Guaranteed NR Landowner Tag

[180bc]

Let me throw this one out….and watch the bullets fly from both sides. Guys, no death threats please…..
I keep hearing the groaning about increasing numbers of NR hunters. NR landowners are incensed about not getting a buck tag to hunt their land. The DNR says they don’t have any money. They say deer numbers are too high (I disagree for the most part). The insurance companies want to kill em all. It seems no one is happy. As a NR landowner, I know the system as it stands now will not prevail. Eventually, the courts will decide how to handle this. If I lived in Iowa I would try to circumvent this before the unthinkable occurs, and the courts totally lift the cap on NR licenses. If I only hunted my land once every three years, I wouldn’t be for opening it up completely, if I were, I would have bought land in Missouri. You need the NR landowners on your side to keep a court case from deciding how your licenses are distributed. My proposal is simple:

Make a guaranteed tag available to a NR landowner if they own 40 or more acres.
Price this tag at $1000 (included a “free†doe tag)

I think this will fix most of the NR landowner dilemma. It will accomplish many things:
· The DNR budget situation will improve at no cost to residents
· Participation will be low enough to barely affect hunting pressure
· Participation will be low enough to barely affect land values
· This tag applies to land owned by the NR only, not leased land, therefore not increasing the demand for leased property.
· You take away the NR argument that I cant get a tag to hunt my land
· It will encourage the NR to be present on the land and take a doe
· Make the doe tag for a doe only, no extra buck, via party hunt or any other method
· This would give enforcement more teeth, no whining in court about “I did it because I cant get a tag for my landâ€.
· The NR doesn’t have to pay the $1000 for a tag, he can still apply in the general draw if he so chooses


Now before you beat me up over this and tell me how it is making it a rich mans sport and etc, consider the fact that it is already all about the money anyway. Don’t take my word for it, ask your legislator or the DNR. Anyone who can afford 40 acres for $60k plus shouldn’t fuss too much about a $1000 license. I am not keen about paying that much for a tag, but I would to hunt my land. It would benefit the locals greatly, and it wont hurt me to put something back in for them.
Ok, let the bullets fly………….

 

[trper]

180bc,
I respect your opinon and your idea on
how to help solve the problem butI do not agree with you that the current sytstem will not prevail.
We will continue the strong fight for all that we have worked so hard to accomplish. Every state has the right to do what they see fit to protect the interest of their citizens and taxpayers. If the Federal courts get involved, we will fight them to. We are up for the challange. In a respectful way you should never tell anyone especially an Iowegen that they are going to lose the battle before the battle has begun. I believe there is a solution to the issue but I don't see it as you do. My Uncle, who is an avid deer hunter and also owns land in Iowa, likes the way the system stands now. Limited licenses = Trophy whitetails. Yes, He would probly like to hunt more often but for the type of hunting that is offered to him on the East coast, he is elated every year he leaves Iowa and heads home. Even if he dosen't harvest a deer, which he hasen't the past times he has drawn. He is very management concious hunter. The poachers or the unethical hunter can whine all they want in court. We will just keep locking them up until they get the point. Oh and by the way, you shouldn't give a State Trooper the opportunity to let bullets fly! HA!
Hope you understand my strong feelings about this issue.
I respect your opinion towards a solution but just disagree with the way to do it.

Respectfully,
trper

 

[horst]

IMo, giving nonresident landowners gauranteed tags, at any price, is only gonna add to the problem.You mentioned if they can pay 60K an acre for land they can afford the tag.But how many guys havent bought land here for the very reason they dont get a tag every year.I think it could possibly have a bigger affect on non residents buying land here than you think.

And if we give in to the nonresident landowners thats only a small portion of the hunters who come here every year.The others, who dont land will only be more pissed off and willing to take it to the next level when they see some NR getting tags every year while thier still having to draw.

Im afraid either way its gonna goto court in the future.Guaranteeing them buck tags cause they own land heres only gonna be putting off the inevitable

 

[Waukon1]

I would have to disagree also. I think that people that had $1000 extra to throw at a tag every year who didn't have 40 acres, soon would. I believe that you would see an increase in land prices because of the fact that there would be more farms bought up and spit into 40+ acres for that reason alone. Breaking land into smaller parcels alone causes the average acre to increase. If NR's could get a tag every year there would be a greater demand for land = higher prices.

Higher prices = less local Iowans to be able to purchase land.

Just my opinion.

Call me greedy but I like things the just the way they are, I hope they don't change but at some point they probably will.

 

[Liv4Rut]

I believe nonresidents who own land should be able to hunt their own land every year. The land does no good just sitting around not being hunted. I do believe that, However, there has to be a line drawn. If all nonresidents could hunt their own land, it would become a problem with people buying land. I like the way things are right now, I don't have much pressure from nonresidents, or people who lease, where I currently hunt. If a Law were to be passed right now stating that at any time before this date 2/3/05 a nonresident who owns land, can get a buck tag for a grand, or the regular Nonresident fee every year, then great, I wouldn't care at all. Sort of like grandfathering it in. Then I would support your Idea 180bc, we already know the land is already bought, and most likely not gonna be sold or ever hunted by locals. So the land really has no value to us, it is the land that we do have access too right now, that we are all trying to protect so dearly, hope you understand.

 

[tracker]

180bc,
What happens when a group of 5 or 6 people get together to buy up 40 acres so they can own land? Do they all have the right to a tag? I have many freinds that are nonresidents that would struggle being able to afford 40 acres on their own, but could pool their incomes to possibly pull something together. What if you set the limit at 120 acres and 8 to 10 pool their incomes to purchase, should they all be entitled? If you start splitting all these bigger farms into smaller units and alot of non residents own them, chances are they will probably get hunted by trespassers when the non residents are away due to the lesser chance of being caught vs. trespassing on a residents ground. This is a problem that residents already face, sad but true that there are people out there that do that.

 

[TimberPig]

180, I'm curious, if resident hunters and resident landowners wont be able to stop this inevitable lawsuit as you suggest, just how will the newly appeased NR landowners stop the rest of the NR's and outfitters from sueing Iowa?

Ive said it before, if the DNR needs money they can increase my tag price. Cheap tags are worthless if we have nowhere to fill them.

 

[ironwood]

It appears we are all self serving on this issue. I too feel very strongly that changes in the NR numbers, in anyway, would be opening a Pandora’s Box. The negative result would greatly affect the average Iowa hunter. There will be developed a larger gape between the privileged class of Resident and NR hunters and those of lesser means. I believe we have a responsibility to preserve our hunting heritage for all who would participate and not create a trend that would exclude. NR hunters of lesser means stand to loose big as well, if they think it is hard to get here and hunt as the tags are currently issued, I suggest that most will not be able to afford it in the future and as things continue to change certainly their children will never know what it is to hunt great Iowa Whitetail.

 

[Danno]

I think land is too expensive for non resident landowner tags to be much of impact. At least if you require ownership of at least 40 acres. If someone wants to spend 40,000 to hunt the same 40 acres every year, more power to them. Most of the non-resident landowners are former residents, your sons and daughters who's occupation has taken them out of state. I say let them come back home and hunt.

 

[180bc]

All good points.....I know the concensus is to leave things as they are. Trper,I respect the idea of fighting for what you have. I fight for my rights too. I bought another farm last week. I will continue to buy land in Iowa, whether I get to hunt it or not. I like it there. If history teaches us anything, I feel certain that the current situation will change in regard to NR landowners.Its a matter of time. If you dont own land, and dont put anything back into the state,you should be in a limited draw .Tracker, I would never support any situation except 1 tag per 40 acres no matter how many owned the 40. Further, if two people own 1000 acres,I would only support two tags. If the sentiment is so bad toward the NR landowner that no matter how much he contributes (ie $1000 tag) for your benefit, you wont budge on this, I dont know if there is ever any hope of a solution outside of the courts. I do believe this, when the courts decide how we hunt, we all lose. I am afraid a really good thing will come to a screeching halt. FYI,I do let residents hunt my farms every year. I dont know how I could practice sound management without their help. I love Iowa and the people there.

 

[vman]

Nobody is stoping you from moving to Iowa permently. You would not be the first one to do it. The state is always looking for ways to keep, and get new residents in the state. I was always planning on moving back to Minnesota after a couple years, well not anymore.

Im here to stay.

 

[Limb Chicken]

vman,
I thought you took care of that warrant?

 

[180bc]

Dont think I havent considered moving...Thats a whole nuther story for another day. Maybe when I am rich and famous....

 

[vman]

Limb,

 

[Renobber]

180, when you are rich? how many farms have you bought in Iowa? I would love to have 40 acres of my own, I think I lose a spot to hunt every year. I am just hopin people are buyin these farms outside of my county and the one below me but thats just my personal opinion

 

[180bc]

I am rich, and you are too if you have a wife and family and friends that love you. The money is irrelevant. I hope you can own land someday. I wish all Iowa hunters would buy every piece that comes up for sale and there was none left for a NR. Seriously, I can think of nothing better than a whole state controlled by hunters, can you? I wish all my neighbors were hunters, no matter what state they are from. I have made lots of sacrifices to have land. I drive a piece of crap, work long hours, and barely make the payments, but I will never complain. It is living the american dream, to own and hunt your own land.

 

[Fishbonker]

[ QUOTE ]
vman,
I thought you took care of that warrant?

[/ QUOTE ]

He is waiting for the statute of limitations to run out.

The 'Bonker

 

[NWBuck]

180,

With all due respect, your proposal WOULD make it a rich man's sport. In order to guarantee a tag, you've got to own at least 40 acres and pay $1000. How many low and middle income people can do that? Personally, I'd rather see nr tags sell over the counter for $25. Saying it's all about money already is similar to the "legalize drugs...everyone does it anyhow" argument.

NWBuck

 

[bowmaker]

180

With respect, we all look at things in a self serving way as some one already said. I believe that you can already hunt your land every year if you choose by getting doe tags in the years that you aren't drawn for an any sex tag. I believe that you must like it here in Iowa and if you really do wouldn't it be just as much fun and exciting hunting deer with or without horns. The dollar difference you propose is only $692.00 and with the limited number of current NR landowners I don't think it would have very much impact on the DNR budget. If you should decide to move half way across the country and you already own the land I'm sure you would be welcomed with open arms.

 

[180bc]

Guys, I see your point about it being about money, and I am afraid it already is. Your legislature is seeing to it. The proposal that probably will pass out of this years session will not add any tags, but will raise my license and tag fee to over $400 if I read it correctly. Here is a typical cost scenario for a one week hunt for a landowner:
Land payment $20,000 year
Land tax $2,500
License $400
Food and Lodging $500
Gas or plane ticket $500

I dont count hunting equipment and etc, because it is used elsewhere too. All I am saying is that it is already a pricey situation well out of reach of many folks, all but the rich or the die hards like me who make whatever sacrifices necessary to do it. I didnt even draw a turkey tag, so now I have to get on the phone first thing monday morning and call the licensing people and try to buy a leftover muzzleloader tag. I dont have a ML shotgun, so if I can get a tag for whatever it costs $$$, I will have to go out and buy a ML shotgun $$$ just to guide an elderly gentleman on my land because Iowa wont let me even go with him legally without a license ???? At least with the high dollar tag option, I would be able to make plans from year to year.

I do respect and appreciate all the opinions, this is exactly the dialogue I had hoped for. I really want to understand the viewpoints of others on this so I can work to make it better for all concerned.