Iowa public trust resource for sale

[trackerbacker]

You posts and arguments are ridiculous. I won't tell someone they are wrong for thinking legalizing crossbows during archery season is worth any potential decline hunting quality. They just value things differently than I do.

Since you want to demonize people for safeguarding what most believe to be the best resident whitetail hunting setup in the country, where would you draw the line on opportunity? Should they be stop being so unfair to gun hunters and let people hunt with rifles Oct-January?

youre moving goal posts here.

make up a number, 100. for archery season, 100 deer can be taken. whats it matter if they are taken with a recurve, a compound or a crossbow? 100 are still taken

how does saying for those 100 deer, 0 can be taken with a crossbow, yet 100 will still be taken, safeguard the deer? it doesnt.

for the last paragraph, if they determine 100 deer can be taken, outside of separate seasons for youth/first timers/apprentice-esque, id draw the line at any legal method with proven efficacy for take. as noted, i dont agree with their 35cal logic.

as far as the last sentence, it wouldnt bother me if they said except for youth seasons sprinkled about, heres your normal tag allotment per any any legal weapon, you can hunt any legal weapon and its corresponding tag xdate - xdate except for the sprinkles mentioned.

mind you, im not an archery/muzzleloader, so i dont look at it, but all seasons and methods and bonus seasons (excluding landowners and such), you can get what, 5-7 tags? so if i can get 5-7 tags, and they are assigned this for anterless, this for gun, this for that, whats its matter the if you harvested a deer dec 2nd or december 3rd?

id even go as far to say i wouldnt care if they said heres your 5-7 deer tags, have fun please report your harvest, for biological reasons, 3 must be doe or anterless or whatever, enjoy!

and on the term safeguarding, please tell me how limiting weapon selection safeguards an animal that you are buying a tag to kill said safeguarded animal?

or is it because a crossbow may introduce someone to hunting that wouldnt normally go archey with a compound/recurve/etc, thus adding 1 more hunter to the mix? i

 

[Wind Gypsy]

youre moving goal posts here.

make up a number, 100. for archery season, 100 deer can be taken. whats it matter if they are taken with a recurve, a compound or a crossbow? 100 are still taken

how does saying for those 100 deer, 0 can be taken with a crossbow, yet 100 will still be taken, safeguard the deer? it doesnt.

for the last paragraph, if they determine 100 deer can be taken, outside of separate seasons for youth/first timers/apprentice-esque, id draw the line at any legal method with proven efficacy for take. as noted, i dont agree with their 35cal logic.

as far as the last sentence, it wouldnt bother me if they said except for youth seasons sprinkled about, heres your normal tag allotment per any any legal weapon, you can hunt any legal weapon and its corresponding tag xdate - xdate except for the sprinkles mentioned.

mind you, im not an archery/muzzleloader, so i dont look at it, but all seasons and methods and bonus seasons (excluding landowners and such), you can get what, 5-7 tags? so if i can get 5-7 tags, and they are assigned this for anterless, this for gun, this for that, whats its matter the if you harvested a deer dec 2nd or december 3rd?

id even go as far to say i wouldnt care if they said heres your 5-7 deer tags, have fun please report your harvest, for biological reasons, 3 must be doe or anterless or whatever, enjoy!

and on the term safeguarding, please tell me how limiting weapon selection safeguards an animal that you are buying a tag to kill said safeguarded animal?

or is it because a crossbow may introduce someone to hunting that wouldnt normally go archey with a compound/recurve/etc, thus adding 1 more hunter to the mix? i

Far as I know, there is no limit or quota to how many residents can get an archery or firearm buck tag so why are you talking about them?

 

[trackerbacker]

Far as I know, there is no limit or quota to how many residents can get an archery or firearm buck tag so why are you talking about

If I have a tag for archery, what does it matter if it's (deer) killed with a recurve, compound or crossbow?

How does that effect you, the hunter, if it was killed with a crossbow instead of recurve or compound?

How is being able to kill a deer with a recurve or compound but not a crossbow, safeguard the deer?

 

[Gellar]

If I have a tag for archery, what does it matter if it's (deer) killed with a recurve, compound or crossbow?

How does that effect you, the hunter, if it was killed with a crossbow instead of recurve or compound?

How is being able to kill a deer with a recurve or compound but not a crossbow, safeguard the deer?

I think the argument is and I think it has merit is If crossbows are legal for all it would increase hunter numbers during archery and increase the success rate. Therefore lowering the quality and quantity of the herd and possibly having to implement quotas on licenses or harvest. Many counties in Iowa are not abundant with deer, yes the eastern side of the state is but as you move west and northwest the deer populations are not as strong. Look at the number of antlerless tags that are issued in those counties.

 

[trackerbacker]

I think the argument is and I think it has merit is If crossbows are legal for all it would increase hunter numbers during archery and increase the success rate. Therefore lowering the quality and quantity of the herd and possibly having to implement quotas on licenses or harvest.

I get that, but what's that based on, emotions and conjecture?

I'll try to email or ring up Kevin baskins, iowa dnr, tomorrow and ask him why they think crossbows won't effect the deer population. Not sarcasm. I'll inquire where that answer is derived from, and we can then critique that response.



I'll ask him what safeguards are in place too, @Wind Gypsy

 

[Gellar]

I get that, but what's that based on, emotions and conjecture?

I'll try to email or ring up Kevin baskins, iowa dnr, tomorrow and ask him why they think crossbows won't effect the deer population. Not sarcasm. I'll inquire where that answer is derived from, and we can then critique that response.

View attachment 283935

I'll ask him what safeguards are in place too, @Wind Gypsy

I have not done this but Illinois and Wisconsin could be good studies. They have both had crossbows for a few years. It would not take much to see what crossbows are doing to harvest numbers and hunter numbers.

 

[trackerbacker]

I have not done this but Illinois and Wisconsin could be good studies. They have both had crossbows for a few years. It would not take much to see what crossbows are doing to harvest numbers and hunter numbers.

I VERY quickly sped read the wisconsin, and compound had a larger effect than crossbows, but crossbows timeline and in field perceptions of deer populations met at the same time, so it's a deceptive perception, my understanding.

I'll googlefu the illinois one later

 

[Pucky Freak]

tb, if you can set aside “crossbows” for a minute and consider the following:

1. IA state republican legislators are in bed with weapons manufacturers.
2. There is an endless march towards more seasons, more methods of take, more opportunity, in nearly every state.
3. Apart from nefarious influence #1, #2 is to make hunting more accessible and easier to get more people involved and “save” hunting.
4. Perhaps making hunting easy is a bad long-term strategy. Perhaps R3 is doing more harm than good.

Personally, I’m all for making hunting hard as petrified shit. A new generation of hunters that can very easily harvest big game makes for a bunch of lazy, uninvolved, detached, non-conservationists. I think 1% of the population who hump it to get an animal and know more about the natural world than anyone is far better for the face of hunting than 4% of us indoctrinated in instant gratification and social media.

Make the seasons shorter, fewer seasons, make the weapons more primitive, reduce motorized access…I’m open to any and all strategies to weed out all the softies.

I’m not anti-crossbow. I may buy one in a couple years as my daughter’s first weapon to hunt deer.

If you think we can just continue to add more weapons and seasons to hunting and it’s all going to be peachy keen, well, you’ve missed the forest for the trees.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I get that, but what's that based on, emotions and conjecture?

It's based on simple logic. How could one argue that more hunters with more effective weapons in a state like IA with relatively low pressure wouldn't result in more dead bucks?

I'll try to email or ring up Kevin baskins, iowa dnr, tomorrow and ask him why they think crossbows won't effect the deer population. Not sarcasm. I'll inquire where that answer is derived from, and we can then critique that response.

View attachment 283935

I'll ask him what safeguards are in place too, @Wind Gypsy

I'm not as familiar with the IA DNR but in MN "affecting the deer population" means total number of deer, full stop. They don't have a clue or look at what the buck to doe ratio is or if there is any age class balance. You could have 10 bucks for every 100 does with the oldest of those 10 bucks being a 3 YO and as long as there is good nutrition for the does and high fawn survival, then the DNR will tell you you have a healthy deer herd. Given a constant # of deer, there is a completely different quality of hunt when bucks:does is near 50:50 with a balanced age class vs 20:80 with any buck living past 2 being rare. The DNR I'm familiar would look at those populations as "not being affected" if they have the same # of deer.

I've looked at the WI numbers, more bucks get killed during archery season since they opened it up to crossbows and they have more hunting pressure during archery season than they would otherwise. They aren't eye opening #'s by any stretch but there is no way it doesn't impact quality of hunting in some areas. IIRC, buck harvest is maybe 10k higher with crossbows than I'd guess it would be without. In some areas there is probably no discernable impact to quality of hunting. But if 100 of those additional harvested bucks are in a somewhat concentrated area, it absolutely impacts the quality of hunting there.

I wouldn't expect your DNR to "safeguard" the quality (I.E. there is a good population of bucks with balanced age class on the landscape) of hunting. The residents have to demand it be that way or typically the farm bureau and industry lobbyists will take whatever they can with zero shits given.

IA residents have a golden thing going being able to shoot two bucks a year over the counter and maintain the quality hunting that exists there. It would be a shame to diminish either the quality and/or the OTC opportunity by continuing to make it easier to kill deer.

What IA does doesn't much impact my hunting. I'm just voicing my side from a state that doesn't have strong resident pushback to these kinds of things and sees the bucks get mowed down as soon as they get kicked from mama's tit because those bucks make up the majority of the male population.

 

[trackerbacker]

tb, if you can set aside “crossbows” for a minute and consider the following:

1. IA state republican legislators are in bed with weapons manufacturers.

Not denying the influence a Brownell etc has. R/D, I'm generally not in favor of lobbyist

2. There is an endless march towards more seasons, more methods of take, more opportunity, in nearly every state.

if the population can handle it, but I'd disagree at the speed inferred. Seasonally, when was the last change or addition? Last major reg change (I can think of) was rifle in shotgun. That was 5 years ago? I can't think of any big change besides that.

3. Apart from nefarious influence #1, #2 is to make hunting more accessible and easier to get more people involved and “save” hunting.

As noted, no disagreeing on 1. I don't think creep of any kind discussed makes it easier to get involved, as the "entry" has always been the same, there's just less restrictions to using what you may have already.

I will never be in favor of limiting access, involvement or use of public lands, so long as kind and courteous to the resources applies.

From the holy barbless fly fisherman to the leave no trace 4x4.

4. Perhaps making hunting easy is a bad long-term strategy. Perhaps R3 is doing more harm than good.

Outside of training deer to bury themselves, or fowl to run to and around the dog, nothing suggested makes hunting harder, what you want is to have less hunters having less opportunity.

Let me repeat, what you want, is less hunters with less opportunity or more restrictions on hunters to making the entry into hunting as difficult as possible.

I do not agree

Personally, I’m all for making hunting hard as petrified shit. A new generation of hunters that can very easily harvest big game makes for a bunch of lazy, uninvolved, detached, non-conservationists.

And how long are the lazy committed to anything, other than their couch?

You can make it as hard as you want to plan your hunt. How the next guy wants to hunt is not up for your approval

I think 1% of the population who hump it to get an animal and know more about the natural world than anyone is far better for the face of hunting than 4% of us indoctrinated in instant gratification and social media.

Not sure on the 1%/4%, where that comes from. What's good for the face of hunting is not "less hunters, less opportunity, barrier to entry" from hunters.

Make the seasons shorter, fewer seasons, make the weapons more primitive, reduce motorized access…I’m open to any and all strategies to weed out all the softies.

Nothing is preventing you from doing that to yourself, yet you are suggesting preventing someone to enjoy a resource.

I’m not anti-crossbow. I may buy one in a couple years as my daughter’s first weapon to hunt deer.

If you think we can just continue to add more weapons and seasons to hunting and it’s all going to be peachy keen, well, you’ve missed the forest for the trees.

Has it changed since straight wall was added? That's was all the rage and fear a number of years ago, but the Saber rattling fear never materialized.




You are all so fearful of a new hunter, a new weapon, a new this, a new that, a new opportunity, you'd cut the throat of the next generation to keep your precious tradition that not one person here is taking away.

Here's a hint, no one is taking away, the discussion is adding to. You can still hunt your way, but now a new guy may develop a new hobby, and you aren't effected at all.

Most you sound like the grumpy old "get off my lawn" and "back in my day". Much like the wagon wheel maker, he too will adapt or die.

Man oh man....a hunttalk conservation forum that's for preventing people to hunt. I've done seen it all.

 

[trackerbacker]

It's based on simple logic. How could one argue that more hunters with more effective weapons in a state like IA with relatively low pressure wouldn't result in more dead bucks?

Wait, if iowa has low pressure, a few more hunters won't hurt the biology. Then there's no need.

I'm not as familiar with the IA DNR but in MN "affecting the deer population" means total number of deer, full stop. They don't have a clue or look at what the buck to doe ratio is or if there is any age class balance. You could have 10 bucks for every 100 does with the oldest of those 10 bucks being a 3 YO and as long as there is good nutrition for the does and high fawn survival, then the DNR will tell you you have a healthy deer herd. There is a completely different quality of hunt when bucks:does is near 50:50 with a balanced age class vs 20:80 with any buck living past 2 being rare.

I've looked at the WI numbers, more bucks get killed during archery season since they opened it up to crossbows and they have more hunting pressure during archery season than they would otherwise. They aren't eye opening #'s by any stretch but there is no way it doesn't impact quality of hunting in some areas. IIRC, buck harvest is maybe 5-10k higher with crossbows than I'd guess it would be without. In some areas there is probably no discernable impact to quality of hunting. But if 100 of those additional harvested bucks are in a somewhat concentrated area, it absolutely impacts the quality of hunting there.

The wisconsin number, actually the ones I previously posted about from wisconsin, show a much high "damage" from compound than crossbow. It isn't eye opening, and for more than 3 decades the harvest has not changed in any discernable, reportable way.

Earn-a-buck did the damage.

it's a pretty argument, but not supported by the numbers.

what we do as hunters impact the biology of the area. If its somehow figured out that an additiional 100 can be taken with no ill effect, do it.

I wouldn't expect your DNR to "safeguard" the quality (I.E. there is a good population and balanced age class of bucks on the landscape) of hunting. The residents have to demand it be that way or typically the farm bureau and industry lobbyists will take whatever they can with zero shits given.

IA residents have a golden thing going being able to shoot two bucks a year over the counter and maintain the quality hunting that exists there. It would be a shame to diminish either the quality and/or the OTC opportunity by continuing to make it easier to kill deer.

if i get tonshoot two bucks, it doesnt matter if they we taken with a stick or a firework.

What IA does doesn't much impact my hunting. I'm just voicing my side from a state that doesn't have strong resident pushback to these kinds of things and sees the bucks get mowed down as soon as they get kicked from mama's tit because those bucks make up the majority of the male population.

You wanna save bucks, don't use a lame argument.

You want to save bucks, saying you can kill one with a maple stick but not an oak stick does not help your case.

You want to save bucks, hunt doe/anterless only.

You want to save bucks, hunter minimal point antlered.

 

[trackerbacker]

Yall hide behind some phony bull.

Just come out and say it-you want less hunters with less opportunity and are in favor of restrictions that make it more difficult.

Some of you have said it, and I hope you realize what you've said.

Some are of the matt rinella argument, its my hunting my way, not your way, we should restrict your way.

Whiney, petulant and selfish.

Sad. Sad. Sad.

 

[mplane72]

I get that, but what's that based on, emotions and conjecture?

I'll try to email or ring up Kevin baskins, iowa dnr, tomorrow and ask him why they think crossbows won't effect the deer population. Not sarcasm. I'll inquire where that answer is derived from, and we can then critique that response.

View attachment 283935

I'll ask him what safeguards are in place too, @Wind Gypsy

Pretty sure this is from 2013 regarding allowing Crossbows into the late muzzy / archery season.

