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

HSB 175 increase in hunting/furharvesting fees

I support an increase in hunting/furharvesting fees

  • Yes

  • No

  • Neutral

Results are only viewable after voting.
Hardwood11 said:
I don't think so. Reciprocity would be a good idea... hunting, fishing, that would get the numbers down.

Iowa is good hunting, but for 1/3 the price and a tag yearly you can still shoot nice bucks in other states.
Click to expand...
Reciprocity would be a good thing, but in all honesty why would residents of Iowa (who can shoot 2 bucks if so desired) want to go to many of the state's that surround us. Kansas yes, but most others have for the most part taken the quality down from what we have here. Jmo. Yes you are right for 1/3 the price you can go hunt several of those other states! Funny thing is a bet 99% of NR are still putting in for their Iowa tags every year.
 
Hardwood11 said:
I don't think so. Reciprocity would be a good idea... hunting, fishing, that would get the numbers down.

Iowa is good hunting, but for 1/3 the price and a tag yearly you can still shoot nice bucks in other states.
Click to expand...

My point is they continue to raise the price and the demand continues to go up. At what price point does NR demand level out? I have no clue. I threw out an arbitrary guess.
 
Hardwood the cost with 3 preference right now is over $700.00. If this passes it will be over $800.00.
 
Tim Hull said:
I am glad as an Iowa Resident that we have the system that we have. If we had over the counter tags land access would be impossible and land ownership would be much more expensive.
Click to expand...

Hey and I understand that you have a nice system for residents. Let me just say, other states could follow your lead in all areas, fishing and hunting...I mean think of how good walleye fishing would be in MN, if we did not let Iowa residents, or any other states buy a fishing license for three years, then charge them three times as much, make them have lower limits.

South Dakota could do this with pheasant, ND with duck. Eventually it would be residents only participating in the good hunting. Which is fine. Elk hunting could be residents only in NM, Colorado, Montana. It is an option.
 
Your right, it would be an option! The part that many either fail to understand or just don't like it because they are a NR. We as residents have all for the most part have said we are willing to pay more to hunt our own state. We all want to protect the best wildlife resource we have. You said for 1/3 the $ we can hunt lots of states @ us with a chance at a decent buck! I love the idea! Go and do that. There's nothing that would make me happier than some of the NR to go hunt rifle season during the middle of November in Mn, Illinois, Missouri etc etc. There is nothing like trying to do what you can for the deer and deer hunting in our state, then have to listen to SOME of the NR who want to put their opinions in on what the state should do!
I have 3 young boys and access is getting tough. Most of the NR don't bat an eye about the $ to come here to hunt (as well as buy land). With that being said the last thing any of us residents want is more NR. Im not against NR I just want to make sure my kids have a place to hunt as they age. It's pretty simple and most understand it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arm
4DABUCKS--I see your point, but in this case all the Iowa DNR is doing is raising prices which will not benefit you or any NR. It might send a NR packing--which could benefit you I guess? I for one, do not think new money going into the DNR general fund will do anything but pay for salaries.

It is a personal choice a guy has to make, lots of options out there. States such as South Dakota, have some great deer, turkey and pheasant hunting--very overlooked and land prices are reasonable. Another big plus, is all income from the property would not be subject to state income taxes.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why less non residents would be bad for resident hunters. I bet you it has a ways to go before most would back away to the point it goes from every 4 years to 1 or two. You have to have demand for a product to be able charge these prices. Residents built and maintain this quality hunting for non residents to enjoy. Some own land but many don't. If other states charged similar or equal prices for and hunting or fishing it would stop people.
 
The economics of it is simple. One of 3 things is going to happen

1. They allocate more NR license's.
2. They keep raising the price to keep demand in check
3. The waiting period between tags keeps getting longer and longer (4,5,6,7+ years)
 
I am coming to Iowa this fall and I am a NR archery hunter. You all have good points, but for me, I'm going to spend whatever it is. I've been hunting 20+ yrs here in PA and have harvested only one buck over 140". An extra couple hundred $$ will not stop me from the opportunity to harvest large whitetails in the great state of iowa. I actually would not be opposed to raising the price as it will keep more NR hunters away in my opinion. The less NR hunters on WMA and public land, the better. Zone 4 here I come. I hope it passes for this year and some NR hunters boycott!
 
They are free to follow the lead. ND and Montana, for the size of their states have very low resident population and much better habitat. Iowa is only 6% Timber.
 
I spoke to a DNR official last night. He said Farm Bureau got this bill killed. I asked if that was because they thought it would result in fewer licenses being sold and; therefore, fewer deer killed. He said that was not the main reason. Farm Bureau is against the state acquiring any additional land. More money for the DNR means the possibily of adding to our small amount of public hinting and FB is opposed to that. He said they tried to introduce a measure that would actually prevent someone from donating land to the state. Sounds like the goal of FB is that every single acre in the state would be for agriculture.
 
I was at a continuing education conference and a DNR speaker brought up the current license hike proposal. The way she put it, there was no way the DNR could operate at the current license price level without making cuts somewhere. Hard to believe they have been where they are for that long actually. Over the years I've got my money's worth out of fishing and hunting our WMA's, so the increase is fine with me. Everybody and their brother is filming on a pro staff now a days and less and less private land is out there. The more WMA's the better.
I know some local farmers were fuming when our family farm went into the walk-in wildlife management IHAP program. We're talking some of the worst yield, sandiest soil in Iowa and they were mad the DNR was taking away good farmland.
It's too bad politics has as much power as it does when it comes to our natural resources.
 
Rjack said:
I spoke to a DNR official last night. He said Farm Bureau got this bill killed. I asked if that was because they thought it would result in fewer licenses being sold and; therefore, fewer deer killed. He said that was not the main reason. Farm Bureau is against the state acquiring any additional land. More money for the DNR means the possibily of adding to our small amount of public hinting and FB is opposed to that. He said they tried to introduce a measure that would actually prevent someone from donating land to the state. Sounds like the goal of FB is that every single acre in the state would be for agriculture.
Click to expand...

I believe it. I heard a report on the radio not long ago where they, the FB, was upset and fighting private conservation groups taking land out of production for conservation projects. I also know of a recent incident where a conservation group bought a piece of private and donated it to the county. This piece joined other county land. Local land owners got pissed and raised a ruckus. County made some kind of rule now that they can't take any more land because they can't afford to maintain it especially when when they're laying people off.
 
Rjack said:
I spoke to a DNR official last night. He said Farm Bureau got this bill killed. I asked if that was because they thought it would result in fewer licenses being sold and; therefore, fewer deer killed. He said that was not the main reason. Farm Bureau is against the state acquiring any additional land. More money for the DNR means the possibily of adding to our small amount of public hinting and FB is opposed to that. He said they tried to introduce a measure that would actually prevent someone from donating land to the state. Sounds like the goal of FB is that every single acre in the state would be for agriculture.
Click to expand...
Sad, it's scary to think one organization has more influence than all the hunters in the state. We all need to get/have a voice that needs to be heard. It's obvious that the IBA and others can't do it alone. Guys, when/if you get the chance, speak your peace.
 
Hardwood11 said:
Yet many hunters/outdoor addicts have Farm Bureau Insurance policies.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY! The first thing we as hunters and farmers should do is drop FB. I did a few years ago and would gladly pay more to a smaller company to do my part. Unless we all do it it won't work, and if you aren't willing than don't complain
 
I am glad the rate increase did not go through from a NR stand point, but just a word of caution on the DNR and rate increases. Where would the added rate increase $$$--- go? They said general fund, correct. What are the odds you as deer hunters, will see any benefit from that?

Sorry I just do not trust the DNR, maybe the Iowa DNR is different, but it seems like most decisions are based on money and not the best interest of the deer herd (shed buck rifle season-example). I saw in a video clip on Youtube that the Iowa DNR at one time tried to move the gun season into November. I would just be careful on patting their back too much.
 
I too think the cost for NR is plenty high and would have suggested they not increase it - as long as the # of NR tags stayed the same.

The resident increase is needed. Added funds would have gone to DNR Trust fund, not the state general fund. Hunters and fisherman would have definitely seen a benefit.

Of course every organization and governmental entity has some issues. I for one am happy with our DNR in Iowa and will pat them on the back often.

Just because 1 or 2 NR turned out to be poachers doesn't make me dislike all of them ;) Be careful lumping a whole group together because of 1 person or policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom