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

Avoiding change VS managing it

Maybe Iowa should go back the way it was when I started deer hunting(1977) no nr tags at all. All residents put in the tag lottery, about 1 out of every 100 tags is for a doe. Only bow is over the counter and one tag per hunter. The deer numbers would be up the nr problem solved and everything is even steven. Land prices would go down so residents could buy it and there would be no need for nr to buy land for hunting. I have read on here many times that deer in Iowa are a resource owned by the residents of Iowa so which resident do i send my bill to. The bill for your deer eating all the food in my plots.
icon7.gif
I don't believe Iowa will ever change and that is ok. I can hunt my land every year, and it don't cost 353.00 for a doe tag. I don't use any loop holes either, and I don't poach, if I don't get a tag oh well. I still own land in Iowa. Once a Hawkeye always a Hawkeye! Just don't lump all nr into one group( the law changing ones)

What?---->
 
As far as NR who are not land owners the key is to not make the same mistake that IL made when they eliminated the quota. I've seen the larger pieces of public that are open to the NRs get decimated and the larger tracts open to residents only, get inundated with pressure from the residents that lost access as the outfitters pushed them on to the public.

As far as the NR land owners rules I can say that personally it has worked. There is no doubt that the only reason that I haven't bought land in Iowa yet is because of the current rules.

If I would have been able to secure a buck tag every year as a NR land owner, I could have easily justified the purchase from a financial perspective as the whole of my hunting costs could have been shifted towards partly financing the land ownership investment.

I have more thoughts on this but they're probably controversial so I'll just bite my tongue.
 
Fletch

Your farmers have bought the ground and are allowing very few hunters if any on there. Way worse than any NR can ever do. Farmers are the heart of the problem. They can't own all that property and expect a few hunters to properly manage it, yet it constantly happens.

As for the insurance companies, your also very wrong here. The insurance world could care less about the " Iowa landowner" and them losing hunting rights. I work in the industry and its not even a blurb on the radar. Money matters to them.

In terms of entitlement. Do the deer belong to the people or the govt? If the answer is people, then that includes landowners which doesn't distinguish where your home state is.

Yes NR will kill does if given the opportunity to manage correctly. Giving someone a buck tag 1 out of every 3 years does not entice someone to manage correctly. It's adverse selection. They get treated wrong so in return why on earth would they want to help out the very hand that punches them in the face? They won't and I wouldn't expect them to. They will continue to buy the ground and throw up a middle finger. It's a completely screwed up relationship. Both sides are wrong IMO.

Did you actually read what you wrote here? Did you really believe it? Our own farmers are worse than non-resident land owners! ABSURD!!

You bring up farmers and insurance companies and when I tell you as a resident (that happens to sell farm insurance) that you are way off base, you completely dismiss both. Your intentions are obvious to everyone.

You come here as another wolf in sheeps clothing offering to help us out with a problem that we dont have. You are only kidding yourself, as the rest of us are smart enought to see right through it. You have zero interest in OUR future, only your OWN.

You continue to ask others to read the whole thread. I sincerely hope they do, paying particular attention to your one-sided, self-serving, agenda regarding non-resident land owners. You are exposed and done here in my estimation. Thanks for rallying the troops, we need that every once in a while. Sometimes we get a little too comfortable and forget about just how many selfish people are still out there.

By the way, the deer belong to the state. That's a pretty remedial concept. Surprised a landowner would not know that. But not really....
 
Did you actually read what you wrote here? Did you really believe it? Our own farmers are worse than non-resident land owners! ABSURD!!

You bring up farmers and insurance companies and when I tell you as a resident (that happens to sell farm insurance) that you are way off base, you completely dismiss both. Your intentions are obvious to everyone.

You come here as another wolf in sheeps clothing offering to help us out with a problem that we dont have. You are only kidding yourself, as the rest of us are smart enought to see right through it. You have zero interest in OUR future, only your OWN.

You continue to ask others to read the whole thread. I sincerely hope they do, paying particular attention to your one-sided, self-serving, agenda regarding non-resident land owners. You are exposed and done here in my estimation. Thanks for rallying the troops, we need that every once in a while. Sometimes we get a little too comfortable and forget about just how many selfish people are still out there.

By the way, the deer belong to the state. That's a pretty remedial concept. Surprised a landowner would not know that. But not really....
:way::way::way::way:
 
fletch920 said:
Did you actually read what you wrote here? Did you really believe it? Our own farmers are worse than non-resident land owners! ABSURD!!

You bring up farmers and insurance companies and when I tell you as a resident (that happens to sell farm insurance) that you are way off base, you completely dismiss both. Your intentions are obvious to everyone.

You come here as another wolf in sheeps clothing offering to help us out with a problem that we dont have. You are only kidding yourself, as the rest of us are smart enought to see right through it. You have zero interest in OUR future, only your OWN.

You continue to ask others to read the whole thread. I sincerely hope they do, paying particular attention to your one-sided, self-serving, agenda regarding non-resident land owners. You are exposed and done here in my estimation. Thanks for rallying the troops, we need that every once in a while. Sometimes we get a little too comfortable and forget about just how many selfish people are still out there.

By the way, the deer belong to the state. That's a pretty remedial concept. Surprised a landowner would not know that. But not really....

Yawn ........thanks for your support sir
 
My point is a contingency plan.

So your plan A is the fight like hell to keep everything the same.....

I get that, but what happens if that plan fails.....

Plan B is??????...

There also could be a time when you really need the help of sportsman, not just Iowa sportsman.....would you expect them to help given their prior treatment?

Plan B would be to vote out any legislator dumb enough to vote for these changes and elect people who would fix what they messed up.

I get tired of seeing Iowa held up as the bad guy for the way way it treats NR's in the draw. Have any of you guys that complain about Iowa's laws studied the regs of some of the western states like New Mexico or Montana? Hell, I'd like to have a DIY chance at one of those giant bulls running around on all that federal western land that I pay taxes to help support but at my age it's money down the drain to enter the draws. Some day I'll probably have to hire an outfitter. When I hunt out of state I play by their rules. Some states rules are more accommodating then others and they get my money.
 
mplane72 said:
Plan B would be to vote out any legislator dumb enough to vote for these changes and elect people who would fix what they messed up.

I get tired of seeing Iowa held up as the bad guy for the way way it treats NR's in the draw. Have any of you guys that complain about Iowa's laws studied the regs of some of the western states like New Mexico or Montana? Hell, I'd like to have a DIY chance at one of those giant bulls running around on all that federal western land that I pay taxes to help support but at my age it's money down the drain to enter the draws. Some day I'll probably have to hire an outfitter. When I hunt out of state I play by their rules. Some states rules are more accommodating then others and they get my money.


Mplane

That's a great point. The biggest difference is that those western states are having draws for animals that aren't the most popular game animal in the is.

I also agree with voting people out.
 
fletch920 said:
Maybe you missed it, but you dont have anyones support.

Your welcome.

So nobody supports what I've been saying....

At what point did I ask for change? I'm positive I have not said I'm in favor of change. My point is that change is likely to happen and offer ideas to combat that change.
 
Mplane

That's a great point. The biggest difference is that those western states are having draws for animals that aren't the most popular game animal in the is.

I also agree with voting people out.

Popular yes, populated...no. But....

B&C bucks aren't too prevelant in most of the world either. Same concept, but doesnt suit your needs I know.

You gonna post up a map and let us all help you manage your doe herd? How many locals are allowed to hunt your ground? Because of the thousands of acres of land I know of owned by nonresidents, none of it is open to local deer hunters. Do you see a problem with that? Do you see how that problem would compound exponentially with a change in rules allowing tags? If not, you are in denial, or dim.
 
fletch920 said:
Popular yes, populated...no. But....

B&C bucks aren't too prevelant in most of the world either. Same concept, but doesnt suit your needs I know.

You gonna post up a map and let us all help you manage your doe herd? How many locals are allowed to hunt your ground? Because of the thousands of acres of land I know of owned by nonresidents, none of it is open to local deer hunters. Do you see a problem with that? Do you see how that problem would compound exponentially with a change in rules allowing tags? If not, you are in denial, or dim.

Fletch I think your over emphasizing the impact of a NR landowner hunter allowed to get tags.

If you require a qtr section to be owned by one man how many tags are we really talking? Your legislature proposed it at 80 acres. I think that's too small of a parcel to sustain the hunting.

The land would open up if everyone wasn't at each others throats like in this thread.

What if your DNR started a educational piece on NR and R working together.

Create a forum for NR's and R's to meet and discuss options.

Fletch I have never hunted Iowa but I can say if I owned ground there I would need to partner with someone to manage it effectively. It's the same way to a select few people hunt with me in Indiana. You have to trust people at some point to accomplish a greater goal.
 
Fletch I think your over emphasizing the impact of a NR landowner hunter allowed to get tags.

If you require a qtr section to be owned by one man how many tags are we really talking? Your legislature proposed it at 80 acres. I think that's too small of a parcel to sustain the hunting.

The land would open up if everyone wasn't at each others throats like in this thread.

What if your DNR started a educational piece on NR and R working together.

Create a forum for NR's and R's to meet and discuss options.

Fletch I have never hunted Iowa but I can say if I owned ground there I would need to partner with someone to manage it effectively. It's the same way to a select few people hunt with me in Indiana. You have to trust people at some point to accomplish a greater goal.


You keep avoiding everyone's questions... Just keep coming up with the same old stuff.
 
Fletch I think your over emphasizing the impact of a NR landowner hunter allowed to get tags.

If you require a qtr section to be owned by one man how many tags are we really talking? Your legislature proposed it at 80 acres. I think that's too small of a parcel to sustain the hunting.

The land would open up if everyone wasn't at each others throats like in this thread.

What if your DNR started a educational piece on NR and R working together.

Create a forum for NR's and R's to meet and discuss options.

Fletch I have never hunted Iowa but I can say if I owned ground there I would need to partner with someone to manage it effectively. It's the same way to a select few people hunt with me in Indiana. You have to trust people at some point to accomplish a greater goal.

You are grossly underestimating the impact. Even if it takes a quarter section. I live in an area where the impact has been heavy. I have farmer clients that cant expand their cattle herd because even marginal pasture land has been artificially inflated in price from non-residents.

You are completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with the number of tags. It has everything to do with the land. Once non-resident landowners are allowed tags every year, there will be a tremendous push on land and prices. Thousands of acres here have already been taken out of pasture that was used by local cattlemen so that it can grow up into brush for deer. It would also severly cripple the opportunities of our local hunters that do not have the financial resources to own their own hunting ground. Ask any realtor, I had one tell me he could sell nearly every acre of "rough" ground in southern Iowa to non-residents if they were guaranteed buck tags.

We dont need options to discuss. We dont have a problem to resolve. We are in great shape with our current system and it will stay that way. You must be new to this concept if you dont already know that. Time to give up on that pipe dream. It is not going to happen. There have been some very well funded and organized groups that have tried, all have failed miserably and will continue to fail. Why? Because the concept is only beneficial to the non-resident...period.

I am done with this now, and so are you.

By the way, I own my own hunting properties that I allow several friends and family members access to. I even allowed a non-resident to hunt this year for free. I will never suffer from this issue. In fact, my land values would soar. But, I will fight to the end for those Iowa sprotsmen and women that deserve the same opportunity to hunt that I have.
 
You are completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with the number of tags. It has everything to do with the land. Once non-resident landowners are allowed tags every year, there will be a tremendous push on land and prices. Thousands of acres here have already been taken out of pasture that was used by local cattlemen so that it can grow up into brush for deer. It would also severly cripple the opportunities of our local hunters that do not have the financial resources to own their own hunting ground. Ask any realtor, I had one tell me he could sell nearly every acre of "rough" ground in southern Iowa to non-residents if they were guaranteed buck tags.

We dont need options to discuss. We dont have a problem to resolve. We are in great shape with our current system and it will stay that way. You must be new to this concept if you dont already know that. Time to give up on that pipe dream. It is not going to happen. There have been some very well funded and organized groups that have tried, all have failed miserably and will continue to fail. Why? Because the concept is only beneficial to the non-resident...period.