Iowa House votes to expand crossbow deer hunting

The Iowa House approved a measure Wednesday to expand crossbow hunting of deer by allowing residents to use crossbows during …

www.thegazette.com

He's just a spokesperson anyway so whatever he says should be taken with a shaker of salt. I'm sure the bean counters want CB's added for the increased revenue. Most people at the DNR are way to scared to voice their concerns or opinions on topics like this anymore.

I have to ask what area of the state you're in. I have to think there aren't many deer or deer hunters around you if you never see or at least hear of any hunting with a crossbow. I'm in the East. I personally know 3 guys that hunt with cross bows by special permit in the regular archery season. Only one needs to due to a wrecked shoulder. . The other 2 have no need but are not interested in doing the modest bit of work it takes to become proficient with a compound. It is not hard to get a doctor to sign off on the crossbow disability form.

It all comes down to this. Increasing hunter effectiveness will inevitably result in change. That may be a reduction in opportunity to harvest due to fewer deer on the landscape or even a reduction in the ability to even hunt due to fewer tags. My friend with the wrecked shoulder will be the first to tell you that it is way more effective then a vertical bow. He has a top of the line Raven. I have shot it. If I hunted with that over the years I've bow hunted there would be a lot more antlers in the house.

As the data from multiple states shows adding CB not only increases hunter effectiveness it also adds pressure by bringing more people out in the archery season further increasing harvest.

It's not just crossbows anyway. Our deer herd is NOT what it was and opportunity for the average person of average means is on the decline in Iowa. Bids to add NR tags, outfitter tags, new weapons, more seasons and disease are not needed. If you can't kill a deer in this state as it is your either a shitty hunter or you can't get access to decent hunting.

Besides that everytime a CB bill comes up it's because lobbyist hired by the CB industry push the legislature for it. There has not been a ground swell of Iowa hunters asking for it. If there were maybe it would be something to consider. If everyone knew what was really on the table......

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Wait, if iowa has low pressure, a few more hunters won't hurt the biology. Then there's no need.


The wisconsin number, actually the ones I previously posted about from wisconsin, show a much high "damage" from compound than crossbow. It isn't eye opening, and for more than 3 decades the harvest has not changed in any discernable, reportable way.

Earn-a-buck did the damage.

it's a pretty argument, but not supported by the numbers.

Here's the numbers. Pretty simple math. More bucks are being shot during the archery season since crossbows were allowed. Period.

what we do as hunters impact the biology of the area. If its somehow figured out that an additiional 100 can be taken with no ill effect, do it.

RE "biology" - one buck is able to breed a bunch of does. Your entire buck population could be made up of adolescent 1.5 year olds and they could keep the does bred IE "nOt iMpaCt the bIoLOgy". You can pretend that hunters really just care about the biology but in reality there are next to zero hunters who wouldn't prefer to see more and older bucks when hunting and IA already gives residents great opportunity.

if i get tonshoot two bucks, it doesnt matter if they we taken with a stick or a firework.

If you send 10,000 hunters out with a rifle and 10,000 hunters out with a stick, the ones with a rifle are going to kill more deer. That's kind of the whole basis for a separate archery season in the first place. To repeat since it hasn't seemed to get through - nobody cares what you kill a deer with, they care how regulations impact the quality of deer hunting.

You wanna save bucks, don't use a lame argument.

You want to save bucks, saying you can kill one with a maple stick but not an oak stick does not help your case.

You want to save bucks, hunt doe/anterless only.

You want to save bucks, hunter minimal point antlered.

I'm making logical fact based arguments. I've even acknowledged that the extent of impacts from allowing crossbows is debatable and may be undiscernible in some locations. You on the other hand are either too attached to your stance or incapable of logical thought on the matter.

Hunters like seeing more and bigger bucks when hunting, that isn't debatable. The reason they exist in IA and why NR wait for years and pay silly $ to hunt them there is because they haven't made them as easy to kill as possible "without biological impacts". I.E. limited pressure from NRs, firearm season after the rut, and keeping thousands of people who are willing to spend 30 minutes to learn to shoot a crossbow but just cant justify 2 hours to become competent with a compound from hunting with a more efficient weapon during the archery season.

The frustrating part in the whole thing is this thought that we should let people kill every buck biologically possible. Another concept that might to be too complex here - if you restrict the efficacy of hunting methods/season structure, more bucks survive. If more bucks survive, the odds of success with the less effective weapons/season structure goes up. Thus, with more bucks on the landscape and some restrictions on efficacy, the same number of hunters can kill the same # of deer they would if it were harder for deer to survive all while seeing more and older deer = better hunting experience. Most hunters cant see past how their own improved ease of killing a deer gets multiplied by 1000's of hunters and makes lower quality hunting for everyone. You seem to fit that bill.

One person doesn't "save bucks", the framework regulating thousands of hunters does.

 

[trackerbacker]

Pretty sure this is from 2013 regarding allowing Crossbows into the late muzzy / archery season.

Iowa House votes to expand crossbow deer hunting

The Iowa House approved a measure Wednesday to expand crossbow hunting of deer by allowing residents to use crossbows during …

www.thegazette.com

He's just a spokesperson anyway so whatever he says should be taken with a shaker of salt. I'm sure the bean counters want CB's added for the increased revenue. Most people at the DNR are way to scared to voice their concerns or opinions on topics like this anymore.

Yup, I see articles updated with that from then and now. I'll be shooting an email after a meeting this am.

I have to ask what area of the state you're in. I have to think there aren't many deer or deer hunters around you if you never see or at least hear of any hunting with a crossbow. I'm in the East. I personally know 3 guys that hunt with cross bows by special permit in the regular archery season. Only one needs to due to a wrecked shoulder. . The other 2 have no need but are not interested in doing the modest bit of work it takes to become proficient with a compound. It is not hard to get a doctor to sign off on the crossbow disability form.

Northeast Iowa. Over 30 years I've lived in dubuque, Clayton, winnisheik, allamakee, Polk, Dallas, Marion counties. I've hunted hiked fished and camped in north of 70 counties, been to every pool of the Mississippi and every major river or crik or lake (see what i did there) east of 35, from the Chariton to the upper iowa and most points in between.

I've seen more bowfishers than crossbows.

It all comes down to this. Increasing hunter effectiveness will inevitably result in change. That may be a reduction in opportunity to harvest due to fewer deer on the landscape or even a reduction in the ability to even hunt due to fewer tags. My friend with the wrecked shoulder will be the first to tell you that it is way more effective then a vertical bow. He has a top of the line Raven. I have shot it. If I hunted with that over the years I've bow hunted there would be a lot more antlers in the house.

As the data from multiple states shows adding CB not only increases hunter effectiveness it also adds pressure by bringing more people out in the archery season further increasing harvest.

It's not just crossbows anyway. Our deer herd is NOT what it was and opportunity for the average person of average means is on the decline in Iowa. Bids to add NR tags, outfitter tags, new weapons, more seasons and disease are not needed. If you can't kill a deer in this state as it is your either a shitty hunter or you can't get access to decent hunting.

Besides that everytime a CB bill comes up it's because lobbyist hired by the CB industry push the legislature for it. There has not been a ground swell of Iowa hunters asking for it. If there were maybe it would be something to consider. If everyone knew what was really on the table......

And there's no doubt change will happen. But change is coming, and restricting how anyone can respectfully use the resources is asinine.

 

[Gellar]

I've seen more bowfishers than crossbows.

This argument is flawed. Bow fishing is legal in Iowa for everyone who gets properly licensed. Crossbows are not currently legal during most seasons without a written prescription from a Doctor.

Bow fishing has become a concern on the Upper Mississippi. Not the bow fishing aspect but the noise and light pollution from airboats and mud motor boats. Also much of the Mississippi River is a fish and wildlife refuge. They are design to protect critical habitat. An airboat or mud motor ripping through 6” of wetland marsh is not protecting it and in my opinion if the increase continues will lead to more invasive species, siltation, and habitat loss in the Upper Mississippi River.

 

[trackerbacker]

Here's the numbers. Pretty simple math. More bucks are being shot during the archery season since crossbows were allowed. Period.

View attachment 283983View attachment 283984



RE "biology" - one buck is able to breed a bunch of does. Your entire buck population could be made up of adolescent 1.5 year olds and they could keep the does bred IE "nOt iMpaCt the bIoLOgy". You can pretend that hunters really just care about the biology but in reality there are next to zero hunters who wouldn't prefer to see more and older bucks when hunting and IA already gives residents great opportunity.



If you send 10,000 hunters out with a rifle and 10,000 hunters out with a stick, the ones with a rifle are going to kill more deer. That's kind of the whole basis for a separate archery season in the first place. To repeat since it hasn't seemed to get through - nobody cares what you kill a deer with, they care how regulations impact the quality of deer hunting.



I'm making logical fact based arguments. I've even acknowledged that the extent of impacts from allowing crossbows is debatable and may be undiscernible in some locations. You on the other hand are either too attached to your stance or incapable of logical thought on the matter.

Hunters like seeing more and bigger bucks when hunting, that isn't debatable. The reason they exist in IA and why NR wait for years and pay silly $ to hunt them there is because they haven't made them as easy to kill as possible "without biological impacts". I.E. limited pressure from NRs, firearm season after the rut, and keeping thousands of people who are willing to spend 30 minutes to learn to shoot a crossbow but just cant justify 2 hours to become competent with a compound from hunting with a more efficient weapon during the archery season.

The frustrating part in the whole thing is this thought that we should let people kill every buck biologically possible. Another concept that might to be too complex here - if you restrict the efficacy of hunting methods/season structure, more bucks survive. If more bucks survive, the odds of success with the less effective weapons/season structure goes up. Thus, with more bucks on the landscape and some restrictions on efficacy, the same number of hunters can kill the same # of deer they would if it were harder for deer to survive all while seeing more and older deer = better hunting experience. Most hunters cant see past how their own improved ease of killing a deer gets multiplied by 1000's of hunters and makes lower quality hunting for everyone. You seem to fit that bill.

One person doesn't "save bucks", the framework regulating thousands of hunters does.

You graph, lot closer 1:1 who went from and went to than who joined overall.

You do you, and scream from the rooftops we should restrict people more.

I'll do me, and scream from the rooftops that more restrictions are never the good answer.

 

[trackerbacker]

This argument is flawed. Bow fishing is legal in Iowa for everyone who gets properly licensed. Crossbows are not currently legal during most seasons without a written prescription from a Doctor.

It wasn't an argument. It was a statement, an observation. I have seen more people bowfishing than I have seen crossbows period.

Bow fishing has become a concern on the Upper Mississippi. Not the bow fishing aspect but the noise and light pollution from airboats and mud motor boats. Also much of the Mississippi River is a fish and wildlife refuge. They are design to protect critical habitat. An airboat or mud motor ripping through 6” of wetland marsh is not protecting it and in my opinion if the increase continues will lead to more invasive species, siltation, and habitat loss in the Upper Mississippi River.

Light pollution. For real. Light pollution. Turn the light off your polluting the nanometers.

Jesus, it's nature, we just supposed to fricken sit here and look at it? Christ almighty.

They are there for a purpose, and some of those are to hunt, fish, camp, view, whatever.

Enjoy your stick and stone hunting.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

You graph, lot closer 1:1 who went from and went to than who joined overall.

You do you, and scream from the rooftops we should restrict people more.

I'll do me, and scream from the rooftops that more restrictions are never the good answer.

I'm not advocating further restrictions, i'm advocating maintaining the existing success story rather than degrading the resource down to the level of some of your neighbors.

 

[Gellar]

You graph, lot closer 1:1 who went from and went to than who joined overall.

You do you, and scream from the rooftops we should restrict people more.

I'll do me, and scream from the rooftops that more restrictions are never the good answer.

While I am generally opposed to more restrictions in some cases restrictions are needed. In this case the argument is being made that by having less restrictions on crossbows more restrictions may be needed to maintain the deer herd such as restricting season lengths and limits. So which would you rather have, more restrictions on weapons or more restrictions on harvest, season length, and license numbers?

I remember when Iowa was a draw even for resident hunters and it was not guaranteed you would get a license.