Iowa Non-Resident Tags

[muddy]

Wow, weird double posting

[Spysar]

Most guys I know, myself included, will email every single state Rep against unlimited non res tags.

Why would you do that? How about using some of that e mail energy to stop those governors tags?

I think for a state that says there are too many deer(regional), and allows party hunting, and residents that are allowed several bucks, they should allow more non resident tags.

[MOBIGBUCKS]

I think Iowa is doing things perfectly to manage the amount of NR into the state. If they would just go to a one buck a year system they would be perfect. However, their killing of does indiscriminately during the late january has to be cut back. I do not think Iowa is overpopulated the way the DNR thinks or says it is.

[Dabowhunter]

The way I understood it, they would keep the current system and quotas but introduce the guaranteed tag for the additional price. As it is now with the 50 per year point fees, the typical 3-4 years need to draw a tag will cost you 690-740 dollars in all.
Other states like montana already have similar plans in place. This way they make more money while maintaining the quotas the same. So if this were implemented, it would put those that wait for their points to kick in further down the list. So one could probably end up waiting an extra year.

[muddy]

Why would you do that? How about using some of that e mail energy to stop those governors tags?

I think for a state that says there are too many deer(regional), and allows party hunting, and residents that are allowed several bucks, they should allow more non resident tags.

Why? Well, as soon as they allow everyone to come hunt, they will and we'll be over run with non residents. I'm sorry but that's just my personal opinion, I don't want that because it's pretty sweet bowhunting without having to worry about another pile of guys on the public land I hunt. Thousands of more non residents will be coming to hammer one thing, bucks bucks and more bucks, and that will degrade the trophy quality of the state in general. The majority of non res hunters that come to Iowa could give 2 dead cats to shoot a doe. I do not mean to offend ya Spy, seriously, but when you came down here this last year did you shell out the extra cash for a doe tag and fill it? I honestly cannot remember so again, no offense intended, I'm simply asking a question.

The governors tags will never go away, ever. Too much media exposure from the "pros" and that brings in the $$$... or so they say. We have tried to get rid of governors tags for years, they are here to stay.

Party hunting will never ever go away either. It's tradition, if state reps tried to propose getting rid of it they would be voted out next term plain and simple. Same goes with if they tried to make it a 1 buck a year state.

Those are my opinions, just remember I'm in the minority here so don't hammer me too bad.

[muddy]

I think Iowa is doing things perfectly to manage the amount of NR into the state. If they would just go to a one buck a year system they would be perfect. However, their killing of does indiscriminately during the late january has to be cut back. I do not think Iowa is overpopulated the way the DNR thinks or says it is.

If they tried to knock it back to 1 buck a year there would be upheaval.

I also agree, a lot of areas of the state are seeing fewer and fewer does, the bowhunter survey cards that are sent out are showing this. They are lowering quotas in many counties. The problem counties are one that have huge land leasing operations by outfitters, big areas of land owned by non residents who won't let anyone on their ground, and big chunks of ground owned by a couple guys who only shoot bucks. The past few years I personally have noticed huge drops in doe numbers.

[Hodag Hunter]

I agree with everything you posted Muddy.

"It's" IA's to do with as they please.....do I wish tags were cheaper, why yes ........... do we all want IA to turn into WI, great trophy potential but a slew of hunters, I'm guessing no...........over crowded public land with private lease rates skyrocketing like Buffalo county, again guessing no........or another Pike co. Ill where "50" outfitters pop up out of no where to makea quick buck?

For me going to IA to bowhunt whitetails is a privelage and something to look forward to and save for. Kind of like WI's bear hunting and preference points.....off topic but do believe by limiting tags it has helped grow some whopper bears here in WI. Just think that 9-10 years is a little long...maybe 4-5 years per kill tag.

If the draw was every year (similar if IA let unlimited non-residents) would the quality of animals stay consistantly high?

[Dor]

I agree with everything you posted Muddy.

"It's" IA's to do with as they please.....do I wish tags were cheaper, why yes ........... do we all want IA to turn into WI, great trophy potential but a slew of hunters, I'm guessing no...........over crowded public land with private lease rates skyrocketing like Buffalo county, again guessing no........or another Pike co. Ill where "50" outfitters pop up out of no where to makea quick buck?

For me going to IA to bowhunt whitetails is a privelage and something to look forward to and save for. Kind of like WI's bear hunting and preference points.....off topic but do believe by limiting tags it has helped grow some whopper bears here in WI. Just think that 9-10 years is a little long...maybe 4-5 years per kill tag.

If the draw was every year (similar if IA let unlimited non-residents) would the quality of animals stay consistantly high?

Well stated!

[magicman54494]

Though I understand the economics of the situation, I think it's bad for hunting in general. Many hunters won't be able to afford to hunt Iowa and these prices pretty much destroy the family hunt option. (which is bad for everyone) I think hunting is heading in the wrong direction fast. As prices continue to rise hunter numbers will fall, and though a handful of people and state governments may profit now, the industry will suffer and the economic impact as well. As the prices rise and hunter numbers drop the opertunity for anti hunters to end hunting increases. It's up to the hunters to hold a balance between cost and quality hunting opertunities to allow future generations to enjoy the sport we love. Greed is destroying hunting as we once knew it.

[tim]

well said magicman. my question is this what is the real reason for governor tags, if it is really to promote the sport than why would you want to promote a sport then limit the amount of hunters/tags. these dont really jive well together, last time i checked there wasnt a problem getting people to hunt iowa, so to say governor tags are to promote the great state of iowa or promote the sport of hunting or whatever blah blah blah, its a loophole for the big named hunters to be able to hunt every year plain and simple. nobody ever wants to tell it like it is but thats what i see. 400, 500, 900 etc... where does it stop and when is everyone not ok with prices increasing when they personally cant afford it. so if i can afford to drop 3,000 a year on an out of state license is that ok or maybe 10,000. that sounds ludacris but im sure so does 500 to the old timers from 30 or 40 years ago that barely paid anything to hunt. remember there will always be someone willing to pay any price that doesnt mean its ok. it only hurts those that cant.

[MOBIGBUCKS]

I think Iowa is doing things perfectly to manage the amount of NR into the state. If they would just go to a one buck a year system they would be perfect. However, their killing of does indiscriminately during the late january has to be cut back. I do not think Iowa is overpopulated the way the DNR thinks or says it is.

If they tried to knock it back to 1 buck a year there would be upheaval.

I also agree, a lot of areas of the state are seeing fewer and fewer does, the bowhunter survey cards that are sent out are showing this. They are lowering quotas in many counties. The problem counties are one that have huge land leasing operations by outfitters, big areas of land owned by non residents who won't let anyone on their ground, and big chunks of ground owned by a couple guys who only shoot bucks. The past few years I personally have noticed huge drops in doe numbers.

Hey Muddy,

In your opinion, why do you think there would be such an upheaval over just a one buck limit? It can only help Iowa's fantastic genetics. KS has this and it is one of the main reasons they have big deer there; However, it is going down hill because they are allowing too many NR into the state....Exactly what Iowa needs to avoid. This is coming from a NR that goes over and hunts, but wants the quality of hunting to stay good.

[Hodag Hunter]

I can hear what Magic and Tim are saying.....IA can still limit the number of tags "preserving" the state of overcrowding non-residents and keep the fees low.

Like I said before I do wish the fee was lower but not much a guy can do when there is such a huge demand for limited number of tags available. Like it or not (for the record I don't like it but accept it for now) it is supply and demand. The state could use the money and plenty of folks are willing to pay the fee.

Each and everyone of us makes personnel decisions everyday regarding where we spend our money. What is worth big bucks to someone else isn't worth me walking across the street to get it for free. Ex.....Some guys pay huge private fees to golf a certain golf courses.....they could just golf at the public courses but they choose to save and pay the high fee the course is asking. If the private club raises the price to high and many members drop out, well they will have to lower the price to draw members back. It's the same with IA's deer hunting. Untill the hunters ban together and stop buyin tags the fees will slowly keep rising. It sucks for the little guy, and i am a little guy, just hope the tag price hits a plateau soon.

[huntinnurse]

I agree with Muddy, magic and Tim. I said enough is enough 2 yrs ago and I have 2 points (got them before they were $50). I coulda got a tag last year and could this year, but, I refuse to pay the high $$$ for the tag. If I am gonna spend that kind of money for the tag and the rest of the costs for the hunt, I would prefer to go to Lanai, Alaska, Canada, New Zealand, or Maine or a few other places for another bear hunt. Some place a little harder(meaning taking planning & saving)/farther to get to where the game I want isn't also in my backyard. But, that is my preference and choice. Everyone has their own and like someone said, we all make a choice where we want to spend our hard earned $$$.
I wonder how the flooding that is about to happen along the Miss. is gonna effect the hunting/land and deer along that area. Will it bounce back to normal by hunting season, or will there be enough damage that it will take longer to recover?

[Uncle Lou]

Lot of good points from Muddy and non-residents. I think if IA gets the number of NR hunters they want at that price, they could experiment with higher prices. If they see a decline in NR hunters, and want more, they may bring them back down.

If some really want to hunt IA and this price is truely to high, write the IA Dnr a letter to let them know why you wont be coming or applying.

[lungbuster]

Lot of good points from Muddy and non-residents. I think if IA gets the number of NR hunters they want at that price, they could experiment with higher prices. If they see a decline in NR hunters, and want more, they may bring them back down.

True, i think it is a supply and demand formula and if the demand drops and they end up with surplus tags they will have to lower the prices for non-res. tags.