DNR Layoffs
- Thread starter Outdoorbandit
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
Iowa is a top deer state because you have almost no population compared to other states and a very small hunting population resulting in older deer. Your regs, letting resident landowners shoot 3 bucks and party hunting is unheard of in most states and would be considered unsound management. Earlier someone asked if you NRLO haters dislike the residents who post up their land?? Never answered. In my neighborhood I have resident landowners surrounding me, 110 acres to the north, 600 to the west, 500 acres to the south and nearly 1100 acres to the east, ALL POSTED by RESIDENTS who allow zero hunting. That's ok I guess. Yoau complain about NRLO taking away your land. Whatever.
MN2IAGuy
Active Member
Ok... Here is something a little closer to the original thread. The DNR needs more $$$ and they are hypothetically thinking of bringing back the resident late season doe rifle mess or allowing NRLO with 100 acres or more the opportunity to purchase a buck/doe tag for their property for $800 and it is capped at 250 tags. $200,000 from the NRLO vs. probably $25K to 75K tops from the residents and a bunch of dead shed bucks. I'm sure they are thinking of revenue opportunities right now to save their jobs! Thoughts?
Oct-Lull
Well-Known Member
Not a fan of either. Not a fan of resident land owners not allowing access then bitching and wanting depredation tags. Anyone who owns land should have to right to keep others off. I would. But then they have to live with the deer numbers, and those numbers skew the whole system. Example, You can have a 150 acre farm well managed and holding the proper amount of deer, and to the south a pounded 200 acres anyone can gain access. Then to the north 1300 of land owned by one guy looking for 200" with all kinds of food drawing deer in every year with way more does than it can handle. How does selling more tags correct this? I'm not saying force people to give access, but don't give free or nearly free tags out to help them. It's like welfare/food stamps. Extra seasons and extra tags do little to curb deer numbers when there are "deer farms" all over. Most of them aren't mass killing, and if they do it's careful. I don't know what the answer is, but I would pay more to hunt to keep NRLO in the same boat as other NR
Raise resident tags to $40. Charge normal rate for landowner tags ($40 instead of $1). Problem solved.
bigbuckhunter88
PMA Member
Along with that. Up fishing licenses, put payment requirements into place to use certain public boat ramps, don't have to just grab money from one set of people when there are many other areas where the DNR can get some extra $$
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
Toll booth on 35. Any NR charged $10 to enter, NRLO will be frisked and then charged $15.
Toll booth on 35. Any NR charged $10 to enter, NRLO will be frisked and then charged $15.
Haha.... This made me laugh.
MN2IAGuy
Active Member
We won't care cuz we'll be residents working on our tv show and getting our places all set up for our MN hunters!Toll booth on 35. Any NR charged $10 to enter, NRLO will be frisked and then charged $15.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
Bowtech84
Well-Known Member
so basically what you are saying is Iowa deer hunting is what it is because of they way things are now.................. and you want to change that? You are a heck of a debater lol.
MN2IAGuy
Active Member
I like it but we should check with Winke and see if he minds before we get too far down the road! I'll start rounding up resident hunters that don't mind a bunch of goofballs from MN filling their tag!
At least its taking a little longer for these threads to turn into the self-pity party each year. The comedic irony remains the same.
NRLO, "Iowa has amazing deer hunting and my state is miserable. Let's buy land in Iowa for trophy bucks! Now, let's change things to benefit me and be more consistent with my home state where I don't have much chance at a trophy." lol
Makes sense to a few.
NRLO, "Iowa has amazing deer hunting and my state is miserable. Let's buy land in Iowa for trophy bucks! Now, let's change things to benefit me and be more consistent with my home state where I don't have much chance at a trophy." lol
Makes sense to a few.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
That is a BS excuse and you know it. Nothing proposed on here would have any negative affect to the hunting in Iowa. The issue here is you do not want NRLO to have any more rights than NR, for access and land values. Don't confuse the two, if you allocated 400/500 tags to NRLO out of the 6000, it in no way would hurt the trophy hunting in Iowa. Doe tags would not hurt the hunting in Iowa.
C'mon we are all serious deer hunters on here, don't play that BS. Meanwhile you can shoot 3 bucks as a local, which is a terrible rule. Just admit what it is, you want access and land values for residents only. This is the argument!
It would most certainly have a negative impact on residents. It would benefit you. If you don't want to listen to the explanations, there is nothing I can do about that. But, access for locals would be drastically impacted in a negative way. So yes, residents deserve access and the ability to own land in the state where they live. No BS excuses involved. You can deflect all you want, but that doesn't change the facts of the situation. It simply means that you don't get what you want. NR land ownership has never had special privileges and you want to change that. Again, you want to change hunting regulations in a state where you don't live. Changes that only benefit you.
And just so you know that I am far from a NR hater, I am letting a young man from Minnesota hunt my properties this year for the second time in three years for free. Simply because I met he and his father at the Iowa deer classic and they are good, honest people. But, the resource belongs to those that live here. Everyone has that option available.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
Fletch--First off this is all wishful thinking, I am not trying to "change the regulations", as I have never called or emailed a politician to discuss this. This is just been a discussion, so don't worry about it, no congressional committee has been formed, no Russian interference or anything.
Second--glad you let a NR hunt your farm and I mean that, and I also let a young Iowa resident hunt my farm (and he can shoot a buck too) plus a turkey if he wants.
Third---how good is the access right now for residents, I keep hearing that it is impossible to get on farms to hunt right now. Is that accurate or not? Maybe the resident landowners do not let many hunters on their farm?
Second--glad you let a NR hunt your farm and I mean that, and I also let a young Iowa resident hunt my farm (and he can shoot a buck too) plus a turkey if he wants.
Third---how good is the access right now for residents, I keep hearing that it is impossible to get on farms to hunt right now. Is that accurate or not? Maybe the resident landowners do not let many hunters on their farm?
While we're at it; maybe we could change the seasons in Iowa so they won't coincide with Minnesota's seasons. Wouldn't want you guys missing out on that trophy buck in Minnesota while hunting Iowa!
Second--the NRLO's who belong to the Friends Of Iowa claim that 1/3 of the state belongs to them now. That is an increase from 20% just 15 years ago. So access can very well be a problem already due to NRLOs.
I have called and emailed politicians and the Conservation Commissioners and will continue to do so. It's important that all residents do exactly that to protect their access to their resources. I wonder if more than one resident was allowed to hunt your farm before NR's started buying land. I think we all know the answer to that question.
The current situation for access is what it is. That doesn't mean we should ever consider doing anything that would make access worse for residents. Which again, is exactly what your wishful thinking would do. We can agree to disagree, but that is a fact and NRLO's know it. Call BS on that until you turn blue.