HF 2657 - special lottery for non-residents

[deerhunter93]

This is from the ISC facebook page.

Yesterday at the Capital, amendments were passed around to HF 2657 that would allocate HALF of the NR Buck tags in the drawing, to a special lottery only for Non-Residents who:

1. Filed an filed an income tax return in Iowa
OR
2. Own 160 acres or more of contiguous land.

If this passes 2 things will happen.
First, the draw wait for any Non-Resident that doesn't meet those requirements will immediately double. If they wanted to archery hunt in certain areas of the state, the wait would go to 12 years overnight.

Second, land prices would skyrocket. The demand for land from Non-Residents would flood in, and residents would be priced out on all recreational or mixed-use properties.
This Amendment takes hunting in Iowa and would turn it into a rich man's sport overnight. Also, anyone that has been building preference points in order to come here will now be greeted with an even further extension of that wait time.

Higher land prices, and longer waits for any NR that can't afford to buy land. We think our legislators should be focusing their time on improving the natural resources in Iowa, so that everyone who comes here to hunt continues to have a great experience. A rising tide raises all ships.

If you believe that Iowa's resources are NOT for sale to the highest bidder, please tell these folks you would like them to VOTE NO on HF 2657.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Once you've email each directly, you can also sign this handy petition at:
https://iowabowhunters.org/advocacy/action-center/

 

[sep0667]

Email sent

 

[DOR]

Also sent an email. Would love to come back to IA in 3 or 4 years not 12!

 

[deerdown]

I don't think I'm against this bill. I believe those NR who own land in another state should have preference over NR that just hunt there. NRLO I believe do significantly more in almost all aspects of land stewardship and deer herd health than NR who just show up to hunt. Your belief that land values will skyrocket is unfounded. I don't think many NR are going to plop down $1m or more to go deer hunting. You may not like it but why should someone who owns 200a not get tags more often than someone just coming to hunt? That should be true in any state and I feel is only fair to those who made the investment, and continue to improve and invest in their land.

 

[Sligh1]

I don't think I'm against this bill. I believe those NR who own land in another state should have preference over NR that just hunt there. NRLO I believe do significantly more in almost all aspects of land stewardship and deer herd health than NR who just show up to hunt. Your belief that land values will skyrocket is unfounded. I don't think many NR are going to plop down $1m or more to go deer hunting. You may not like it but why should someone who owns 200a not get tags more often than someone just coming to hunt? That should be true in any state and I feel is only fair to those who made the investment, and continue to improve and invest in their land.

this bill allows for anyone to file for iowa income taxes to get privileges…. It’s garbage. Folks who don’t live here, vote here or pay for living here 365 days a year - spending money & doing all their activities here.
Next- all this is - a stepping stone. It’s purely NR strategy to get wedge in & bust it open as step 2. If u think it would stop here- that would be insane.
We know the rules. All these folks have more deer & habitat in their own states the live & vote in. Go fix your own states. Quit trying to change ours. These folks from TX trying to change our laws don’t live or vote here & never will. Why Jane has NEVER sponsored a bill to help resident hunters is perplexing. Spending political capital on ONE Texas land owner that owns land in her district & ignoring the actual voters in her district- madness.
Again - all this is- one huge stepping stone to get things wide open & absolutely zero need to change a thing here. Fix issues for residents & theres plenty needing fixed.

 

[deerdown]

Huh?
Some of you guys are of the deep end with your paranoia.

 

[DMarley83]

this bill allows for anyone to file for iowa income taxes to get privileges…. It’s garbage. Folks who don’t live here, vote here or pay for living here 365 days a year - spending money & doing all their activities here.
Next- all this is - a stepping stone. It’s purely NR strategy to get wedge in & bust it open as step 2. If u think it would stop here- that would be insane.
We know the rules. All these folks have more deer & habitat in their own states the live & vote in. Go fix your own states. Quit trying to change ours. These folks from TX trying to change our laws don’t live or vote here & never will. Why Jane has NEVER sponsored a bill to help resident hunters is perplexing. Spending political capital on ONE Texas land owner that owns land in her district & ignoring the actual voters in her district- madness.
Again - all this is- one huge stepping stone to get things wide open & absolutely zero need to change a thing here. Fix issues for residents & theres plenty needing fixed.

I really liked your wording here and thought it would really lift an eyebrow so I copied your text and sent it to all the legislatures.

Hope ya dont mind

 

[daniel93077]

I don't think I'm against this bill. I believe those NR who own land in another state should have preference over NR that just hunt there. NRLO I believe do significantly more in almost all aspects of land stewardship and deer herd health than NR who just show up to hunt. Your belief that land values will skyrocket is unfounded. I don't think many NR are going to plop down $1m or more to go deer hunting. You may not like it but why should someone who owns 200a not get tags more often than someone just coming to hunt? That should be true in any state and I feel is only fair to those who made the investment, and continue to improve and invest in their land.

"Why should someone who owns 200a not get tags more often than someone just coming to hunt?"

Because the wildlife isn't theirs. A landowner in Iowa owns the dirt, but not the deer on it. Under the public trust doctrine, the state holds wildlife in trust for the benefit of all its people. No individual, regardless of how many acres they own, has a greater claim to that resource than any other citizen.

And nonresident landowners already get something that recognizes that investment. They receive first preference on available antlerless tags outside the main draw entirely. That's tied directly to stewardship of the resource. But antlerless tags and either-sex tags are not the same thing. Antlerless tags support stewardship. Either-sex tags are what every nonresident hunter has been patiently building preference points for, sometimes for years. The amendment raids that pool based on wealth, not stewardship.

And 'made the investment' cuts both ways. The nonresident hunter who has spent six years paying preference point fees, following the rules, and planning a once-in-a-lifetime Iowa hunt has also made an investment. This amendment tells him that investment matters less because he couldn't write a $1M+ check for Iowa land. That's not stewardship. That's wealth wanting privilege.

 

[OMB]

this bill allows for anyone to file for iowa income taxes to get privileges…. It’s garbage. Folks who don’t live here, vote here or pay for living here 365 days a year - spending money & doing all their activities here.
Next- all this is - a stepping stone. It’s purely NR strategy to get wedge in & bust it open as step 2. If u think it would stop here- that would be insane.
We know the rules. All these folks have more deer & habitat in their own states the live & vote in. Go fix your own states. Quit trying to change ours. These folks from TX trying to change our laws don’t live or vote here & never will. Why Jane has NEVER sponsored a bill to help resident hunters is perplexing. Spending political capital on ONE Texas land owner that owns land in her district & ignoring the actual voters in her district- madness.
Again - all this is- one huge stepping stone to get things wide open & absolutely zero need to change a thing here. Fix issues for residents & theres plenty needing fixed.

I've seen references to this around social media, who are these people from Texas trying to change the law? Presumably they have names, right?

This is a natural second order effect of "re-interpreting" the party hunting rule. Should've left well enough alone there.

The Iowa DNR spent 25 years handing out governor's tags like candy to anyone with a camera or a guitar to promote deer hunting to non-residents. Naturally, a percentage of those people bought land in Iowa, and others moved to Iowa and bought land to try to gain fame filming deer hunts. Like it or not, those people have a constituency, you're never going to put that genie back in the bottle at this point.

 

[newfarmer]

I don't think I'm against this bill. I believe those NR who own land in another state should have preference over NR that just hunt there. NRLO I believe do significantly more in almost all aspects of land stewardship and deer herd health than NR who just show up to hunt. Your belief that land values will skyrocket is unfounded. I don't think many NR are going to plop down $1m or more to go deer hunting. You may not like it but why should someone who owns 200a not get tags more often than someone just coming to hunt? That should be true in any state and I feel is only fair to those who made the investment, and continue to improve and invest in their land.

the rules were what they were when they bought here right?
If you don’t think it will change things- I need your kool aid. Living next to non resident landowners already who don’t live here, and living a stones throw from MN- I will be the first to say guys with a lot more money (remember other states make better wages in a lot of areas) would be flocking to just own ground in Iowa. All the guys I know, that’s the only hold up now is the long wait to draw a tag that they haven’t bought because they don’t want to move due to making more (one buddy almost makes double what I make for the same job)

 

[Hardwood11]

To be fair the rules have changed twice since I bought in Iowa . They eliminated the archery doe tag, & the gun season party hunting option.

So the “you knew the rules when you bought here” went out the window . I’m just staying out of it—either way. If the tag situation gets worse… I’ll have to make a decision to stay. If Iowa becomes a Blue state, I’d be out for sure. That’s scary.

EHD has killed 5 times as many deer as I have on my farm—I haven’t shot a deer in 3 yrs, yet I don’t have many mature bucks? It’s losing its luster. We’ve had bigger bucks on my farms in MN & Missouri the past 3 yrs.

Besides a December gun season, Iowa’s rules and regs are average at best .

Most of the state should be (1) buck tag per hunter ….

New laws including straight wall rifles, early Muzzy, technology advances, pounding bucks until mid January… it’s all hurting Iowa along with the EHD.

 

[Sligh1]

Huh?
Some of you guys are of the deep end with your paranoia.

It’s actually not paranoia. It’s the tactics they admit. I know the process. I know how this stuff works. This stuff is the tactic of almost any special interest group…. Get a CRACK & a CHANGE - that’s the opening to ask for more the next round. It’s politics 101.

 

[Sligh1]

To be fair the rules have changed twice since I bought in Iowa . They eliminated the archery doe tag, & the gun season party hunting option.

So the “you knew the rules when you bought here” went out the window . I’m just staying out of it—either way. If the tag situation gets worse… I’ll have to make a decision to stay. If Iowa becomes a Blue state, I’d be out for sure. That’s scary.

EHD has killed 5 times as many deer as I have on my farm—I haven’t shot a deer in 3 yrs, yet I don’t have many mature bucks? It’s losing its luster. We’ve had bigger bucks on my farms in MN & Missouri the past 3 yrs.

Besides a December gun season, Iowa’s rules and regs are average at best .

Most of the state should be (1) buck tag per hunter ….

New laws including straight wall rifles, early Muzzy, technology advances, pounding bucks until mid January… it’s all hurting Iowa along with the EHD.

I agree the rules have changed. There was 2 & it was really only 1 in reality. VERY FAIR POINT though!!!
1) the doe tag during archery is truly the only rule change. We all know why it changed though. Thousands of guys were showing up in Nov with rattling antlers, decoys, calls, etc. To shoot a doe. I think after they busted the gazillionth guy putting a MO tag on an iowa Buck & every CO expressing the issue - I kinda understand that one. But u are correct.
2) the NR loophole wasn’t a rule change. It took 2 existing laws & the state went over about a thousand +++ duplicate laws of any type to determine the original intent. That law was written 2 ways - one for res only & one didn’t specify. They determined the one for res only was original law or intent. I’m not giving an opinion on this one - just the reality. Had zero influence from a hunting perspective. Countless categories of laws got clarified.

I am in favor of leaving the tags alone. Leave em as is. We don’t need to work on NR legislation - especially while there’s infinite Resident and Resource issues we should be using our political capital on. & yes, I do firmly “know” or believe - this is just a stepping stone like always - to blow the door open for full NRLO access & when we play out that war game …. That is literally the end of iowa as we know it. The ONLY ones with great hunting (and there would be a few) …. The NR or R with huge parcels insulated enough & those hunting next to them. Everyone else would literally be screwed.

 

[Sligh1]

I've seen references to this around social media, who are these people from Texas trying to change the law? Presumably they have names, right?

This is a natural second order effect of "re-interpreting" the party hunting rule. Should've left well enough alone there.

The Iowa DNR spent 25 years handing out governor's tags like candy to anyone with a camera or a guitar to promote deer hunting to non-residents. Naturally, a percentage of those people bought land in Iowa, and others moved to Iowa and bought land to try to gain fame filming deer hunts. Like it or not, those people have a constituency, you're never going to put that genie back in the bottle at this point.

It’s ONE GUY!!!!!!!!! One guy from TX with land in Jane’s district. & again- he’s not even voting for her or here!!! He lives in the state with the most deer in the country!!!

 

[Hardwood11]

I agree the rules have changed. There was 2 & it was really only 1 in reality. VERY FAIR POINT though!!!
1) the doe tag during archery is truly the only rule change. We all know why it changed though. Thousands of guys were showing up in Nov with rattling antlers, decoys, calls, etc. To shoot a doe. I think after they busted the gazillionth guy putting a MO tag on an iowa Buck & every CO expressing the issue - I kinda understand that one. But u are correct.
2) the NR loophole wasn’t a rule change. It took 2 existing laws & the state went over about a thousand +++ duplicate laws of any type to determine the original intent. That law was written 2 ways - one for res only & one didn’t specify. They determined the one for res only was original law or intent. I’m not giving an opinion on this one - just the reality. Had zero influence from a hunting perspective. Countless categories of laws got clarified.

I am in favor of leaving the tags alone. Leave em as is. We don’t need to work on NR legislation - especially while there’s infinite Resident and Resource issues we should be using our political capital on. & yes, I do firmly “know” or believe - this is just a stepping stone like always - to blow the door open for full NRLO access & when we play out that war game …. That is literally the end of iowa as we know it. The ONLY ones with great hunting (and there would be a few) …. The NR or R with huge parcels insulated enough & those hunting next to them. Everyone else would literally be screwed.

I hear ya… I support keeping Iowa great ,but equally importantly vote & lobby to keep your state RED! I’d give up deer hunting for 2 years if I meant flipping MN RED!!!

I live in a RED county in a Blue state, you guys need to fight for both !

 

[Iowa]

Since 1950 Iowa has lost 4,315 school districts since 1950.
It’s lost 126,000 farm families since 1950
25% of Iowa land is already owned by nonresidents
Just leaving deer hunting out of it this is already a terrible idea.

What does this bill represent? A complete sellout of the voting population in Iowa.
It’s a pretty short list of people that would benefit from this bill. And who loses : Iowa deer hunters, nonresidents that don’t own land, every farmer , 5 years from now every person that buys insurance in Iowa because stats prove non residents don’t control deer numbers, every rural school district, every young family trying to buy a home in the country. I can think of multiple houses that are now nonresident hunting camps instead of having a family in them and guess what, that school district has now been dissolved and split between 2 neighboring districts. Obviously non resident deer hunting didn’t close the school but it’s a death by a thousand cuts.

 

[seven twenty]

How does it keep advancing with this much opposition? A bill that conservationists are aligned with FB against and it still gets moved. It’s more than just “Jane”.

 

[Iowa]

Great question!!! Another interesting point is how is Todd Coffelt “undecided “
Wouldn’t this gut the DNR’s funds ?

How does it keep advancing with this much opposition? A bill that conservationists are aligned with FB against and it still gets moved. It’s more than just “Jane”

 

[hans1]

I don’t really understand the filing tax part of this bill. The original bill has moved quietly until they added the ammendment.
I am in the minority here but I support giving a Non Resident Landowner priority over other Non Residents. Another positive of this bill is the 160 acre Mininum gives one reason to keep farms together or make parcels larger. The realestate math lately has been very clear buy a 160-200 and make as many 40s and 80s and to resell at a better price point.

 

[Sligh1]

Great question!!! Another interesting point is how is Todd Coffelt “undecided “
Wouldn’t this gut the DNR’s funds ?

Dnr is not allowed to be for or against. EO 71 changed that by Brandstad. If DNR was Able to voice an Opinion with data on how this would impact Iowa’s hunting, access, management & future- they would clearly be opposed.

It is just Jane & then who she lobbied to join her in support. So- it has morphed into more folks supporting this and some strings being pulled behind the scenes.

The 160 acres…. It will NOT stop there. Even if that was a good idea (I understand that perspective). Within 1-2 years the next bill that would be introduced is to give guaranteed tags to anyone that owned 160 (or probably less). 10000000% u will see that bill if this were to pass. The next bill you would see, 10000000000000%….. “we propose adding 10k more NR tags to the pool as some of the draw times for NR’s is now 12 years!!!” Or something along those lines. There’s not one drop of doubt how this place out and this is part of the NR chess match they are Gaming out. They try this crap every 5 years or so. Go look back to friends of iowa forming (mainly guys from TX) or the Florida guy who had land in Monroe who hired a fleet of lobbyists to change our laws to “if u own 80 acres or more- get a tag”.
Absolutely NO!!!! Nothing can pass like this. This is corrupt horse $hit dirty scum bag politics to the core. Everyone better write in and I guaran-frigin-t u that if this were to pass- in 2027 or 2028 - u will see EXACTLY what I posted above.