HF 306 Forest Reserve Bill

[jw_wildfire]

HF 306 was introduced this week. It essentially requires an approved forest management plan be recorded for your property to enroll or remain enrolled in the forest/fruit tree reserve property tax program. It also states your plan must be updated every 10 years.

http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&menu=false&hbill=HF306

 

[BigfootWillow.com]

Sounds like more red tape, I guess they don't want people doing that program anymore.

 

[AIRASSAULT]

I was told by my assesor last yr that they were planning on getting rid of the tax exempt benefit within the next ten years anyway.. farmers wont have a reason not to doze down flat timbered groud and plant it if that happens

 

[Sligh1]

Thankfully Iowa is so heavily forested! I see farmers planting trees in their corn fields all the time lately. Thankfully no one is clearing or dozing their 100 year old trees in to get an extra inch of mediocre & erodible crop land! HA!

Geesh- has any of the clowns proposing this stuff drove around ANY area in Iowa in the last year or 2? Anyone else noticing every guy getting rid of every last tree they can get at?? The ground I've seen alone being cleared should get Government more taxes they are addicted to. Hunters, wildlife, soil, water quality, citizens of iowa, etc will all greatly suffer if these greedy politicians get away with this or removing the Forest Reserve program that is helping protect the tiny amount of forest our state has (less than 6% btw). I'll write in AGAIN!

 

[Sligh1]

CURT HANSON- DEMOCRAT - author of the bill. Thought "Liberals" were "all for the environment" - "plant trees", "earth day", "humans are the plague of the planet", etc?!?!? Oh, I guess more taxation & more money for them will trump any environmental cause though- ok thanks Mr. Hanson, I think I knew more $ for you and the government is more important than any secondary "worthy cause" you all claim you believe in. Confirms what we already knew I guess. Please take more of our $ to blow while the fragile iowa environment & citizens are what will pay the ultimate price.

 

[Hardwood11]

I would love to see CRP plans that pay huge $$$ to plant blocks of trees. I planted 50,000 trees on a farm in MN all paid for by CRP. It turned a marginal sandy soil farm into a wildlife paradise in 5 years.

Allow every landowner in Iowa to plant blocks of 10-20 acres...don't worry about crop history or other criteria. Pay a good $$$ amount and limit the paperwork

Could you imagine what a block of cedars/oak/crabapple/plum/etc... And how that would attract deer and turkey.

10 acre block $250 an acre for 25 years
20 acre block $275 an acre for 25 years

 

[jw_wildfire]

Couple of things -

As it sits, the forest reserve law is one of the oldest tax laws on the books in the state of Iowa. It has been in existence, with very little alteration, for decades. It is by a wide margin the best forest tax law in the country, and is one of the very few incentives to keep marginal land out of production. Representative Hansen lost his anti-forest reserve law republican co author last fall when Bob Hager of Allamakee county was not reelected. It was hoped that that would get rid of the talk of changing the law. Also, you don't have to look far to find on of the biggest opponents of forest reserve, Farm Bureau. They have consistently lobbied against this, and are quite jealous that forest landowners don't pay taxes on their land, when their farmland is being taxed.

The CRP issue is an interesting one. If the government would have structured it properly in the beginning, they could have just bought the land enrolled, and made it permanent habitat. Some contracts are going on 25 years, and being enrolled for another 10-15. That many years at $100-$200/acre, and you are looking at having paid the appraised price at least once. At a minimum, it should be a permanent easement type program. FYI, they just announced a new general signup to start May 20th.

 

[BigfootWillow.com]

I'll probably just take my woods out of that program anyways sometime if interest in hunting leases is stronger in the future, which would cover taxes, extra liability protection, and ect. Also, the Iowa supreme court just ruled lately about a case that gives landowners less liability protection when giving people permission for recreational uses. So now it'd probably be smart for me to deny anyone asking to hunt unless they pass legistation to ammend that ruling.

 

[jw_wildfire]

I'll probably just take my woods out of that program anyways sometime if interest in hunting leases is stronger in the future, which would cover taxes, extra liability protection, and ect. Also, the Iowa supreme court just ruled lately about a case that gives landowners less liability protection when giving people permission for recreational uses. So now it'd probably be smart for me to deny anyone asking to hunt unless they pass legistation to ammend that ruling.

Is this the case you are talking about?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013302160029

The ruled that the scenario was not covered under the law. The law explicitly states that you have no liability when you invite someone to your property for recreational uses. This case was not "recreational" in nature, and therefore the law did not apply. I am aware of no changes made to any laws that would make landowners liable if a hunter was hurt on their property. Unless you have seen something else, please don't spread that around. I already hear from too many misinformed landowners that use that as an excuse to not allow hunting.

 

[BigfootWillow.com]

Yeah, that is what I remember lately in the news. Don't know what state was mentioned, but in trespassers topic a couple weeks back, someone also mentioned where a hunter was able to get money for falling out of treestand and had permission. Who knows how much 'protection' a landowner really has when lawyers and court system can twist a lot of things around.

 

[Fishbonker]

Is this the case you are talking about?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013302160029

The ruled that the scenario was not covered under the law. The law explicitly states that you have no liability when you invite someone to your property for recreational uses. This case was not "recreational" in nature, and therefore the law did not apply. I am aware of no changes made to any laws that would make landowners liable if a hunter was hurt on their property. Unless you have seen something else, please don't spread that around. I already hear from too many misinformed landowners that use that as an excuse to not allow hunting.

Another article on the same court ruling. You are, in my woefully uniformed opinion, correct; I think this will cause quite a reaction by landowners who fear this ruling pertains to allowing hunters on their land.

http://www.calt.iastate.edu/briefs/...e Immunity - Now you See It Now you Don't.pdf

 

[Sligh1]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/app...=2013302160029

That article is frigin sad & ridiculous! I literally had the same thing happen to me when I was about 12 years old. Maybe I should have sued the farmer. Some fat lady falls thru a hay shoot while hanging out in a hay loft... no, not an accident, not "bad luck", never her fault in any way- those farmers need to pay her lots of $ now. Good gosh. All these politicians, lawyers and folks like this lady need to be shipped to some island so they can have their own messed up society. Frustrated reading all this stuff & how many threats the "good things" in life & this state are jeopardized every day by folks we ALLOW to have "power". What a shame, all this stuff.