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

Friend's of Iowa didn't go away!

Musky

I agree with seeing all sides. I think it is important. What I meant was if the amount is 11 or 20 % currently owned by NR and if everyone wants to be here so bad, I think more would buy if they knew they could get a tag. I could be wrong, but I think people with the money would be more likely to buy it then than they would be now.

Trust me, I am against an increase in NR tags, and I am against Iowa Tag costs going up, but on the other side I understand the political and Finaicial needs for the "state" to make more money. Guess I don't have a solution.

I like the ideas, and I like the discussion, but there is no way all sides will win! It is a tough situation.....



Nanny, you better sleep still, cause I am going to place a rat trap between your legs when your sleeping!!! =)
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Doubleaarchery</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it's all money driving guys! I enjoy the discussions of dream worlds, but that isn't the way it is. Again, everyone wants the world, but no one wants to pay for it.

I like most everyone else complained when I saw tag prices going up, if they have to get money, they will find a place.

How many here are willing to pay 250 dollars for their any sex tags in order to keep NR out? I'm saying if they said either NR get license or your tags go up, we would have many "hunters" just throw in the towel!

I am going to mention first I am a huge IBA supporter, and if your posting in this thread and not a member, then your complaints fall on deaf ears, but on a side note, doesn't the IBA auction a NR buck tag each year? Just wondering.

This is another thread that has had comments against the video guys, aka Pros, yet I must mention again, look in this websites harvest photo section. We are all a walking advertisment for BIG IOWA WHITETAILS....except me, I killed a dink =) But it's on video LOL!!!

Either way, how can you restrict people to a certain percentage of land. I saw 100 acres, I saw 80 acres... my question is this, are you saying you wouldn't complain about someone getting a NR any sex tag if they owned 100 acres? Isn't that giving NR incentive to buy up the large farms you all claim to being trying to protect? Look from all sides before throwing out ideas!

Hunting is a great pastime. But it is just that, the past is gone. We have to fight today's fight and roll with todays changes! I still love to hunt. Private, public, doesn't matter, I love to hunt and will do whatever it takes to continue and to pass my knowledge onto my son! </div></div>

Andy,
I don't think everyone wants to play but not pay.

You are correct though there will come a breaking point where
people will either quit or not pay but still play.

You also know how many hours you logged this year with considerable others on this site to try and help to keep the doe population in check. IT will never end if this goes thru. IMO

As far as the land size I think Musky was saying that they would have to have at least 80 - 100 acres and not just a 1 acre parcel. If this goes thru there will be a lot higher numbers being bought than that though.

One thing I hope the DNR and Legislator does this year before they hastily make decisions is to wait until their surveys are done before they say we still need more deer harvested.

If everyone likes what they have now we better act and speak up now.
 
Risto,

I'm a deer hunting fanatic, mostly with archery tackle, did realize the rules when buying, and have no problem with the current anysex tag system.
However, my experience in Iowa, beginning in 2002, has been extremely low hunting pressure and more deer than I thought. That said I simply would be in favor of a few more doe tags at a reasonable price.
Aside from the previous looking forward to deer season keeps my dad breathing year to year, and as mentioned prior the low hunter numbers makes for an enjoyable experience.
Lastly, both sides make good cases, but the following has changed: land owned and posted by R and NR, increased leasing, increased NR landownership, deer densities as a result of posted land, increased popularity in hunting as a recreational activity, and income potential by several different industries within Iowa's infrastructure. As a result hunting regs will change, but I think the IBA and R's should bend a little with this change or be subject to a forced change by the DNR and state legislature. Nothing ever stays the same.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Back40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Risto,

I'm a deer hunting fanatic, mostly with archery tackle, did realize the rules when buying, and have no problem with the current anysex tag system.
However, my experience in Iowa, beginning in 2002, has been extremely low hunting pressure and more deer than I thought. That said I simply would be in favor of a few more doe tags at a reasonable price.
Aside from the previous looking forward to deer season keeps my dad breathing year to year, and as mentioned prior the low hunter numbers makes for an enjoyable experience.
Lastly, both sides make good cases, but the following has changed: land owned and posted by R and NR, increased leasing, increased NR landownership, deer densities as a result of posted land, increased popularity in hunting as a recreational activity, and income potential by several different industries within Iowa's infrastructure. As a result hunting regs will change, but I think the IBA and R's should bend a little with this change or be subject to a forced change by the DNR and state legislature. Nothing ever stays the same.
</div></div>

Back40
Thanks for the reply.

One thing I do think would be a mistake is for the DNR and legislators to force this unto the Iowa hunters.

It still is a fact that we as residents and taxpayers contribute way more money to the Iowa economy as far as taxes, hotels, gas, special option taxes, groceries, restaurants year round than the NR ever will.
Take this away and the DNR will have to wonder were the money is going to come from next.

Thanks again for your reply.

BTW Andy,

Some of us would be hard headed enough to quit. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: risto</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some of us would be hard headed enough to quit. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>


the word 'Stubborn' comes to mind

/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THA4</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: risto</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some of us would be hard headed enough to quit. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>


the word 'Stubborn' comes to mind

/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif</div></div>

What's this? It would seem that the pot is again calling the kettle black........


I know, so am I.
 
Risto,

The word "forced" was a bad choice on my part. What I mean is the DNR is looking for ideas from all the groups, most importantly the IBA and passionate resident hunters, hence the recent Deer Study Commission meetings. I didn't attend the meetings of course, Fishbonker did a great job with his information and insight, but it would be my approach as an IBA member to make suggestions and not have the line drawn in the sand approach. I think the DNR would view that tact as professional and open minded leading to concessions for all involved. The fact the meetings occurred looks like some things may change this year.
 
If you have a minimum acre requirement for a nonresident to get an any sex tag, they will just purchase more land. Some people have lots of money and they will just tie up more land.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bondsman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you have a minimum acre requirement for a nonresident to get an any sex tag, they will just purchase more land. Some people have lots of money and they will just tie up more land. </div></div>

Bondsman,
It will not make a difference how much they buy they still
will only get one landowner tag.

The door it opens though is huge. If this does ever happen I really do pray for our kids that they will be able to buy land or enjoy this pasttime because we (the DNR) just sold all us residents out. JMHO
 
I understand all of you residents not wanting NR landowners to get a tag. My problem is with the reasoning you try to argue that they shouldn't. Letting NR landowners have tags does not change anything for an individual property. If it is owned by a resident it gets hunted every year. If it is owned by a NR landowner and he got landowner tags it would be hunted every year. It is then up to the landowner to manage his own ground. Some of you think this can't be done. It can. Some will, some won't. Just like resident landowners. Some of you say they couldn't do it without residents help. Are you complaining about this? The biggest difference for you as residents would be gaining access. This is taking place in every state in the country. I have lost access to many properties and that is why I decided to purchase my own piece of property. In the end this will be the only way to guaruntee yourself a place to hunt in the future.
I knew the rules when I bought my ground. I abide by them. I also knew about property taxes when I bought my house that doesn't stop me from wanting them to go down. If 21% of your ground is owned by NR that is 21% that is not getting managed properly. Your herd would not be negatively impacted by a minimum acreage limit for NR landowner tags. It would actually improve. Your deer herd would only suffer if the general NR tag allocation went up. That is what will create problems from outfitters. If you were to say if you own 100 acres or more you get an archery tag and eliminated the party hunt this does an outfitter no good. NR landowners bring lots of money to your state and DNR. They are not hard on your deer herd. Your main problem if you don't own ground would be finding the same private ground you have always may get purchased by a NR. That is no fun but preventable. Save some money and buy some ground. I saved for 5 years to get my down payment. Often crp, crop share, etc... Will almost make your payment for you. I am not in favor in ruining what Iowa has for a deer herd but I also don't think a minimum acreage amount for a NR landowner would cause any decrease in your deer herd quality.
 
DG1 makes one very good point. 79% of the IA land is owned by residents and whether they practice QDM or not is unknown. However, residents and the DNR can be assured, under the current NR tag allocation, 21% of the hunting land in IA is not being managed properly.
 
Land is a great investment in my opinion. I know a handful of nonresidents that would buy ground tomorrow if they knew they could hunt it every year. The current tag system is holding them back. If ordinary Joe me knows guys that would buy ground, if they could hunt every year, there is alot more that would. These guys are all great and I would hunt with anyone of them anytime. I have nothing against nonresidents at all and will say they are an absolute blast to hunt with!! It sure is something to hunt with some guys in their 40's that get all worked up and come hootin and hollering when they get back to camp about a 130incher they saw that night.

I know I dream of buying ground some day just like everyone else, both resident and nonresident but I do see how it could become a major problem if they made it so nonresidents could hunt their ground every year. They may keep the nonresident quota the same, but if everyone that owned land automatically got a tag, then that quota jumps right up. Unless they included the nonresident landowners into the original quota.

It really doesn't come down to a deer herd issue in my opinion. I don't believe guys are out there to help out the state, resident or nonresident. Everyone is out there to micro-manage their section they hunt in and make it better for themselves. Who cares what is going on where you can't hunt. Whether it is a resident or nonresident landowner it comes down to that individual landowner to get it done. Sure nonresidents can't get it done right now, I understand that. Heck give them all the doe tags they want, just make it for any season excluding shotgun. I mean honestly, why does anyone try to manage the deer herd? So farmer Ted doesn't hit one driving to Casey's in the morning or to grow big bucks? I think it is mainly the people like to shoot deer and aren't really thinking about helping out the state, and two everyone wants to grow big bucks. Nobody is going geez if I could just kill 100 deer this year, I would really help the state out this year. I know I don't.

In the end, I am just rambling. It's just a crappy deal all around for both residents and nonresidents.
/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DG1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand all of you residents not wanting NR landowners to get a tag. My problem is with the reasoning you try to argue that they shouldn't. Letting NR landowners have tags does not change anything for an individual property. If it is owned by a resident it gets hunted every year. If it is owned by a NR landowner and he got landowner tags it would be hunted every year. It is then up to the landowner to manage his own ground. Some of you think this can't be done. It can. Some will, some won't. Just like resident landowners. Some of you say they couldn't do it without residents help. Are you complaining about this? The biggest difference for you as residents would be gaining access. This is taking place in every state in the country. I have lost access to many properties and that is why I decided to purchase my own piece of property. In the end this will be the only way to guaruntee yourself a place to hunt in the future.
I knew the rules when I bought my ground. I abide by them. I also knew about property taxes when I bought my house that doesn't stop me from wanting them to go down. If 21% of your ground is owned by NR that is 21% that is not getting managed properly. Your herd would not be negatively impacted by a minimum acreage limit for NR landowner tags. It would actually improve. Your deer herd would only suffer if the general NR tag allocation went up. That is what will create problems from outfitters. If you were to say if you own 100 acres or more you get an archery tag and eliminated the party hunt this does an outfitter no good. NR landowners bring lots of money to your state and DNR. They are not hard on your deer herd. Your main problem if you don't own ground would be finding the same private ground you have always may get purchased by a NR. That is no fun but preventable. Save some money and buy some ground. I saved for 5 years to get my down payment. Often crp, crop share, etc... Will almost make your payment for you. I am not in favor in ruining what Iowa has for a deer herd but I also don't think a minimum acreage amount for a NR landowner would cause any decrease in your deer herd quality. </div></div>

DG1,
NR landowners do not bring even close to the same amount of money to our state as the Iowa residents do. Why would the DNR want to tick off the resident landowners and hunters and lose that income which is a lot more than a NR landowner will ever bring here to the state?

I have no problem with A NR landowner getting a tag but he will need to draw one like it is done now. A resident should get preference like I stated earlier with all the money we put into the state coffers.

I have my land and will be buying more. This really is not my fight but those without land that have that dream better either ante up pretty soon or hang it up.
When a NR landowner openly tells you that the areas you now hunt will be gone or not accessible anymore it is time to do some kind of action.
 
Risto- NR landowners may not bring the state the same amount as residents but some of that goes to the fact that we can only hunt every 3rd year. Second why does my owning ground in your state tick you off. What if I let every resident that asked hunt on it. And what if a resident owned that same ground and didn't let anyone hunt on it. A landowner is a landowner. How does 1 resident put in more money to the state coffers than 1 NR landowner? What does a tag cost you? You have no problems telling people you will be buying more ground but when a NR says you should buy ground you act like that is some sort of threat. Why does it matter if you own it or I own it? What makes us different?
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DG1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I knew the rules when I bought my ground. </div></div>

And also remember why you didn't buy ground in western Ill.

There is a reason why the realtor lobby wants more NR landowner tags.... $$$$$

Trying to alter the states deer management practices for money or your own self interests is just plain foolish. Right now the state of Iowa has a good thing going with our current management practices and that's why you bought land here.

Why would we want to screw it up?
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DG1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Risto- NR landowners may not bring the state the same amount as residents but some of that goes to the fact that we can only hunt every 3rd year. Second why does my owning ground in your state tick you off. What if I let every resident that asked hunt on it. And what if a resident owned that same ground and didn't let anyone hunt on it. A landowner is a landowner. How does 1 resident put in more money to the state coffers than 1 NR landowner? What does a tag cost you? You have no problems telling people you will be buying more ground but when a NR says you should buy ground you act like that is some sort of threat. Why does it matter if you own it or I own it? What makes us different? </div></div>

DG1,
You have mail.

Sorry to everyone for being so passionate on this issue but I have talked to Realtors and others and we will be really screwing up a good thing here in Iowa if this happens.
 
it is a pretty simple deal really if you want to draw a tag every year you could move here every one has that option.

the problem is that the higher income is not here, go try to find a job in southern iowa that pays the same as they make on the east coast. most of the big resident land owners in iowa didnt just buy the ground they have had it for years when the prices were low or it was a family farm .most iowa residents dont have that kind of money but if you go to the bigger towns alot more people do.

i sent in for a tag for new mexico last year 800.00 for a tag they sent it back along with thousands of other checks for nr hunters even resident hunters have to draw out there.nr who hunt with an outfitter get more tags allocated to them than the do it yourself hunters do, and they dont have preference points,i may never get to hunt there for a giant elk.i am not complaining i will send them a check again this year and see what happens,that is how it works, maybe i should get a group together because i cant draw a tag, and try to get that changed,if i get the the right group,one with influence and money it just might work.
if you have the right influences in iowa you could get a tag ever year anyway, they are called governer tags.in new mexico and other states they sell them for lots of money.if our state needs the money so bad they should auction of the governer tags every year
just what this looks like to me.
 
REASON is not just land prices, I don't think most people are saying that's the only reason (I have land that would be worth more BUT that's not what I want AND is not the only reason).

Read the 1st page, a few posts down and I touched on a few of the many side effects and reasons against what FOI is doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom