From past posts I have mentioned that I don't think non-resident land owners-non-residents and celebrities should share the same preferences.Some talk of how the economy is supported.Non-resdents and celebs come for a week to go hunting and go home.Non-resident landowners not only support the economy but provide habitat and food year around.We to want to see a healthy and well managed herd.THis in itself seperates the group.
I understand that some think the costs of tags should be increased.Price does not effect people who have made millions playing baseball or football etc.It does not hurt the media who seem to have an unlimited supply of funds.Who it does effect is the blue collar worker who has been fortunate enough to buy some ground.
There are legislaters who seem to really like having their name used in the same sentence as those who have become famous for what ever reason.They may even realize some finacial gain -------who knows.Bo Jackson has been able to draw tags 2 years in a row and probably again this year-and he has friends at least the dnr and maybe the legisltion too--nice connection.Sorry I don't see Bo carrying a bucket of corn or building a wind break for the wildlife .I think he might go back home just like the rest of them.Camera men for the "Pro-Hunters" seem to have some preferences also-------now there is a contributor!
I read were we are losing 1.2 millon acres a year to developers and urban sprawl.Someone said 19-20 %f Iowa is owned by non-residents.How much of this is owned by developers and foreign investers who flocked to Iowa in the eighties after a couple of droughts and high interest rates forced alot a farms to sell.How many non-resident land owners actually -----legally-------apply for deer tags?That would be an interesting number.The average person can not afford to buy many acres just to hunt.This is part of the reason outfitters are able to flourish by providing a service more can afford.The number of acres a person owns needs to be put in this equation someplace----I don't know that magic number but I don't think 5 acres and a cabin qualify for much of a preference.When you own for example,an eighty or 160 with some tillable your commitment becomes much stronger.
I had 2 other posts recently--$500 and Big Business.They give some back ground of what I believe.I did receive some good responses and other people opinions.Many were well thought out and helped me understand the other side of the non-resident land owner issues a little better .By the same token I hope some of my thoughts help explain why some of us (at least me)feel the system needs some modifying.
I understand that some think the costs of tags should be increased.Price does not effect people who have made millions playing baseball or football etc.It does not hurt the media who seem to have an unlimited supply of funds.Who it does effect is the blue collar worker who has been fortunate enough to buy some ground.
There are legislaters who seem to really like having their name used in the same sentence as those who have become famous for what ever reason.They may even realize some finacial gain -------who knows.Bo Jackson has been able to draw tags 2 years in a row and probably again this year-and he has friends at least the dnr and maybe the legisltion too--nice connection.Sorry I don't see Bo carrying a bucket of corn or building a wind break for the wildlife .I think he might go back home just like the rest of them.Camera men for the "Pro-Hunters" seem to have some preferences also-------now there is a contributor!
I read were we are losing 1.2 millon acres a year to developers and urban sprawl.Someone said 19-20 %f Iowa is owned by non-residents.How much of this is owned by developers and foreign investers who flocked to Iowa in the eighties after a couple of droughts and high interest rates forced alot a farms to sell.How many non-resident land owners actually -----legally-------apply for deer tags?That would be an interesting number.The average person can not afford to buy many acres just to hunt.This is part of the reason outfitters are able to flourish by providing a service more can afford.The number of acres a person owns needs to be put in this equation someplace----I don't know that magic number but I don't think 5 acres and a cabin qualify for much of a preference.When you own for example,an eighty or 160 with some tillable your commitment becomes much stronger.
I had 2 other posts recently--$500 and Big Business.They give some back ground of what I believe.I did receive some good responses and other people opinions.Many were well thought out and helped me understand the other side of the non-resident land owner issues a little better .By the same token I hope some of my thoughts help explain why some of us (at least me)feel the system needs some modifying.
