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

Friend's of Iowa didn't go away!

On properties that are over-populated with limited access, they will stay that way if the landowner wishes. The DNR can't force people to allow access. Soooo....How do you manage those issues? Any ideas out there?

As far as more NR antlerless tags go, I think some NR's would use them on females but I believe the majority of those tags sold would be used in the "group hunting loophole" and the NR would go home with a buck. Maybe not, but that's my opinion. I can't imagine any NR would want to spend the $$$ required to buy a tag then add in all the travel and lodging expenses just to harvest a doe.

Resident antlerless tags are selling out for the most part and success rates are lower than in years past. The population is lower than the DNR thinks. Look at Van Buren county, they have been selling over 5000 antlerless tags per year. Two years ago those tags were all sold in mid November. Not anymore. I think one of the reasons for this is hunters know the populations are down and they don't want to waste the $$$ on a tag they might not fill. There are obviously hot spots that have tons of deer and don't provide access. But in general, the county-wide numbers are down.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: IA ML'r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I support more doe tags for NR landowners, but how does the DNR incorporate residents into the equation. I mean most folks are not going to allow strangers on their property. They buy the property to have a place to themselves; eliminating the worry of other hunters being there. The DNR has to let landowners, be it R or NR, access to tags to help manage the deer herd. I know that one doe tag at $200+ doesn't cut it on the property I hunt.
</div></div>

Your post would create exactly the kind of self feeding circle we're trying to avoid. More access to tags for NR landowners = more NR landowners.

Also, when contacting legislators don't forget the Gov. himself. I'm told Culver is very much in favor of more NR anysex tags.

As for Ken Herring, he knows who his boss is there's no doubt about that.
</div></div>


I am a non resident landowner who has been following this thread closely for awhile. I was not sure where I stood on this issue. After reading this post I see that it is all about you all having your own free or very cheap private spots to hunt. It is not about deer management. Non-resident landowner tags does not turn your state into Illinois. It was the increase in non resident tags that turned Illinois into what it is today. Non residents own ground in every state in our country and pay taxes to that state. I bought my ground for hunting, I knew I would only be able to hunt it every few years. I like some of you as evidenced by that quote would like for things to be better for me. I would like a non resident landowner tag. That will not ruin Iowa, it will make it harder for you to get access to land I'm sure. I don't blame you for not wanting this but you can't blame NR landowner for wanting this. FOI may be more extreme than just wanting this. The key in my opionion is keeping the number of NR tags limited. If ground is owned by residents it will probably get hunted so by giving out NR landowner tags the same ground will be hunted just possibly not by residents. From a deer herd perspective this doesn't change much, especially if they give enough doe tags to the NR landowner to manage his ground.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DG1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: IA ML'r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I support more doe tags for NR landowners, but how does the DNR incorporate residents into the equation. I mean most folks are not going to allow strangers on their property. They buy the property to have a place to themselves; eliminating the worry of other hunters being there. The DNR has to let landowners, be it R or NR, access to tags to help manage the deer herd. I know that one doe tag at $200+ doesn't cut it on the property I hunt.
</div></div>

Your post would create exactly the kind of self feeding circle we're trying to avoid. More access to tags for NR landowners = more NR landowners.

Also, when contacting legislators don't forget the Gov. himself. I'm told Culver is very much in favor of more NR anysex tags.

As for Ken Herring, he knows who his boss is there's no doubt about that.
</div></div>


I am a non resident landowner who has been following this thread closely for awhile. I was not sure where I stood on this issue. After reading this post I see that it is all about you all having your own free or very cheap private spots to hunt. It is not about deer management. Non-resident landowner tags does not turn your state into Illinois. It was the increase in non resident tags that turned Illinois into what it is today. Non residents own ground in every state in our country and pay taxes to that state. I bought my ground for hunting, I knew I would only be able to hunt it every few years. I like some of you as evidenced by that quote would like for things to be better for me. I would like a non resident landowner tag. That will not ruin Iowa, it will make it harder for you to get access to land I'm sure. I don't blame you for not wanting this but you can't blame NR landowner for wanting this. FOI may be more extreme than just wanting this. The key in my opionion is keeping the number of NR tags limited. If ground is owned by residents it will probably get hunted so by giving out NR landowner tags the same ground will be hunted just possibly not by residents. From a deer herd perspective this doesn't change much, especially if they give enough doe tags to the NR landowner to manage his ground. </div></div>DG1, I guess I don't see how opening up tags to NR land owners won't cause a problem in this state. That is what FOI wants. A bunch of NR land owners wanting to hunt bucks every year. Like said before, you all new the laws before purchasing the ground. I have no problem having NR enjoy our resource and have tried to help many who have asked questions on this site. Once the hunting has been ruined, most will sell out and buy in the next hot spot.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DG1 [/quote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


That will not ruin Iowa, it will make it harder for you to get access to land I'm sure. I don't blame you for not wanting this but you can't blame NR landowner for wanting this. FOI may be more extreme than just wanting this. </div></div>

See that is the problem. If you can get NR Landowner tags then more people will purchase the ground. Here's a question for most NR. Why not manage your own state instead of trying to manage ours for us. I do not go out of state to hunt animals that I can hunt in Iowa. If you have White-tail deer in your state, manage it so they will grow just like here. If you can have enough money to purchase land in Iowa you surely have enough to purchase in your own state and manage it there. You notice I wrote manage alot, that is because that is what it takes to have a good herd in your own state.
 
I beleive that the orginal intent of the NR tags were to allow farmers who lived across the state line to be able to hunt their ground. I don't think it was ever intended to allow people to buy ground here just to hunt.

DG1,
IMO, the problem is not the one person that buys 100 acres, it's the 100 people that together buy 1 acre. Would you have a problem if the DNR put a minimum acre requirement for NR tags? What if the DNR said you can have a NR tag but you, alone, have to own 100 acres?

What about something alone those lines guys?
Just an idea.
 
Don't forget DG1 that you, as a non-resident landowner, can hunt Iowa every year. You are guaranteed a doe tag and with Iowa's party hunting system you can legally kill a buck as long as someone in your party has a buck tag and is willing to let you use it.
Also there is the depredation program and someday there is supposed to be an interactive page on the DNR site hooking landowners up with hunters for doe management.

On another topic, can anybody find comparative land values with comparative average income by state? An example of what I’m trying to get at is the person that sells his bungalow in California for several hundy thousand, moves to Iowa and buys a mansion with what he made on the bungalow while working at the same type job at Iowa levels of income. So given any states average income compared to the land prices in Iowa, is Iowa land comparatively cheap to any other state?

Still don’t know if I made that clear, what is the average price of recreational ground in Iowa with its average income compared to the average cost of recreational ground in another state with either a higher or lower average income?

The ‘Bonker
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Musky Hunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I beleive that the orginal intent of the NR tags were to allow farmers who lived across the state line to be able to hunt their ground. I don't think it was ever intended to allow people to buy ground here just to hunt.

DG1,
IMO, the problem is not the one person that buys 100 acres, it's the 100 people that together buy 1 acre. Would you have a problem if the DNR put a minimum acre requirement for NR tags? What if the DNR said you can have a NR tag but you, alone, have to own 100 acres?

What about something alone those lines guys?
Just an idea. </div></div>


Musky,
Just wondering,
If a 100 NR each bought 1 acre together only
1 still would be allowed to get a NR tag correct?

Even if two NR bought a 100 acres only one could get a NR tag.

Hellickson is trying IMO to get it where more outfitters will come on in and he can make his money plain and simple.

For the ordinary Joe like you and me there is no way one NR landowner can manage his land by themselves unless they just live over the border and can always be there.
I really do not see how these landowners that live so far away think that they can manage their herd unless they are here 2-3 months or can have residents help them?

DG1,

Please come to Iowa and put up residency and pay the rest of our taxes with us to help our state and then you can get a tag every year. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
 
risto,
You asked:
If a 100 NR each bought 1 acre together only
1 still would be allowed to get a NR tag correct?
Even if two NR bought a 100 acres only one could get a NR tag

No, I was thinking 1 person for every 100 acres (a exception for a spouse on the deed). If DG1 (for instance) and his hunting buddy both wanted NR tags, each would have to own 100 acres. Other wise two guys would buy 100 acres, one would get a doe tag and one an anysex and they would both be looking to kill that monster buck.

These numbers are not meant to be final, just an idea. Maybe the numbers are 50 acres, maybe they are 250 acres. The idea is that each person has to own a sizeable chunk of ground to get a NR tag.
 
Musky,

I forgot about the antlerless tag.
Even though you are not supposed to party hunt during
archery I am sure it would happen.

Good point.
 
to the issues regarding nr land ownership and videos, the professional video guys are way worse than nr landowners, many, not all, don't own a damn thing in iowa, but guess who is to blame? the dnr, they went from 25-75 governor tags, what the heck is that all about, let me publicize the state but then tell me people they are not welcome, they should shut those tags down, i would argue tht most big money nr landowners have used loopholes and switched their residency, so they dont even care other than increase in land values, i dont want to see anything change, but change is coming, and i would try and mold tat change to something i could live with like , nr landowners should need to kill x amount a does a year , nr landowners need to own at least 80 acres , 1 nr tag per 80- that is it. nr landowner tags is not going to increase outfitters, nr tags in general will, so we leave nr tags at 6k and give nr landowners doe tags and 1 buck tag a year and take away nr party hunting. this extended doe season, depredation tags etc is bull crap, why dont they make a 2 week doe season in september when people are gung ho to get out and kill does? 9/15- 9/30 doe only season, now you have 75% bucks have shed this year , its almost embarassing to admit i live in iowa these days with all the nonsense
 
if nr landowners want to manage their property so badly then give them only doe tags and make them wait for the draw for buck tags, put your money where your mouth is, here is 1 doe tag per 40 acres- and cannot be used for gun season, then see what they say
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Musky Hunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">risto,
You asked:
Other wise two guys would buy 100 acres, one would get a doe tag and one an anysex and they would both be looking to kill that monster buck.

</div></div>

Musky,
Wouldn't his buddy still need to draw for the archery antlerless doe tag. How easy are these to get?
Thanks
 
Palmated,

The reason NR's buy is Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, etc. is that not all whitetail ground is equal. Part of the equation is general hunting pressure; Iowa simply does not have it, giving deer the opportunity to grow old. Example, in PA. roughly 300K archery licenses sold to Iowa's 30K or 40K. In PA, the first day of gun season approximately 1 million licensed hunters take to the woods with rifles harvesting nearly 500K deer to Iowa's 150K deer. I guarantee video hosts who spend a lot of time in Iowa would have a fraction of the success in states like NY, MI, PA, etc. The "manage your own state" comment is over simplfying the matter.
KRH, requiring NR's to own at least 80 acres to get a tag is a great idea, and yes I would shoot as many does as IA would permit. Great deer hunting is why I come to IA and maintaining the resource to the best of my ability is the goal.
Risto, I disagree one must live near the property to manage it. I make several trips to IA every year to maintain fields, fences and food plots. When I do hunt the opportunity to shoot the number of does consistent with size of the property presents itself, however, one doe tag, one doe harvest; the rest walk.
 
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 class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Doubleaarchery</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I love to hunt and will do whatever it takes to continue and to pass my knowledge onto my son! </div></div>

Poor Kid.
 
Here's part of what your looking for. It's a little more difficult to find land values for each state. I did find that Massachusetts is the highest at around $11,ooo per acre, for farmland. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland & Delaware were alos close to the top, all over $10,000 per acre. I could probably find others, but don't have time right now.


State Rank Median household income (2007 dollars)

Maryland 1 $68,080
New Jersey 2 67,035
Connecticut 3 65,967
Alaska 4 64,333
Hawaii 5 63,746
New Hampshire 6 62,369
Massachusetts 7 62,365
California 8 59,948
Virginia 9 59,562
Minnesota 10 55,802
Washington 11 55,591
Colorado 12 55,212
Utah 13 55,109
Nevada 14 55,062
Delaware 15 54,610
Dist.of Col. 16 54,317
Illinois 17 54,124
Rhode Island 18 53,568
New York 19 53,514
Wyoming 20 51,731
United States national median ($ 50,740)
Wisconsin 21 50,578
Vermont 22 49,907
Arizona 23 49,889
Georgia 24 49,136
Oregon 25 48,730
Pennsylvania 26 48,576
Michigan 27 47,950
Florida 28 47,804
Texas 29 47,548
Kansas 30 47,451
Indiana 31 47,448
Iowa 32 47,292
Nebraska 33 47,085
Ohio 34 46,597
Idaho 35 46,253
Maine 36 45,888
Missouri 37 45,114
North Carolina 38 44,670
North Dakota 39 43,753
Montana 40 43,531
South Dakota 41 43,424
South Carolina 42 43,329
Tennessee 43 42,367
Oklahoma 44 41,567
New Mexico 45 41,452
Louisiana 46 40,926
Alabama 47 40,554
Kentucky 48 40,267
Arkansas 49 38,134
West Virginia 50 37,060
Mississippi 51 36,338
 
risto,
They didn't sell out the NR doe tags last year and are looking at increasing the number next year.


Double AA,
You asked if NR will buy up more land if they could get a NR tag? Maybe, but how many NR are willing to put up $150,000 to buy that land just to hunt? (Some sure, but I don't think that many).
And you also said "look at it from all sides" that's exactly why I brought it up, to get others ideas and see it from differant sides. Even the NR point of view.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Back40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Palmated,

The reason NR's buy is Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, etc. is that not all whitetail ground is equal. Part of the equation is general hunting pressure; Iowa simply does not have it, giving deer the opportunity to grow old. Example, in PA. roughly 300K archery licenses sold to Iowa's 30K or 40K. In PA, the first day of gun season approximately 1 million licensed hunters take to the woods with rifles harvesting nearly 500K deer to Iowa's 150K deer. I guarantee video hosts who spend a lot of time in Iowa would have a fraction of the success in states like NY, MI, PA, etc. The "manage your own state" comment is over simplfying the matter.
KRH, requiring NR's to own at least 80 acres to get a tag is a great idea, and yes I would shoot as many does as IA would permit. Great deer hunting is why I come to IA and maintaining the resource to the best of my ability is the goal.
Risto, I disagree one must live near the property to manage it. I make several trips to IA every year to maintain fields, fences and food plots. When I do hunt the opportunity to shoot the number of does consistent with size of the property presents itself, however, one doe tag, one doe harvest; the rest walk. </div></div>

Back 40,
The vast majority of NR landowners will not be making several trips a year to manage it. You definitely are the exception if you truly do.
I have just a small 30 acre area across from me that A NR owns and I see him once or twice a year. He lives four hours away. No matter how many tags he gets he will still only be down once or twice a year. I see this in many other areas with the same problem.
Most are after that one elusive monster and will not spend the time shooting just does. I have seen and talked to several people from Mississippi and Louisiana and all they want to do is hunt the rut and stop by a few times in the summer.
It is their land and they can do what they want with it.

As far as hunting pressure I can honestly say I have seen more and more over the years and it will only get worse.

One question I am wondering though is if you already knew Iowa's laws why would you buy here? Originally from here or were you hoping the laws would change down the road?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom