Hunting lobby- NR and NR landowners

[bjkpharmd]

Who are the main groups lobbying for:

NR tag increases in Iowa
Outfitter organizations
Reciprocity of tag fees
NR landowner's rights
etc

????

[DOR]

You joining them now? /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

[bjkpharmd]

Sorry- wrong forum- can one of the mods move this to IBA forum?

[bjkpharmd]

Nope- curious. Got a funny spam message and not sure if it came from here or recent NRA membership.

[bjkpharmd]

USO has been quiet about Iowa and other states since the AZ suit. I can't figure out if anyone is really making waves from outside the state- it almost seems like the resident's worst worries are coming from elected officials.
I figured the IBA would have their finger on the pulse of this issue.

[ElkHunter]

Three key points
1.DNR & some non res want more tags.
2.Non Res land owners want a any sex tag every year.
3.All groups are becoming better organized. Lots of people wanting to make money on the deer, this is the United States do what you want legally. Just don't expect the hunters of this state to lay roll over and play dead.

Two comments
1. All I'll say is put the shoe on the other foot, you have the great deer hunting in your state. Would you not fight to keep it?
2. Non res knew what the laws were when they bought land and if they didn't, they should have done some research.Don't think you can change the law without a fair amount of resistance.

Part of this post is in response to another post on IW

[DOR]

"1.DNR & all non res want more tags"

Insert some for all

[ElkHunter]

correction noted & made /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[bjkpharmd]

"All groups are becoming better organized"

I'm asking who? What groups are you talking about and who is representing them? It is a shame you have to fight the IDNR as they are looking for revenue. The others (lets call them the boogeymen) are hard to counter unless you know who they are...

I've made the same argument on regs when I was a resident as I do now. The tag number should be set by the biologists and the price should be set by the market demand.

[Fishbonker]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pharmer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The tag number should be set by the biologists and the price should be set by the market demand. </div></div>

Yeah, why raise the number of NR tags to increase revenue, just raise the cost of the tags. The down side of that is all other states would threaten to jack up their NR prices and the hunters from Iowa who go outa state would be hurt. I suppose the "greater good" card could be played and the Iowa residents who chose to hunt outta state would just have to suck it up too.

As far as tag numbers being set by biologists, there has to be a corollary about hunting access. What good are high deer numbers and more NR tags if nobody is allowed to hunt the land they are on?

The 'Bonker

[DOR]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fishbonker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pharmer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The tag number should be set by the biologists and the price should be set by the market demand. </div></div>

Yeah, why raise the number of NR tags to increase revenue, just raise the cost of the tags. The down side of that is all other states would threaten to jack up their NR prices and the hunters from Iowa who go outa state would be hurt. I uppose the "greater good" card could be played and the Iowa residents who chose to hunt outta state would just have to suck it up too.

As far as tag numbers being set by biologists, there has to be a corollary about hunting access. What good are high deer numbers and more NR tags if nobody is allowed to hunt the land they are on?

The 'Bonker </div></div>

You are 100% on track Bonks! Tag prices are out of control if you are a multi-state threat.

[bjkpharmd]

So no one can tell me who the NR people getting organized are?

It seems like folks are being paranoid and it sets the stage for the NR vs resident debate and whips up emotions. You can't fight an enemy you can't identify.

What are the suggestions on access?

[DOR]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pharmer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So no one can tell me who the NR people getting organized are?

It seems like folks are being paranoid and it sets the stage for the NR vs resident debate and whips up emotions. You can't fight an enemy you can't identify.

What are the suggestions on access?
</div></div>

Pharmer you make a good point.....I don't know of any really organized groups, probably a good thing too or you would have the next IL on your hands. Maybe the Farm Bureau? or som big Ins outfit? No outfitters group as far as I know and its to far of a reach for USO to get worked up.....speculating here...don;t know for sure

[Fishbonker]

Several ideas come to mind. As much as I hate the government telling us what to do, let’s say they do aerial/road counts of deer in a certain area. They notify the land owner(s) that he needs to thin the heard or face losing some federal/state money. The next year the counts remain the same or go up. He is either penalized or he can allow hunters to help thin his herd. Third year, counts remain the same or go up, he loses money and is strongly urged to open his land. I don’t know what the end point would be, some land owners would rather pay the penalties than allow hunting.

Unfortunately the land owner would say “OK, give me tags for free that I can sell to NR hunters” so that idea isn’t so good.

Another one, if somebody wants to lease their land for hunting, they have to notify the DNR, who would then do a survey, tell them how many deer need to be harvested, the land owner would pay for the survey. The next year the DNR would do a follow up survey, if the number was too high they would request the land owner to request the lessee kill more deer. The down side of this one is the same as the first.

If the land owner can prove that he made a good faith effort to kill more deer but weather or some other problem prohibited the take of their quota no punishment would be levied.

Maybe the best idea would be to offer tax breaks or incentives of some kind for the land owners to open their land to hunting. I think this is already being done in other states, one of the Dakotas maybe?

Just some quick thoughts, none that are really workable except the last one.

The ‘Bonker

[hillrunner]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe the best idea would be to offer tax breaks or incentives of some kind for the land owners to open their land to hunting. I think this is already being done in other states, one of the Dakotas maybe?
</div></div>

I like this idea but Im unsure how productive it would be. I would be interested to hear the results from a state already impleminting this idea.

Sorry pharmer I cant really answer your question. I think I remember State Farm and maybey Farm Burea hiring lobbyists on their behalf but Im not sure n/r tag quotas was the issue. n/r tags may have been 1 issue but I seem to remember rifles and more liberal gun seasons being more at the center.

[bjkpharmd]

I have not been a NR until this year but there will be more deer (almost all antlerless) harvested on the properties I own than last year and we have never been shy about taking does. Just more friends with youth tags and multiple late season rifle tags that will get the job. There is 640 acres leased on two sides of one property that the guy from DETROIT is really proud and too much of a REAL hunter to shoot does. In the past 4 years, between the other neighbor and I we have almost 90 does taken off a total of less than 200 acres. No matter what we do, there are more does than we can shoot.

I'm selling or in the process of trying to sell a couple pieces of property because I can't hunt as much as I want, I as much as anyone knew the rules when I decided to move. Somehow I got on a spam list asking for $ for a landowner rights lobby. I let my IBA membership lapse but I'm not going the other way either.

[Outdoor Family]

Phamer
Could you explain your reason for capitalizing Detroit and real in your response?

[Fishbonker]

If I had to guess they are capitalized to show the guy from Detroit probably looks down his nose at Iowa hay seeds and REAL because he considers himself a real hunter because he only shoots bucks and thinks QDM is a bunch of BS.

Only my opinion becuase thats what I'da done.

Am I close?

The 'Bonker

[bjkpharmd]

That Bonker- He never rode the short bus.

There are NR that don't get it, only see what their fat wallets will get them. It really was DETROIT but you could make the same case for CHICAGO, ST LOUIS, or others. This guy really KNEW what was best for Iowa.

I'm not sure FB is worried about who gets the tags as long as they get the deer numbers down. In fairness to IBA, I should say that I also let my FB membership lapse.

[Outdoor Family]

Phamer
What do you mean with "NR don't get it"??
Also, not sure what "Fat Wallet" means as you are selling some of your properties???

[ElkHunter]

It it way to early to be having this argument.
Dor is correct about no one is very organized(guides,outfitters non res landowners) but they are starting to make some noise in DM.I'm not paranoid it just a lot better to be on the offense instead of defense.If a legislator hears from one outfitter or nr landowner then he should hear from 10 Iowa hunters how they feel.It just makes more sense to be aggressive instead of taking the passive approach and try to correct anything after the fact. It's hard to win at anything if you are on your heels all the time.
If I understand correctly Il. & Ks will be making some changes, the open door policy may not have been the best idea after all.
No one should ever say that a group is all evil or all good(nr, guides, Ia. landowners) you have good ones and bad ones just like anything in life.It's just my opinion but given the choice I will taken an Ia. landowner over a nr landowner almost every time. They live closer to the ground and that in it's self makes it easier to manage the deer on their ground.
Please note I never said all or always any where in this post .
How about we all just enjoy the harvest forums now, there will be plenty of time to kick this around after the hunting season closes.

[Fishbonker]

Not that I wanna keep answering for pharmer, but I think he is talking about personality, not location. We have all met the guy who thinks he is smarter than you, thinks he has more money than you and likes to remind you of both at every opprotunity. Since they know it all, they just don't get it if somebody has a better, proven idea. I got no time for people like that.

I don't think there is a fight to be picked here. I belive pharmer is selling his Iowa ground to buy ground in his new state, Caintucke. It is true, however, that the collective IQ of both states went up by 20 points when he moved.

The 'Bonker

[Kansasdeerslayer]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: elkhunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If I understand correctly Il. & Ks will be making some changes, the open door policy may not have been the best idea after all.
</div></div>

Kansas is making changes, but not closing the door. They are probably going to allow more NR next year, making leasing an even bigger problem here. It's never too early to be talking about these things,IMO. Keep up the good fight boys. Iowa is about the only state left not letting the NR overrun the place.

[ElkHunter]

Thanks Kansas, I had some wrong info.Thought they were cutting back not expanding.Sorry to hear that.

[Outdoor Family]

Sorry for the late reply, HS wrestling meet all yesterday…
Anyway, a fight wasn’t my intent. But an explanation was. I have been blessed to live in many Midwest states and over sea’s . What I have learned from this experience is that where someone lives isn’t a reflection of who he is, his action speak to that, be it Detroit or Cedar Rapids or the dollars in his pocket…
The “just don’t get it” commit I thought was intended about doe reduction on the 640 acre leased land, but wondering if that was if fact the case, or something else??

[dbltree]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The “just don’t get it” comment I thought was intended about doe reduction on the 640 acre leased land, but wondering if that was if fact the case, or something else??
</div></div>

I think some resident landowners are just as guilty as NR landowners in "protecting" their property and getting all wrapped up in the "big buck" mania. Where we live or where are from has nothing to do with anything...it's how we live our lives that is important.

For the most part in my area, NR landowners control very large amounts of prime habitat and do in most cases no herd management at all. Just as Elkhunter mentioned I am not saying all but many are very arrogant simply because of the "fat wallet" syndrome. This only causes hard feelings not only among resident hunters but neighboring landowners who have their crops decimated not to mention constant car/deer problems.

I certainly understand all the emotions on both sides and I personally have grown weary of the never ending battle. Most NR's are great people regardless if they are landowners or just visiting every few years to hunt.

I do fear however...based on what I see with current laws, what will happen if we "open the floodgates" and let all NR landowners purchase tags every year. I can see no good that can come from it...

Every farm that ends up being purchased for the sole purpose of deer hunting by either resident or NR only increases our overall deer problem, which in turn causes our polititians to pressure our DNR to come up with more/better methods of controlling our deer. I think we all know how that is working out.. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

I don't pretend to have the answers... no one is really happy with things now and will become even more unhappy in the future...unless there is indeed a "magic bullet"

Years ago I defended my property and "my deer" with a vengence but eventually learned I was much better off if I shared this land that God has blessed me with. Now I let friends and neighbors help me with "herd control"...even if it means never killing a huge buck.

Life is about choices and NR landowners that choose to build a trusting relationship with a few resident hunters to help manage the deer in their area will go along way in solving the NR/resident conflict.

As to pharmers original question...I believe that the realtor lobby is encouraging the NR landowner every year/any deer tag.

The IDNR and outfitters are encouraging and increase in NR tags overall.

The Farm lobby and lawmakers encourage anything that gives any appearance at all of having a positive affect on reducing our deer herd. Often there efforts are completely misguided and have the complete opposite affect.

As Randy mentioned already...no need for arguments and mud slinging but hopefully we can all work together to continue to have the quality deer herd and hunting in Iowa that is important to so many of us.

[bjkpharmd]

I apologize for singling out Detroit, I know pricks from Chicago too. :-)

Maybe the answer should be NR landowner "earn a tag" by getting X number of antlerless deer harvested every year by letting friends, neighbors, and relatives hunt- they "earn" a landowner tag for their own.

[teeroy]

maybe the answer is for outsiders to quit trying to change iowa's laws to serve there own purposes

[Outdoor Family]

Phamer/Dbltree/Fishbonker..
Thanks for the insight. Once again no mud slinging meant, just trying to understand all view points. The NR landowner yearly any sex tag is a debate with many sides. As soon as my wife has her nursing degree, we’ll probably be residents in Des Moines, so that would solve my family hunting issue…

[teeroy]

this would be the same as if someone were to buy 40 acres in the california hills(not live there), then try to get their kid into USC and pay residents tuition.

[Jdubs]

Teeroy,

The folks trying to change the rules are not "outsiders" but people who reside and work in Iowa towns in the real estate industry, insurance industry, your own DNR, etc. Perceptive NR's have bought, and are continuing to buy, waiting for "Iowans", who have positioned themselves to take advantage of the rush, to change the rules. These folks finally realized the value of land thrown aside as non-tillable and are trying to make a buck. Your fight is with your own.

[teeroy]

good point

[Jdubs]

Glad you see it.

[browninggold9]

As a NR, I think you Iowans would be absolutly crazy to let NRs have easy access to licenses (buck). I've had the priviledge of hunting there twice and came home empty each time but had the best hunting ever. Waiting a few years for those tags is well worth it to me, if it was easy to get tags the quality would fall off for sure.
Maybe with the wait for tags it keeps SOME of the slob hunters out of Iowa. I think that if a guy is willing to wait a few years to get a tag, he is probably a "higher caliber hunter".
This is just my thoughts but my advice would be to be very careful with changes, once the scales tip the other way, they're not coming back.

[cheryl19]

AS a NR landowner myself, I would love to see NR landowners given the ability to harvest more than one antlerless deer a year. And i mean just doe tags , not the ability to party hunt off of a doe tag. If you are truly looking to manage your land, then it would be nice. I let at least 2 local people hunt my land and i think i need to kill 40 does a year . Further more, if the dnr wants to increase the nr tags, then make it earn a buck and make the one time hunter help ou with the population control. More NR buck tags is not the answer. I sat for 20 days this year on my farm with just a video camera, had a great time, would be nice to kill some does at the very minimum,

[Ghost]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: khbofa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AS a NR landowner myself, I would love to see NR landowners given the ability to harvest more than one antlerless deer a year. And i mean just doe tags , not the ability to party hunt off of a doe tag. If you are truly looking to manage your land, then it would be nice. I let at least 2 local people hunt my land and i think i need to kill 40 does a year . Further more, if the dnr wants to increase the nr tags, then make it earn a buck and make the one time hunter help ou with the population control. More NR buck tags is not the answer. I sat for 20 days this year on my farm with just a video camera, had a great time, would be nice to kill some does at the very minimum, </div></div>

I fully agree with that...the NR landowner should be able to get antlerless only bow tags to their hearts desire at an affordable rate!

Good post!

I understand I would never let the flood gates open on my land as a NR landowner, but I would like to be able to get the buck to doe ratio in check at an affordable rate the way I saw fit. That is, control of the who, when, and where, of doe management tool type of thing.

/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

[PYBucks]

According to the CO I talked to this fall, the NR archery antlerless only tag is history. The DNR is doing away with them next year.

[OneCam]

Doing away with the NR doe license would be an excellent move ... we may loose some revenue upfront but after talking with a few CO's that have spent countless hours with investigations, arrests and prosecution - I think it is safe to say we actually would save money by not selling these tags when factoring the CO's time costs.

Now NR doe tags sold during the shotgun season are no different than buck tags IMO because of party hunting.

[cheryl19]

i agree, very few people pay 400 dollars for a doe tag without thinking something to the effect that if a giant walks buy they will figure a way to tag it. all i am saying is this, N R landowners are accounting for a significant amount of land in Iowa. With that goes the problem of increased doe populations, NR landowners in many cases are building doe breeding grounds without any real ability to keep the population down, now combine that with the fact that deer harvest will probably be down this year with 2 consecutive bad weather weekends which kept many hunters from traveling. Dnr should find a way to let NR landowners kill does even if it is the doe only season in january when it is 5 degrees outside. Its just a thought,

[dbltree]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> NR landowners in many cases are building doe breeding grounds without any real ability to keep the population down, now combine that with the fact that deer harvest will probably be down this year with 2 consecutive bad weather weekends which kept many hunters from traveling. Dnr should find a way to let NR landowners kill does even if it is the doe only season in january when it is 5 degrees outside. Its just a thought,
</div></div>

But in fact every NR landowner has a perfect ready made tool to help in managing the doe herd....resident hunters.

Build a trusting relationship with a few resident hunters who would be more then willing to hunt in the late season and fill their freezers...and all sides win. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[bjkpharmd]

Anyone have tags and want to hunt in the Washington area?

[cheryl19]

I dont have all the answers, Clearly doe management is an issue not easily conquered. Clearly he state seems to think the residents need three more days to kill more does. I am just saying if NR are coming to the state to kill he bucks, they should have to kill more does as well and on top of that , if you own land there, you should be absolutely required to harvest some % of property size in does. My point being, make NR work a little, why should a resident have to go out and buy 12 doe tags to hunt my farm when he is trying to manage his. It all sounds great on paper until u ask someone to freeze their butts off to shoot does. As I said earlier I have 2 guys, they shot 10 so far . I can see in the last 4 years, less and less shotgun hunters in the area. that can not be helping. No disrespect meant here, you are the food plot guru, just giving you my opinion

[dbltree]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">just giving you my opinion
</div></div>

and it's certainly appreciated...not picking on you by any means but just hoping to encourage others by our posts.

Your thoughts are valid but very very difficult to implement or enforce such changes I'm afraid. Which is why I feel we should keep encouraging voluntary efforts.

If we insist on "forcing" NR's to harvest X# of does then why not resident landowners? Run that by the local farmers, Farm Bureau, lawmakers etc. and see how that goes over! /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

I have felt for a long time that ALL hunters in areas where deer numbers are out of control should have to earn the right to take a buck just as they do in our urban hunts. Some hunters in these areas kill 20 does to earn the right to hunt a buck..of course even that idea goes over like a "lead balloon" out here in the country /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Real change comes hard but it starts here with "ideas" and thoughts be exchanged. Unfortunatly most NR and Res. landowners in my area that own land soley for the purpose of hunting do little if any "herd management". Many have been approached by DNR biologists encouraging them to allow some antlerless hunting but they scoff at the idea. This attitude leaves many of us with a very sour attitude towards NR landowners I'm afraid.

I know this...forcing hunters/landowners to do anything doesn't go over well....

In my area it seems like overall interest or participation in shotgun hunting has slowly waned as access has diminished and hunters have grown older. Farms get larger, young people move away, land gets leased or sold so that remaining hunters eventually give up.

My concern is that lawmakers just don't see any of this...they just don't get it. Even the IDNR is guilty or they wouldn't be clamoring for more NR tags. They seem intent on "hanging themselves with their own rope" so to speak... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Landowners aren't the only guilty ones...outfitters have leased every available spec of land around both of my farms. Each promising to "kill lots of does"...however thus far none have been taken and because of NR owned refuges next door...I doubt that any serious impact will be made if they have a late season hunt.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you own land there, you should be absolutely required to harvest some % of property size in does. </div></div>

I agree with you...but I just don't see it happening....

[bjkpharmd]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pharmer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone have tags and want to hunt in the Washington area? </div></div>

I've had one person contact me about hunting and I gave them permission but won't be there until after the emergency season. There must not be too much trouble with access in Washington county anyway.

[risto2351]

Pharmer,
I was wondering how many people would contact you.
Thanks for the update.

[appanoose]

Two cents from another nonresident...
Why is there such a disconnect in ideas between the Iowa hunting groups and local Iowa farmers regarding access and what's fair??
We own ground in southern Iowa and hunt pheasant and quail there and all over the state. We have many local farmer friends,have great access,and enjoy our time in Iowa.
Every one of the farmers I know,(all Iowa residents)and all of my immediate neighbors think it's crazy that I cannot get tags for turkey every year to hunt our own ground, much less deer.
My family was originally from around New Virginia and they all find this whole issue just as puzzling.