Free tags for NR landowners

[Iowabowtech]

US Geological Survey Map of Land Use

An estimated 60% of the state is covered by row crops, 30% by grasslands including pasture, hay land, prairie, and wetland vegetation; while various sources cite 6-7% forest.

Roughly 92% of our limited forest resource is held in private hands while only 8% is public in one fashion or another.

Since most people would agree that timber is a whitetail's primary habitat, I don't think we can compare our situation to that of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, etc. Our whitetail habitat is extremely fragmented and limited. Yes, we have world class whitetails but that's due largely in part to the vast abundance of grain that acts as a premier food source and habitat in it's own right during the growing season. But after harvest, which consequently is when most of our heavy impact deer seasons exist, the deer have limited cover compared to many neighboring states.

I am a proponent of nonresident hunting in Iowa. I think it's a great way to bring folks into the state and introduce them to what we have to offer not only in regard to hunting, but all other things they may experience while they are visiting. I also think our current system allows the ideal level of involvment by nonresident hunters for our specific situation. We can only handle so many guests with the resources we have available. If we overcompensate, I fear the hunting experience for ALL hunters will degrade.

Nonresident landowner tags will IMO greatly increase the investment attraction in our already limited timber habitat by outside sources. There are some deep pockets out there and commericialization of the sport, in part, has upped the ante in the value of trophy whitetails. I think some may be underestimating the economics of this industry and what outside interests are willing to pay to get a piece of it. I further believe that when these acres are purchased for hunting, there will be few allowances for resident access comparatively speaking and residents are the primary agent for achieving herd management goals statewide. Just makes good sense to me that we maintain our current heading. Years of wise decisions have given us what we have today and I see no need or reason to mess with a recipe that has yielded success of this kind.

YMMV.

 

[venison_fan]

I think some of you are missing the point...how many there are now is a moot point, how many NR investors buy farmland means nothing in this concern.

We are talking at the very least about hundreds of NR's waiting to buy land should this bill pass. Do the math...multiply hundreds of buyers by hundreds of acres of recreational land and see where your hunting spot will end up??

We are making progress on controling our deer herd with the exception of areas where NR landowners control large amounts of land. The seasons many of us don't like will be less likely to "go away" if our deer herd explodes in new sanctuaries.

The residents of Iowa lose big in many ways if this bill passes! Right now a very large, well organized group of wealthy NR landowners are writing checks to do everything in their power to make it happen.

Don't set on your hands thinking that this bill has no chance of passing...

We all need to remember also that the thread we were joking about earlier at Iowasportsmen.com has been followed up with another one today. Members there are calling for support of these bills just as we are trying to get them stopped. That just shows that there are people in Iowa that are active in the outdoors that will support these bills. :thrwrck:

We ALL need to be sending out emails voicing our concern!!

 

[Jdubs]

I read the new Iowa Outdoors thread as well. What surprised me a little was opposition to I think HF 2238 where NR's 18 years old and younger could hunt with an Iowa adult resident.ie. an uncle, dad(divorce situation), grandpa, etc. I think opposers have to be careful not to lose credibilitly by saying "no" to every bill. It gives the appearance of inflexibility and being unreasonable. I know the argument is a NR loophole for the future, but I just don't see it in this bill.

 

[Fishbonker]

They can hunt every year now. NR Antlerless tags go unsold every year. Is it about the hunt or the antlers? Is it about time spent with parents, grandparents or the antlers?

Oh yeah, and if it is about antlers they can always party hunt and put gramp's either sex tag on it.

The 'Bonker

 

[Boonersanj]

Guys, just look at what happened to Illinois because of their NR policies. Heck, I live in Missouri and own 400 acres in Iowa and I feel for you. In Illinois, if you want to hunt a trophy buck, you have to pay Hadley Creek or one of the other 2000 outfitters 5grand or moreto get it done. Its pretty sad if it passes. It will be outfitters buying up all the land if the NR transfer thing passes too.

 

[Boonersanj]

I find it hard to draw a tag to hunt my own land in Iowa being a NR so I should be for it but I know what it will do to the future of deer hunting in Iowa. It will pretty much ruin it.

 

[ElkHunter]

I read the new Iowa Outdoors thread as well. What surprised me a little was opposition to I think HF 2238 where NR's 18 years old and younger could hunt with an Iowa adult resident.ie. an uncle, dad(divorce situation), grandpa, etc. I think opposers have to be careful not to lose credibilitly by saying "no" to every bill. It gives the appearance of inflexibility and being unreasonable. I know the argument is a NR loophole for the future, but I just don't see it in this bill.

Below are the changes that legislation sponsnor has suggested but not formally written
1. Amended to read grandchild.
2. Doe only

Ia. resident may buy the tag for someone else. How does state know if they are a close relative(legislation wording ,not mine) and how do they know if they are under 18.

Language needs to written concisely, too many loose ends.

