Search results

What I am saying is the trees are coming out either way and my guess the tax write off from record profits to increase productive ground is gonna happen with more of those acres going to long term crop than CRP these days. Be interesting to compare the total CRP in your counties today versus 10...

Unproductive meaning ground that currently has $0 income to the owner because of trees or fencerow or dilapidated homestead that can be cleared and earn income from. Triple digit farm profits per acre leaves cash available to pay to clean areas creating more productive acres. Didn’t say...

So with this assumption you would be suggesting that all of the poor producing soils that have been cleaned up just to farm and put into CRP which is not the case. I work in it every day and right now there is plenty of demand to farm those acres. The counties I work in have less CRP acreage...

ANOTHER unpopular comment among the farmers here I’m sure but crop insurance subsidies have promoted more soil erosion and fraud than CRP has saved in soil erosion or cost in rental payments. Countless acres farmed and ditches cleared that should not be farmed yet they can farm it for crop...

I don’t follow this and how it relates to communism? So are the commies already stealing from the residential landowners? I’m just responding to the comment of taking a tax break away and some saying it just ain’t right to have the forest exemption yet we give significant break to ag land...

THIS WILL NOT BE POPULAR But how bout we tax the ag properties like we do residential somewhat closer to market value rather than a % of a %. $500,000 house pays $6000 in taxes, $250,000 40 ag acres pays $850, less than half. Now who isn’t paying their share…..

Well I believed and agreed with you on the butt out but lost all credibility with promoting the acorn cruncher! :D

I mentioned this on another post under this thread but I may have missed the schedule F requirement for a LOT. I file a schedule F but I thought the reg book just implies “farm income” off the tract. Maybe another way to get a handle on the abuse is to require a schedule F to be eligible. I...

Not being combative here but all I see in majority of the other deer hunting bills at the legislature right now is pro NR. So hard for me to feel sorry for the NR especially when the bill being discussed here is also negative for residents. I am all for increasing the acreage requirement to...

Yes, two bucks max for everyone plus the urban tags. Floating LOT tag as a bone to RLO but if you fill two statewide tags with antlered deer then you are done and the floating LOT gets thrown in trash or used on antlerless deer on your farm unit (s).

Yeah I’m not for a floating tag. I do like the floating tag for the LOT as they are only hunting their own ground. 2 buck max, floating LOT and fix the antlerless permits and shed buck season. Should make good improvements.

GREAT post. 100% agree that there is fraud with the LOT tags. Getting rid of LOT completely is not going to get supported and is going to waste time and money. Going to two buck state will take away the incentive for those lying and will fix a lot of the issue. Tracking LOT eligibility is...

You are correct.

Just gonna throw this out as I think only the cull buck has been made against it but who reading this is against two bucks statewide other than urban? Still allow floating LOT and two statewide any sex but however you do it only 2 bucks statewide not counting urban????

I did a search of a couple others that have YouTube channels that referenced Iowa Residents this year. Did a Google search and found it odd that other YouTube hunters had also lived at the same address…

I’m just giving an option to not have to keep fighting these same type of proposed bills to improve NR opportunity every year. Then that would allow more time and capital to be spent toward “the offensive”. I’m also saying if bills are being proposed to help the resource which would impact...

SF 179 to start Would you be interested in supporting increasing NR tags when the majority of the hunting population and data says the resource is trending downward? How could we make an argument that certain landowners shouldn’t harvest 3 bucks (I never have) to make a baby step to help the...

CORRECTION MADE:As a RLO I can purchase two statewide turkey licenses or one can be a LOT license. I can only harvest two birds legally. Plain and simple how it should be for deer.

I am saying if we are referring to helping the resource which some of these bills are hiding behind, why would we as residents support reducing resident harvest to help the resource and then lose ground on the resource help by allowing more NR harvest??

Follow-up to my post above. We continue to hear how many fewer deer habitat acres Iowa has than the surrounding “POORLY” managed Midwest states and we morally think it makes sense to allow three bucks to be harvested by RLO yet NO OTHER “POORLY” managed state around us allows for three bucks to...