Preemptively contemplating the responses was pretty easy, and accurate. Yes, I know what the 'intention' of CRP type programs is/are. What I 'witness' is something else. (In fact, I feel it's almost promoted here.)
As for landowners being sued for liability, I believe that only applies if they charge someone to access their land, (but I could be mistaken). And it is a great idea for landowners to allow public access to their hunting / fishing land, but this is on a voluntary basis, and these are few and far between.
I didn't have this view 20 - 30 years ago. My opinion evolved as big buck mania swept through the Midwest, causing the extreme shift away from easily obtained free access to private hunting / fishing property, to 'go pound sand'. Heartbreaking to say the least. I've personally fallen out of love with deer hunting for mainly this reason, where I had been a strong lifelong advocate.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
That is fine , but you’d lose at least half the acres in sign up. So it would end the program . A few non hunters might sign up, and some out west guys that have big open CRP farms .. they do sign up for walk in programs .
Iowa has a voluntary program such as this. There is not a reservation system though. I think it is called IHAP. There are some good pheasant properties in story county (Ames) under the program.
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
I’m sorry I can’t stand some of this. Let’s just keep Iowa great. We have great regulations and mangement! Let’s just keep it that way! Turning Iowa into a one buck state is no different than any other hunting “participation trophy/ easy button” people would like handed out (crossbows, rifles, non res landowner tags etc.). It is the same story. I can’t shoot a big buck (old/mature, high scoring, etc.) because everybody else shoots all the young ones and all the neighbors are screwing up everything for me by doing deer drives and party hunting and whatever else I don’t personally like. We have it good! Let’s just be happy! There will be unintended consequences for all by trying to “improve” it for some.
Last edited:
deerhunter93
Well-Known Member
Just like the ISC poll - what is best for deer is likely not best for deer hunters and what is best for deer hunters is likely not best for deer.
1) Revert back to legal weapons from 10 years ago (no straight wall rifles, no smokeless muzzleloaders, no crossbows in the future)
2) Fully fund the DNR to allow them more time and resources for: acquire more public land, more COs/Rangers, more public and private lands biologists/techs, more habitat improvement on public lands - plots/prairie restoration/invasive species removal/FSI/ect.
1) Revert back to legal weapons from 10 years ago (no straight wall rifles, no smokeless muzzleloaders, no crossbows in the future)
2) Fully fund the DNR to allow them more time and resources for: acquire more public land, more COs/Rangers, more public and private lands biologists/techs, more habitat improvement on public lands - plots/prairie restoration/invasive species removal/FSI/ect.
These are winning proposals
JNRBRONC
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately won’t happen with the Farm Bureau in bed with the politicians in DSM.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Matthewfox_45
Well-Known Member
There’s a guy from near Boone. He’s put in a ton of CRP and a few restored wetlands….its a gorgeous property! I stopped a few years ago and asked for permission to hunt. I was granted permission….for $50 a gun per day. Something about that didn’t sit right with me, I never went back.