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

Avoiding change VS managing it

Hardwood11 said:
One word (reciprocity) it would make things interesting. Same price and same wait if you hunt out of state
Click to expand...
I am not quite sure how it works in CO but I thought they operated pretty much the same way Iowa does.
Regardless, I'm totally down for what's good for the goose is good for the gander (reciprocity). I have no problem with other states handling NRs the same way Iowa does.
Colorado is the only state I'd looked at for NR hunting (couple years ago) since they have pretty much every animal I want to kill with a gun and with a bow.
 
COLTER said:
By most of he posts from NR members on this thread I have got the feeling they are happy with the way things are, so my vote would be to keep it like it is.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between the hunter and landowner in a NR situation.
 
iabwhntr said:
My feelings towards nr hunters is simply this. You dont live here, spend money here year round and we arent neighbors. Taking these things into consideration, one could say NRs show up here from time to time to enjoy Iowas natural resources and then leave. Dont get me wrong, we're glad you do but you dont have the stakes that residents do. Simply owning land here shouldn't give you the same privileges we residents enjoy. Want cheaper tags and a gaurantee to get tags every year? Move here. We've got room
Click to expand...

This seems a little unfair. Albeit a NR doesn't contribute like a resident, but I would argue the economic impact of a NR landowner is significant when compared to a resident non landowner.
 
Hardwood11 said:
One word (reciprocity) it would make things interesting. Same price and same wait if you hunt out of state
Click to expand...

JACKPOT statement

If other states would adopt Iowa's mentality on whitetails it would be interesting.
 
hoosierhunter said:
This seems a little unfair. Albeit a NR doesn't contribute like a resident, but I would argue the economic impact of a NR landowner is significant when compared to a resident non landowner.
Click to expand...

My apologies to any who thought I was suggesting that a NRs economic contribution is insignificant.
But even when making that comparison, the resident still comes out on top. We live here, work and shop here. We spend money here year round. We have a greater interest in the state of affairs here than a non res does. And that comes with certain benefits.
I don't own an acreage but I own my house. I pay Iowa taxes and register my vehicles (boat included) with the state. I buy my gas and groceries locally and the businesses I spend money at are from Iowa.
That's why my tags are cheaper. That's also why I sometimes get a little short with NRs when they question the system we set up to manage the deer herd.
 
My.02 as a NR landowner(not in Iowa). NR landowner who tries to manage said property contributes a substantial $$$ amount to the state in taxes, fuel, groceries, etc; then pays the same price as a NR non landowner who goes there for the sole purpose of killing a deer be it a wallhanger or, the first brown critter that stumbles through doesnt seem quite right. Not saying we should get same treatment as a resident, but I dont feel we should suffer the same sacrifices as a nonowner. As I said I neither own land or hunt in Iowa, but the same situation applies in other states. jmo fwiw

Sent from my iPhone using IW
 
When, was the 1st year non res could hunt, wonder if the online deal with the drurys will have any effect, those dudes are the last people I want representing the average joe.

The only people that will benefit from the change are people with money. Yeah maybe I should have been a dr or something that made more money.
 
hoosierhunter said:
I don't think I would raise the NR overall tag total. I think it would need to be pulled from the available tags.
Click to expand...

I really don't think NR landowners should get a tag at the expense of NR non-landowners. Creates a privileged class. As long as they are not the kings deer the current system seems right on track.
 
hoosierhunter said:
If other states would adopt Iowa's mentality on whitetails it would be interesting.
Click to expand...

If other states would have had Iowa's mentality on Whitetails then would we be in the same situation we are now? I have to believe that a good portion of the NR landowners would prefer to own land in their home state, but because those states do not operate in the same manner as Iowa when it comes to the deer herd they chose to buy land here. How many of you NR would have bought land here in Iowa if you could have had the same opportunity in your own state? Please don't take this the wrong way either, I have nothing against NR. I have several NR friends that I have met due to Iowa's deer herd.
 
outastater said:
I get the feeling that many people think every nr that buys land in Iowa does so for hunting. I'm a nr landowner, I don't have deep pockets like most residents think. My wife and I were both raised in Iowa our families still live there. We bought land to retire on not for the sole purpose of hunting. Sent both my kids to college in Iowa. My point is not ever nr buys for big bucks. I have drawn every year so I have no problem with the system. Please don't blame all nr landowners for high land prices, or wanting to change laws. I would love a lower priced tag but if it doesn't happen so be it. Here is a question for all the residents. Would you pay 600.00 to hunt your own farm? My guess is most who complain about nr landowners don't own land. Iowa was a great place to grow up and will be a great place to retire. There is more to Iowa than big bucks!
icon7.gif
Click to expand...

I own land and am fighting for what is true a right for Iowans. I also have family who are NR landowners and rabid deer hunters. They would love a tag every year but get the negative effects of opening things up with ownership as a key factor. It doesn't mean they don't feel the way you NRs pushing this point here do. They simply get the huge negatives effect that would result from such changes. When the deer become a private property item this issue should go away but until then the public resource needs to be cared for with the residences of the state benefiting from this Iowa resource.
 
Liv4Rut said:
If other states were worth a crap I would be fine with it......
Click to expand...

States should follow Iowas lead and not just for deer. Colorado should have a 3 year wait for an elk archery tag, triple the price. Minnesota 3 years for a fishing license, triple the price, South Dakota pheasants 3 year wait, $300 for a license

Wisconsin #1 B & C whitetail state maybe a 5 year wait, $1000 a tag

All states should follow the lead and think how much better their hunting and fishing would be for The residents of the state.

All of you advocates for a price increase on NR might be staying home then.
 
Last edited:
The deer belong to the people of iowa, not the government. Which is they way it is now.

If you don't live in iowa then your not the people, per the current laws, I agree with.
 
SEIowaDeerslayer said:
The only thing I would change to the NR law is increase the price of their tag if they do draw.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. NR do pay way to much to come to Iowa to hunt whitetails. I wish I knew how to fix this. I totally think it is BS. We need to not be all anti NR. Stick to the issue and try and avoid a general attack that really sounds hateful. These guys arguing here are likely good people who simply can't see beyond their selfish thinking. I am sure I do the same thing at times and don't see it for what it is. No offense meant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom