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

An article about NR quota increases

jeez, this whole problem would go away if we could just pass a fraction of a % sales tax to support the IDNR
 
You are dead-on right teeroy. It's done wonders in a couple of other states I am familiar with. It takes time, so maybe you guys can get it done eventually. Would make things better fopr eveyone involved DNR, residents and non-residents alike.
 
Sounds like a no win situation for everyone involoved with one exception - the Iowa DNR. More out of state licneses will be issued - bad news for you residents; more will be issued but at a higher cost to NR's - bad news for NR's.

"This is about revenue generation so that we have the ability to expand the recreational opportunities for our citizens," Vonk said. "It is a way to pay for our programs and for an expansion of programs that I think Iowans value". Sounds to me like the DNR is expecting the NR's to foot thier bills. No where have I read about an increase for resident hunting fees (I have heard many of the residents say they are in favor of it - instead of allowing more NR's access).

The higher the prices go for NR's the more it will become a "rich man's" sport instead of the "good ole boys" who come to Iowa to hunt. The rich man is going to be the very one that thinks to himself - "hey this is nice up here in Iowa, think I'll buy me some land here so I'll always have a place to hunt here."

Has the DNR put any thought to what they will lose by raising the small game fees for NR's? Evidently not. I have been watching the quotas for NR turkey draws for the last several years and not once have they met their overall quotas. Is that because the turkey hunting is so terrible in Iowa - not hardly - in my opinion it's 100% because of the costs. Raise the cost some more and see less applicants - maybe it'll even out, but I doubt it.

Does anyone know what's happened in the way of out-of-state pheasant hunters in the last 5 or 6 years? Would be intresting to know. Would also be intresting to document over the next sveral years should the cost be raised again.

The Iowa DNR and the legislature need to look a little closer to home to fix their financial problems and quit looking across state lines. There are defenitely some problems there that need to be addressed and the NR's can't fix them.

Teeroy has the best idea yet. The increase in the sales tax would be a tremendous boost to the DNR. I've seen it work miracles in other states. As I said before, it's not going to happen over night. The sportsman want it and are willing to anti-up, but it's the non-sportsman that you have to get to agree to it. Most of them don't understand how minor it would be to their personal finances and how major it would be to the financial position of the DNR. Just takes time - don't give up on it.
 
Not fond of the sales tax solution. If it's good for the IDNR, it would be equally good for a thousand other worthwhile projects. Pretty soon we're paying 10% sales tax. User funded solutions (i.e. higher resident license fees) are a more equitable solution.

I don't know about the rest of the state, but to answer your question, in our area of the state the decrease in nr pheasant hunters has alot to do with the decline in bird numbers...not the license cost. If the birds are here in great numbers, hunters will be too. SD charges much more and still has huge numbers of nr bird hunters.

NWBuck
 
NW - I know the sales tax increase sounds like alot, but in the other states I've seen it work out so well in it was a 1/8th of 1% sales tax increase. Eevryone would take on the tax burden and to be quite honest with you, most people would never even realize it.

As far as the NR pheasant hunters - I figured the lower populations had an impact. I imagine that sector of the licensing will always have it's ups and downs - but how do you account for the turkey applications not meeting quotas? As fine as the turkey hunting is in Iowa - it's got to be cost relative.
 
hc,

My point wasn't that the increase would be huge due to the IDNR contribution. Rather, it was that if you approve 1/8 of 1% for the IDNR, then how can we deny it for the AARP who wants to provide affordable health care for senior citizens? Or approve a 1% increase to fully fund local school districts, many of whom are currently going broke? Or a wide range of other worthwhile projects in dire need of funding? Where does it end? As outdoorsman, we represent a relatively small % of the population, and improving our opportunities at the expense of the masses is expecting alot. It's a general tax increase no matter how you slice it.

The price alone doesn't explain why turkey tags aren't selling. What are the NR hunters getting for that price? Chance at a trophy buck? Nope. Multiple weekends to chase 3 bird limits? Nope. Just a few days for 1 bird...and, on top of that, no access to 2nd season, traditionally one of the best. I wouldn't pay it either. However, South Dakota is proof that you can take the general hunting and fishing license prices to a very high level and still have large numbers of nr sportsman if the game/fish is available.

NWBuck
 
I can see your point NW. I just know it's worked in other states, not sure how they got around all the things you've mentioned and maybe they did'nt. I know Missouri has one of the finest State Agencies in the US (many other states try to emulate them) and one of the reasons they are so well manged is their finanical stability in part because of the tax.

I also agree that as sportsman we ought to carry the brunt of the load for something that benefits us. But obviously whatever the Iowa DNR is doing is not working or this would'nt even be a topic for discussion. And as I said before - getting the NR's to foot the bill is certainly not the answer. And I know that is not what the residents want either. As I have said before, I love Iowa as much as most of you guys do. I still call it home and hope to get there one day and stay for good. I want what's best for all concerned, just like you do and I think it's worth exploring any and all options.

As far as the price dictating whether or not qoutas get filled I truley believe if the price were lower, the quota would get filled. Back before they raised the license fees, it really was a draw, becuase the quotas were being met, same seasons,same regulations concerning those seasons - only difference was the price. You pretty well summed it up in your last post - you get what you pay for, so knowing you only get one turkey during the 1, 3 or 4 season and having to pay 189.50 for it I agree, I would'nt pay it either. I'm sure alot of people take that stance. I have purchased one for the last couple years, ONLY because I wanted to come home and hunt and spend time with family and friends. I figure I will just do it for free from now on, I just won't carry a gun. It's never been about the harvest when I come home, it's about the experience.

Just my 2 cents worth and then some.

I'll leave it at that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom