Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

$500

L

like2hunt

PMA Member
I totally agree the number of non resident permits need to be controled and it looks like this has happened.Good job on that congrats.AS I have mentioned before at the risk of being tar and feathered there needs to be a separation between nr land owners and non residents.(RECIPROCITY)With the imputs this year putting in a crop,taxes etc,I will have invested over $30,000 in the local economy. Beyond that if I would draw a tag add another$500.Honestly how many of you would be willing to pay $500 to hunt your own land? I suspect none.When land comes up for sale some one is probably going to buy it and no one has control who is going to buy it.Whether it is a resident or non-resident it will probably change you access to that land.With out some support to the nr land owner it almost is a sure thing you will lose some priviledges to that particular piece of land.The same applies to an Iowa resident who buys land------he will have his own family and friends that may want to hunt .Your legislation can't seem to recognize this seperation either.I personally have always been one to pretty much follow the rules even though I don't always agree.I do have a tendancy to stand up for what I believe is right and I think the majority of you do to.Bottom line is we have something in common and many of our concerns are the same.At some point we may all have to work together on issues far more important so the time has come for us to work out our differences and respect each others rights
 
NR, I appreciate your civil approach to asking this. And I beg any other posters to use the same amount of maturity and courtesy. It can certainly be a hot topic. I notice that you are from Illinois. I'm 'assuming' you would agree that your state is a tough one to hunt and own land in without some special connections. I for one would like Iowa to avoid making a lot of the decisions ( i.e. mistakes ) that Illinois and Kansas have made. Heck, I can see why you would want to have Iowa hunting rights as a landowner. If I were you, I would probably feel the same way. But, I'm not you. . . I'm an Iowa resident. If NR ownership/hunting regs are softened up, the influx of $$, leasing, locked up land, etc. will be huge. The dollars that you spend to buy Iowa land is small compared to your home state. I think that example speaks for itself. One thing that we probably both would agree on - our interests and opinions are self-centered. I just don't want the great hunting and access that Iowa has to be chipped away - with one 'friendly' rule change, then another, then another. . .

These are just my views. I would like to see the views of others . . . but please be civil. It's okay to disagree - but it's really not okay to be a jerk.
 
I'm in the same boat with CamoMan.

I can't imagine how much ground would get sucked up if these rules were changed. I can also not imagine how much the doe population would explode with the increase in NR landowners and outfitters sucking up large tracks of ground for "trophy only" hunting. MOST people travel to Iowa to shoot trophy bucks rather than helping out in the management aspect. Notice I said MOST, not ALL.

Anyway, my stance won't change, but I'm always happy to hear both sides of the argument so long as things stay civil.
 
Did you invest that $30,000 in taxes and crop inputs out of the goodness of your heart? If you did, I'm sure the local economy is thankful. Are you not going to realize a profit from the $5 corn and $13 beans you are going to sell? Won't you take that profit home with you? Nothing wrong with making a profit from your land investment but unless all that profit is left here in Iowa, I'm missing the point of your argument. If your land was owned by a resident, the $30,000 AND the profits would be circulated in the local economy. Expenditures for hunting are entirely different than investing in a farming for profit venture.
 
I've been hunting Iowa several years now and find that most property around me is locked up whether it's a resident or NR landowner. One resident landowner to my west has 600 acres and allows one relative to archery hunt. I have another resident landowner to my north and east, over 700 acres, who allows one archery hunter and no shotgun hunting. I appreciate the argument regarding land being "locked up" if NR regs are loosened, but I don't see many resident landowners, at least near me, allowing much hunting.
I think legislators have to realize NR landowners are in Iowa and to ignore this fact is counter productive. For example, the new depredation tag legislation pending will give resident landowners a free tag for each season with many NR farms bordering or nearby. How do we handle the deer that simply cross the fence into the "NR sanctuaries"? There has to be a solution to permit the NR landowner to manage the deer on their properties.
 
NR landowner is still a NR, and I disagree with it being "softened" for anyone. I have a friend who has had hunting rights to a big piece of timber in Ill with a group of guys, ( 10 in all) for the past 15 years and are Ill residents. They did odd jobs and upkeep on the land for years for the landowner as well as giving a fee every year like a lease, allthough nothing was contracted. The landowner, an elderly woman recently passed away. My friend and the other hunters made their interest in the property known to the children of the landowne years ago, and after her passing all worked on what they could come up with for cash for a down payment and then looked at financing the rest. They figured they could offer $125,000, a fair price no doubt. One of the landowners daughters new people that new DR's from St Louis area. The doctors more than doubled what my friends group could come up with. That would sting a bunch. If the rules get softened here I think we would all see this happen more and more. NR-Landowner, how would that feel if it happened to you? Can you see how many of us residents hold firm against NR landowners being able to change the rules the way we do? I think we residents deserve rights also, we live here and spend our money in the state, all of it. JMO
 
Addict I hear ya, but here's the thing. 10 years ago there were few NR landowners in Iowa, however, since the huge video push and publicity given to the state that has changed. The very point made by many is that NR landowners cause sanctuary properties, although many resident landowners do also. On one hand folks support keeping NR landowners out, but then have issue with too many deer on their properties. How is this resolved?
I think NR landowners should have to shoot a doe before given a buck tag, and should pay current NR tag prices. Then should have two additional doe tags available at a reasonable price.
There are many NR landowners are in Iowa, and increase every year, there has to be a middle ground.
 
Hold the line on the number of NR tags but give priority to NR landowners. Something that I have said as a resident and now as a NR is that these tags should be priced at what the market will bear- When you have more demand than supply you raise the price.
Close the loophole on party hunts for NR if you like and allow for a reasonable price on a doe tag. Outfitters wouldn't stand a chance if the NR tags went first to NR landowners.
 
hunting in iowa is a privelege, no doubt about it. i think nr landowners should be able to harvest as many does as possible, or some formula like 1 per every 40 acres. Nr landowners are just a fact of life anywhere, plain and simple, they are not going anywhere, i am not saying nr landowners should be able to party hunt, most not all NR landowners are bowhunters, at least they should be able to get in a stand late season and kill off the does. One thing i disagree with, the state continues to promote hunting via the video;s etc,, 75 governors tags etc, and then cant inderstand why people are begging to come to iowa. every video seems to be in iowa these days. i am a new resident of iowa but at one time i was a NR landowner and i can tell anyone that many NR dump a disgusting amount of money into the local economies. tractors, employment, the list goes on. prior to my residency, i probably spent 150k in 4 years, dont get me wrong, i dont want to see pickup truck loads of hunters storm into town kill every deer and run back home, but if you own 400 acres of land, spend 15 weekends a year etc, at least would be nice if some does were killed. i would argue that landowners resident or nR are looking to do there part in the doe population. if you are a resident landowner like me, you want your nr neighbors killing does , it only makes the hunting on your farm better, they are only going to kill a buck once every 3 years, might as well let them help you kill some does.
 
I am bordered on 2 sides by leased ground, like 600 acres- owner lives in St Louis and doesn't hunt or at least hasn't since 2001 as it has been leased out. It is impossible to get the doe numbers down as the lease is controlled by guys from Michigan that refuse to shoot does. They are the real problem and would not exist if the tags weren't allocated the way they are now. It is also entirely possible that the owner wouldn't find it as easy to hold the land if he couldn't lease it and it may end up in the hands of a resident or a NR hunter that would keep the does in check.

If you hunt in Iowa in this day and age, you need to shoot does if you think anything of keeping the herd healthy- otherwise I think you are just being a moron.
 
I know my first post on this site was pretty aggressive and ignorant. I asked if there was anyway around the drawing system. I thought about it and realized that its a really good thing to have. I wish Wisconsin would do the same thing, but right now anyone can come and hunt. As far as this topic, I think it should stay the way it is. Land prices and leases are getting really high in Iowa already. I've thought about buying some land their in the future since the hunting quality in the CWD zone has dropped dramatically. The only reason I wouldnt buy land in NE Iowa is the fact that I would only get a shot at a buck once every three years. Iowa's regs keep people like me out. I'm not saying I'm a bad person and I believe in QDM. I shot four does this year and passed on a lot of young bucks. I understand NR and resident landowners are going to have sanctuaries because of the access issue and its going to happen whether people like it or not. If NR landowners get different regulations than right now, the land price is going to increase dramatically and a lot of the Iowans /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif are going to lose access and people are going to have to fork out a lot of money for leases. All of you residents from Iowa should fight as hard as you can to keep the number of NR tags down and the regulations for the most part the same. I'll just have to wait every three years to get my chance. Just my 2c.
 
Like most hot button issues, this is one where both sides have real definite opinions and wants. And I really doubt that either side is going to sway many or any to their side. However, since it is a topic, it's great to discuss it. And thanks to each of your for keeping the 'temperature' low. Good discussion.
 
Casper, you made my point better than I did. I am concerned if the regs are softened the prices will go up, and NR from better economy's in other states would flock to Iowa and buy up the land available. I am fearfull of this happening to me already. I have rights to some good private ground by just being friendly, but lets face it, money talks and I could be priced out of my spot by someone with the cash, Resident or NR.
I am not against NR hunters or NR Landowners, but get tired of hearing the debate that the rules should be changed because a NR landowner pays there money for taxes and what not and wants to hunt every year. I would love to own hunting land here in IA or anywhere for that matter. I have been made an offer to hunt in Ill this fall and have to apply, correct. That is the way I read it. If I was to buy land there I guess I would know the issues going into it. The NR landowners surely new the rules before they bought I would have thought, and should be able to live with it.
 
6000 tags is 6000 tags- would you rather have these going to NR landowners at $1000 a pop or being divided among outfitter clients that are going to increase the leasing?

I don't know which is the greater evil.

I have been on the side of residents and the DNR- always. I gave the same arguments about knowing the rules when you buy and not trying to change them to your advantage. There are landowners like me that owned as a resident and moved away because of work, I let a fair number of people hunt and most all are encouraged to shoot does. I have not yet heard a convincing case to not let the tags that are alloted be sold to the highest bidder. Keep the number low but increase the price to what the market will bear.

Once the boom is over- residents are still going to be the main harvesters of anterless deer in the state so at least give them the DNR and the public land they deserve with the funds raised through NR fees.
 
Pharmer, good point, I couldn't say which is the greater evil either. I think both are hurting the pastime I have recently grown to love and worry that it will hinder my sons chances to enjoy it as well.
I guess I wonder if the price is fair, and if it could be validated to be raised. As I said earlier, I am not against NR hunters of any kind, but just worry that if things are changed to favor NR's just because they are landowners, that more and more land will be bought up and off limits to people like me with not so deep pockets. Which seems to be a trend that there are allot of NR's from better economy's that can afford to buy large tracts of land in IA. As I recall IA NR fees were and still are slightly higher than that of states like Ill and MO. Not sure about KS, NE or WI. These seem to be the states of choice of many hunting programs for whitetails now along with MT.
Great that you are opening up your ground for others to come in and reduce the does, but sounds like people like you are the exception and not the norm, at least by what I have read. And that statement is not just directed to NR's either, as I personally know of a large timber, that is split by property lines. Both resident landowners. One landowner hunts it himself with a few budies, taking very few does, and the other landowner hunts his himself, shooting maybe 2 deer a year. I would love to get access there to go in and doe hunt, but can't get it, at least not yet.
 
There are so many hunters in other states that want what you guys have. I am one of them. Thats why there is such a high demand for your NR tags and your land. If NR landowners get special regs, then all of your for sale land and leased land are going to be gobbled up before you know it. IMO Western WI on down could be the exact same way as Iowa, but are regulations are way different. Our 9 day rifle season that goes on during the rut kills a ton of bucks.

I'd like to move to Iowa one day because my passion is to hunt and be outdoors. It might have to be an option if I want quality hunting one day because the CWD zones there are barely any deer left. I could go on and on why I dont like our DNR. Be happy you guys live in Iowa /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif
 
I have the solution!

How about we have all 6000 NR tags be designated as PUBLIC LAND ONLY tags. No tags for NR landowners or for NR to hunt with on private land. Then all the demand for outfitters, leasers and future NR landowners will be gone. Current NR landowners would either have to sell their land to buy in another State or would have to move to Iowa to hunt it. The best part would be that the demand for tags would decrease and an "average Joe" NR who wants to take his kid hunting in Iowa could come and hunt public land, teach his kid to scout, hang stands and do it the right way. A NR who wanted a guided hunt could call the boy'z over in Pike County, Illinois. That way they could teach their kid that hunting consists of a guide dropping you off and that the only sign you need to pay attention to is the trail marking tape leading to your stand.

I totally disagree with having tags go to the highest bidder. Big money "pricks" are the type of guys we want to keep out of Iowa. We want hunting in Iowa to be attainable for the average Joe hunter from another State. The type of guy who appreciates the opportunity, not a guy who feels he deserves it or is entitled to it because of his financal resources. That is why the 6000 tags being designated for PUBLIC LAND ONLY would be perfect. This is because an average Joe couldn't afford to buy land in Iowa or lease land in Iowa and would be hunting on public land more than likely anyway. Once again appreciating just the opportunity to be in a patch of Iowa hardwoods on a crisp fall day. The best part is that public land wouldn't be good enough for the rich "pricks".

Ok, so this is unlikely to happen so like others have said: You knew the rules when you bought your land in Iowa and you knew the rules when you moved out of Iowa for greener pastures. So don't be crying now because your having trouble getting a tag.
 
IowaQDM-
Reread my posts- keep the numbers the same, nothing I suggest would be to the detriment of Iowa residents.
I am not complaining about the number of tags for NR and I knew the rules when I moved- no problem. I am suggesting a way to maximize the return for the DNR and tie up less land from leasing.
There is always a way to involve kids in hunting by hunting close to home, the next generation of hunters is not going to be saved by traveling out of state with dad for a week.
Your suggestion punishes NR landowners and borders on communism- redistribute the wealth/land/jobs "for the good of the people". I like the free market but it isn't always appreciated by those that want a "free ride".
 
I agree the civil approach is much more productive.The opinions are as diversified as the people that make them.It is interesting how we all are influenced by our different situations. My recent post(big business) sort of touched on my situation.
You are correct Illinois land has become very valuable.It is more so because of urban spawl than rec land I think.The 1031 money they need to re-invest has driven up both prices.
I do think nr resident land owners are more interested in conservation and herd management than most non-residents.I do know the deer like to eat my crops and much as resident crops but we aren't offered depredation tags.
I would like to see the numbers on how many non-resident land owners there really are but no one seems to have any idea.This seems to be an important fact to base tag numbers and well as track increases of who actually is buying land.One point I try to make is nr land owners should have a preference for these tags
since we have to buy them anyway the same amount of money goes to the state reguardless.I don't see this as a land rush ,most of us can not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just to hunt.The big dollar boys are going to buy land anywhere they want and look for the loop holes and use their political ties to get their tags anyway.As with most things there should be a pecking order------resident land owners.residents,non-resident land owners and non-residents.Inside this there needs to be a spot for the disabled the ill and where you put the celebs can be at the bottom.I don't think that a ball player from Chicago or a camera man from where ever deserves a better or special opportunity . Don't the outfitters target resident hunters also,I doubt if they have much preference to the nr's as long as they sell their hunts.Anyway just some more thoughts.For the most part the discussions have been good and I believe it is important to know there are positive thoughts and concerns on both sides of the fence.Peace talks usually reach common ground.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reread my posts- keep the numbers the same, nothing I suggest would be to the detriment of Iowa residents </div></div>

your idea would hurt outfitting, but it would cause a landrush of NR's buying up land. wich would still result in more land being locked up. the NR landowner would still not let locals in to hunt, even if its just for does. the NR owner is still just going to hunt one season. he may shoot a few does that season, but still not enough to balance the herd on his land, and won't be around enough to keep his land from becoming a refuge durring the seasons he isn't around
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom