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

$500

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hold the line on the number of NR tags but give priority to NR landowners. </div></div>
This would lead to more NR buying land if they got "priority". This would then be detrimental to Iowa residents as teeroy pointed out.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your suggestion punishes NR landowners and borders on communism- redistribute the wealth/land/jobs "for the good of the people" </div></div>
I don't feel my suggestion borders on Communism due to the fact that anybody can still own land in Iowa. That being said, the opportunity to hunt Iowa's deer herd is a privilige not a right. Just because Iowa's deer happen to reside on your land doesn't give you, or guarantee you, the right to hunt them. I think too many nonresident and resident landowners feel that they own the deer that reside on their land. If you own land and want to own the deer that reside on it then put up a high fence, buy some deer and then you can own them. Otherwise, landowners need to wake up and realize that the deer are the property of the State of Iowa and thus belong to all of the residents of Iowa.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the game animals in a State belong to that State.

This is why States like Colorado can charge a nonresident $500 (when they draw a tag) to hunt elk on Federally owned land and a resident only has to pay $30. This is because the nonresident is paying for the privilage to hunt an elk that belongs to the State of Colorado even though it resides on Federal land. The Supreme Court ruled that a State has the right to limit the number of tags available to nonresidents. The State also has the right to not allow any nonresident hunting if it so chooses.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The big dollar boys are going to buy land anywhere they want and look for the loop holes and use their political ties to get their tags anyway.</div></div>
I agree we should close the party hunting loophole. I agree that we should get rid of the governor's tags.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is always a way to involve kids in hunting by hunting close to home, the next generation of hunters is not going to be saved by traveling out of state with dad for a week.</div></div>
This statement has less validity everyday. The cost of hunting in many States is becoming too expensive for average hunters who can't afford to lease land, buy land, pay outfitter's or pay hunt club fees. Therefore, many hunting opportunities to expose a kid may involve traveling for a weekend or a week long hunting trip. This hunt may be within the hunters home state or an out of state hunt. This is another reason why it is important for hunting opportunities to be affordable for the average hunter.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like the free market but it isn't always appreciated by those that want a "free ride". </div></div>
I personally don't need a "free ride". My motivation is 100% directed toward protecting the outdoor heritage for the next generation of Iowa sportsmen. No personal ambitions here, unlike the majority of the guys posting on these types of subjects.
 
the problem here is that everyone talks like Nr landowners are not already in iowa, i was told the % of Nr landowners could be quite high possibly 20% , they are not going anywhere whether they knew the rules, didnt now the rules, thought they would change whatever. As long as big deer, and low land values exist in Iowa, so will NR landowners. I dont want to see the rules chnge but if this is true, then the least the state could do is let these people kill some does, or require them to. example, hey you want a buck tage, thats only once in every 3 years or when u get drawn, in the meantime, heres 1 tag per 40, go kill some does, but not during shotgun season. most nr landowners are ither claiming residency now or finding some farmer that doesnt hunt , and using his tag. so he gets his buck and no does get shot. you are not going to change the nr landowner situation, but some nr landowners would probably kill more does everyyear if they were allowed. the reason they would kill more does, is because most NR landowners have some much invested in their farms and are intensely trying to manage the herd. they cannot afford not kill does every year. anyone who is a qdma advocate knows this.
 
All of our involved discussions over hunting regs is interesting, but, in the end, more powerful forces will decide what happens, no matter what we think. If we could make the rules. We can voice our opinions to those over us, it gives some satisfaction. Bottom line, what the Powerful think is what will happen. Power means$$ and $$ means power.
 
If I were to perdict the future I would bet that your going to see an increase in NR land ownership, as well as leasing even if the tags never change. I think a lot of hunters like myself have seen land prices sky rocket in their home states and know that sooner or latter it's going to hit the other "whitetail states".

I don't mind the system and apply ever year but what really drives me nuts are how the 6000 tags are allocated. If I wanted to go and just kill a buck I would put in for a firearms tag and rather than go every three years I could go every other year. I'm generalizing here, but I would venture that Archers are a little more picky on what they shoot. When I draw a tag I've been fortunate to hunt on some great private ground but I raise my standards substantialy. Has it worked. No I've eaten three tags but that's my decision, also passed on a lot of P&Y class bucks that had I been in any other state I would have shot. When I do go I really wish that they had cheap antlerless tags. I would shoot one or two does given the opportunity, but if residents really think NR hunters are going to impact the antlerless harvest I would doubt it.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: turkeyriver</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did you invest that $30,000 in taxes and crop inputs out of the goodness of your heart? If you did, I'm sure the local economy is thankful. Are you not going to realize a profit from the $5 corn and $13 beans you are going to sell? Won't you take that profit home with you? Nothing wrong with making a profit from your land investment but unless all that profit is left here in Iowa, I'm missing the point of your argument. If your land was owned by a resident, the $30,000 AND the profits would be circulated in the local economy. Expenditures for hunting are entirely different than investing in a farming for profit venture. </div></div>

I really see this as a great reply and I really hope Iowa just continues to get tougher and tougher on these issue to truely make our great state just that, GREAT.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Back40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've been hunting Iowa several years now and find that most property around me is locked up whether it's a resident or NR landowner. One resident landowner to my west has 600 acres and allows one relative to archery hunt. I have another resident landowner to my north and east, over 700 acres, who allows one archery hunter and no shotgun hunting. I appreciate the argument regarding land being "locked up" if NR regs are loosened, but I don't see many resident landowners, at least near me, allowing much hunting.
I think legislators have to realize NR landowners are in Iowa and to ignore this fact is counter productive. For example, the new depredation tag legislation pending will give resident landowners a free tag for each season with many NR farms bordering or nearby. How do we handle the deer that simply cross the fence into the "NR sanctuaries"? There has to be a solution to permit the NR landowner to manage the deer on their properties. </div></div>

I agree that depredation tags need to be available to residents hunters for any property owner that shows to the managing authorities(DNR) the need to kill more deer on their farm. The tools for management I believe are there for NR land owners. If not I think a careful adjustment should be considered.
 
many of my surrounding landowners are nr, what tools exactly are available for them to harvest an appropriate amount of does? They are telling me they can buy one doe tag per person. this is a serious question. I am wondering if i am missing something cause i am getting sick and tired of all the does that come out of their sanctuaries and destroy my crops.
 
The majority of the money does stay with the farm.You are correct the prices are very good right now but that is not the case every year or is there a guarantee the prices will be good or the weather will co-operate for a good yield this year.It does ease the amount of money borrowed for an operation loan.There is usually up keep and improvements the can be made every year .On HEL ground you have to follow a soil conservation plan so you can't grow the higher producing grain crops continously.It gets really expensive to seed back to alfalfa so in answer to your question I am not able to truck alot of money out of the state.If the farm makes some money I believe it should stay with the farm.Since I have retired I suppose that could change some but in the past that's what I have done .
 
As resident landowners should be able to transfer there depredation tags so should the NR landowners be able to transfer those duties to local hunters. The key here is don't buy and use your ownership to try and justify a change just because you are now effected. Put in for your draw and use the tools provided you to manage in the mean time. The privileges of NR land owners where in place when you bought and I hope they are similarly in place when you sell. Smart moves need to be considered as the deer management situation continues to improve. Sometime in the next 4 to 5 years I suspect many management goal for the Iowa herd will have been met or close to met. This is getting done and protecting what is important to Iowa residents. If I ever move out of the state I am sure I will have all of the same desires to be here every year, as do you NRs posting here, but my perspective on this issue will be clear. God knows if what we have here wasn't special we wouldn't go around like this about it every year. We are all brothers but unfortunately as with paternal brothers we're not always going to agree.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nrland-owner</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The majority of the money does stay with the farm.You are correct the prices are very good right now but that is not the case every year or is there a guarantee the prices will be good or the weather will co-operate for a good yield this year.It does ease the amount of money borrowed for an operation loan.There is usually up keep and improvements the can be made every year .On HEL ground you have to follow a soil conservation plan so you can't grow the higher producing grain crops continously.It gets really expensive to seed back to alfalfa so in answer to your question I am not able to truck alot of money out of the state.If the farm makes some money I believe it should stay with the farm.Since I have retired I suppose that could change some but in the past that's what I have done . </div></div>

Did you buy in Iowa as an investment or to hunt Whitetails? The white hunting is available for you now as it was when you bought. The investment part of it should be looking dramatically better unless you bought hunting ground in which case it is what it is. I personally think the value of your hunting ground will always improve but at a rate that will mean holding for the long haul, with some smart buying and selling exceptions. The large inflation rates in ag and rural real estate has to level at some point, slow or correct. I guess the question is why did you buy in Iowa? If it was for deer hunting great, we want to keep things as good going forward as they where when you decided to by here.
 
The reason NR's have flocked to Iowa, and will continue to do so; driving up land prices, is the party hunting loophole. NR's do shotgun hunt every year with a doe tag and their resident neighbor's anysex tag. It amazes me there is not more outrage by resident hunters and groups like the IBA.
With all do respect we hear every year that the "future" of Iowa hunting is the concern, but the above mentioned flaw in the law promotes and encourages NR land ownership.
Are those who fight new NR legislation every year, citing the same talking points, really concerned for all Iowa hunting?? Or, are a small number of non-land owning bowhunters serving a small group; not benefiting the whole in the long run??
I still say you can't continue to manage the deer herd as it was 10 years ago. The landscape has changed, for many reasons, and issuing NR landowners one doe tag per year will be detrimental to the deer population over the long haul.
 
It was a two fold purpose-----a piece of land and a place to hunt---did't count on much money except to pay for the farm.My brother in law is an Iowa resident and has been for thirty some years involved in farming and cattle primarialy running the family farm .Through him we learned of this farm that had some tillable as well as wildlife habitat.He is not very interested in hunting so we did not center much on rules concerning hunting rights so I really didn't know all the in's and out's.I had drawn tags before to hunt the family farm and knew they were hard to get but was under the impression it was because of being a non -resident that didn't really own land.At worse I figured it would be similar to Illinois (reciprocity).I was probably too excited about owning some land and never thought hunting it would become such an obstacle to research.Being from a small rural community I have hunted ,fished and trapped for over 45 years so this was some thing most of us only dream about.This was back in 2001 before everything started getting crazy with land prices so it was very inviting to be able to buy more acres for the same money it would cost in Illinois.Besides we spent alot of time in Iowa with my brother in law anyway.It all made pretty good sense and it still does except for the deer and turkey hunting keeps rearing it's ugly head.It does seem odd I can hunt small game and fish this land without any liscense so it is evident the DNR does recognize the non-resident landowner in some aspects until it gets to the point of generating some higher revenue with the more sought after deer and turkey.I personaly prefer to bow hunt deer and knew of the loop hole to shotgun hunt(this was suggested to me by some one in the DNR several years ago).That was a game I elected not to play .I just want to stay with in the rules as I have always done in Illinois .I have been fortunate to have access to several places in Illinois in different parts of the state and I attribute part of that because I do respect the wild life ,the land and the people who own it.I don't mean to portray myself as a saint as it may sound but it means alot more to me than to just go out and kill something .
 
"It does seem odd I can hunt small game and fish this land without any liscense so it is evident the DNR does recognize the non-resident landowner in some aspects"

I think you need a small game license...
 
Page 9 of the Regs

Hunting Licenses for Landowners and Tenants
that Farm Agricultural Land
1) Small game and furbearers. Resident
and nonresident owners and tenants that farm
agricultural land in Iowa and their juvenile
children do not need licenses to hunt and trap
on such lands and may shoot by lawful means
ground squirrels, gophers, and woodchucks upon
adjacent roads. Deer and Wild Turkey Licenses
are required to hunt deer and wild turkey.
 
Well- I was dumb enough pay for a NR license and habitat when I didn't need it then.

So if the deer are the state's property (I'm not arguing that) then why aren't the squirrels, rabbits, quail, etc also the state's property?
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pharmer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So if the deer are the state's property (I'm not arguing that) then why aren't the squirrels, rabbits, quail, etc also the state's property? </div></div>

Poach a squirrel, rabbit or quail and I bet a representative of the state (DNR) will write out a citation. This infers to me that they are the state's property as well. I don't ever recall seeing someone charged liquidation damages for small game, though.

Resident landowners get free deer and wild turkey licenses (free after you pay the issuing and HUSH fee on the deer tag), so in essence the license is more of a formality than anything else for these "state owned" animals.

Now if you want to talk about why non-resident landowners don't get free licenses, just go back to the start of this thread. When you get back to this post, repeat. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

I guess my best explanation is that hunting is a privilege, not a right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom