Bob H in NH

Nope, private property or not, you don't own the deer so you don't get special rules for hunting them, the fact that you control access to the land is enough.

ojibwa

while do understand most of your opinions and your reasons but some of the logic is flawed... it would not shorten the season it would not put more pressure on the deer and it would not affect the herd negatively, most folks will still hunt the way they always have.. Take me for instance I would still hunt with my bow 90% of the time..

rockport

I'd be against. I like the way it is just fine.

westernspeed

I'd be against it as well. It may not seem like it but there are specific conservation goals behind each method of take and season. I'd keep things the way they are but thats just me.

Oldtimr

Of course it would shorten the season. Less deer are taken in archery season then in a firearms season. If everyone could hunt with a firearm, starting when the archery season would open and hunt the same number of days that are now hunted, it would change the whole dynamics of the harvest and in order to prevent an over harvest the season would have to be shortened and a good chance of less antlerless licenses being available as well. Seasons are set using a lot of data to attempt to kill a certain amount of deer, both buck and doe, what you want would be a shot in the dark and irresponsible for a game agency to do after years of data and research pointing the direction to take. Setting seasons on whims is a real bad idea No flawed reasoning here. The private property thing is a kick in the teeth to those who don't have access yet buy the same license at the same price. It is a bad idea all the way around. Perhaps somewhere there s a state where tis could be done due, to too few hunters to harvest the nuber of der that should be removed but I can assure you in my state it would be a disaster of the highest proportion. As a good friend of mine was fond of saying,"if the Delaware bay was in Pennsylvania, it would be a biological desert", pounded to death.

ojibwa

Happy thanksgiving.....

Oldtimr

Same to you Ojibwa.

Hartski

I would be for it. Then again, I'd just like to be able to use a rifle here in Eastern Iowa. I buy a certain amount of tags, what does it matter how they are filled? If the herd can't handle that many being harvested, cut down on the amount of tags sold.

But I'm an odd hunter. I'm not in it for the sport, or the "joy of hunting" or any of that. Don't care to shoot a big buck over a doe, ect. I'm in it for the meat. That's it.

Oldtimr

Yep, and every tag they cut would be one less someone else would get. Another good reason to oppose it.

Hartski

Not neccessarily, oldtimr. I have 2 bow tags and 3 shotgun tags because i'm hedging my bets on being able to get 3 or 4 deer in my freezer. I might get another landowner's shotgun tag, just in case I cannot get one with a bow. If i was able to use a rifle, I'd only need 3 or 4 tags, not 5 or 6. then those other tags could go to someone else.