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

Assuming you have the power in 2024...

P

Pops

PMA Member
Name 2 things you would change, prevent, start, or stop, to improve the Iowa hunting or wildlife resource.
Skip discussed a lot of things in his podcast. What issues have the most potential for improvement, in your opinion? Thanks in advance.
 
Oh man!!! I get 2 wishes!!! I might get this tossed on technicalities but I’m gonna push it and go for it!!!!
My first wish actually does impact iowa- big time!!…
1) I want all states in Midwest to go to 1 buck, late gun & a cap on NR tags. I am counting this as ONE thing!! :)
2) I want iowa to reduce one buck tag. A subset of that wish is: no more changes!!! NEVER crossbows for able bodied during archery!!! No more special tags, seasons, etc. & 2/3rd +/- of state I want antlerless tags reduced.

My lawyer said this was how to word it to get multiple items to appear like “2 wishes” ;).
If we can petition the court for a 3rd wish…. 50%++ of all funding for cwd testing & research would be diverted to EHD research. & all remaining cwd TESTING funds would be transferred to CWD CURE RESEARCH.

KEEP IOWA GREAT + MAKE THE MIDWEST GREAT!!!
 
1) All surrounding midwest states adopt Iowa's current hunting regulations reguarding deer period.
2) One change to Iowa's regulations before #1 would happen, all gun seasons you can only use iron or fiber optic sights on guns (no scopes). Early muzzy/shotgun/late muzzy/antlerless seasons.

If I had a third it would be to give bigger incentives to have more habitat in our state weather that be CRP, wetlands, or timber we seem to be losing it around my part of the state at an alarming rate.
 
1. More incentives or a way to have landowners want to keep & improve habitat or put ground back into habitat. Make it worth while for farmers to do something as simple as keeping fence lines and not dozing every tree etc.

2. One buck state
 
#1I think the late muzz season is too long..if it stayed the same length, I'd like to see no scope or at least low power without range and windage adjustments.
#2 One buck tag and a possible extra landowner tag..The landowner tag would allow property owners to manage cull bucks and keep the one buck tag for a buck of their choice.
 
Obsessed said:
Make all CRP and Forrest Reserve enrolled lands public accessible.
Click to expand...
Naw. Just because it’s govt funded doesn’t mean public access. You need to look at the reason for the program. The programs intent is to slow the dozing and planting of every acre for commodity profit and to promote wildlife habitat. Sometimes land owners need incentive. These properties aren’t public parks, and we all know what happens to areas with free public access, destroyed by the non owners.
 
Windlooker said:
Naw. Just because it’s govt funded doesn’t mean public access. You need to look at the reason for the program. The programs intent is to slow the dozing and planting of every acre for commodity profit and to promote wildlife habitat. Sometimes land owners need incentive. These properties aren’t public parks, and we all know what happens to areas with free public access, destroyed by the non owners.
Click to expand...
Yeah if that happened, probably something like 90% of crp acres would go by the wayside.
 
Obsessed said:
Make all CRP and Forrest Reserve enrolled lands public accessible.
Click to expand...
You will see more CRP converted to crops if you get that wish. Many owners aren't going to want strangers on their ground. It's a huge liability. It's also a recipe for arguments and confrontations to break out.

Beyond that, in our case, the only way to access our CRP is to cross thru our row crop ground or our neighbors row crops. It is less accessible than the "corner crossing" debates out west. So, how does access get managed in that situation?

We would 100% be breaking ground and putting in row crops.
 
Windlooker said:
Naw. Just because it’s govt funded doesn’t mean public access. You need to look at the reason for the program. The programs intent is to slow the dozing and planting of every acre for commodity profit and to promote wildlife habitat. Sometimes land owners need incentive. These properties aren’t public parks, and we all know what happens to areas with free public access, destroyed by the non owners.
Click to expand...
Plus very few would sign up for CRP if it were required to have public land on their farms ?

….& a liability insurance nightmare !
 
Windlooker said:
Naw. Just because it’s govt funded doesn’t mean public access. You need to look at the reason for the program. The programs intent is to slow the dozing and planting of every acre for commodity profit and to promote wildlife habitat. Sometimes land owners need incentive. These properties aren’t public parks, and we all know what happens to areas with free public access, destroyed by the non owners.
Click to expand...
And that's on monitored county, state, federal land. Imagine the rate of damage on land with zero park ranger/DNR support
 
If land owners are taking tax $ to make a hunting / fishing paradice for themselves, on their own private property, then said private property should be available for public use to fellow tax payers.

If ya'll can buy tens or hundreds of acres, but take tax $ to create your own private play area, that just ain't right.

Just sayin.
 
Obsessed said:
If land owners are taking tax $ to make a hunting / fishing paradice for themselves, on their own private property, then said private property should be available for public use to fellow tax payers.

If ya'll can buy tens or hundreds of acres, but take tax $ to create your own private play area, that just ain't right.

Just sayin.
Click to expand...
The crop reserve program also serves to not oversaturate the commodity market and thus drive prices lower from oversupply. It's not simply a handout to develop hunting paradise.

Ultimately, land owners are making informed decisions on their properties based on current guidelines.

I'm saying it again, if the guidelines change, you will see a massive shift in the utilization of those programs.
 
Obsessed said:
If land owners are taking tax $ to make a hunting / fishing paradice for themselves, on their own private property, then said private property should be available for public use to fellow tax payers.

If ya'll can buy tens or hundreds of acres, but take tax $ to create your own private play area, that just ain't right.

Just sayin.
Click to expand...
Did you even read or contemplate the responses or did you just come back with your pre planned comment/ opinion? The crp program is not about creating hunting paradises even if that's what many end users are doing. Most CRP acres would go away along with all the intended benefits of the program.
 
Obsessed said:
If land owners are taking tax $ to make a hunting / fishing paradice for themselves, on their own private property, then said private property should be available for public use to fellow tax payers.

If ya'll can buy tens or hundreds of acres, but take tax $ to create your own private play area, that just ain't right.

Just sayin.
Click to expand...
That’s not why crp exists. The fsa, a govt agency, encourages landowners through payment to save habitat. Improved hunting is a by product of the program not the intent. The dept of agriculture and the fsa are responsible for the program. If they deem it’s abused they should end it.

25 years ago Illinois had a program, maybe it still exists, where landowners who allowed hunting registered with the dnr. You could view the list, available weeks and apply to hunt a farm. There was a fee but it was minimal compared to outfitting. I hunted a farm for one week two years in a row. Had a blast. Maybe Iowa could develop a similar program???
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom