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

Double the Number of Non_Res, Licenses:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THA4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Chris, send them an email!
/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif</div></div>

/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif Already sent, waiting for the response /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THA4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Chris, send them an email!
/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

hoofline.gif





I agree send it Chris!
twothumbsup.gif



hoofline.gif


398ibalogo_1_.gif

PM
Ron Wyllie
Southwest Iowa IBA Area Representative
rwyllie@iowawhitetail.com
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sureshot1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I see where this all starts, as a major in animal ecology at Iowa State University. I'm a senior, and I take many classes with those who are graduate students. What I find hilarious is that even though these grad students are book smart, they aren't 'real world' smart. What I mean by this is that they dont' realize turkeys can fly. They don't understand what hunting in Iowa is all about. Half of them are from the city, and think that hunting is cruel, however, they will have a masters degree in an ecology related field, and the IDNR will hire them before me.

These are the type of people we need to worry about.....

</div></div>

From what I'm hearing from my buddy that is a technician for the DNR, you couldn't be more right. He says the exact same things about the people getting hired now days and sees it statewide at all the conferences he goes to. He says the "hook n' bullet boys" of old (the people that knew what the hell they were doing because they too were outdoorsman) are a thing of the past and now a majority of the people getting into the field and taking the jobs are granola crunchers that just don't get it.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sureshot1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I see where this all starts, as a major in animal ecology at Iowa State University. I'm a senior, and I take many classes with those who are graduate students. What I find hilarious is that even though these grad students are book smart, they aren't 'real world' smart. What I mean by this is that they dont' realize turkeys can fly. They don't understand what hunting in Iowa is all about. Half of them are from the city, and think that hunting is cruel, however, they will have a masters degree in an ecology related field, and the IDNR will hire them before me.
</div></div>

You are enlightened. I graduated in the same major at the same school 14 years ago and it was exactly as you described back then too. In fact, at times I felt like a black sheep as a hunter although many of us were. The resource ethics classes was where they really came out of the woodwork, it was like a Greenpeace convention. It was discouraging and eventually led to my choosing a different career path. Thankfully, some guys stuck it out that I know to be pro-hunting.
 
Here is my response from Kenneth Herring. Suffice it to stay, but it looks like the DNR is determine on this issue.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mr. Herring's own words in red
<span style="color: #FF0000">Hello John:

Thanks for taking time to write us on this important issue. As an avid deer hunter myself, I know your passion for the world class resource we have managed for here in Iowa .

I want to acknowledge your thoughts, and also give you our official position. I think you will find it helpful in understanding that we believe we can increase the quota of non residents while still maintaining our world class deer resource, and satisfying our resident hunters concerns. It may interest you to know that the current 10 zone system is a hold over when we used this same zone system to manage our resident hunters at a time when we were growing our whitetail herd. Never was this 10 zone system contemplated as a way to manage non resident hunters. So the current system has allowed a high concentration of non resident hunters in several counties. I know we can do better, but the longer we wait, the harder it becomes to make these changes.</span>


Here is our current position on this issue:

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Position/Approach to the
Non-Resident Any-Sex Deer License Quota


The Department is aware groups, such as The Friends of Iowa–Landowners and Sportsmen, are expressing concern about the limited number of non-resident (NR) licenses available in Iowa . The work of these groups is not new, however, observations have been made that they are getting more organized and they understand how to make changes legislatively. Over the past several years, there have been bills introduced by various legislators to address the issue of NR landowners getting first chance at the current quota of 6,000 NR licenses or to ensure that all NR landowners are guaranteed to get an any-sex deer license.

The Department's response to this issue has been to request that the legislature raise the current quota of 6,000 NR licenses by an additional 6,000. To date, the legislature has held tight to the current cap. The Department’s position has remained the same for the past 6 -7 years.

However, this year, the Department's approach has changed. Rather than seek a quota increase from the legislature, we seek the ability for the Department to set the NR quota rather than the legislature. We feel that the Department has expertise and experience in finding the appropriate balance in the different stakeholder perspectives as we do for virtually every other species of wildlife. For example, by increasing the number of zones for non-residents from the current 10 to 99 (to correspond with the number of Iowa counties) and restricting NR licenses between four seasons, it could actually reduce the concentration of NR hunters that recent harvest data suggests is occurring in a few counties. It is too early to tell if this approach will gain support in our legislative package.

The NR quota of 6,000 any-deer has received a lot of attention the past several years and the issue continues to be difficult and in some cases divisive. Many Iowa hunters continue to believe that NR hunters are to blame for the loss of their hunting opportunity. In some areas, this is now supported by deer harvest data. In other areas, Iowa hunters are purchasing land for recreation and are perhaps much of the cause for this shift in land available for hunting. Points to consider regarding a quota increase are that this will provide additional revenue to manage the resources and social and economic benefits would occur. Also, there is no biological evidence the wildlife population would be negatively affected.

Given the momentum of feelings on both sides of this issue, I believe that the current quota of 6,000 will eventually need to be increased. However I would not speculate as to when this may occur. Currently, the legislature has the sole authority on this matter. We have the opportunity to use our expertise and experience to proactively develop compromise that would address the concerns of our resident hunters while helping meet the needs of our nonresident hunters or to wait until the legislature makes the change.

Again, thanks for your thoughts.

Ken Herring
 
Well at least Mr Herring's secretary is getting very good at copy and paste of the official IDNR position on this issue. Keep flooding the e-mail and maybe some one will get an actual response that isn't a paste up from the official manual.
 
I just got the same answer in a can also, less than surprising and in fact I think a good sign. Shows to me that they're inundated with e-mails and no longer have the time to respond with a customized answer. <u>Although my disagreement with some individuals is at a high level right now</u> ...

this might be a worthy time to mention my belief that there are some very high quality people involved with the DNR that in my view don't necessarily share the beliefs of the upper tier. To any of those folks who may be aware of my growing concerns, or perhaps are even reading these threads, don't think for a moment that I'm lumping everyone into the same boat. You know who you are, as do many bowhunters, myself included.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this might be a worthy time to mention my belief that there are some very high quality people involved with the DNR that in my view don't necessarily share the beliefs of the upper tier. To any of those folks who may be aware of my growing concerns, or perhaps are even reading these threads, don't think for a moment that I'm lumping everyone into the same boat. You know who you are, as do many bowhunters, myself included.
</div></div>


My experience also.
 
If you feel so inclined to contact your state Senate and House legislature please do so. Here is a list of all those on the Senate and House Natural Resource Subcomittee where the legislation is initially drafted. You can copy and paste these to your emails when voicing your opinion. I would also add your state and house representative if they aren't members of this comittee.

Yes, its been a really slow day for me at work today.

House subcomitte
paul.bell@legis.state.ia.us; john.beard@legis.state.ia.us; dave.deyoe@legis.state.ia.us; richard.arnold@legis.state.ia.us; clel.baudler@legis.state.ia.us; gene.ficken@legis.state.ia.us; Dan.Huseman@legis.state.ia.us; Jim.Lykam@legis.state.ia.us; larry.marek@legis.state.ia.us; Mike.May@legis.state.ia.us; Dolores.Mertz@legis.state.ia.us; Eric.Palmer@legis.state.ia.us; henry.rayhons@legis.state.ia.us; jason.schultz@legis.state.ia.us; sharon.steckman@legis.state.ia.us; annette.sweeney@legis.state.ia.us; phyllis.thede@legis.state.ia.us; Linda.Upmeyer@legis.state.ia.us; John.Whitaker@legis.state.ia.us; Wesley.Whitead@legis.state.ia.us; ray.zirkelbach@legis.state.ia.us;

Senate Subcomittee
dick.dearden@legis.state.ia.us; tom.hancock@legis.state.ia.us; james.hahn@legis.state.ia.us; merlin.bartz@legis.state.ia.us; dennis.black@legis.state.ia.us; joe.bolkcom@legis.state.ia.us; eugene.fraise@legis.state.ia.us; david.johnson@legis.state.ia.us; steve.kettering@legis.state.ia.us; larry.noble@legis.state.ia.us; amanda.ragan@legis.state.ia.us; brian.schoenjahn@legis.state.ia.us; joe.seng@legis.state.ia.us
 
I would think 99 zones could make the whole state like southern Iowa with a lot of the best ground leased or bought, for or by NR's, in each county. It seems to me Herring is a FOI lobbyist.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tslc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would think 99 zones could make the whole state like southern Iowa with a lot of the best ground leased or bought, for or by NR's, in each county. </div></div>

I'm not so sure. If the NR tags were divided equally by county (and equally across bow, first & second shotgun and late MZ in each county), do you really think Grundy county is going to be a hot destination for NR hunters or people looking to buy hunting land? (sorry to pick on any Grundy Co. guys on here, but I'm under the impression it isn't the hottest county in the state for deer hunting, based mostly on your very low antlerless quota).

With the ten management zones currently, I'd bet many of those NR's head to a few counties in each zone. If they had to narrow their application down to a specific county, knowing that drawing odds might be worse for that county, will they still request that county or try another county? I bet some would only apply for a specific county and wait a couple of years to get drawn. This might actually make it harder on some NR landowners to draw in some counties (those counties with many NR landowners). How many NR's head to Monroe County? Lee? Van Buren? You guys might see less pressure with the proposed change.
 
Bummer of a deal all around. The DNR needs to raise money and needs to do it quick. I don't believe that they have all bad intentions in raising the NR quota. I feel like they are trying to give Iowans a break (as stated in the reason for delaying the license increase 1 year) but at the same time they are looking to pad the DNR income a bit. Double edged sword that is a bit sharper on one side for a politician, either way you are hurting your resident hunters.

Sustainable funding for the IA DNR has to be passed and passed soon or there is no doubt the NR tags quota will increase. Pheasnat hunting has gone to hell in the state and I am guessing the IA DNR has lost millions on this decline alone in the past 5 years. Hopefully, they find a way to raise the coin without raising quotas, I have watched one states deer hunting decline over the last 10 years and would hate to watch anothers. Keep fighting fellas, I will be happy to come and see you every three years if you can keep the current regulations.

Kratz
 
If I remember right, Ken Herring is nearing retirement within a year or two. In my opinion he is selling out the residents of Iowa for potential future individual profit, that he is attempting to set himself up to be a private wildlife consultant/land manager for the NR landowner & for groups of people like the so called "Friends of Iowa". So calling him their lobbyist may be right on target! <u> </u>

The more I see and hear of him and his actions the less I care for him. I do not think that he has the best interest of all Iowans at heart.

This only my opinion and is solely based on observation.

I also think that he is in direct conflict with his current employers mission statement, but he's probably not alone there!

The DNR's mission statement:

To conserve and enhance our natural resources in cooperation with individuals and organizations to <u>improve the quality of life for Iowans</u> and ensure a legacy for future generations.
 
jkratz

A couple of years ago I would have agreed with what you are saying, and even now I don't believe that the entire IDNR is BAD, but I do think that the upper levels do have a hidden agenda. By delaying the resident fee increases and using it as a lever to double the NR licenses I believe we are being taken advantage of. Once the NR licenses are doubled then a few months later we will have a fee increase, so now they have achieved both agendas and we have been hosed twice, but that is just my humble opinion.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I feel like they are trying to give Iowans a break (as stated in the reason for delaying the license increase 1 year) but at the same time they are looking to pad the DNR income a bit. </div></div>

Culver was the one who shot down the increase, said he wouldn't due it do to current economic times.


Why do why do we never hear of the DNR being proactive and trying to impliment items to buffer the effects of privitization. Or did I miss something?

How about some solid regulations concerning outfitting? That would be a start. Wouldn't cost them money, hell they'd make some money by charging for outfitting licensure.


I'd vote for a one time outfitting license fee....say $50,000. Could direct that to land purchases to help all the people they displace in this State. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Then some regs on these companies that come in and lease ground and turn around and sub lease again for hunting rights.....blood suckers. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
 
Follow the money boys!! Every "horn porn" star out there is pimping Iowa like there's no tomorrow. Bet my last dollar half the guys crying about all the NR's in Iowa will have their lips puckered to kiss Lee & Tiff's backsides at the Classic too. Have your picture taken with them and don't forget to thank them for all they've done for your State! /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
 
Top Bottom