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

DNR fines?

bjkpharmd

bjkpharmd

New Member
This was published in the Iowa Farm Bureau Spokesman
[ QUOTE ]
A DNR spokesperson said about 3,000 illegal licenses were picked up from ineligible hunters in just southern Iowa.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was in the article opposing collection of landowner data before a landowner tag would be provided.
My question is if they can state that 3,000 is the number for southern Iowa- why do they need something else and the second question is if they picked up 3,000 illegal tags from ineligible hunters- how many did they prosecute and how much is the fine? I'd have thought this was big news and would be on the DNR site about extra revenue collected from these fines.
 
Assuming the 3,000 number of ineligible license’s confiscated is correct it is interesting that it isn’t posted on the DNR website. If it is, I was unable to fine it.

Just goes to show that the current loopholes in the tag allocation system are being grossly abused.
 
From what I saw at the meeting, there was very little dissent on the issue of providing proof for landowner tags. I'm not sure it would cure all problems but I think it will help.
One only needs to provide a property tax# for at least 2 acres...pretty easy...supposed to be farmed (CRP qualifies) so I'm not sure how that would be checked...not that it couldn't be, but it seems unlikley.
I think the biggest problems occur not from people who don't qualify for landowner tags, but who use them on someone else's property. The most abuse occurs opening weekend of shotgun season when hunters gather and move property to property. IMO that will still be a huge problem...I guess time will tell.....
 
So does anyone know how much the fines are or where the money went? I would think that if 3000 people were prosecuted it would have been a big deal. I'd like to know if the DNR can confirm that number or how they know what it is for sure and why they did not collect significant fines. If they can confirm the number- why do they need to collect more landowner information? If they aren't using fines (big ones) on these folks they should be rather than making law abiding folks jump through more hoops. I'd really like to know how they go about enforcing and cross checking databases to find these crooks. How are properties owned by NR's monitored for landowner (resident and NR alike) tags?

I'll provide proof if that is what it takes to close a loophole but still- enforce the laws on the books and fine the crap out of people that break the law. They never seem to miss an opportunity to ask for increased revenue when they get a chance. If southern Iowa can account for 3000 bogus tags- we should fine $1000 each for $3,000,000 that they want by selling the extra NR tags.
 
[ QUOTE ]

I think the biggest problems occur not from people who don't qualify for landowner tags, but who use them on someone else's property. The most abuse occurs opening weekend of shotgun season when hunters gather and move property to property. IMO that will still be a huge problem...I guess time will tell.....

[/ QUOTE ]

This is certainly true to an extent. Those that do qualify will be able to continue to abuse them (if they did before), and those who "borrow" tags from actual landowners will as well. However, those non-hunting landowners might have to do some work to get that tag they know they arent going to use. I assume the whole intent of this change is not to create a new law, but to make enforcement of the existing law much easier on a large scale, i.e. computer cross-checking of Iowas 150,000+ deer hunters. Currently the system is basically a free-for-all so anything that makes that a little harder to get away with is a good change, IMO.
It's not as if most folks change land like underwear or anything so I would think the inconvience to the law abiding would be minimal over the long term.
 
[ QUOTE ]
A DNR spokesperson said about 3,000 illegal licenses were picked up from ineligible hunters in just southern Iowa.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not believe it. I know that the FB says this (read it myself). But, they can say about anything without backing it with a name. I would like to know who from the DNR said it. For every known violation, I am sure there are another 10 that they are unaware of. If it is true, did they follow up with citations?
 
i have to agree with 150. sounds like another instance of FB pulling numbers out of thin air to support their ideals
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom