Say No to Senate File 278

[BugleMIn]

The Senate Natural resources Committee passed a file (278) to increase hunting license fees.

The hunting license fee increase is acceptable.

What this bill also does is raise the non-resident deer tags to 10,000, which is acceptable as well. But it goes one step further and allows every non-resident(N/R) landowner a deer tag. The N/R landowner tags will not be counted toward the 10,000 N/R tags.

Basically this is going to 1. create a land rush for cheap ground by non-residents.

2. Turn Iowa into a pay-to-hunt state. Iowa does not have enough public land to support its hunters. We will be looking at a situation like Texas and South Dakota before long if this measure goes through. In Texas you have to join a hunt club to hunt, your club owns the land. In South Dakota it is common to pay trespass fees of $100 per day to hunt pheasants.

There were two bills in the Natural Resource Comittee being considered, one was very similar to this except it did not have the N/R landowner provision. That is the file we need.

We need to stop Senate File 278 in its tracks.

[BOWDUDE]

I am wondering what the other bill file # is?

[Bucfvr]

The guaranteed license for nonresident landowners would be for a doe only. For them to get a buck tag they still have to draw. This is the way i read it anyway.

[Admin]

Having sat on the Natural Resources Commission I have a feeling BugleMIn is correct with the push to 10,000 NR hunters. As far as the pref-point system in place the move will continue for leased hunting. There has been talk for years to make Iowa more accomadating for NR hunters who own land/ a farm in Iowa.

Sitting where I am the 100,000 animals we have harvested a year for the past 4 years has made the whitetail deer few and far between in West Central Iowa. We are losing CRP acres, 1 million acres in Iowa the past 2 years went back into crop production, and you can ask the Admin. of the Wildlife Division ( Iowa DNR ) and habitat is crucial for all wildlife to flourish.

I feel the biological reasoning for all of this Bill has been thrown out the window. It's politics as usual and the only way to voice your concerns is to contact your Representative.

Here is a link, IowaHouseNaturalResourcesCommittee (http://www.legis.state.ia.us/GA/79GA/House/Comm/NaturalResources.html)

Hopefully the guys at the IBA Banquet are discussing this issue as we speak.

Respectfully,

Anthony L. Hough, Founder - iowawhitetail.com

[This message has been edited by TLH (edited 03-12-2001).]

[grunter]

i would like to know how many of you own property and pay taxes on any large tracts of property. as being a nonresident and land owner i feel i should be able to hunt on my own property all seasons that are available to any one else.if you are worried about where you are going to hunt,buy your own property

[PLK]

I doubt that ensuring that a NR landowner can get a doe tag every year and a buck tag every two or three years (via preference points) is going to create a land rush!
It seems like a fair and equitable way to deal with the NR landowner situation without creating unreasonable pressure on resident hunters.
PLK

[BugleMIn]

Information I have didn't say anything about a the n/r landowner tags being a doe only tag...

[BugleMIn]

Here is the paragragh in question. It says the DNR will issue a "deer hunting license", not a antlerless tag.

NEW PARAGRAPH. e. Upon application pursuant to rules
5 5 established by the department and payment of a nonresident
5 6 deer hunting license fee, the department shall issue a deer
5 7 hunting license to the nonresident owner or owners of a farm
5 8 unit. In addition to the application and payment of the
5 9 license fee, the nonresident owner or owners of a farm unit
5 10 shall prepare and adhere to a deer population management plan
5 11 approved pursuant to rules of the department. The primary
5 12 objective of a deer population management plan is to manage
5 13 deer populations to minimize damage to agricultural crops on
5 14 adjacent land. The deer hunting license issued shall be valid
5 15 only on the farm unit for which the applicant qualifies
5 16 pursuant to this subsection and shall be equivalent to the
5 17 least restrictive license issued under section 481A.38. The
5 18 nonresident deer hunting licenses issued pursuant to this
5 19 paragraph shall be in addition to the number of nonresident
5 20 hunting licenses authorized pursuant to section 483A.8.

If you don't believe me you have never talked to realtors in southern Iowa. I have family from out of state that I know will buy some land, if this comes law. He is guaranteed a buck tag!

It was voted on in the Senate and passed on March 8. It goes to the House now.

[BOWDUDE]

Grunter, I have to disagree with you on this one. I am very lucky that a family member, close friend and I purchased a small tract of timber a few years past because we saw this coming. There are alot of young men and women getting in to the sport of bow hunting that can't afford to buy or lease land. This bill would make it that much harder for them to get permisssion to hunt if the land starts selling to non-residents. Also this will be a perfect time for a land broker to step in start buying ground chopping it into 40 acre tracts. This is all about money. If they can't get enough here they will just bring it in from out of state.

[PLK]

I can't speak for other area's,but in SE Iowa most of the prime hunting land has already been bought by RESIDENT hunters or out of state land investors that don't allow hunting. Which make the whole issue a moot point around here.
PLK

[grunter]

Bowdude,i agree partially with you about the big money people coming in and buying ground up and messing things up really bad.But i am not in that position,I bought 100 acres just for me to hunt on and I would like to be able to hunt every year.especially bowhunt and maybe muzzle loader hunt on. If I dont get to hunt I will still be making payments and paying taxes on ground I cant even use,and hunting is what I really bought it for.

[Jim Wilder]

Bugle Man I am from out of state and I agree with you. Read the wrighting on the wall.Just look at north west Ill. The magic triangle is almost all leased up or you pay to hunt. If this passes bend over because it,s is coming!!! Why doesen,t any body sign there names to the replies???

[DC]

Illinois has the quality of deer that Iowa has AND Illinois has had NR Landowner Tags for many years. They only issue around 500 of these tags each year. I would not consider that a 'rush' on land.

We better be concerned about the Iowa population growth and the non-hunter purchasing ground. That is what is eating up all of the hunting ground.

Senate file 278 is a good bill which should be passed.

Jim,

I beleive you mean the 'Golden Triangle'. It is in East Central Illinois.

[DC]

Forgot to tell you this.

The DNR is backing this bill so there must be some 'sound biological reasoning' behind it.

[BW]

While attending IBA Spring Banquet, the DNR & the IBA seemed to support the Senate version of this bill as opposed to the House version.

The Senate version provides more money across the board Resident& Non Resident fee increases. Which the DNR is asking for support on as there has not been any increses for 10 years.

The IBA & DNR seem to oppose the extra antlerless tags for landowners due to deer mangement concerns.

The IBA opposes any increase in the total non resident tag numbers without requiring pay to hunt lands to file game mangement plans with the DNR.

The IBA & DNR seem to generally support the increases in fees and NR tag numbers with some adjustments that will help protect the resident hunters from forced pay to hunt or hunt public ground progression. And keep non agricultural landownership from creating problems for adjacent agricultural areas.

This is my interpretation.

Also FYI, the legislators are getting a lot of (only) negative feedback about the new harvest reporting process through ELSI from hunters that don't feel we need it. It looks like if hunters that support it do not contact their legislators in support of harvest reporting that the value of it may be lost. The DNR asks for support on the harvest reporting as it currently is laid out.

Also be aware of HF 321 - Requiring Lease Outfitters to register and be regulated by the DNR. The IBA supports this also.

[This message has been edited by BW (edited 03-12-2001).]

[This message has been edited by BW (edited 03-12-2001).]

[This message has been edited by BW (edited 03-12-2001).]

[antlers]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BugleMIn:
The Senate Natural resources Committee passed a file (278) to increase hunting license fees.

The hunting license fee increase is acceptable.

What this bill also does is raise the non-resident deer tags to 10,000, which is acceptable as well. But it goes one step further and allows every non-resident(N/R) landowner a deer tag. The N/R landowner tags will not be counted toward the 10,000 N/R tags.

Basically this is going to 1. create a land rush for cheap ground by non-residents.

2. Turn Iowa into a pay-to-hunt state. Iowa does not have enough public land to support its hunters. We will be looking at a situation like Texas and South Dakota before long if this measure goes through. In Texas you have to join a hunt club to hunt, your club owns the land. In South Dakota it is common to pay trespass fees of $100 per day to hunt pheasants.

There were two bills in the Natural Resource Comittee being considered, one was very similar to this except it did not have the N/R landowner provision. That is the file we need.

We need to stop Senate File 278 in its tracks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In regards to South Dakota tresspass fees, many are now $150 - $175 per day and up. Also there are a fair amount of pheasant hunting operations that are owned by out of state residents. You can't hunt the renowned southeast area of South Dakota unless you are family or are willing to pay big bucks to hunt. The idea of just buying your own land to hunt on is out of reach for the majority of hunters out there. It's hard to justify $1800 to $2000 per acre for land and then hundreds of dollars a year for property taxes to hunt. I hope you're able to keep politics out of hunting, the almighty dollar can do wonders to screw up hunting.

[grunter]

this reply is to antlers,do you think just because you are a resident,you want to stop all non-resident land owners from getting deer tags? But you can go into missouri and buy archery tags and gun tags for all seasons.missouri has very liberal tag system and it has not turned into what you are saying is going to happen in iowa.let everyone enjoy hunting,if anything they aught to limit draw tags and let property owners have tags so they can enjoy some of their envestment back.

[bundy]

Grunter, how are we residents of Iowa supposed to be able to enjoy hunting in are own state when nr's buy all the land they can find. I agree with bowdude, most people can,t afford to buy land. What happens when the next generation of possable hunters are forced to give up hunting because they have know where to go or don't have the money to pay leasing fees. Who will loose then?

[BOWDUDE]

I got an E-Mail from my state senator today, I had written to him just to get his take on this whole matter. He says he voted against this file. He did not agree with raising licence fee across the board. He also does not like the idea of raising rates because this will keep the DNR with plenty of cash for the next six years. He thinks they should become more accountable for themselves a little more often. He thinks certain provisions should be taken into account for land owners, but he does think it will create some of the problems I stated in an earlier post. Well I feel for guys who own land here. But I'm sure you checked into licence regulations before you purchased property. I also E-mailed my State Representative but she has not gotten back to me yet. But I will keep you posted. Good Hunting, Tim Shaw (bowdude)

[f15sticks]

I'm a non-resident land owner (military). It seems to me that I'll be paying a non-resident fee and then getting an additional deer tag. I've been paying taxes on a farm now for 5 years and have only made it back to hunt once. What part of this is unreasonable? Prior to this file, I was treated the same as an out-of-stater that showed up, took game and left. I'm happy with it!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BugleMIn:
The Senate Natural resources Committee passed a file (278) to increase hunting license fees.

The hunting license fee increase is acceptable.

What this bill also does is raise the non-resident deer tags to 10,000, which is acceptable as well. But it goes one step further and allows every non-resident(N/R) landowner a deer tag. The N/R landowner tags will not be counted toward the 10,000 N/R tags.

Basically this is going to 1. create a land rush for cheap ground by non-residents.

2. Turn Iowa into a pay-to-hunt state. Iowa does not have enough public land to support its hunters. We will be looking at a situation like Texas and South Dakota before long if this measure goes through. In Texas you have to join a hunt club to hunt, your club owns the land. In South Dakota it is common to pay trespass fees of $100 per day to hunt pheasants.

There were two bills in the Natural Resource Comittee being considered, one was very similar to this except it did not have the N/R landowner provision. That is the file we need.

We need to stop Senate File 278 in its tracks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[f15sticks]

No, I don't think so. Non-resident land owners will still pay the non-resident fee. I'm one (military). I've paid taxes on a farm now for 5 years and have only made it back to hunt once. If this is really a "pay to hunt land grab" then that's the most expensive doe tag I've ever heard of.

[Rog]

I don't mean this in a bad way, but it all boils down to this-Because we live here, it is our duty as Iowa bowhunters to take steps NOW to preserve our hunting lands from out of state pressure before it starts to become a downward spiral. Yes, we need some out of state dollars, but the new proposal in the House could be the beginning of the end. And to all the out of staters whining about how they own land here and it's unfair blah blah blah......Buy land in your home state or move here. I'm sure you can afford it.

[hunt iowa]

I guess those Iowa Bowhunters who migrate west to hunt each fall should also be considering moving to their favorite western hunting state. I wonder how many of you spend in preserving your Iowa hunt location what it costs you for that annual trip.

[antlers]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by grunter:
this reply is to antlers,do you think just because you are a resident,you want to stop all non-resident land owners from getting deer tags? But you can go into missouri and buy archery tags and gun tags for all seasons.missouri has very liberal tag system and it has not turned into what you are saying is going to happen in iowa.let everyone enjoy hunting,if anything they aught to limit draw tags and let property owners have tags so they can enjoy some of their envestment back.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Grunter: I'm not a resident of Iowa, I'm a resident of South Dakota. I'm not against non-resident hunters coming into the state, they've been doing that for longer than I've been around. But when I started pheasant hunting 25 years ago the resident hunter had the same opportunities to hunt the prime areas as the non-res hunter. Now due to the almighty dollar the prime land is leased or owned by operations that charge $150 to $175 and up per gun per day to hunt. I think all the resident hunter from Iowa wants is a fair chance to hunt the prime lands they've been hunting for years instead of having some wealthy resident or non-resident come in and buy up the land and start charging $3,000 to hunt deer. This hunting tradition that is spoken of in each of our states, deer hunting in Iowa and pheasant hunting in South Dakota is in danger of becoming a sport of only the wealthy.

In our discussions and debates remember as hunters...


United we stand, divided we fall.


~ George Pope Morris ~


PS, no need to give the non-hunters reason to come between us.

[PLK]

Amen!

[Rog]

To "hunt iowa"-You would be surprised....I have lived in Iowa and Colorado and the difference is night and day.

[BW]

Bowdude, your Senator's response about the DNR funding is consistant with other legislators according to the DNR & IBA. Many of the legislators want more control over the funding.

I heard from my Representive on HF 321 (Outfitter Registration). He said the chairman indicated it was going no where.

There are a lot of interests involved in this mess anymore. But I would like my children and grandchildren to have a good, cheap, safe place they can hunt here at home. So if that means I stay home, then so be it.

[BOWDUDE]

I still have not heard back from my State Representative, I guess she might not have much to say? I feel selfish about not wanting N/R to get land owner tags. I feel for someone in the military because I spent some years away from Iowa for that same reason. I also have a 4 year old son and I would like to hunt with him without having to fork out $3000, 7 or 8 years down the road. I don't hunt out of state for two reasons: 1) I can't afford it. 2) I wish I had more time to spend in the woods the way it is!! If you guys don't get a tag I will be the first to apply for the caretaker position. I wish I had a farm in Iowa to pay taxes on.

[Admin]

Here is the message I got from my Rep...

"At the present time there is strong opposition in the House to increasing
the number of out of state licenses. The House has passed a bill out of
committee that increases non-resident fees but keeps existing license
numbers the same."


[This message has been edited by TLH (edited 03-14-2001).]

[NateW]

Grunter, with all due respect, if you bought land in Iowa while you were a non-resident, you surely must have known your license availability was dependant on a draw. If that is the case, then it was a chance you took. Now it seems you are not very happy with the results and you feel the rules should be changed because you don't like the way the dice are rolling.

As for MO and their entire over-the-counter system, drop into Kirksville, MO on your own sometime and try to find a place to hunt. Unless you're fortunate enough to have connections that will allow you to hunt or arrange your own lease, you'll be shoulder to shoulder with 300 hunters on a small tract of public land. What good is a tag if there's no place to fill it?

"Buy your own land" in my eyes is pretty weak solution. Land here--even extremely poor land, is well over $1,000 an acre where I live. I suppose some people believe that only those who are extremely well-off should be permitted to hunt here, but I'm not one of them. Maybe I live in a fairy tale world, but I'd still like my kid to have the opportunity to grab the gun or bow and hunt for a while after school like I did.

If you're a nonresident and draw an Iowa tag, do your homework and you'll be able to find a good place to hunt--for free. But if the only way to hunt Iowa is to invest $100,000+ into buying your own land, God help us all.

[BugleMIn]

TLH,

I think that is a typical response, the legislators are hearing something different from every hunter they talk to. We have no united front and for that we will end up with a bunch of rules that won't make sense and the Gov will probably veto it anyway.

[grunter]

THIS IS IN REPLY TO NATEW; I GUESS ALL THE LANDOWNERS YOU HAVE BEEN HUNTING ON OWE IT TO YOU TO ALLOW YOU TO HUNT.THEY PAY TAXES AND MAKE PAYMENTS ON THEIR PROPERTY JUST LIKE I AM.I ALSO I KNEW OF THE TAG REQUIREMENTS OF THE TAGS WHEN I BOUGHT MY PROPERTY,HOPING THAT SOMEDAY IT MAY CHANGE IN MY FAVOR AND I WOULD BE ABLE TO HUNT MY PROPERTY! THE PEOPLE YOU SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT ARE OUTFITTERS AND PEOPLE WILLING TO LEASE PROPERTY.AS A PROPERTY OWNER I SHOULD BE ABLE TO HUNT EVERYTHING AND WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM PAYING FULL NON-RESIDENT TAG PRICES. I AM NOT LOOKING FOR ANYTHING FREE JUST WHAT I AM ENTITLED TO AS A PROPERTY OWNER.

[Admin]

All,

No matter what side of the fence you sit on you need to contact your Rep. today and express your thoughts in a courteous manner.

HouseNaturalResourcesCommittee (http://www.legis.state.ia.us/GA/79GA/House/Comm/NaturalResources.html)

It's not dead yet, every contact counts!

TLH

[rescuebill]

Here we go again. Same thing every year. I have all ready contacted my reps. and am planning to attend a legislative forum saturday at 10:00am. There is usually 6 of them their.

I am still against ANY increase in non res numbers for all the reasons already stated.

Get involved and contacted your reps and stop this bill!

[captain]

I just submitted a petion to Mr. Reckow with 764 signatures AGAINST 278. Hope it helps.

[ringodeer]

Grunter, just because you own property in Iowa does not grant you ownership of the wildlife inhabiting your propery. The wildlife inhabiting your property belongs to the state of Iowa. In short the poeple of Iowa.The Iowa legislation will make the final decision, weather to pass file 278. If it passes or does not pass the people of Iowa have spoken.

[NateW]

No Grunter, I don't feel any landowners owe me anything. However I feel the state does owe me something-- the opportunity to hunt regardless of my financial status. One thing that most people don't understand about our DNR is that they are almost completely self-sufficient. Iowa's DNR gets close-to $0 from the General Fund, which is where your tax money goes. The DNR's funds come almost exclusively from the sale of licenses, habitat stamps, etc. A lot of resident and nonresident property owners feel that because they pay property taxes, they're supporting the DNR. In actuality if they're not buying hunting & fishing licenses they're not giving the DNR a dime.

Grunter, I'm not trying to p!$$ you off, I'm just trying to make a case for those of us who have paid the DNRs way all these years. Iowa has done a great job of building an awesome deer herd and the bulk of this has been done thru the investment of resident's dollars. Now everybody wants us to share our returns. That's not exactly fair from where I sit.

[MH]

Just a thought...

Everybody is airing out opinions and not really discussing what compromises might be made in order to bring all of us back on the same page. I think maybe the bill should have been written with more people in mind. The DNR should allow all NR landowners to apply for a tag by the end of January. All those that apply get accepted and are required to pay the current or an increased NR fee ( i believe an increased fee would be more appropriate for the quality of animals in Iowa). They would then take the number of tags given to the NR landowners out of the number of available NR tags for the draw. The reason this makes sense to me is that NR landowners are putting money back into Iowa in the form of property taxes, monies spent on land improvement, monies spent on people to care for their land, and monies spent on farming their land. I think that they support Iowa financially more than other NR who simply put in for a tag and then come hunt, and because of that should recieve some prefernece. Also, I believe that anyone investing the kind of money it takes to buy land are very serious hunters who care about the overall health of the wildlife here in Iowa. I feel like on a whole these individuals would tend to be more responsible hunters. I want to explain that i do not mean to say if a guy does not own land he does not care, but a guy that does has quite a bit more invested with time and money.
I know everyone here is very opinionated, but i think we would be better to discuss how we can all come together on this topic as it will not go away anytime soon. I offer these thoughts as a step for discussing how we can all make a few compromises in order to benefit the future of all of our hunting, resident and Nonresident. As was said earlier, united we stand, divided we fall...let's make a few compromises from both sides so that we can stand together on this issue.

Michael Hine

[rescuebill]

MH,

If we residents compromised as you say to non res land owners here is what WILL happen.

Some high level manager, doctor, you name it will say to themselves....man I got money to burn, I think I will go to Iowa and buy a couple of farms and screw some resident that hunted that farm for 30 years. Forget about his son, I want mine. I want to smooze my business clients with hunts so maybe I will buy 3 or 4 farms since I am guranteed a tag. You get my point. A lot of people have alot of money out their and think nothing of spending it on farms for hunting.

We have very little public land in this state. This message is not ment to offend you, just my never to be humble opnion.

I hope we can beat this back again. I have lost great land to leasing by outfitters and non residents.

I guess we will never agree on theis issue.

[bullwinkle]

I agree totally with MH.The only thing in life that is certain is change.I do not like the way some things turn out,but you deal with them. If they need more revenue, increase the liscence fee.

[captain]

This is a hot issue and I beg all the guys who are against it to notify your legislator!!!!!!!! There have been many good responses and reasons so.. give your opions and ideas to someone that counts.THANKS

NO TO 278!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wibohnt]

MH-I agree with you, as a NR landowner I would simply like to have some sort of preference over a NR-non landowner. I am not a high level manager or a Dr. but rather someone who has worked hard to save my money with the hope that someday I will have a place to hunt quality whitetails with my son.

I dont feel the current set up treats NR/LO's fair but after talking with several farmers from Iowa they feel they are the ones hurt the most because the current situation does not allow their land to reach its true recreational value to anyone, resident or nonresident.

I have met many hunters over the past 3 years in Iowa, both nonresident and resident, and everyone I have met has had one thing in common, a passion for hunting quality whitetails. I hope we can agree on a plan that everyone will satisfied with.
Good hunting.

[DC]

rescuebill,

I will state again that Illinois has the quality and quantity of deer that Iowa has, they have no limit on NR tags, and NR landowners are guaranteed landowner tags. Yet Illinois only issues around 500 NR landowner tags and that number has remained stable for the last sevaral years.

Your fears are unconfirmed and border on paranoia. It's a travesty that you believe any hunter would purchase or lease land just to 'screw another hunter'. That is not their motivation and never will be.

I am here to tell everyone that several years back it was forecast that 80% of the land in Iowa would change owners by the year 2020. I hope the hunting public gets most of it. I also hope Vilsak's plan to increase Iowa's population by 2 million people fails miserably. Those are the problems we face - not the extra 2500 NR deer hunters included in SF278.

Once again, I believe SF278 is a good bill that should be passed.

DC

[rescuebill]

DC,

I won't go back and forth with anyone on this subject. I simply feel one way and you another. Go to the Illions page at www.bowsite.com (http://www.bowsite.com) and ask them what over the counter non res tags and preference for non res. land owners have done to the resident hunter. Really, just go their and ask.

I do not have hate for any non residents. It is hard to debate in this kind of forum. Sometimes it seems we are attacking when in fact we are not. I just disagree with some of you. Nothing personal or paranoid.

[BugleMIn]

I got a letter today from Representative David Schrader from the Monroe, IA area.

He indicates that he is not sure about increasing n/r tags. I don't oppose increasing the tags I just don't want them tied to land ownership.

He also said the fee increases are his greatest concern, particular the fishing fees. Here we are discussing one part of the law about n/r deer tags and the whole law may get killed over what I consider to be trivial fee increases. Let's face it, the fees can legitimately be adjusted every ten years or so...

$3.50 increase in fishing is trivial. Can't even buy a Whopper combo meal for that anymore.... Or your tackle box might be one spinnerbait short this year, oh, well...

If the whole law dies the only loser is the DNR.

[nodriver]

why do residents who own no land think they are entitled to hunt for free on someone else's land? why don't bow hunters and others who actually hunt deer immediately oppose party hunting as a way to conserve quality deer. party hunting is just a total waste of the resource and makes non resident hunting look like nothing in comparison to the effect on deer populations. southern iowa is in a depression, why shouldn't they make some money from deer?

[BOWDUDE]

NODRIVER&lt;
I am not a party hunter, I have owned land in southern Iowa for three years. I grew up outside of Des Moines on what used to be gravel roads. I also spent alot of time on the farm in Adams County, Iowa. I can remember my father taking me Quail hunting when I was just old enough to hold a single shot 410 shotgun. I don't ever remember walking on everyone's land without asking. I don't remember ever thinking it is my right.
I would be curious to here where you are from and your back ground, but by looking at your profile you must not want us to know. If you think selling land to out of state hunters will save southern Iowa you are crazy. The only way it will help the people and towns is if the NR hunter brings a industrial, or manufacturing plant with them. If you made all the party hunters quit hunting, within 2 years you would here more screaming about the deer population than you ever thought possible.
Please remember these are just one man's idea's!!!!!
Good hunting!!
Bowdude

[Jim Wilder]

Hey I, agree with both sodes. I am from Mo. We are the screwed up state. Our Conservation Com.. lets non-residents come here for 110.00 they can kill two deer. two turkeys.that is for archery. and then they can spend some more money and kill some more deer with a gun and enter in our special hunts. We should be the ones complaning.
Bt the way how does Iowa know how many deer are killed they never ck. them.

[sagittarius]

Why give NR land owners a tag?......Deer management. If NR properties are not hunted the become safe havens during the season, especially gun. It then becomes a harvest issue, are NR large property owners harvesting enough deer/does to control populations. - Does the neighbor have alot of deer crop damage. Allowing a landowner a tag insures the property will at least be hunted.

Why raise the NR limit to 10,000? How many of you have relatives that live out of state that would like to come home and deer hunt, children, nephews, ect? Its kinda sad when a farmers children live out-a-state, and can't get a tag to come home and deer hunt the family farm (legally). Too much competition with other NR hunters. In Illinois, the largest segment of NR hunters are former residents, family members, coming home to deer hunt, I would imagine Iowa is the same.

Yes, deer hunting in Iowa is changing, as it is all over the US. Hunter numbers are in the decline in the US in general. For hunting to survive, young people must be introduced to hunting. This is not done by restricting access, but by provideing more access, to residents, and non-resident family members. JMHO