 

[letemgrow]

Agree. If you take the state and divide it up to the best hunting locations, were would the majority of the NR land buyers purchase land??

If a non-resident was buying for hunting, it would be the southern 1/3 of IA and along the mississippi river counties....that's where I would buy if it were me anyways!!!

 

[letemgrow]

I am a proponent of nonresident hunting in Iowa. I think it's a great way to bring folks into the state and introduce them to what we have to offer not only in regard to hunting, but all other things they may experience while they are visiting. I also think our current system allows the ideal level of involvment by nonresident hunters for our specific situation. We can only handle so many guests with the resources we have available. If we overcompensate, I fear the hunting experience for ALL hunters will degrade.

If IA had the total amount of habitat that say MO has, or if the whole state had the setup like southern IA they could support a lot more NR hunters.

There is only so much hunting ground to go around up there so I agree that they are letting the right amount of NR's in now. To keep and maintain a highly regarded resource (lots of mature bucks), careful management needs to be in place and if that bill passes.....

 

[Iowabowtech]

I think opposers have to be careful not to lose credibilitly by saying "no" to every bill. It gives the appearance of inflexibility and being unreasonable. I know the argument is a NR loophole for the future, but I just don't see it in this bill.

I hear what you're saying but unfortunately, that's politics. Sometimes you just have to be willing to look like the bad guy to keep out things that would allow a "foot in the door".

We can't overlook the tactic that these target groups may be introduced by design at times. Remember HF 275? Allowance of special deer and turkey tags for NR wounded veterans? Talk about a setup for being a bad guy. But closer thought begs the question...if somebody was TRULY concerned about tags for wounded vets, why specify NR only? Makes me wonder what's next. Tags for NR gray haired grannies on dialysis?

You do make a very valid point though JD. One has to tread softly at times in order to support their beliefs across the board. Once again...politics. I love to hate it.

 

[cedar creek]

Since Iowa is one of the few states that has gay marriage; maybe we should allow NR gay hunters yearly any sex tags.

 

[loneranger]

Your right,,can't discriminate. They are a special group for sure.

 

[msauer933]

you dont even wanna know...... complete tool box..... and he represents the general population on that site... hahahahaha

Easy there THA....I am part of that population and he, in no way, represents my views. I guess that makes you and I both not part of the "general population" huh?

 

[treerat]

I oppose this bill, but for you guys that feel it is OK because it does not increase the # of NR tags, think about this scenario... The bill passes and there is a "land rush" on Iowa hunting ground. Let's say the number of NR landowners grows to over 6K. Now the state get's pressured or sued by the new NR landowners to add more. Or, what happens when a NR group of non-landowners organizes and sues the state for descrimination against people that cannot afford Iowa ground, because they cannot hunt here any more. The DNR now adds another 6K tags for non-landowners and BAM... we have double the NR tags AND sky-high land prices. Not good IMO...

 

[msauer933]

why?

Why would any legislator even suggest bills that would take away from Iowa resident deer hunters? Are they pressured from big money people from out of state? Have family members out of state? Stand to gain something from the sale of Iowa deer ground? I don't get it?

With that being said, I don't get the majority of ideas politicians come up with.

 

[ironwood]

Why would any legislator even suggest bills that would take away from Iowa resident deer hunters? Are they pressured from big money people from out of state? Have family members out of state? Stand to gain something from the sale of Iowa deer ground? I don't get it?

All of the above!

 

[magnus]

You own the land, you pay taxes on the land, you should be allowed to hunt your land. Should not make a difference if owner is resident or nonresident. Tax revenue is the same. Deer tag should be the same. One any-sex deer tag. That's it.

 

[risto2351]

You own the land, you pay taxes on the land, you should be allowed to hunt your land. Should not make a difference if owner is resident or nonresident. Tax revenue is the same. Deer tag should be the same. One any-sex deer tag. That's it.

Looks like this thread will go round and round.

A non resident does not put as much money into the economy of
Iowa as a resident does every year.
Yes you do pay taxes but so do we plus we buy gas here every week plus
buy groceries here every week and so on and so on.

Not against nonresidents hunting here but should not get the same
treatment as a resident living here 365 days a year.

 

[Iowabowtech]

Deer tag should be the same. One any-sex deer tag. That's it.

Few states agree though including PA.

 

[magnus]

Risto: Agree with your points. However, most NR landowners are not expecting all of the same benefits you describe. They're only looking to hunt their own land and I think most would be satisfied to be able to get (1) any-sex tag for their land. As residents, you can get multiple tags for your own land, as well as other properties. Right?

IBT: Actually, that is how it works in PA. No special consideration if you're a landowner, resident, nonresident, etc. (1) antlered deer per hunter, per year, regardless of season. Not saying that's right or wrong, but that's the way it is in PA. Residents and landowners do get some preference with antlerless tags, but nonresidents can get tags for multiple antlerless deer in most areas of the state, regardless.