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.
First impression is those are some pretty significant increases but nothing that would stop me from purchasing. I'm sure there will be a lot of biacthing once it gets out to the masses.

I have not voted in the pole yet as it is a long bill. Couple things I see missing are cost of second antlerless license and landowner tag fees.

Need more time to read and would like to hear others opinions of the language allocating funds.
 
Any true sportsman is going to pay for their fishing/hunting/habitat fee/ tags regardless of the price. But I wonder if this would have any affect in the amount of licenses being sold to the person who only goes a few times a year. Possibility of people not buying licenses and taking their chances if they are just going to go out a day or two?
 
Bone Slayer said:
Any true sportsman is going to pay for their fishing/hunting/habitat fee/ tags regardless of the price. But I wonder if this would have any affect in the amount of licenses being sold to the person who only goes a few times a year. Possibility of people not buying licenses and taking their chances if they are just going to go out a day or two?
Click to expand...

Good point. ^^ The other thing that I would be a little concerned about is families that may be buying licenses for multiple youths...that can add up fast. As an adult, I am fine with paying more for myself, but I would prefer that there not be a barrier for families with multiple young hunters.
 
Daver said:
Good point. ^^ The other thing that I would be a little concerned about is families that may be buying licenses for multiple youths...that can add up fast. As an adult, I am fine with paying more for myself, but I would prefer that there not be a barrier for families with multiple young hunters.
Click to expand...
Possibly keeping the prices the same as they are now for youth 18 and younger...
 
I'm all in on the increase. The Legislative body keeps their dragging feet on making I Will a law after the people voted for it. The Sportsmen of Iowa are going to have to cover the cost.
Nobody likes increases in any thing but this is probably warranted and needed.
If the increase keeps some from buying a license then they don't want to hunt and fish very bad.
 
I would agree to pay more for landowners tag and my bow tag since bow seasons lasts 3 months but not for other tags. I usually eat at least 5 to 6 tags a year that I purchase. Last year my Dad didn't fill his early muzzleloader tag, neither did my wife. My son didn't fill his two tags and neither did we fill my daughters youth tag. We were just picky because my son was looking for at least a 2 year old buck, my daughter wasn't comfortable shooting a deer but we sat and watched them and the weather was in the 80s during early muzzle. I spend at least 300 a year on tags and habitat stamps. If tags increase too much I will buy less of them.
 
My biggest concerns are where the money goes and the constant assault from some in the legislature on the deer herd.

It looks like all the revenue stays with the DNR. Just watch though. Someday if the money gets to big some will be looking to pull it into the general fund.
 
With the increase in license and tags, a nonresident buck tag with the doe tag for archery with the three preference points, hunting license and app. fee would be $825.00. Maybe that will stop a lot of non resident from applying. I know it will me. Then we'll see what the resident tags are raised to.
 
  • Deleted by Thinkin Rut
Show…
  • Deleted by Thinkin Rut
Show…
1992 was the last time resident hunting licenses went up, the increase someone referenced above is here:https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/GA/79GA/Legislation/HF/00700/HF00720/Current.html 2001 the NRs took a hit. Many swore then that they wouldn't come back to Iowa yet all the either sex NR tags still sell out. And no, NR licenses are not a cash cow to be milked dry, either in the collective (number sold) or the individual (fee/license).

So it has been what, 24 years since the residents have been asked to pay an increase? Talk about doing more with less, that's the Iowa DNR.

By the way, there is an amendment to the Iowa constitution that guarantees all revenue from license fees goes into the Fish and Wildlife Trust fund. An explanation of the Trust Fund can be found here:https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/SD/15184.pdf. Funny thing about Constitutional Amendments, #18, "a.k.a. The Volstead Act a.k.a "prohibition" was repealed by #21, en sotto voce: Dios gratias.
 
Tim Hull said:
I would agree to pay more for landowners tag and my bow tag since bow seasons lasts 3 months but not for other tags. I usually eat at least 5 to 6 tags a year that I purchase. Last year my Dad didn't fill his early muzzleloader tag, neither did my wife. My son didn't fill his two tags and neither did we fill my daughters youth tag. We were just picky because my son was looking for at least a 2 year old buck, my daughter wasn't comfortable shooting a deer but we sat and watched them and the weather was in the 80s during early muzzle. I spend at least 300 a year on tags and habitat stamps. If tags increase too much I will buy less of them.
Click to expand...
Buying a tag does not guarantee you a deer! Only thing buying a tag and licence does is make it legal for you to go out and hunt deer! Agree with the higher priced landowner tag to be used during any legal season.
 
4DABUCKS said:
Buying a tag does not guarantee you a deer! Only thing buying a tag and licence does is make it legal for you to go out and hunt deer! Agree with the higher priced landowner tag to be used during any legal season.
Click to expand...
Well aware of that, just stating that the State gets plenty of my money. If tags double I would probably have to reconsider purchasing some of those tags. Just like taxes, sometimes an increase doesn't mean increased revenue.
 
Tim Hull said:
Well aware of that, just stating that the State gets plenty of my money. If tags double I would probably have to reconsider purchasing some of those tags. Just like taxes, sometimes an increase doesn't mean increased revenue.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. I suspect a lot of those extra doe tags that go unfilled anyway will not even be purchased.
 
Same here, if doe tags go to say 45$ I won't buy as many for sure. I sometimes don't get time to hunt alot and usually buy extra doe tags for each season even if I may not use them. I am not against smaller incremental increases, but they should be across the board. Maybe a shed hunting license would do it.
 
I don't know this for a fact, but any private company is going to take into consideration how much they may lose in sales when they make in increase in price and I'm guessing the State number crunchers aren't any different. I'm guessing they increase prices to offset the sales they may lose. Not sure, as I'm for sure not a business person. The State also has to think about what if it's another 24 years before they are allowed to ask for an increase.
 
  • Deleted by Thinkin Rut
Show…
If I remember correctly the bill requires the DNR to review prices no more then every 3 years and make their recommendations to the Natural Resources Committee.

I emailed the entire NRC about this bill with a couple concerns but in support. I have only heard back from one of them. He indicated that the rate hike was supported by 7 different organizations, I assume he meant conservation orgs. He also said there was not one naysayer at the public meetings.
 
  • Deleted by Thinkin Rut
Show…
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom