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

HSB 610 Nonresident Landowner Tags

Terry is full of crap; they are just trying a new approach they think we might be sympathetic to. His goals are purely financial, he sees the states quality deer hunting as something to exploit for money. They tried to tell us last year that they needed more outfitter tags to control the deer population.
I wonder if his secretary is sending canned responses for him like last year. I actually thought I was having a conversation with Terry about outfitter tags until I realized everyone was getting the exact same pre-typed responses.
 
Response From Baxter


Now let me address the storm clouds on the horizon in Iowa. I am concerned about the rapidly growing number of anti-hunting or extreme environmentalist investors buying land in Iowa and totally closing lands off to all hunting. This is a growing trend.



Nonresident land owners who are sportsman share our voice and value system. Our current system of restricting hunting by nonresident landowners is coming back fast too haunt us. Many sportsmen are skipping Iowa and going instead to other states. But guess where the liberal anti-hunters are flocking to buy investment land?



I had a conversation recently with my county recorder. She shared that there is a huge and alarming up spike of nonresidents buying up land in Iowa as more farmers are aging out and younger farmers are priced out. But there is a hidden problem.



Because of our restrictions on nonresident hunters, guess which crowd is buying up the land? More and more land is quickly being closed off to resident hunters by the new anti-hunting nonresident land owners. We are quickly creating the very problem many sportsman groups are trying to prevent.



If current trends continue, in the next fifteen years as more farmers retire or pass away, millions of acres will forever be closed to resident hunters as we turn sportsman away from Iowa. I am very concerned about this rapidly growing trend.



For the past seven years, I have been part of the Legislative Sportsman’s Caucus across the country. High on the list of concerns is the absence of new hunters coming into the sport and the increase of the radical anti-hunter voice. They want to stop all hunting and their numbers are growing fast.



In my thinking, it makes more sense to create a win-win situation in Iowa between resident sportsman and nonresident land owners who are sportsman than turn our lands over to nonresident land owners who are anti-hunters. This trend is accelerating quickly in Iowa because of our current policies.



I have also worked to encourage the purchase of more public hunting and good habitat ground in Iowa. We are second only to Rhode Island for the amount of public hunting ground per capita compared to our population. Many of those efforts have been blocked by agriculture groups.



HS 610 is an effort to create a win-win situation and open more nonresident owned lands to resident hunters. It is not an anti-whitetail bill. If this bill is stopped, it will be a major setback for sportsmen and future hunting access in Iowa.



Sincerely,



Terry Baxter

Iowa State Representative
 
Maybe I'm way off in Lala land here but could this bill, if passed, open up the state of Iowa for lawsuits from NR? Seems to me its really unconstitutional to dictate what a landowner can and cannot do as far as renting out their land, who they can rent it too, and forced to allow someone to hunt on their land.
 
Hawk32 said:
Response From Baxter


Now let me address the storm clouds on the horizon in Iowa. I am concerned about the rapidly growing number of anti-hunting or extreme environmentalist investors buying land in Iowa and totally closing lands off to all hunting. This is a growing trend.



Nonresident land owners who are sportsman share our voice and value system. Our current system of restricting hunting by nonresident landowners is coming back fast too haunt us. Many sportsmen are skipping Iowa and going instead to other states. But guess where the liberal anti-hunters are flocking to buy investment land?



I had a conversation recently with my county recorder. She shared that there is a huge and alarming up spike of nonresidents buying up land in Iowa as more farmers are aging out and younger farmers are priced out. But there is a hidden problem.



Because of our restrictions on nonresident hunters, guess which crowd is buying up the land? More and more land is quickly being closed off to resident hunters by the new anti-hunting nonresident land owners. We are quickly creating the very problem many sportsman groups are trying to prevent.



If current trends continue, in the next fifteen years as more farmers retire or pass away, millions of acres will forever be closed to resident hunters as we turn sportsman away from Iowa. I am very concerned about this rapidly growing trend.



For the past seven years, I have been part of the Legislative Sportsman’s Caucus across the country. High on the list of concerns is the absence of new hunters coming into the sport and the increase of the radical anti-hunter voice. They want to stop all hunting and their numbers are growing fast.



In my thinking, it makes more sense to create a win-win situation in Iowa between resident sportsman and nonresident land owners who are sportsman than turn our lands over to nonresident land owners who are anti-hunters. This trend is accelerating quickly in Iowa because of our current policies.



I have also worked to encourage the purchase of more public hunting and good habitat ground in Iowa. We are second only to Rhode Island for the amount of public hunting ground per capita compared to our population. Many of those efforts have been blocked by agriculture groups.



HS 610 is an effort to create a win-win situation and open more nonresident owned lands to resident hunters. It is not an anti-whitetail bill. If this bill is stopped, it will be a major setback for sportsmen and future hunting access in Iowa.



Sincerely,



Terry Baxter

Iowa State Representative
Click to expand...
I literally received verbatim what he sent you....copy and paste
 
Tmayer13 said:
I literally received verbatim what he sent you....copy and paste
Click to expand...

Here are the 6 paragraphs before the storm on the horizon paragraph…..

Thank you for your email. Let me set the record straight. I am an avid sportsman and committed to preserve the tradition of hunting for the next generation in Iowa. I
I am also committed to the health and preservation of the Whitetail herd in Iowa.

I worked hard for seven years to come up with common sense laws in Iowa to slow the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease. My efforts were blocked and now CWD is on the move into new counties. Tragically, Fremont and Greene counties have now had positive tests. That makes 12 counties in Iowa. When I started my efforts it was restricted to three counties.

HS 610 is an attempt calm an even greater storm brewing on the horizon. The bill is an effort to listen to both sides. On the one hand, we want to discourage nonresident hunters from buying up Iowa hunting land and closing it off to resident hunters. On the other hand, we want a way for long term mom resident land owners to enjoy sportsmen pursuits on their own land and give incentives for them to grant hunting access to resident hunters. Later I will make a case that nonresident land owners who are sportsman will help our overall hunting cause in Iowa and help deter a storm that is brewing in our state.

First, let's look briefly at this bill. HS 610 puts a decade wait before nonresident land openers could qualify to get an annual land owner license to hunt their own land at full non-resident price. Furthermore, in the bill, they need to allow access to some resident hunters, participate is some form of conservation or water quality program and give preferred rent to new farmers on pastures or tillable acres. They are prevented from using their land for guide services and are encouraged to participate in a herd management program on their property if they are in a high density area and a late season hunt is set for their region. This answers the majority of complaints against tax paying nonresident landowners having a pathway to hunt their own land put forward in the past several years.

In talking to the DNR, the greatest problem currently with nonresident owned land is lack of access for herd management of high antler-less populations. This bill seeks to address that issue by encouraging non-resident land owners to open their land to resident hunters and participate in special herd management seasons if applicable in their area.

Keep in mind, some nonresidents have owned land for thirty or more years. Many have lived and farmed in Iowa on multi-generation family owned farms. Now they just want to come back and hunt with their grandchildren on their own land. Many come back to plant and harvest every year. I think they are making a reasonable request
 
I got same response as above. I responded as follows:



Terry,

Thank you for the response. I appreciate that you are a sportsman committed to the future of Iowa.

I think there are some flaws in your argument and I have some questions.

No rules or regulations are going to stop the spread of CWD. We don't have to guess about this. We can look at how Wisconson, Illinois, Michigan, etc have tried to slow the spread. In all cases it has been a complete failure. CWD has been present since the 1970's out west. You know what they do? Absolutely nothing. I used to live in Michigan where I watched sniper teams take out every deer within a large radius. It does nothing to stop CWD. Once the prions are in the soil CWD is there. Those states, for the most part, have wised up and stopped fruitless CWD containment strategies.

The resident participation aspect of the bill is impossible to police. Is this supposed to be an honor system? Most CO's have multiple counties they are responsible for and cannot keep up already.

I agree the antlerless numbers on non-resident tracts can be an issue. This bill does not solve that problem. There is nothing stopping NRLO's from allowing anterless deer to be shot by any number of willing people. It would be in the farm's (and their) best interest to do so. Dangling a carrot of a buck tag does little by way of solving any problems.

I have purchased 13 farms in the last 7 years. I follow the real estate market on a daily basis. I monitor prices and who is buying ground. When you say farms are being gobbled up by anti-hunting investors I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you have specific examples? I don't see this. Not in markets I monitor. I actually see the opposite. When farms are bought by investors, hunting leases are now part of the pro forma in many cases. This is opening up ground that was previously closed.

Iowa is the cream of the crop as far as a whitetail state because of the laws and regulations we have had in place. I moved here because of it!

If this bill were to pass it would slowly be modified and liberalized just like the straight wall rifle laws. That is a given. I have no interest in letting that snowball start down that slippery slope. Liberalization of NRLO tags would skyrocket rec ground prices and deteriorate the hunting quality. See Illinois.

-Rob
 
It's a canned response that is being sent out to everyone who inquires on HSB 610. It's beyond disrespectful as they think we're unable to think critically and respond in fact to their conjecture.

I wrote a lengthy rebuttal to "Terry's" email. He responded to both my brother and I by the wrong names as well. My brother's name is Kolton and he called him Todd... Just goes to show they don't even have the time of day for us. Just copy, paste, and they'll shut up - that's their thought process.

We can't stop fighting back because they're never going to stop the exploitation of our precious resource for their own financial gain. It makes me sick, but I'm thankful there's folks like us that take the time to stand up against this garbage. I know the last thing many of us have time for is to take hours out of our days to fight this battle, but it's the only way to ensure our voices are heard.
 
Last edited:
I received the same canned response. Here’s how I responded….

Respectfully, I disagree with the assessment that this will help residents and Iowa wildlife management. It will however continue to shift land ownership and access away from Iowa residents. At the end of the day, 10 years is a drop in the bucket for nonresident landowners to invest as a way to provide hunting opportunities for their family. Long-term landownership should not equate to having the same hunting opportunities as residents who support local economies and pay income taxes here. Despite some property taxes being paid by nonresident landowners, oftentimes the income or other incentives to own the land outweigh the costs and pale in comparison to contributing to local businesses, income taxes, property taxes on homes, etc. that residents contribute. Having moved around myself, nonresident landowners can either move here, comply with the current laws and not worry about buck hunting more frequently than the draw allows or sell their land at record prices and purchase in the states in which they live.

As it relates to the non-hunters buying land, that is purely an economic play and any changes in hunting regulations will do little to change who has the most money. I check for land listings nearly everyday and the land market is extremely healthy. Listings that are primarily non-tillable hunting farms are going under contract very quickly and per Iowa State’s most recent land report, land is up nearly 30% YOY.

Is there data to support that anti-hunting groups are buying land? Is this happening on tillable land with significant income/investment opportunity or truly good hunting land where wildlife actually lives? This hasn’t been a problem that I have observed in the areas that we hunt and I suspect it’s not a problem on true huntable land across the state. If we’re introducing a bill such as this, we should have data from multiple counties vs. a conversation with a county recorder.

Even if we attract more nonresident sportsmen to Iowa and introduce a bill such as this, this will not materially impact the majority of Iowa residents in a good way. Purchasing more public land could help but at the end of the day, Iowa has a reasonable cost of living. Nonresidents who make substantially more money than Iowa residents will more easily afford land here and as a result, will price out Iowa residents. I feel very fortunate and blessed to own land – but if this bill passes, it will unequivocally hurt common Iowa residents, hunting access and the herd.

If a bill needs introduced to ensure a healthy deer herd, please direct it at nonresident landowners and incentivize them to grant access and help with killing does. With the current regulations, they can come back every year to hunt with family and friends. When I didn’t draw an any-sex tag as a nonresident, I purchased a doe tag and was able to hunt with my Dad and Grandpa – memories that will last forever. Nonresident landowners can do the same.

Respectfully, this is not a win-win situation for Iowa residents but instead the special interests of nonresident landowners. Wildlife management and increased nonresident access do not go hand in hand.

Thanks,

Nick
 
Bow_and_Arrow said:
I received the same canned response. Here’s how I responded….

Respectfully, I disagree with the assessment that this will help residents and Iowa wildlife management. It will however continue to shift land ownership and access away from Iowa residents. At the end of the day, 10 years is a drop in the bucket for nonresident landowners to invest as a way to provide hunting opportunities for their family. Long-term landownership should not equate to having the same hunting opportunities as residents who support local economies and pay income taxes here. Despite some property taxes being paid by nonresident landowners, oftentimes the income or other incentives to own the land outweigh the costs and pale in comparison to contributing to local businesses, income taxes, property taxes on homes, etc. that residents contribute. Having moved around myself, nonresident landowners can either move here, comply with the current laws and not worry about buck hunting more frequently than the draw allows or sell their land at record prices and purchase in the states in which they live.

As it relates to the non-hunters buying land, that is purely an economic play and any changes in hunting regulations will do little to change who has the most money. I check for land listings nearly everyday and the land market is extremely healthy. Listings that are primarily non-tillable hunting farms are going under contract very quickly and per Iowa State’s most recent land report, land is up nearly 30% YOY.

Is there data to support that anti-hunting groups are buying land? Is this happening on tillable land with significant income/investment opportunity or truly good hunting land where wildlife actually lives? This hasn’t been a problem that I have observed in the areas that we hunt and I suspect it’s not a problem on true huntable land across the state. If we’re introducing a bill such as this, we should have data from multiple counties vs. a conversation with a county recorder.

Even if we attract more nonresident sportsmen to Iowa and introduce a bill such as this, this will not materially impact the majority of Iowa residents in a good way. Purchasing more public land could help but at the end of the day, Iowa has a reasonable cost of living. Nonresidents who make substantially more money than Iowa residents will more easily afford land here and as a result, will price out Iowa residents. I feel very fortunate and blessed to own land – but if this bill passes, it will unequivocally hurt common Iowa residents, hunting access and the herd.

If a bill needs introduced to ensure a healthy deer herd, please direct it at nonresident landowners and incentivize them to grant access and help with killing does. With the current regulations, they can come back every year to hunt with family and friends. When I didn’t draw an any-sex tag as a nonresident, I purchased a doe tag and was able to hunt with my Dad and Grandpa – memories that will last forever. Nonresident landowners can do the same.

Respectfully, this is not a win-win situation for Iowa residents but instead the special interests of nonresident landowners. Wildlife management and increased nonresident access do not go hand in hand.

Thanks,

Nick
Click to expand...
Very well written. Echoes many of the sentiments in my response today as well.
 
Here is another of his responses. Looks like he favors out of state investors and it would be on the honor system. Sounds like a great, well thought out plan...

Andrew,

I have had numerous sportsman over the years say they would never invest in Iowa under current laws. Their reason is always the same; “Why buy land I cannot hunt on?” Sportsman investors are going to other states other than Iowa in groves. One thing for sure, Iowa’s current laws discriminate against investors who are sportsman.

Yes, allowing some resident hunters would come down to an honor system, but at least the state of Iowa would have a policy in place. Most sportsman are honorable people.

Thank you for the dialogue,

Terry Baxter
State Representative
 
deerhunter93 said:
Here is another of his responses. Looks like he favors out of state investors and it would be on the honor system. Sounds like a great, well thought out plan...

Andrew,

I have had numerous sportsman over the years say they would never invest in Iowa under current laws. Their reason is always the same; “Why buy land I cannot hunt on?” Sportsman investors are going to other states other than Iowa in groves. One thing for sure, Iowa’s current laws discriminate against investors who are sportsman.

Yes, allowing some resident hunters would come down to an honor system, but at least the state of Iowa would have a policy in place. Most sportsman are honorable people.

Thank you for the dialogue,

Terry Baxter
State Representative
Click to expand...
Did you ask him why he thinks MORE investors is a good thing? Ground doesn't last a week with CURRENT regulations.
 
Whether it’s an Anti or NR, the amount of hunting will be about the same. The NRLO will find someone who has no interest in hunting and grant them permission. That’s all that’s required, whether or not they go, they had permission.

Just an idea, but require the ground to be put into the IHAP program for the 10 yrs. It’s a winning situation for both the owner and the residents and it fulfills the other requirements at the same time. If it’s in the program, you get your nr tag every year, habitat is improved, and more access for those that are limited.
 
Last edited:
ElkFever2 said:
Now that it has passed subcommittee, who is the next group of legislators to contact?
Click to expand...

Next step is the full Natural Resources Committee:

Representative Robert Bacon, Chair, rob.bacon@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Tom Jenary, Vice Chair, Tom.Jeneary@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Timi Brown-Powers, Ranking Member, Timi.Brown-Powers@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Terry Baxter, Terry.Baxter@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Liz Bennet, Liz.Bennett@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Steven Bradley, Steven.Bradley@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Christina Bohannon, Christina.Bohannan@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Dennis M. Cohoon, dennis.cohoon@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Dean Fisher, dean.fisher@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Thomas D. Gerhold, Thomas.Gerhold@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Chris Hall, chris.hall@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Dave Jacoby, david.jacoby@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Kenan Judge,
Kenan.Judge@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Shannon Latham,
Shannon.Latham@legis.iowa.gov

Representative David E. Maxwell,
dave.maxwell@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Charlie McClintock,
Charlie.McClintock@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Norlin Momsen,
Norlin.Mommsen@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Brent Siegrist,
Brent.Siegrist@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Ras Tafari Smith, Ras.Smith@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Phyllis Thede,
phyllis.thede@legis.iowa.gov

Representative Jon Thorpe, Jon.Thorup@legis.iowa.gov

A meeting date has yet to be set.
 
Whelp, they all got an email!

“Newton resident opposed.

HSB 610, championed by Rep. Baxter, does NOT benefit Iowans. It does benefit non-resident landowners who pay taxes in Iowa, and former residents whom have moved away from Iowa. Iowa boasts the best whitetail buck age class of any state. This is a function of our state's unique set of hunting laws. If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it. Yet with each IA legislative session, hunters watch as batch after batch of bad hunting bills seek to dismantle our prized whitetail herd. Where is the impetus for these bills? Lobbying efforts and political contributions to republican legislators from non-Iowan weapon manufacturers, non-Iowan hunting equipment manufacturers, and non-resident hunters. Our prized natural resources are not for sale to whomever has the most dollars. They are held collectively in the public trust, to be responsibly stewarded for future generations.

Many Iowan landowners and hunters emailed Rep. Baxter to voice their opposition HSB 610. I know at least a dozen persons who all received the same copied and pasted response email. I'd like to set the record straight regarding some of the claims made by Rep. Baxter.

Claim: HSB 610 will slow the spread of CWD.
Fact: No attempt to slow the spread of CWD has succeeded anywhere in North America.

Claim: HSB 610 requires non-resident landowners to open hunting access to Iowans.
Fact: The bill includes no enforcement mechanism to see that this is carried through. It won't happen.

Claim: HSB 610 discourages anti-hunters from buying up land in IA and closing it to hunting
Fact: The anti-hunter land buyer threat is nonexistent in IA.

It is becoming increasingly popular for wealthy hunters across the county to purchase prime whitetail hunting ground for personal use. This is occurring in record pace in Iowa, despite the owners having to participate in a draw to get a whitetail buck tag. In states where there is no draw, there is far more land being bought up by non-residents. IL, MO, NE, KS, and basically every Western state are overrun with non-resident purchases of recreational land, severely degrading resident hunting quality. Mind you, these owners do not live in the states they own the land in, and they barely contribute to the local economy. They live in FL, NY, MA, CA, etc., and drive or fly out for 2 weeks to hunt once a year.

I don't have the means to buy my way into prime hunting like so many non-resident hunters do. My hunting in IA is 100% on public land. I, and others like me, rely on low hunting pressure in order to have a quality hunt. Open the floodgates to non-resident hunters and residents lose their access to hunt private ground, and more and more hunters move to public. This has already happened across the rest of our country. There's no need for it to have to happen here. Please consider voting No on HSB 610.

My 2021 IA public land deer
Inline image
 
Rep. Baxter replied to me, and stated the bill is not meant to address CWD. I emailed the NRC group back to acknowledge my error of logic based on his canned email.
 
Good or bad idea: NRLO allotted a LO buck tag in any year their property is IHAP-enrolled. Special IHAP conditions: no public deer hunting, and closed to the public the first week of Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan. Basically, the NRLO can get and hunt their buck tag at the cost of opening their land to hunting for species other than deer.

I’d prefer no change to current laws, if given a choice. But, if I had to pick a change related to NRLO LO buck tags I’m trying to think what would be somewhat palatable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom