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

HF 22

W

Windlooker

Well-Known Member
If I’m misreading this I apologize. We’re in the 91st general assembly. Correct. If so HF 22 was introduced. This is bill reservied 600 nr tags, of the 6000, for nrlos who own 40 ac or more. Looked more closely. Introduced 01/14/25
 
Last edited:
Yikes that wouldn’t be good unless they bumped that number on the acres to like 120 at the minimum imo. Think farms are getting parceled up now?!? SMH
 
I like the basic idea of this Bill. I think the acreage needs to be increased. I would also put a retroactive clause meaning this would apply to owners that owned land as of 12/31/2022. Make a 2 year exclusion for new landowners.
Done correctly this will still protect resident access, while still giving some preference to non resident landowners
 
Genuinely curious.. Why do non-resident landowners deserve preference? They have never had preference before and do not get it in many other states. Not criticizing your point just would like to understand. I have often heard that the paying of property tax entitles non resident landowners to certain rights.. as if the current non resident landowner was not paying property taxes nobody would on a certain piece. We all know that the land will not go un owned.. Somebody will own it and pay the taxes either way so what gives?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Windlooker said:
Why do resident landowners get a preferential third landowner tag?? They invest in the land and contribute more to overall conservation efforts that most non landowners. That’s one of many points that could be made.
Click to expand...

Very true. Also, many non landowners contribute more to the overall economy of the state and possibly more to conservation than some landowners. It’s quite the can of worms for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It’s about conservation contribution and maintenance not the overall economy. That’s an old argument. I’m a former nrlo , now a resident landowner. IMO nrlos should get one tag. Not be put in the nr draw with non residents who come for a week and contribute nothing. If Iowa doesn’t want this dilemma do not permit nr land ownership. My opinion.
 
Last edited:
booneriverbucks said:
Genuinely curious.. Why do non-resident landowners deserve preference? They have never had preference before and do not get it in many other states. Not criticizing your point just would like to understand. I have often heard that the paying of property tax entitles non resident landowners to certain rights.. as if the current non resident landowner was not paying property taxes nobody would on a certain piece. We all know that the land will not go un owned.. Somebody will own it and pay the taxes either way so what gives?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I think a NR landowner can get a tag in North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, & Missouri. Just a few I’m aware of.
 
Windlooker said:
It’s about conservation contribution and maintenance not the overall economy. That’s an old argument. I’m a former nrlo , now a resident landowner. IMO nrlos should get one tag. Not be put the nr draw with non residents who come for a week and contribute nothing. If Iowa doesn’t want this dilemma do not permit nr land ownership. My opinion.
Click to expand...

If true it really does not matter what the original argument was. If the issue is opened up nothing is off the table. I do question whether the original argument for landowner tags was actually “conservation” or farmers wanting payback on all the deer for eating all their crops. It’s a touchy subject for some and hard to say whether it was true “conservation” when eradication was the goal and still is for many. Really hard to ban non resident landownership. Hunting is only one of many uses of land and non resident landownership is not really restricted at all in the country but hunting rights for non residents definitely is. Glad you moved here!! I was also a non resident once and moved here as soon as possible to enjoy the privileges residents have. Glad we both have a few less worries now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
My thought of offering some form of preference is to encourage the nonresident landowners to stay in Iowa and continue managing with sound conservation goals. Most Nonresident landowners I work with are good stewards. There a numerous posts on here citing destruction of habitat as our one reason for lower deer numbers. People both Res/Non Res a like that own land for hunting are less likely to clear or destroy the habitat.
 
I’d rather have tags go to NRLO’s who actually care about conservation and protecting the resource and less tags available for outfitters who only care about exploiting the resource for their own monetary gain.
How many of these “farm flippers” told a NR they wouldn’t sell them a farm because it would take away land for residents to hunt? Hypocrisy at its finest. Lol
 
This bill passed full committee yesterday. The vote was 13 to 8 for passage with an amendment. The amendment I believe is the land must be zoned agricultural and not more than 35% of the reserved 600 can be bow tags.
 
Last edited:
So way I understand it…. They got rid of the 600 tags for nrlo’s with 40 acres. . The shuffled how draw works like above said. I got a summary from legislator on the changes so I’m second hand trying to relay what I think I understand….
The PROBLEMS with this bill, the main one, is gone. Done. What remains- fine. Minor & really doesn’t hurt anything.

To be clear, IMO- playing with fire with issues like “tags if u own xyz acres”. If it’s not “500 acres” - ground will be chopped up. Even 500 would displace a lot of folks & I agree it would help in other areas though. We need to STOP….

Here’s the discussion I had today with a legislator With a lot of influence & oversight into our state. My question or statment… “can’t we FIRST address the problems our resource & residents are facing? While some special interests wanna bring up _____ special interest- whatever it is. Why aren’t we tackling the huge issues hurting the whole state & your voters? Areas decimated for deer #’s. Lack of access that YOU hear getting louder & more problematic. Too much killing, too many seasons, too many tags If anything - rein this in. Don’t focus on all these silly issues that don’t fix big problems!” RESPONSE: “Agree”.

Once we have our resource in right direction & #1 & #2 issues for Iowa hunters improving (access to land & a quality hunting experience with decent #’s) …. Then let’s talk about other issues. Until then- stop with these ridiculous bills that r fueled by a handful that want benefits to them or their special interest group. No more outfitter tags. No more incentives for ____ whatever group.
If anything - let’s reduce some tags for Residents. Swing the pendulum towards tightening things up vs making it more crazy while most hunters across state are struggling on countless levels.
 
Sligh1 said:
So way I understand it…. They got rid of the 600 tags for nrlo’s with 40 acres. . The shuffled how draw works like above said. I got a summary from legislator on the changes so I’m second hand trying to relay what I think I understand….
The PROBLEMS with this bill, the main one, is gone. Done. What remains- fine. Minor & really doesn’t hurt anything.

To be clear, IMO- playing with fire with issues like “tags if u own xyz acres”. If it’s not “500 acres” - ground will be chopped up. Even 500 would displace a lot of folks & I agree it would help in other areas though. We need to STOP….

Here’s the discussion I had today with a legislator With a lot of influence & oversight into our state. My question or statment… “can’t we FIRST address the problems our resource & residents are facing? While some special interests wanna bring up _____ special interest- whatever it is. Why aren’t we tackling the huge issues hurting the whole state & your voters? Areas decimated for deer #’s. Lack of access that YOU hear getting louder & more problematic. Too much killing, too many seasons, too many tags If anything - rein this in. Don’t focus on all these silly issues that don’t fix big problems!” RESPONSE: “Agree”.

Once we have our resource in right direction & #1 & #2 issues for Iowa hunters improving (access to land & a quality hunting experience with decent #’s) …. Then let’s talk about other issues. Until then- stop with these ridiculous bills that r fueled by a handful that want benefits to them or their special interest group. No more outfitter tags. No more incentives for ____ whatever group.
If anything - let’s reduce some tags for Residents. Swing the pendulum towards tightening things up vs making it more crazy while most hunters across state are struggling on countless levels.
Click to expand...
100% Everyday all day
 
This will be quite a change to the current NR draw system if this Bill moves forward. All the language about the landowner part of the draw and the 600 tags was struck “removed“.The Amendment takes 35% of the NR tag quota and makes those tags a random draw with no influence from Preference points. The remaining 65% would be drawn in the conventional fashion with the tags going to the highest preference point holder. Will give a chance to everyone each year but will make the number of points needed to be able to Draw for certain be a lot higher,
Still the same total number of nonresidents just a different way to pick them.
 
hans1 said:
This will be quite a change to the current NR draw system if this Bill moves forward. All the language about the landowner part of the draw and the 600 tags was struck “removed“.The Amendment takes 35% of the NR tag quota and makes those tags a random draw with no influence from Preference points. The remaining 65% would be drawn in the conventional fashion with the tags going to the highest preference point holder. Will give a chance to everyone each year but will make the number of points needed to be able to Draw for certain be a lot higher,
Still the same total number of nonresidents just a different way to pick them.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's how I read it as well. Not a fan of that.
It's amazing some of the crazy ideas they come up with.
 
hans1 said:
This will be quite a change to the current NR draw system if this Bill moves forward. All the language about the landowner part of the draw and the 600 tags was struck “removed“.The Amendment takes 35% of the NR tag quota and makes those tags a random draw with no influence from Preference points. The remaining 65% would be drawn in the conventional fashion with the tags going to the highest preference point holder. Will give a chance to everyone each year but will make the number of points needed to be able to Draw for certain be a lot higher,
Still the same total number of nonresidents just a different way to pick them.
Click to expand...
Models some Western states. I don't understand the motivation for the change.
 
As stated this passed committee yesterday and was re numbered as HF 388. Noticed a lobbyist in favor of the bill representing the Iowa Landowner Freedom Coalition. Who are they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom