I shouldn't have copy/pasted SF206 into my message for two reasons: bandwidth and it lost some important formatting. Instead I would encourage people to go to:
SF206 and enter SF206 into the quick find window.
As to what I think of this piece of legislation? I guess I read it as "how does it impact me?" and it doesn't seem to really change what I will do this coming season. Admittedly a narrow, self-serving view of the issue.
Also, it is a little tough to read all of this "legalese" and if I read it correctly, non-residents are forced to buy an antlerless tag on top of an any sex. I think it would have been better received if it would have stated that with the purchase of an any-sex license, the non-resident receives a antlerless only tag, even if the dollar amount remains the same. I think human nature resists being "forced" into buying something they might not really want, especially when it carries a seperate fee. Overall, I don't see any huge influx of non-residents streaming in to shoot the "unlimited" doe licenses. Don't take that statement as being anti-non-resident. I have deer hunted in Missouri, Minnesota and Wisconsin. My choice of state and season was based upon whether I thought it was a good hunting value. When I hunted Wisconsin, supplemental antlerless tags were $20 each. I bought 4 and filled two while my $100 buck tag went unfilled. Today, I doubt if I would come to this state as a non-resident. The license cost is very high (IMO) and there is little public land. Everyones view of affordability is different, thus there are those who lease ground or hire an outfitter on top of buying an expensive non-resident tag. To each his own...
I like the fact that they placed a two acre minimum for a landowner license as I've seen areas around the Coralville resevoir where people buy and acre to put up a house then jump the back fence to hunt public ground or trespass on private. I'm probably delusional to think that any law would change this behavior though.
This seems to be mainly a deer preserve/deer farm bill rather than a deer population control bill. I might have missed whether a large leased track falls into the "hunting preserve" definition.
I noticed a couple of instances where the bill deferred to the DNR for special seasons, zones and bag limits. I'm glad they have left the door open for the DNR to do their job.