Excellent post. Very well said. :way:
 
You are grossly underestimating the impact. Even if it takes a quarter section. I live in an area where the impact has been heavy. I have farmer clients that cant expand their cattle herd because even marginal pasture land has been artificially inflated in price from non-residents.

You are completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with the number of tags. It has everything to do with the land. Once non-resident landowners are allowed tags every year, there will be a tremendous push on land and prices. Thousands of acres here have already been taken out of pasture that was used by local cattlemen so that it can grow up into brush for deer. It would also severly cripple the opportunities of our local hunters that do not have the financial resources to own their own hunting ground. Ask any realtor, I had one tell me he could sell nearly every acre of "rough" ground in southern Iowa to non-residents if they were guaranteed buck tags.

We dont need options to discuss. We dont have a problem to resolve. We are in great shape with our current system and it will stay that way. You must be new to this concept if you dont already know that. Time to give up on that pipe dream. It is not going to happen. There have been some very well funded and organized groups that have tried, all have failed miserably and will continue to fail. Why? Because the concept is only beneficial to the non-resident...period.

I am done with this now, and so are you.

By the way, I own my own hunting properties that I allow several friends and family members access to. I even allowed a non-resident to hunt this year for free. I will never suffer from this issue. In fact, my land values would soar. But, I will fight to the end for those Iowa sprotsmen and women that deserve the same opportunity to hunt that I have.


Fortunately I have family ground that is awesome for deer and turkey hunting, and patients that let me hunt as well. However, Taylor county residents are getting squeezed out buy conglomerates of buyers from Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. What I find humerous, is that the Wisky guys, shed hunt ground I have permission, on, and they don't. If the tables were turned, I would get my butt chewed, but the non chalantly mentioned to a friend that they get a truckload of sheds of the ground adjacent to their lease.
 
COLTER said:
You keep avoiding everyone's questions... Just keep coming up with the same old stuff.

What questions.

All that has been said was guys attacking me thinking I'm hiding behind some agenda to ruin Iowa's deer hunting.

You guys all fly off the handle so quick on this subject that you missed the entire point.

THE POINT IS NOT TO CHANGE THE CURRENT SYSTEM. I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE IT.

Are we clear on that now.

Go read the very first post. The idea is how to combat the change and manage it in a way that is most beneficial to Iowa.

Here's what I can tell you. The way the majority of people went about this thread will completely skew the view that people have.

Fletch is one of the first people with a logical thought as a response as opposed to white noise although you were pretty brutal in other responses.

Iabwhtr also had some good thoughts.

Hardwoods got raped like me.

I asked how are you going to deal with proposed change and offered counter proposals to what you will see proposed.

All the replied have been why you shouldn't change and that it will never happen.

That's fine, maybe it won't, but that doesn't mean you do not prepare for it.
 
IowaChiro said:
Fortunately I have family ground that is awesome for deer and turkey hunting, and patients that let me hunt as well. However, Taylor county residents are getting squeezed out buy conglomerates of buyers from Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. What I find humerous, is that the Wisky guys, shed hunt ground I have permission, on, and they don't. If the tables were turned, I would get my butt chewed, but the non chalantly mentioned to a friend that they get a truckload of sheds of the ground adjacent to their lease.

I'm sure I would have a sour taste in that situation as well. The conglomerate buyers are banking on a change that won't occur. I think a lot of that land will potentially go back on the market.
 
Alright I have read every post and surprisingly enough do have some opinions. I do not think that all or even most NR hunters are evil or NR land owners. I have hunted elk in New Mexico and black bears in Minnesota as well as fished in several different states so the road goes both ways. I don't really agree with the reciprocity thing either, but I can understand where many are basing their feelings there. I don't believe that NR land owners should get special treatment on this issue. When they purchased their land the regulations were public knowledge and the buying decision was made based on what the buyer felt was a workable situation for them and agreed to the restrictions because it was worth it to them at the time. I don't believe in buying a ticket to the movie and then once I am seated asking or demanding that they show a different film!:mad:

If I were to propose any changes it might be some thing like this. Current NR licenses are to high for the average class hunters. The results are that Many NR hunters have excess disposable income and so make a decision that because they have finds available why not just buy some ground even if they can only get a any-sex tag once in about 3 years. Then with their cash or influence perhaps they can sway the law makers into giving them extra privileges. What do they have to loose any way, because they are really already satisfied with the status quo, and just maybe they can get it better? Now if we lowered the price where the more average hunter felt that he could afford to hunt here, he might not propose a lease to the land owner or call a real estate agent from his tree stand to put in a purchase offer. Drop the price to maybe $300 or $350 and then up the quota slightly to say 10,000 NR tags. That would give the DNR about the revenue stream or perhaps a little more with the purchase of preference points by the extra applicants. Along with this we should either do away with our so-called outfitters or make them become licensed as such and be bonded and restrict them on numbers of hunters or acres leased.

Next how would you NR landowners receive something like this. If you enrolled your land, all of it not just a not very productive section, in something like the Walk In Program, for every year it is enrolled you could get an any-sex tag for that same land. Land must be consecutively enrolled and not in one year and out the next, maybe some thing like a 5 year program. That would be a win win situation because it would give you that coveted BUCK tag and allow resident hunters access to land and allow them to help "manage" the land. Instead of the cash payment for the enrollment you could get the tag at normal or reduced cost. This would add access acres and not deplete DNR funds as the current program does.

Along with the slight increase in NR licenses I would enact and enforce a non-party hunt regulation for any NR hunters, but would leave the party hunting in place for residents if they choose to hunt that way. There are many NR hunters who just want to come here to hunt with family or friends and if they just wanted to do that they could get an antlerless tag but could not use Uncle Henry's land owner tag to kill a buck and haul it home. I am honestly not sure how to enforce this except that maybe require NR hunters to check their deer some where and when they check a deer they are done hunting. I don't really like the idea of check stations all over but if only a few thousand NR were required to use them there wouldn't be the need for lots of them or lots of extra man power to man them, or maybe let COs in the field also check them for NRs.

One thing I will say is that I do believe with the current deer herd decline that it might be more beneficial to the RESOURSE to have hunters harvest more bucks even if they are small. Controversial I know but, a small buck might grow to a trophy in a couple of years but he isn't going to drop 4 or 5 fawns who might grow even bigger like that mature doe that is killed in that miss understood management plan. The resource is not just 150 inch bucks, it is also those that raise those bucks and the more of those does we kill then sooner or later those bucks won't exist either.:way:
 
Should it be a available to landowners will only "x" amount of land?
Should there be a separate landowner draw?
Should you require earn a buck on NR landowners?
Make only 1 buck tag available per year to them?
Should the landowner be required to submit a management plan to the DNR for approval if they own "x" amount or more of land?

Okay, we can try this again. The answer to all of the above is, No. For most of us the reasons were so obvious that we assumed you would understand. Now, some of those reasons have been spelled out.

Why do you care? You dont own land here and you have not hunted here. So, my only assumption can be that you would have something personally to gain by seeing a change to the current system. You looking for ammunition to fight with? Looking for arguments to organize resistance to? Bottom line is, that fight has already been fought and lost. You are too late to the dance. It will continue to lose because there is absolutely nothing to gain for the Iowa residents. There is only downside for the people that live and work here and most importantly, VOTE here.

It will take me 15 years or more to draw a trophy elk tag in Arizona at great expense. And you know what, I'm okay with that because the resource is being managed to allow me a tremendous opportunity. I think I will wait for the tag instead of trying to change the regulations that would ruin the resource for others. To do otherwise would simply be selfish.

You dont have to like it, but to try to change it is very self-serving.

This thread is as dead now as your chances of changing our system. I'm out....
 
hoosierhunter said:
Another topic gave me this idea. I believe Iowa cannot avoid the NR push much longer. With that being said, it seems more appropriate to brainstorm ideas to MANAGE the idea instead of avoid it. This can go sideways so let's not debate whether it will happen but stay in brainstorm mood. What ideas do you have!

Fletch what can't you understand about that statement above.

Read Moron! There is no self serving purpose. It was meant to help Iowa residents like you that apparently aren't smart enough to see it.
 
Top Bottom