Iowa lawmakers OK deer hunting with semi-automatic rifles

Old_wrestling_fan

HR Legend
Mar 2, 2009
10,782
10,541
113
Iowa City
The pussification of Iowa hunters.
FYI, many, many actual hunters are NOT in favor of this. But a special interest group known as IFC (Iowa Firearms Coalition) was a strong pusher for the inclusion of the various rifle options.

I am pretty sure if things were left to the Iowa DNR that we would not be seeing these changes...but various groups have now learned to essentially circumvent the DNR and get what they want via bills in the Legislature. There, they cloud up a given bill with "good" things like granting certain privileges to veterans, etc, and then embed this type of crap in the bill also.

Otherwise unknowledgeable state reps vote for it since it is helping vets, etc, only there is also crap woven in there too. In other words, don't assume that true hunters want this, most don't.
 

notlongago

HR Heisman
Jul 28, 2012
5,440
2,674
113
False. There is plenty of data from when Iowa was running widespread late January seasons across the state that shows that shed buck harvest went up dramatically during those more liberal years.
Again, you're not comprehending. A certain number of bucks die every season - whether by predators, disease, elements, hunters, cars, etc. If hunters throw that mortality rate out of whack, fewer numbers of late season tags are released. It's not a complex idea, but it is fascinating.
 
Last edited:

Old_wrestling_fan

HR Legend
Mar 2, 2009
10,782
10,541
113
Iowa City
Again, you're not comprehending. A certain number of bucks die every season - whether by predators, disease, elements, hunters, cars, etc. If hunters throw that mortality rate out of whack, fewer numbers of late season tags are released. It's not a complex idea, but it is fascinating.
I comprehend just fine. Of course a certain number of deer/bucks die every year.

Clarinda's point is that with a rifle season in January, some of the bucks, who will have shed(dropped) their antlers and can then be, and will be, mistakenly shot as a "doe". This produces more dead bucks relative to dead does and is viewed as unfavorable by many hunters.

Also, if simply reducing the overall deer population is the goal, then one dead buck in January does not accomplish as much as shooting one doe in that timeframe. As the doe is probably preggo with one or two fawns AND is not then available to be bred the following fall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

notlongago

HR Heisman
Jul 28, 2012
5,440
2,674
113
I comprehend just fine. Of course a certain number of deer/bucks die every year.

Clarinda's point is that with a rifle season in January, some of the bucks, who will have shed(dropped) their antlers and can then be, and will be, mistakenly shot as a "doe". This produces more dead bucks relative to dead does and is viewed as unfavorable by many hunters.

Also, if simply reducing the overall deer population is the goal, then one dead buck in January does not accomplish as much as shooting one doe in that timeframe. As the doe is probably preggo with one or two fawns AND is not then available to be bred the following fall.
You are not comprehending - there is an average number of bucks that die every year - a hunter shooting one in January (or sept or oct etc) does not add to that total - its a pie, the only question is how big each slice is (each slice being disease, cars, hunters, exposure, etc.). If hunters start making that pie bigger, then the amount of tags released get reduced. Does the analogy help?

(and bucks get shot from september through January every season under the belief they were does on the hoof)
 

Slim45

HR MVP
Nov 30, 2019
1,505
2,690
113
I comprehend just fine. Of course a certain number of deer/bucks die every year.

Clarinda's point is that with a rifle season in January, some of the bucks, who will have shed(dropped) their antlers and can then be, and will be, mistakenly shot as a "doe". This produces more dead bucks relative to dead does and is viewed as unfavorable by many hunters.

Also, if simply reducing the overall deer population is the goal, then one dead buck in January does not accomplish as much as shooting one doe in that timeframe. As the doe is probably preggo with one or two fawns AND is not then available to be bred the following fall.
I don’t really care 1 way or the other as I don’t deer hunt because of all the ultra serious deer hunters that are assholes and act like they own the deer. They get pissed when the neighbor shoots “their” big buck, or if you somehow screw up their hunt. That being said, to Clarindas point, if they had a rifle season in September it would totally ruin bow season. So that option is immediately off the table. Deer season ends Jan10, if they add an antlerless season from jan10-17 (didn’t read article, don’t know the proposed dates) I don’t really see a huge increase in bucks that have shed their antlers being shot in that extra weeks time.
 

noStemsnoSTICKS

HR All-American
Feb 16, 2006
3,779
3,212
113
Sactown
FYI, many, many actual hunters are NOT in favor of this. But a special interest group known as IFC (Iowa Firearms Coalition) was a strong pusher for the inclusion of the various rifle options.

I am pretty sure if things were left to the Iowa DNR that we would not be seeing these changes...but various groups have now learned to essentially circumvent the DNR and get what they want via bills in the Legislature. There, they cloud up a given bill with "good" things like granting certain privileges to veterans, etc, and then embed this type of crap in the bill also.

Otherwise unknowledgeable state reps vote for it since it is helping vets, etc, only there is also crap woven in there too. In other words, don't assume that true hunters want this, most don't.
I can't disagree with any of that.