THA4
A Few Steps Ahead Of You
Well, I submitted an email to the Branstad crew in regards to the hearsay that Terry is going to increase NR tags.
Here is what I wrote:
Later that evening, my phone rang from a number I didn't recognize, and for some reason, I answered it.....
"Hi, this is Terry Branstad."
I was more than surprised, not to mention I had just submitted that email earlier that day. Talk about fast!
I am going to share with you exactly what I was told, but I ask that you read this in its entirety before you form an opinion.
I was very impressed with this whole conversation as Terry asked me to further explain my stance, and help him better understand why I felt the way I did. After I explained that resident hunters are struggling with land access as it is, and that an increase would likely make it that much more difficult to gain permission. I explained that with an increase in NR tags, there would also be an increase in leased properties by NRs, more outfitters would pop up, so on and so fourth, taking more land away from Iowans, and his response blew me away....
"Well, Thomas, I haven't thought about it that way.... that is very good to know...."
I also began to explain that more NRs leasing up and buying Iowa properties would also be counter-productive to Iowa's management as they would no longer allow access to those properties and those locations would become hotspots of high deer densities....
Same response....
He then explained to me that at this point he "would support a modest NR tag increase" and asked what I thought about that. I replied that I would not support that, but I was interested in what his definition of "MODEST" was. He replied with 1000-2000 NR tags statewide. He asked again if I would support that, I said NO.
NOW BEFORE YOU FREAK OUT, LET ME CONTINUE!
He also explained that he is concerned with the state's bottom line. As Gov. he will be responsible for many other areas other than JUST Iowa's deer hunting.... Like it or not, there are many MORE important issues, for example, if our kids can't afford to hunt in the first place who cares how many NRs hunt Iowa....?? He has to look at the state as a whole, not just from our perspective as hunters, therefore he is concerned with the bottom line. But the simple fact that he took the time to learn more about why this has become an issue speaks volumes to me!
It is undeniable that a NR tag increase will have a positive impact on many small towns, especially in southern Iowa. This is the time of year WHEN they make their money. While I feel the impact on these towns in regards to a tag increase will only be temporary and minimal at best, I can see his point of view. I do not agree with it, but I do understand where he is coming from....
I then talked to him about applying the supply and demand theory to this decision. Increasing the supply will eventually decrease the demand.... simple economics.... Once all these folks have hunted Iowa, the Novelty will wear off and many residents will have lost access and gave up hunting all together, having a negative impact on those local economies. I told him by keeping the Iowa tag a hot commodity we would ensure the business we are already receiving through this program. And I assured him I am in support of NR hunting, but it NEEDS to be managed. He agreed.
I then replied to him that it would be easier to swallow a 1000-2000 tag increase over doubling the current quota, but I reaffirmed that I would not support it. He assured me it would NOT be doubled.
I then brought up that once a change or increase is implemented it would open the door to further increases. That bothers me and many other Iowa sportsmen and women. He totally understood the sentiment and assured me that during his tenure, an additional increase would not take place. I know politicians have made this kind of promise before, i.e. Bush senior with "Read My Lips, NO NEW TAXES" But in this case, I firmly believe he would stand by his word.
I believe he KNOWS the value of our outdoor heritage and wants to maintain the great thing we already have here in Iowa. But from his perspective, he also wants to follow through with his campaign promises. i.e. 200,000 jobs, reduce debt, and so much more. this would be a way to better Iowa's economy..... small but effective, economically speaking. I still believe it would be temporary and he knows exactly how I feel..... I made that perfectly clear!
Those of you who don't like him and feel we could do better, let me ask you this: who were you expecting? Uncle Ted? a former Conservation Officer? I watched the debates and felt like he did a great job.... He is NOT the prez of the NRA but I feel with his experience, resume, and connection to Iowa Sportsmen and women, he IS the best man for the job.....
His son hunts often, from what he says, and his own son doesnt want to see a NR tag increase. SO he knows this is an issue. He wants to put Iowans first and I believe he will.
One thing you also NEED to keep in mind. Once elected (which it will not be a close race) he is NOT going to automatically INCREASE the tags... it doesn't work that way.... That amendment would have to be approved and pass both state assemblies, and we would have ample time to act and encourage him to re-evaluate his position. He said he would support the idea.... meaning there is A LOT of room for us Iowa Whitetail'r's to have an impact and help educate him on the issues!
I'm going to get on my soap box again here, so bear with me... :drink1:
If you are basing your entire vote on this issue, you need to better educate yourselves on the entire platform of issues.... sac up, learn exactly what he stands for, and know what/who you are voting for, inside and out! If you don't agree with Branstad, don't vote for him!! but if deer hunting is the only reason for a 'yea' or 'nay', I take issue with that. It is our duty as Iowans and Americans to show up at the poles ON November 2nd.... but to also be educated on why we are voting as we will.
If you think Chester will serve our interests best, you have another thing coming.... from what I hear (very reliable sources) he will support a NR tag increase by double this next term..... if elected consider that done!... so if you support him, you support a 6,000 NR tag increase... plain and simple... better think about that when voting.
Bottom line here folks, I made an effort to contact him and he took the time to hear me out, that meant more to me than I can explain. he IS listening and if we all take a few minutes and send our thoughts to Branstad and his staff, they will take note. We can help him better understand why it is in our best interest to NOT increase NR tags...
He is listening, we can have an impact.... send an email today, you WILL be heard...
http://governorbranstad2010.com/contact-us/
Please take the time, and BE RESPECTFUL, you get much more done by being cool-headed about it!
Here is what I wrote:
Later that evening, my phone rang from a number I didn't recognize, and for some reason, I answered it.....
"Hi, this is Terry Branstad."
I was more than surprised, not to mention I had just submitted that email earlier that day. Talk about fast!
I am going to share with you exactly what I was told, but I ask that you read this in its entirety before you form an opinion.
I was very impressed with this whole conversation as Terry asked me to further explain my stance, and help him better understand why I felt the way I did. After I explained that resident hunters are struggling with land access as it is, and that an increase would likely make it that much more difficult to gain permission. I explained that with an increase in NR tags, there would also be an increase in leased properties by NRs, more outfitters would pop up, so on and so fourth, taking more land away from Iowans, and his response blew me away....
"Well, Thomas, I haven't thought about it that way.... that is very good to know...."
I also began to explain that more NRs leasing up and buying Iowa properties would also be counter-productive to Iowa's management as they would no longer allow access to those properties and those locations would become hotspots of high deer densities....
Same response....
He then explained to me that at this point he "would support a modest NR tag increase" and asked what I thought about that. I replied that I would not support that, but I was interested in what his definition of "MODEST" was. He replied with 1000-2000 NR tags statewide. He asked again if I would support that, I said NO.
NOW BEFORE YOU FREAK OUT, LET ME CONTINUE!
He also explained that he is concerned with the state's bottom line. As Gov. he will be responsible for many other areas other than JUST Iowa's deer hunting.... Like it or not, there are many MORE important issues, for example, if our kids can't afford to hunt in the first place who cares how many NRs hunt Iowa....?? He has to look at the state as a whole, not just from our perspective as hunters, therefore he is concerned with the bottom line. But the simple fact that he took the time to learn more about why this has become an issue speaks volumes to me!
It is undeniable that a NR tag increase will have a positive impact on many small towns, especially in southern Iowa. This is the time of year WHEN they make their money. While I feel the impact on these towns in regards to a tag increase will only be temporary and minimal at best, I can see his point of view. I do not agree with it, but I do understand where he is coming from....
I then talked to him about applying the supply and demand theory to this decision. Increasing the supply will eventually decrease the demand.... simple economics.... Once all these folks have hunted Iowa, the Novelty will wear off and many residents will have lost access and gave up hunting all together, having a negative impact on those local economies. I told him by keeping the Iowa tag a hot commodity we would ensure the business we are already receiving through this program. And I assured him I am in support of NR hunting, but it NEEDS to be managed. He agreed.
I then replied to him that it would be easier to swallow a 1000-2000 tag increase over doubling the current quota, but I reaffirmed that I would not support it. He assured me it would NOT be doubled.
I then brought up that once a change or increase is implemented it would open the door to further increases. That bothers me and many other Iowa sportsmen and women. He totally understood the sentiment and assured me that during his tenure, an additional increase would not take place. I know politicians have made this kind of promise before, i.e. Bush senior with "Read My Lips, NO NEW TAXES" But in this case, I firmly believe he would stand by his word.
I believe he KNOWS the value of our outdoor heritage and wants to maintain the great thing we already have here in Iowa. But from his perspective, he also wants to follow through with his campaign promises. i.e. 200,000 jobs, reduce debt, and so much more. this would be a way to better Iowa's economy..... small but effective, economically speaking. I still believe it would be temporary and he knows exactly how I feel..... I made that perfectly clear!
Those of you who don't like him and feel we could do better, let me ask you this: who were you expecting? Uncle Ted? a former Conservation Officer? I watched the debates and felt like he did a great job.... He is NOT the prez of the NRA but I feel with his experience, resume, and connection to Iowa Sportsmen and women, he IS the best man for the job.....
His son hunts often, from what he says, and his own son doesnt want to see a NR tag increase. SO he knows this is an issue. He wants to put Iowans first and I believe he will.
One thing you also NEED to keep in mind. Once elected (which it will not be a close race) he is NOT going to automatically INCREASE the tags... it doesn't work that way.... That amendment would have to be approved and pass both state assemblies, and we would have ample time to act and encourage him to re-evaluate his position. He said he would support the idea.... meaning there is A LOT of room for us Iowa Whitetail'r's to have an impact and help educate him on the issues!
I'm going to get on my soap box again here, so bear with me... :drink1:
If you are basing your entire vote on this issue, you need to better educate yourselves on the entire platform of issues.... sac up, learn exactly what he stands for, and know what/who you are voting for, inside and out! If you don't agree with Branstad, don't vote for him!! but if deer hunting is the only reason for a 'yea' or 'nay', I take issue with that. It is our duty as Iowans and Americans to show up at the poles ON November 2nd.... but to also be educated on why we are voting as we will.
If you think Chester will serve our interests best, you have another thing coming.... from what I hear (very reliable sources) he will support a NR tag increase by double this next term..... if elected consider that done!... so if you support him, you support a 6,000 NR tag increase... plain and simple... better think about that when voting.
Bottom line here folks, I made an effort to contact him and he took the time to hear me out, that meant more to me than I can explain. he IS listening and if we all take a few minutes and send our thoughts to Branstad and his staff, they will take note. We can help him better understand why it is in our best interest to NOT increase NR tags...
He is listening, we can have an impact.... send an email today, you WILL be heard...
http://governorbranstad2010.com/contact-us/
Please take the time, and BE RESPECTFUL, you get much more done by being cool-headed about it!
