Fishbonker
Life Member
There was a group of "experts" that got together to try and set a road map for Iowa’s deer hunting future. It was called the Iowa deer Study Committee.
The proposed raise of resident licenses fees was a direct offset to the 2 mil the DNR sent back.
The raise in fees was dropped because our Governor felt sorry for the hunters, anglers and trappers who would have had to pay more to hunt and fish.
You wanna talk about power politics, here it is: the Gov didn't drop the increase in fees out of the goodness of his heart trying to give the resident sportsmen of Iowa a break, rather by ensuring a short fall in the DNR’s budget by not raising resident fees they could get the NR quotas increased and increase them every year until there was no quota so the DNR would make more money every year. I believe it is much more politically feasible for the Gov to disenfranchise a few thousand Iowa sportsmen than a few hundred thousand car, truck and motorcycle owners by asking they pay a 25¢ surcharge on their vehicle insurance.
I don’t know Mr. Herring or Mr. Leopold outside of the DNR. I’m sure they are swell fellas, but right now they are the unfortunate face of the opposition. Nothing personal, that’s just the way it is.
The 'Bonker
EDIT: I see part of what I said was covered in another thread. Perhaps I should read all the new posts on the site before I make a reply to any of them, but then there are only so many hours in a day.
The proposed raise of resident licenses fees was a direct offset to the 2 mil the DNR sent back.
The raise in fees was dropped because our Governor felt sorry for the hunters, anglers and trappers who would have had to pay more to hunt and fish.
You wanna talk about power politics, here it is: the Gov didn't drop the increase in fees out of the goodness of his heart trying to give the resident sportsmen of Iowa a break, rather by ensuring a short fall in the DNR’s budget by not raising resident fees they could get the NR quotas increased and increase them every year until there was no quota so the DNR would make more money every year. I believe it is much more politically feasible for the Gov to disenfranchise a few thousand Iowa sportsmen than a few hundred thousand car, truck and motorcycle owners by asking they pay a 25¢ surcharge on their vehicle insurance.
I don’t know Mr. Herring or Mr. Leopold outside of the DNR. I’m sure they are swell fellas, but right now they are the unfortunate face of the opposition. Nothing personal, that’s just the way it is.
The 'Bonker
EDIT: I see part of what I said was covered in another thread. Perhaps I should read all the new posts on the site before I make a reply to any of them, but then there are only so many hours in a day.
teeroy
Life Member
as far as HUSH goes, where is farm bureau's contributions?!?!?!?
don't forget about sustainable funding. when/if it passes, there will be a good amount of money coming in. seems like they are trying to cram this license raise in now, because after sustainable funding passes, this cash shortfall arguement falls short
don't forget about sustainable funding. when/if it passes, there will be a good amount of money coming in. seems like they are trying to cram this license raise in now, because after sustainable funding passes, this cash shortfall arguement falls short
dbltree
Super Moderator
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm a little curious when the last time IBA sat down with Ken and Rich and outlined a plan to help them through this mess. I understand that they offered to increase our bow tags and I'm fine with that, but what big picture solutions have been offered to help the DNR. </div></div>
You know...I'm kinda curious why the IBA or even "deer hunters" should be responsible for fixing someones else's "mess"??
It's my feelings as I have already mentioned, that cutbacks will be needed and programs curtailed.
What good are ANY of these programs if resident hunters have no place to hunt?
Why would anyone even care??
Why should the average Joe deer hunter be forced to give up any hope of finding a spot to hunt while the 2 million in NR income goes to pay for...what??
They have promised more state land and all kinds of blah blah blah...but now...it's just to bail them out of a mess..... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
This thread is really however about FOI and there underhanded and arrogant attempts to achieve the same rights as Non-Residents
as we have as residents.
They are attempting this under the guise of "controlling deer herds" even though we all know that in 99% of the cases they will spend a week or two a year here in Iowa hunting a buck and then go home.
In the end, all they want is an any deer tag EVERY YEAR...
A friend sent me this FOI news letter which I find very upsetting but it gives you an idea what we are up against and how easily they can sway non-hunting legislators who have no clue about reality.... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">+++++ATTENTION+++++
TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION
One of the biggest challenges I have every month about this time is composing the monthly update. In some months there isn’t a lot of information to share and in others it’s just the opposite. This month in particular has been very active for us due in large part because of Iowa ’s legislature being in session and monitoring the legislation both pro and con affecting our initiative.
The amount of correspondence I have received has increased significantly since the beginning of the year, especially over the last several weeks. Most of this correspondence is inquiring as to the status of our initiative and has been generated by the publicity and exposure we’ve been gaining as more individuals are becoming aware of our efforts.
We view this as a positive reflection on the efforts that we are making in Des Moines and the support that we are building there. Until this year there has never been an organized effort to provide a voice for your rights as landowners in Iowa . Our initiative has helped to generate interest from Iowa residents and non-residents alike and members in the Iowa legislature are becoming better informed of this issue. The success we have had has not gone unnoticed by groups who have long opposed the policy change that we are seeking. These groups are beginning to feel threatened by the momentum we have been able to build in favor of our initiative and as we expected they have resorted to the methods that they have found success with in the past. Their choice has been one of providing misinformation, negative attacks and threats against Iowa decision makers and legislators who are the same people they have selected / elected to their positions to represent their constituency.
Iowa’s legislators and state officials are becoming more informed on this issue. For many the decision to change their previous opinions is due to the commitment they made to their constituency to serve them and to represent their better interests. Why are there hundreds of bills introduced each year to the legislature if it’s not to change and update old policies and laws to meet the needs of the state? The restrictive Non-resident landowner policy of the past denying “ Iowa landowners” equal privileges no longer serves the state in the capacity as it was intended decades ago.
The Iowa ’s Deer Advisory Committee acknowledged the following, “It is important from a social and economic perspective for non-resident hunters to not be restricted without sound management reasons.” We have long expressed our opinion that Iowa ’s Deer Management Policy cannot be successful by excluding a growing group of landowners that is estimated near 20%. The state of Iowa has long been considered the leader in conservation and denying landowners the ability to actively manage their own properties can have severe implications all across the state affecting all of Iowa ’s stakeholders.
We are laying the foundation for change in Iowa but we can’t do it by ourselves. Many of you have asked how you can help provide support. Today make time to send a message to each of the following and ask them to support “equal landowner privileges”. Go the extra mile and contact at least 10 or more of your friends and family members to do so as well. Our opposition has been organizing a long time to oppose this challenge; we need to make sure that we are being heard as well.
Be respectful with your messages. As Iowa landowners we all embrace Iowa ’s heritage, there is room for compromise without compromising the quality of Iowa ’s wildlife which we all enjoy.
richard.leopold@dnrstate.ia.us Director of Iowa DNR
kenneth.herring@dnr.iowa.gov Administrator of Iowa DNR
dick.dearden@legis.state.ia.us Chairman for Senate Natural Resource Committee
paul.bell@legis.state.ia.us Chairman for House Natural Resource Committee
The Iowa DNR announced last week that it was going to discontinue pursuing an increase in fees for Iowans to hunt and fish at least until 2011. This was recommended by Gov. Chet Culver who felt that it would be unfair to raise these fees due to current economic conditions. Most of these fees had not been increased for over 6 years.
However, as we reported several months ago, the DNR is still recommending increasing those same fees for non-residents to help the department minimize the necessary reduction in staff and services. At that time the proposed recommendation was:
Nonresident Current Last Change Proposal 2009 Increase %
Hunting $80.50 2000 $110.00 36.6%
Turkey $100.50 2000 $125.00 24.3%
Fur harvester $200.50 2000 $275.00 37.1%
Deer (any-sex) $220.50 2000 $295.00 33.8%
Deer (mandatory antlerless) $100.50 2006 $125.00 24.3%
Deer (optional antlerless) $150.50 2000 $200.00 32.8%
Deer (holiday) $55.00 2001 $75.00 36.4%
The DNR while addressing the Natural Resources Committee also requested consideration to increase the current NR any sex deer quota from 6,000 to 12,000. This increase would also help to generate much needed funding that has escaped them in past years due to the lower quota. The DNR estimates the lost revenues due to the quota restrictions at nearly $2.5 million per year. The DNR stated “We have the deer. It’s an issue we need to address, and it’s not going to go away”.
The long awaited report from the Deer Advisory Committee has finally been released AND I WILL ADDRESS MORE OF THIS REPORT IN A 2ND UPDATE. I made my opinions known to you last year on this committee and they haven’t changed especially in light of the recommendations. The mission of this committee was to review Iowa ’s deer management policy and assess the economic impact of its deer. Much of what this committee has recommended to the legislature is the product of one source of information, the Iowa DNR. The committee was selected to represent a broad stakeholder group representing many organizations from across Iowa . The committee members that participated proved to be dedicated in trying to accomplish their mission. Unfortunately a major stakeholder group, Non-resident landowners was omitted from this committee. This obviously did not allow for a thorough evaluation and discussion of the facts and issue(s).
As an example of what I am talking about, during the committee meetings and presentations a DNR representative made a statement that non-resident hunters do not have an impact in controlling Iowa ’s deer population. Not a misstatement by any means considering Iowa ’s NR quota restrictions, but no one asked the question what if NRLO’s were allowed equal privileges.
This led to a recommendation in the final report that states; “Increasing the number of non-resident hunters will not control Iowa ’s deer population”.
Obviously looking at the overpopulation of Iowa ’s deer herd during the past 10 years this shortsightedness has not and does not take into consideration the long term effects of such a policy.
The Iowa DNR reports that it is not uncommon for most NR’s to have to wait 3 years regardless if they are a landowner or not to obtain a license through the Iowa’s present draw.
What happens when 3,000 NR landowners are unable to actively manage the deer herd on their own land?
Facts obtained from state reports:
Iowa Farmland 31,729,400 acres
Total Farms 89,700
Avg. Farm Size 353 Acres
Information obtained from Iowa State University “Farmland Ownership and Tenure in Iowa 2007”
Out of state landownership = 20% Of All Iowa Farmland 6,345,880 Acres
*******************************************************************************
NR Recreational Land Owners – Estimated as no state source was able to provide this information 3,000
Total Non – Resident Farms (estimated) 17,977
Total Acres Owned By NR Rec Owners(estimated) 1,059,000 Acres
Estimated Deer Per Sq. Mile (DNR) 6.85 (640 Acres = Sq Mile)
Estimated Deer Herd on NR Rec Land 11,334
1st year without hunting 3,000 NRLO farms averaging 353 acres. An assumption we made are that not all does are bred each year and a mortality rate of 5% prior to the hunting season.
Non Residents = 3,000 Landowners with 353 acres @ 3.77 deer per farm
· 2009 Pre fawning estimates = 11,334 deer herd
· (DNR) 63% of deer herd are does = 7,140 and 50% are does 1 year or older
· Does 1 year or older = 3,570 x 90% bred = 3,213 x 2 (twin fawns) = 6,426 fawns
· Does under 1 year = 3,570 x 90% bred = 3,213 fawns
Total 2009 post harvest estimate
Fawns = 9,639
Does = 7,140
Bucks = 4,194
Total deer herd = 20,973 x 5% mortality rate = 19,925
In 1 year the deer herd increased by 8,590 deer or 75%
2nd year without hunting 3,000 NRLO farms with an average of 353 acres
· 2010 Pre fawn estimates = 19,925
· (DNR) 63 % of deer herd are does = 12,552
· Does 1 year or older = 6,276 x 90 % bred = 5,648 x 2 (twin fawns) = 11,297 fawns
· Does under 1 year = 6,276 x 90% bred = 5,648 fawns
Total 2010 post harvest estimate
Fawns = 16,945
Does = 12,552
Bucks = 7,373
Total deer herd 36,870 x 5% mortality rate = 35,027
By 2nd year the deer herd has increased 23,693 deer since 2009 or 309%
3rd year prior to Fall harvest 3,000 NRLO farms with an average of 353 acres
· 2011 Pre fawn estimates = 36,870
· (DNR) 63% of deer herd are does = 23,228
· Does 1 year or older = 11,614 x 90%bred = 10,452 x 2 (twin fawns) = 20,905 fawns
· Does under 1 year = 11,614 x 90% bred = 10,452 fawns
Total post harvest estimate
Fawns = 31,357
Does = 23,228
Bucks = 13,642
Total deer herd = 68,227 x 5% mortality rate prior to Fall hunting season = 64,814
3,000 NRLO’s harvest 1 deer (able to hunt 3rd year)
Deer herd following 2011 harvest = 61,814 or an increase of 50,480 or 445% since 2009
I do ask for leniency on the estimates as my calculations don’t take into consideration the potential disbursement of part of this herd due to the increasing population. It also doesn’t take into consideration a change in the gender ratio as deer aren’t being harvested. This is only meant as an example, but may very well reflect what has taken place during the past 10 years due to the NR quota restrictions.
So answer the question yourself, would NRLO’s given the same privileges as other landowners and were able to hunt and manage their own property contribute to controlling Iowa ’s deer population?
</div></div>
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but everybody better keep up the fight or you'll have nothing left to fight for...
/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
You know...I'm kinda curious why the IBA or even "deer hunters" should be responsible for fixing someones else's "mess"??
It's my feelings as I have already mentioned, that cutbacks will be needed and programs curtailed.
What good are ANY of these programs if resident hunters have no place to hunt?
Why would anyone even care??
Why should the average Joe deer hunter be forced to give up any hope of finding a spot to hunt while the 2 million in NR income goes to pay for...what??
They have promised more state land and all kinds of blah blah blah...but now...it's just to bail them out of a mess..... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
This thread is really however about FOI and there underhanded and arrogant attempts to achieve the same rights as Non-Residents
as we have as residents.
They are attempting this under the guise of "controlling deer herds" even though we all know that in 99% of the cases they will spend a week or two a year here in Iowa hunting a buck and then go home.
In the end, all they want is an any deer tag EVERY YEAR...
A friend sent me this FOI news letter which I find very upsetting but it gives you an idea what we are up against and how easily they can sway non-hunting legislators who have no clue about reality.... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">+++++ATTENTION+++++
TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION
One of the biggest challenges I have every month about this time is composing the monthly update. In some months there isn’t a lot of information to share and in others it’s just the opposite. This month in particular has been very active for us due in large part because of Iowa ’s legislature being in session and monitoring the legislation both pro and con affecting our initiative.
The amount of correspondence I have received has increased significantly since the beginning of the year, especially over the last several weeks. Most of this correspondence is inquiring as to the status of our initiative and has been generated by the publicity and exposure we’ve been gaining as more individuals are becoming aware of our efforts.
We view this as a positive reflection on the efforts that we are making in Des Moines and the support that we are building there. Until this year there has never been an organized effort to provide a voice for your rights as landowners in Iowa . Our initiative has helped to generate interest from Iowa residents and non-residents alike and members in the Iowa legislature are becoming better informed of this issue. The success we have had has not gone unnoticed by groups who have long opposed the policy change that we are seeking. These groups are beginning to feel threatened by the momentum we have been able to build in favor of our initiative and as we expected they have resorted to the methods that they have found success with in the past. Their choice has been one of providing misinformation, negative attacks and threats against Iowa decision makers and legislators who are the same people they have selected / elected to their positions to represent their constituency.
Iowa’s legislators and state officials are becoming more informed on this issue. For many the decision to change their previous opinions is due to the commitment they made to their constituency to serve them and to represent their better interests. Why are there hundreds of bills introduced each year to the legislature if it’s not to change and update old policies and laws to meet the needs of the state? The restrictive Non-resident landowner policy of the past denying “ Iowa landowners” equal privileges no longer serves the state in the capacity as it was intended decades ago.
The Iowa ’s Deer Advisory Committee acknowledged the following, “It is important from a social and economic perspective for non-resident hunters to not be restricted without sound management reasons.” We have long expressed our opinion that Iowa ’s Deer Management Policy cannot be successful by excluding a growing group of landowners that is estimated near 20%. The state of Iowa has long been considered the leader in conservation and denying landowners the ability to actively manage their own properties can have severe implications all across the state affecting all of Iowa ’s stakeholders.
We are laying the foundation for change in Iowa but we can’t do it by ourselves. Many of you have asked how you can help provide support. Today make time to send a message to each of the following and ask them to support “equal landowner privileges”. Go the extra mile and contact at least 10 or more of your friends and family members to do so as well. Our opposition has been organizing a long time to oppose this challenge; we need to make sure that we are being heard as well.
Be respectful with your messages. As Iowa landowners we all embrace Iowa ’s heritage, there is room for compromise without compromising the quality of Iowa ’s wildlife which we all enjoy.
richard.leopold@dnrstate.ia.us Director of Iowa DNR
kenneth.herring@dnr.iowa.gov Administrator of Iowa DNR
dick.dearden@legis.state.ia.us Chairman for Senate Natural Resource Committee
paul.bell@legis.state.ia.us Chairman for House Natural Resource Committee
The Iowa DNR announced last week that it was going to discontinue pursuing an increase in fees for Iowans to hunt and fish at least until 2011. This was recommended by Gov. Chet Culver who felt that it would be unfair to raise these fees due to current economic conditions. Most of these fees had not been increased for over 6 years.
However, as we reported several months ago, the DNR is still recommending increasing those same fees for non-residents to help the department minimize the necessary reduction in staff and services. At that time the proposed recommendation was:
Nonresident Current Last Change Proposal 2009 Increase %
Hunting $80.50 2000 $110.00 36.6%
Turkey $100.50 2000 $125.00 24.3%
Fur harvester $200.50 2000 $275.00 37.1%
Deer (any-sex) $220.50 2000 $295.00 33.8%
Deer (mandatory antlerless) $100.50 2006 $125.00 24.3%
Deer (optional antlerless) $150.50 2000 $200.00 32.8%
Deer (holiday) $55.00 2001 $75.00 36.4%
The DNR while addressing the Natural Resources Committee also requested consideration to increase the current NR any sex deer quota from 6,000 to 12,000. This increase would also help to generate much needed funding that has escaped them in past years due to the lower quota. The DNR estimates the lost revenues due to the quota restrictions at nearly $2.5 million per year. The DNR stated “We have the deer. It’s an issue we need to address, and it’s not going to go away”.
The long awaited report from the Deer Advisory Committee has finally been released AND I WILL ADDRESS MORE OF THIS REPORT IN A 2ND UPDATE. I made my opinions known to you last year on this committee and they haven’t changed especially in light of the recommendations. The mission of this committee was to review Iowa ’s deer management policy and assess the economic impact of its deer. Much of what this committee has recommended to the legislature is the product of one source of information, the Iowa DNR. The committee was selected to represent a broad stakeholder group representing many organizations from across Iowa . The committee members that participated proved to be dedicated in trying to accomplish their mission. Unfortunately a major stakeholder group, Non-resident landowners was omitted from this committee. This obviously did not allow for a thorough evaluation and discussion of the facts and issue(s).
As an example of what I am talking about, during the committee meetings and presentations a DNR representative made a statement that non-resident hunters do not have an impact in controlling Iowa ’s deer population. Not a misstatement by any means considering Iowa ’s NR quota restrictions, but no one asked the question what if NRLO’s were allowed equal privileges.
This led to a recommendation in the final report that states; “Increasing the number of non-resident hunters will not control Iowa ’s deer population”.
Obviously looking at the overpopulation of Iowa ’s deer herd during the past 10 years this shortsightedness has not and does not take into consideration the long term effects of such a policy.
The Iowa DNR reports that it is not uncommon for most NR’s to have to wait 3 years regardless if they are a landowner or not to obtain a license through the Iowa’s present draw.
What happens when 3,000 NR landowners are unable to actively manage the deer herd on their own land?
Facts obtained from state reports:
Iowa Farmland 31,729,400 acres
Total Farms 89,700
Avg. Farm Size 353 Acres
Information obtained from Iowa State University “Farmland Ownership and Tenure in Iowa 2007”
Out of state landownership = 20% Of All Iowa Farmland 6,345,880 Acres
*******************************************************************************
NR Recreational Land Owners – Estimated as no state source was able to provide this information 3,000
Total Non – Resident Farms (estimated) 17,977
Total Acres Owned By NR Rec Owners(estimated) 1,059,000 Acres
Estimated Deer Per Sq. Mile (DNR) 6.85 (640 Acres = Sq Mile)
Estimated Deer Herd on NR Rec Land 11,334
1st year without hunting 3,000 NRLO farms averaging 353 acres. An assumption we made are that not all does are bred each year and a mortality rate of 5% prior to the hunting season.
Non Residents = 3,000 Landowners with 353 acres @ 3.77 deer per farm
· 2009 Pre fawning estimates = 11,334 deer herd
· (DNR) 63% of deer herd are does = 7,140 and 50% are does 1 year or older
· Does 1 year or older = 3,570 x 90% bred = 3,213 x 2 (twin fawns) = 6,426 fawns
· Does under 1 year = 3,570 x 90% bred = 3,213 fawns
Total 2009 post harvest estimate
Fawns = 9,639
Does = 7,140
Bucks = 4,194
Total deer herd = 20,973 x 5% mortality rate = 19,925
In 1 year the deer herd increased by 8,590 deer or 75%
2nd year without hunting 3,000 NRLO farms with an average of 353 acres
· 2010 Pre fawn estimates = 19,925
· (DNR) 63 % of deer herd are does = 12,552
· Does 1 year or older = 6,276 x 90 % bred = 5,648 x 2 (twin fawns) = 11,297 fawns
· Does under 1 year = 6,276 x 90% bred = 5,648 fawns
Total 2010 post harvest estimate
Fawns = 16,945
Does = 12,552
Bucks = 7,373
Total deer herd 36,870 x 5% mortality rate = 35,027
By 2nd year the deer herd has increased 23,693 deer since 2009 or 309%
3rd year prior to Fall harvest 3,000 NRLO farms with an average of 353 acres
· 2011 Pre fawn estimates = 36,870
· (DNR) 63% of deer herd are does = 23,228
· Does 1 year or older = 11,614 x 90%bred = 10,452 x 2 (twin fawns) = 20,905 fawns
· Does under 1 year = 11,614 x 90% bred = 10,452 fawns
Total post harvest estimate
Fawns = 31,357
Does = 23,228
Bucks = 13,642
Total deer herd = 68,227 x 5% mortality rate prior to Fall hunting season = 64,814
3,000 NRLO’s harvest 1 deer (able to hunt 3rd year)
Deer herd following 2011 harvest = 61,814 or an increase of 50,480 or 445% since 2009
I do ask for leniency on the estimates as my calculations don’t take into consideration the potential disbursement of part of this herd due to the increasing population. It also doesn’t take into consideration a change in the gender ratio as deer aren’t being harvested. This is only meant as an example, but may very well reflect what has taken place during the past 10 years due to the NR quota restrictions.
So answer the question yourself, would NRLO’s given the same privileges as other landowners and were able to hunt and manage their own property contribute to controlling Iowa ’s deer population?
</div></div>
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but everybody better keep up the fight or you'll have nothing left to fight for...
/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
Thanks for sharing that letter Paul. Does everyone see the fallacies in those figures. The starting figures is .01 deer per acre meaning that my 140 acres will hold 1.4 deer so if I kill one with a landowner permit now I only have .4 of a deer so next year with a 5% mortality I am rapidly approaching no deer for 140 acres.
The other part is if we allow NR landowners the equal rights and because of that the NR ownership of farms doubles and those landowners harvest bucks at the same rate that the general public does the population will really explode. Our current success ratio is less than 30% and of that 30% only 40% are bucks. That gives a buck success ratio of about 12% so if those 6000 farm owners harvest bucks at that 12% number that means that there are 720 bucks harvested on over 2 million acres. So according to their figures that amounts to 125,000 deer on 2 million acres that no one can hunt or harvest does because even with the landowner permits the NR could only get 2 antlerless tags for each 353 acres, or only 12,000 doe tags through the landowner option. So what happens to the other 112,000 deer that no one but those NR landowners has a chance to hunt. If nothing else that would keep the deer numbers up so that we will have seasons for ever and almost unlimited licenses available.
The other part is if we allow NR landowners the equal rights and because of that the NR ownership of farms doubles and those landowners harvest bucks at the same rate that the general public does the population will really explode. Our current success ratio is less than 30% and of that 30% only 40% are bucks. That gives a buck success ratio of about 12% so if those 6000 farm owners harvest bucks at that 12% number that means that there are 720 bucks harvested on over 2 million acres. So according to their figures that amounts to 125,000 deer on 2 million acres that no one can hunt or harvest does because even with the landowner permits the NR could only get 2 antlerless tags for each 353 acres, or only 12,000 doe tags through the landowner option. So what happens to the other 112,000 deer that no one but those NR landowners has a chance to hunt. If nothing else that would keep the deer numbers up so that we will have seasons for ever and almost unlimited licenses available.
Fishbonker
Life Member
"The success we have had has not gone unnoticed by groups who have long opposed the policy change that we are seeking. These groups are beginning to feel threatened by the momentum we have been able to build in favor of our initiative and as we expected they have resorted to the methods that they have found success with in the past. Their choice has been one of providing misinformation, negative attacks and threats against Iowa decision makers and legislators who are the same people they have selected / elected to their positions to represent their constituency."
My goodness. I think it is FOI who feels threatened. And as far as misinformation, read Bowmakers reply above.
The 'Bonker
My goodness. I think it is FOI who feels threatened. And as far as misinformation, read Bowmakers reply above.
The 'Bonker
Full Quiver
New Member
We view this as a positive reflection on the efforts that we are making in Des Moines and the support that we are building there. Until this year there has never been an organized effort to provide a voice for your rights as landowners in Iowa .
Have they hired a lobbyist or an Iowa resident lobbying for them?
I can't figure out why our elected state officials would be listening to a group of non-residents who are trying to get the laws changed in our state to benefit them.??? /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
Have they hired a lobbyist or an Iowa resident lobbying for them?
I can't figure out why our elected state officials would be listening to a group of non-residents who are trying to get the laws changed in our state to benefit them.??? /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
dbltree
Super Moderator
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Back40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IBA vs. FOI, battle of the spin doctors. Both are guilty of spin and misinformation. </div></div>
Friend I find myself curious once again...what specific "misinformation" has the IBA offered?
For the most part we are kept informed of bills offering new legislation and it doesn't take any "spin" to see that these bills are extremely harmful to resident hunters.
I haven't seen any "untruth's" offered.....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't figure out why our elected state officials would be listening to a group of non-residents who are trying to get the laws changed in our state to benefit them.??? </div></div>
I think it's a matter of them picking out legislators who don't hunt and don't know about the problems that come with large tracts of land being transferred to NR landowners.
Then it's very simple for them to say hey...give us all the tags we want and you won't have any more deer problems.
They tell em what they want to hear... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
Friend I find myself curious once again...what specific "misinformation" has the IBA offered?
For the most part we are kept informed of bills offering new legislation and it doesn't take any "spin" to see that these bills are extremely harmful to resident hunters.
I haven't seen any "untruth's" offered.....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't figure out why our elected state officials would be listening to a group of non-residents who are trying to get the laws changed in our state to benefit them.??? </div></div>
I think it's a matter of them picking out legislators who don't hunt and don't know about the problems that come with large tracts of land being transferred to NR landowners.
Then it's very simple for them to say hey...give us all the tags we want and you won't have any more deer problems.
They tell em what they want to hear... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IBA vs. FOI, battle of the spin doctors. Both are guilty of spin and misinformation. </div></div>
Have yet to see IBA spin, but reading that letter above..... FOI needs to change their name to FOS.
Have yet to see IBA spin, but reading that letter above..... FOI needs to change their name to FOS.
Fishbonker
Life Member
FOI does have a lobbiest, I met him at one of the Deer Study Committee meetings. I can't remember his name, heck, I have to wear a name tag to remember my own, nor can I remember how he is registered at the Capitol.
IBA has a lobbiest too, best money ever spent.
As far as IBA spin, I suppose it is all on which side of the fence you're on. I'm sure FOI doesn't think they spin anything either. But compare posts on here to FOI mailings, well, I've seen sun dials with more spin than the IBA.
The 'Bonker
IBA has a lobbiest too, best money ever spent.
As far as IBA spin, I suppose it is all on which side of the fence you're on. I'm sure FOI doesn't think they spin anything either. But compare posts on here to FOI mailings, well, I've seen sun dials with more spin than the IBA.
The 'Bonker
Iowabowtech
New Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bowmaker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The other part is if we allow NR landowners the equal rights and because of that the NR ownership of farms doubles and those landowners harvest bucks at the same rate that the general public does the population will really explode. Our current success ratio is less than 30% and of that 30% only 40% are bucks. That gives a buck success ratio of about 12% so if those 6000 farm owners harvest bucks at that 12% number that means that there are 720 bucks harvested on over 2 million acres. So according to their figures that amounts to 125,000 deer on 2 million acres that no one can hunt or harvest does because even with the landowner permits the NR could only get 2 antlerless tags for each 353 acres, or only 12,000 doe tags through the landowner option. So what happens to the other 112,000 deer that no one but those NR landowners has a chance to hunt. If nothing else that would keep the deer numbers up so that we will have seasons for ever and almost unlimited licenses available. </div></div>
Everyone REALLY needs to focus on and understand this post. This is the key IMO to unravel the logic. It needs to be realized that the folks purchasing these acres are not going to have an open door policy, they're buying them for private sanctuaries. They would be limited in their tag allotment and basically are looking for a big buck paradise that will implode over time. Several of the posted letters have made similar references but the powers that be need to keep hearing it over and over and the use of numbers makes a lasting point. This is being ignored from the equation and it's a point of vital interest.
The other part is if we allow NR landowners the equal rights and because of that the NR ownership of farms doubles and those landowners harvest bucks at the same rate that the general public does the population will really explode. Our current success ratio is less than 30% and of that 30% only 40% are bucks. That gives a buck success ratio of about 12% so if those 6000 farm owners harvest bucks at that 12% number that means that there are 720 bucks harvested on over 2 million acres. So according to their figures that amounts to 125,000 deer on 2 million acres that no one can hunt or harvest does because even with the landowner permits the NR could only get 2 antlerless tags for each 353 acres, or only 12,000 doe tags through the landowner option. So what happens to the other 112,000 deer that no one but those NR landowners has a chance to hunt. If nothing else that would keep the deer numbers up so that we will have seasons for ever and almost unlimited licenses available. </div></div>
Everyone REALLY needs to focus on and understand this post. This is the key IMO to unravel the logic. It needs to be realized that the folks purchasing these acres are not going to have an open door policy, they're buying them for private sanctuaries. They would be limited in their tag allotment and basically are looking for a big buck paradise that will implode over time. Several of the posted letters have made similar references but the powers that be need to keep hearing it over and over and the use of numbers makes a lasting point. This is being ignored from the equation and it's a point of vital interest.
loneranger
Well-Known Member
I think it will end when Iowa is like all the states around it.
Tim Hull
PMA Member
I talked to my State Rep. today, Nathan Reichert in Muscatine. He believed that the sustained funding will pass and the legislature intends on keeping the NR tag allotment being decided by them and not the DNR. Keep calling your reps and have your fellow hunters call the reps. If the sustained funding gets passed, the money shouldn't be an issue. I do believe that CUlver should have increased tag fees for any sex tags. $27 to bow hunt for 2 1/2 months is pretty cheap, I personally wouldn't mind paying double for that. In the city hunt I can bow hunt from Sept 15-Jan 25th for $27, pretty cheap.
Musky Hunter
New Member
I attended a forum on hunting and fishing held by Muscatine’s Representative, Nathan Reichert. As he is no longer on the natural resources board he had Representative John Whitaker join and give his insight as a member of the natural resources board. It didn’t take long to be able bring up FOI and ask about the proposals they are pushing. Let’s just say that I now really like Rep. John Whitaker. What he told me was that “the bill in question was gathering dust in his desk drawer and it would not see the light of day”. He said that he would be shot by his neighbors back home if he let this bill pass. I feel much better about the whole FOI issue for now, I know that they will not quit easily and will be a problem again but for now I’ll take what I can get.
He explained some of the things that the natural resources board is looking at and would like to get going here in Iowa. Such as a public access program like what Montana has where each hunter buys “tokens” and drops a token in a box at the farm he hunts and that farmer can turn those in and get paid for every hunter that accessed their land. The board is also looking at South Dakota’s policy. It was an interesting forum and very informative for me. Much time was spent on sustainable funding and how it ties into different issues. I supported sustainable funding before and after this forum even more so. If/when this passes it will take the above mentioned $2M out of the picture because they will have the monies needed.
Anyway that's my two cents worth.
He explained some of the things that the natural resources board is looking at and would like to get going here in Iowa. Such as a public access program like what Montana has where each hunter buys “tokens” and drops a token in a box at the farm he hunts and that farmer can turn those in and get paid for every hunter that accessed their land. The board is also looking at South Dakota’s policy. It was an interesting forum and very informative for me. Much time was spent on sustainable funding and how it ties into different issues. I supported sustainable funding before and after this forum even more so. If/when this passes it will take the above mentioned $2M out of the picture because they will have the monies needed.
Anyway that's my two cents worth.
JNRBRONC
Well-Known Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Musky Hunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Such as a public access program like what Montana has where each hunter buys “tokens” and drops a token in a box at the farm he hunts and that farmer can turn those in and get paid for every hunter that accessed their land.
</div></div>
This might work for farmers, but I seriously doubt that hunter owned lands purchased for recreational purposes will opt into this program, whether they are NR or not. I know I won't participate in it. The areas where the access is needed is held by recreational owners, from what I have been lead to believe. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
Such as a public access program like what Montana has where each hunter buys “tokens” and drops a token in a box at the farm he hunts and that farmer can turn those in and get paid for every hunter that accessed their land.
</div></div>
This might work for farmers, but I seriously doubt that hunter owned lands purchased for recreational purposes will opt into this program, whether they are NR or not. I know I won't participate in it. The areas where the access is needed is held by recreational owners, from what I have been lead to believe. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
dbltree
Super Moderator
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I now really like Rep. John Whitaker. What he told me was that “the bill in question was gathering dust in his desk drawer and it would not see the light of day”. He said that he would be shot by his neighbors back home if he let this bill pass. </div></div>
John's family farm lies in the heart of the problem area and he has taken the time to ride with our local CO and see problems first hand.
John is one of perhaps 3-4 in the House who hunt AT ALL, so while he may not have all the answers, he certainly is keenly aware of the problem.
John always replies to my emails and I have talked with him in person in the House...thank goodness for someone like John or folks...we would be in a real world of hurt!
I doubt that the "token" idea would work here but at least he's thinking and trying to come up with alternative answers and options besides opening the flood gates to NR's!
Some wording in here really sacres me! /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">HSB 125, HSB 136, SSB 1157, SSB 1159, DNR/NATURAL RESOURCES BILL.
This 36-page bill relates to various conservation and recreation activities of the DNR, modifies fees, and makes penalties applicable.
Topics included are: snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, hunting with raptors, unlawful taking bobcats and fish, increase to $1.50 for the HUSH Program under a depredation agreement and deer licenses, commercial fish, turtles, mussels, hunting & fishing license increase, wildlife habitat fee increase, new resident antlerless deer licenses, new boundary water sport trotline fishing licenses, new nonresident antlerless only deer licenses, allows nonresidents to purchase preference points for turkey and any sex deer licenses, allows the DNR to adjust license fees by rule in an amount equal to or less than the consumer price index for the Midwest, allows the DNR to develop combination license packages that would cost less than if purchased separately, adds definitions (of boundary waters, nonresident, and principal and primary residence or domicile), allows wildlife habitat fees to be matched with federal funds to lease land for hunting and trapping, to purchase access easements and for a wildlife habitat bond fund, <span style="color: #CC0000"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>allows the DNR to determine the number of nonresident turkey and any sex deer licenses,</span></span> reduces the first resident antlerless license to $15 and raises all the remaining antlerless licenses purchased to $15, increases the nonresident holiday antlerless deer licenses to $75, provides a $25 penalty for violation of the deer and turkey harvest reporting requirement, increases the license writing fee, increases the duplicate license fee, increases the deer herd management HUSH fee and additional landowner antlerless deer license, describes the noncommercial harvest of aquatic species, creates a new boundary waters sport trotline license, allows turtles and mussels to be takes on a valid fishing license, prohibits the sale-barter-trade of turtles and mussels, and removes various conflicting or defunct programs. HNRC. SNR subcom-Black, Noble, Schoenjahn. </div></div>
I don't think I have to explain the folly in that idea... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
John's family farm lies in the heart of the problem area and he has taken the time to ride with our local CO and see problems first hand.
John is one of perhaps 3-4 in the House who hunt AT ALL, so while he may not have all the answers, he certainly is keenly aware of the problem.
John always replies to my emails and I have talked with him in person in the House...thank goodness for someone like John or folks...we would be in a real world of hurt!
I doubt that the "token" idea would work here but at least he's thinking and trying to come up with alternative answers and options besides opening the flood gates to NR's!
Some wording in here really sacres me! /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">HSB 125, HSB 136, SSB 1157, SSB 1159, DNR/NATURAL RESOURCES BILL.
This 36-page bill relates to various conservation and recreation activities of the DNR, modifies fees, and makes penalties applicable.
Topics included are: snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, hunting with raptors, unlawful taking bobcats and fish, increase to $1.50 for the HUSH Program under a depredation agreement and deer licenses, commercial fish, turtles, mussels, hunting & fishing license increase, wildlife habitat fee increase, new resident antlerless deer licenses, new boundary water sport trotline fishing licenses, new nonresident antlerless only deer licenses, allows nonresidents to purchase preference points for turkey and any sex deer licenses, allows the DNR to adjust license fees by rule in an amount equal to or less than the consumer price index for the Midwest, allows the DNR to develop combination license packages that would cost less than if purchased separately, adds definitions (of boundary waters, nonresident, and principal and primary residence or domicile), allows wildlife habitat fees to be matched with federal funds to lease land for hunting and trapping, to purchase access easements and for a wildlife habitat bond fund, <span style="color: #CC0000"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>allows the DNR to determine the number of nonresident turkey and any sex deer licenses,</span></span> reduces the first resident antlerless license to $15 and raises all the remaining antlerless licenses purchased to $15, increases the nonresident holiday antlerless deer licenses to $75, provides a $25 penalty for violation of the deer and turkey harvest reporting requirement, increases the license writing fee, increases the duplicate license fee, increases the deer herd management HUSH fee and additional landowner antlerless deer license, describes the noncommercial harvest of aquatic species, creates a new boundary waters sport trotline license, allows turtles and mussels to be takes on a valid fishing license, prohibits the sale-barter-trade of turtles and mussels, and removes various conflicting or defunct programs. HNRC. SNR subcom-Black, Noble, Schoenjahn. </div></div>
I don't think I have to explain the folly in that idea... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif