allow coyote hunting during deer season. Wait if you don't live on the land; you probably don't care. I keep forgetting about the recreational landowners! Where about is your land? I believe my farm is real close to where you describe in eastern Iowa.
Don't blur the lines. Every farmer I know wouldn't care if you used napalm to deer hunt, as long as you killed as many as you see.
I own a combination of rec and ag ground, and live on the property, not that it is any of your business.
I beg to differ. I've farmed my whole life on the same farm. Every farmer in my area has a deep concern about their land and everything on it. That includes who is on the land and what they are doing. I guess maybe you aren't that close to my farm! Sorry you have such a skewed out look on farmers and hunting. That certainly explains a lot!
Let me clarify, the napalm comment was meant in jest (I thought that would be obvious). 99% of the farmers I know (I grew up on a farm and am still very active in the ag community) want as many deer shot off their land as possible. No joke, no exaggeration. I'm am very certain they would not care about rifles being used to hunt deer on their property. They know who is allowed on their properties, and I highly doubt they are currently allowing someone to hunt their land that is too unethical, untrustworthy, unsafe, pic your description, to hunt safely with whatever legal weapon they currently use.
What area in Iowa is this? I'm sure many who belong on this forum would love to get permission from these farmers. It must be between Dubuque and Davenport! You'd be doing everyone a favor!
This is giving me a headache. You are either a good troll, or not very intelligent. Either way, you have no reading comprehension.
There is a difference between wanting all the deer shot, and letting any Joe Blow on their property to hunt.
I'm done with this for today. Have a great weekend.
Is there any correlation between tinfoil and tin roof?
I don't see eye to eye with tin roof or anyone else that supports this bill. I could argue with specific points, but it won't do any good.
I moved to Iowa because Iowa was different. It is the promise land for an avid whitetail guy or gal. Anything that gets us closer to where I came from, I will oppose. Do I think this law all by itself makes much difference?; probably not.
That being said, as they say, The best predictor of future behavior is … past behavior.
This bill is a stepping stone to future proposed expansion of rifle cartridges. LOOK AROUND AT OTHER STATES. I would be absolutely happy to eat crow on that. I would also bet a lot I am right.
THAT... is one step closer to everyone else. Why can't we keep Iowa special? Seems like a worthy goal.
For one Joe, one of three things is going to happen.
1. Hunters stand together to push back future expansion of weapons, seasons, etc and keep Iowa special. This would be great.
2. Somehow get a big enough place where regardless of what happens I can somewhat insulate myself from short sighted, herd quality damaging regulations to protect the DNRs deer that live in my neck of the woods
Or
3. Iowa turns to the next state that use to have good hunting and I reflect on a time that was or just throw in the towel and move to Alaska and learn to hunt grizzly bears (tongue and check but you get the point)
Any of this happen overnight? Nope, but a lot could change in well under a decade with some more stupid regulations.
I moved to Iowa because Iowa was different. It is the promise land for an avid whitetail guy or gal. Anything that gets us closer to where I came from, I will oppose. Do I think this law all by itself makes much difference?; probably not.
That being said, as they say, The best predictor of future behavior is … past behavior.
This bill is a stepping stone to future proposed expansion of rifle cartridges. LOOK AROUND AT OTHER STATES. I would be absolutely happy to eat crow on that. I would also bet a lot I am right.
THAT... is one step closer to everyone else. Why can't we keep Iowa special? Seems like a worthy goal.
For one Joe, one of three things is going to happen.
1. Hunters stand together to push back future expansion of weapons, seasons, etc and keep Iowa special. This would be great.
2. Somehow get a big enough place where regardless of what happens I can somewhat insulate myself from short sighted, herd quality damaging regulations to protect the DNRs deer that live in my neck of the woods
Or
3. Iowa turns to the next state that use to have good hunting and I reflect on a time that was or just throw in the towel and move to Alaska and learn to hunt grizzly bears (tongue and check but you get the point)
Any of this happen overnight? Nope, but a lot could change in well under a decade with some more stupid regulations.
Oct-Lull
Well-Known Member
First off I seriously disagree about 99% of farmers wanting as many deer possible killed. Actually this day and age unless it's corporate that's a rare view. There are some, guy next to me wants deer eliminated on land he rents and let's no hunters on his own? Go figure. Not a fan of this overall, like most the bill itself in this form isn't really a big deal, but maybe it will lead to more.... I Don't know that rifles will become widespread do to population issues but who knows. Crossbows are worse in my mind. Things like magazine limits (for shotguns as well) party hunting and the potential to kill 3+ bucks a year are important issues as well. I think the number one thing killing our sport is money. Money in real estate, antlers, racks, clothing, guns, bows....Etc. piece by piece Iowa is being bought up for deer hunting and deer hunting only, it may get rented and farmed but that's only because many have to in order to own it. As it get purchased it get closed up. Millionaires buy huge farms and stockpile deer with limited hunting to film hunts or show off. There is so much wrong with where we are headed. I think back to the late 90's early 2000's when anybody asked to shed hunt said " you want to what?" No one knew, no one cared, no one said no. Big deer where fewer but man those days were fun! I am 36 and I have seen alot of change in just the 20 years I've been in the game. I feel bad my kids probably won't know that joy, won't even be able to run around in the woods with there kids unless they find a way to own something. Sad
I farm. I love deer. I own farms. Tons and tons of guys like me. Let's hypothetically say every farmer wants all deer killed (in reality - yes, farm bureau & other special interests literally do what this!).... what happens when the farmers who "hate deer" are farming in areas where it's gone from 10-20% ownership by hunters to 50-75%.... now u have real situations where the majority of landowners don't want the deer wiped out or beaten to a pulp for quality vs what some politicians & special interests want. So - no, farmers don't want deer wiped out & the most lucrative farming in wide open N Iowa has section after section without a tree standing so they are not seeing "deer problems" or even deer period.
Let me put it to u how it is, good or bad, right or wrong or indifferent..... there will be a DIRECT CORRELATION to more people buying up land, locking it down & protecting it each year that goes by with any further liberal regulation change. I'm 100% sure of this and we've seen in over the past 20 years. 10 especially. So.... my point.... all this BS about "more opportunity for everyone" being the supposed reason for more weapons and seasons (bs again) - it has the OPPOSITE result: less opportunity across the state every year. This is not that hard to comprehend and think through. We've all seen it and continue to. So- if we made one adjustment on the "type of regulations" thrown out each year- how bout we focus the next decade on access issues and not pushing everything to accommodate every single "entitled" minority requirement to kill deer!????!
I still can't believe no one has been posting like crazy to invest in my idea on page 4!!! "THE ROBO HUNTING BUDDY" (TM, patent pending, all rights reserved) - come on guys- this is the hunting of the future!!!
Let me put it to u how it is, good or bad, right or wrong or indifferent..... there will be a DIRECT CORRELATION to more people buying up land, locking it down & protecting it each year that goes by with any further liberal regulation change. I'm 100% sure of this and we've seen in over the past 20 years. 10 especially. So.... my point.... all this BS about "more opportunity for everyone" being the supposed reason for more weapons and seasons (bs again) - it has the OPPOSITE result: less opportunity across the state every year. This is not that hard to comprehend and think through. We've all seen it and continue to. So- if we made one adjustment on the "type of regulations" thrown out each year- how bout we focus the next decade on access issues and not pushing everything to accommodate every single "entitled" minority requirement to kill deer!????!
I still can't believe no one has been posting like crazy to invest in my idea on page 4!!! "THE ROBO HUNTING BUDDY" (TM, patent pending, all rights reserved) - come on guys- this is the hunting of the future!!!
Ishi
PMA Member
I came home from work and I seen the hunters behind my house. I walked into the house before going to the shop and my wife said the house got hit cause the house shook. I laugh at her and said ya right. She came out to the shop several times that night and said she was sure the house was hit.
The next day my son found the hole after school right before I came home from work. I called the neighbor to see who was hunting there after I found out who the group was I called the leader of the group.
He explained that a member only shot one time then asked what's up. I told him that the house was hit.. silence fell over the phone. Once I found out who it was then I knew it was a true accident as this guy wouldn't hurt a fly plus I worked for him a few summers putting up hay.
He came I over a few nights later and said it wasn't him that cause it so I dropped it.
Long story short he wasn't where he thought he was when he shot. He was 50 yards further west so that put my house in the line of fire.
The next Sunday after lunch I went to find the casing and the entry hole showed the direction where he was standing. Sure enough there was one lone shell casing 50 yards over the hill but 50 yards west of where he thought he was.
So the display hangs in the shop to remind hunters that accidents can happen. Some notice it and others don't but if they do notice it they ask is that what I think it is..... then I have to explain it all over again
If you line up my house and the pond that was where the casing was found.
Well, bow hunters get the best part of the rut to hunt, we now have muzzle loaders than can reach out past 500 yards, and Iowa shoots and kills more people year over year doing deer drives than all of the states around us so it's not a surprise that it's coming. The US Army did a major study a few years ago that shows the ricochet danger from high power hunting bullets is actually lower than traditional shotgun slugs, it makes sense when you think it through, the big rifled slugs at modest velocities skip along the ground and high velocity rifle bullets shatter on first impact. If downrange risk is an issue, then we should mandate buckshot near urban areas.
It's area specific, and I agree, those areas are out there where owners that want the deer killed border land that is being managed. I'm sure it makes for some interesting conversations.
And keep in mind, my comment said "farmers I know". Everyone is jumping to generalize that into meaning every farmer in Iowa. I do realize there are farmers out there that do care about managing the deer herd, but I'm willing to bet they are nowhere near the majority state wide. Trust me, there are areas in this state where the farmers want the deer shot, period. I know that isn't the case everywhere. My 99% estimate may be a little strong, as I sit here typing this I ran through a list in my head of all the farmers within 10 miles of me, and roughly 75-80% would fall into that category. I'm not including "farmers" that bought land to hunt and rent out the tillable. I'm talking guys that own and work their land as a career. Controlling crop loss is much more important to these guys than seeing a mature buck. Unfortunately, a lot of that damage is done by turkeys and coon, but they don't get any of the credit.People will be buying land so they can control it regardless of any regulation changes, and even if you are right, it will be a very small if not unnoticeable uptick in land purchases that will directly correlate to this. The increase in the upcoming years will be due more to land prices trending down than anything else.
Land access definitely is going to be a big issue in this state regardless of any regulation changes that may or may not happen in the next 5-10 years. That's why I bought my property years ago as soon as I could even remotely afford it. So, how do we change that? How do we create more public access land? Do we try to encourage farmers to allow public access and use money from the DNR coffer to pay them a lease for this? Does the state start purchasing property on land auctions to add to public access areas? Iowa is a unique state land wise. It won't be very easy to come up with more state owned public access.
That's easy according to you. Ask permission to coyote hunt! God knows that farmers hate coyotes! I haven't spoken to a farmer in 30 yrs. who have lost livestock directly to coyotes. Then of course where you live the farmers want everything killed!
Here is the access issue in short... something like 99% of the land is privately owned. There's no way the state could go about buying land and even if it could, probably wouldn't change the issue as those lands would be decimated by the same liberal regulations that are the reason there's few places to go. So - private land is somehow, some way the only option if it's an option at all. Why do the vast majority of FARMERS say "no" if u knock on their door to hunt??? (& yes, it's an overwhelming majority in any neighborhood I know- access is really difficult). Well, it's simple "sorry, we already got some bow hunters and my family shotgun hunts" is a common answer for example. Or - "sorry, the gun groups got out of control and we have livestock and have had a lot of issues in the past". That's a very common reply I've heard. Or "we leased it out to a group that wants to manage the land and make sure they have a spot for their family & friends that's got good quality hunting". Whatever. The farms are full of hunters right now. Full. When you can't get access and demand is higher than the supply- that's a simple issue we all can understand is a big problem. 6% timber in this state and a small deer herd vs neighboring states- we're not talking about a few million acres of forest like our northern friends have.
So- why has access dropped rapidly over the last 10 years, probably more so than the 10 before that? There's been a "good amount of deer" this whole time. So what's changed???? Could it be things like: More hunters and pressure? - More liberal seasons like the late shed buck season, thanksgiving season. - Could there be far more bowhunters than 10-20 years ago? How about 2 shotgun seasons, early ML, late ML, youth season & bow season: a total of 6 deer seasons. 4 months to hunt. 5 weapons now. Could those things have anything to do with this???? Of course. So what do we do "we need more seasons, more weapons, more opportunity " and all we do is create less opportunity with this same tired and tried path of foolishness by politicians and special interests. You wanna provide "opportunity for youth"- tighten things up so there's the best quality deer resource managed effectively by the state regulations so everyone has a chance to hunt great deer with healthy #'s and age class. Is the one buck rule a solution? Possibly & would be a huge help. Is there a vast array of other options to think about & debate: of course.
More weapons, seasons and accodating every single entitled minority need & request while we have 6 seasons, 5 weapons and 4 months will just keep us in the trajectory we've been for a Dacade or more... less deer, less access, "less quality deer herd" & less opportunity for almost everyone. That's the reality we've seen before our eyes for many years. The politicians, special interests and "convenience hunters" that will support anything more & new we throw out there is our biggest threat to access and opportunity, imo.
So, eliminating seasons, limiting weapons, and lowering the overall number of hunters is the solution to land access? I'm kidding, I get what you are saying.
This current bill aside, I agree that we have been teetering on the brink of needing a complete reset regarding deer hunting. That late season was an absolutely terrible idea. The Thanksgiving season served the purpose they were looking for, clearing out a pile of does, but I was glad to see that go too.
The one buck rule I could get onboard with. The season layout of early muzz, bow, shot gun 1 & 2, late muzz I don't have an issue with. I don't see the need for a youth only season, there is plenty of opportunity to get them out during the regular seasons.