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

Hung with own rope

I have to agree with you BJohnson. Hunting is by far the biggest addiction of my life. It will be damn disappointing when I cannot afford to do it any longer. I have a few pieces of good ground to hunt now but they are farmed by older farmers. What will happen when they retire is yet to be seen, but I am not holding my breath. I plan to get my kids into the outdoors but I plan to introduce them to fishing. Most of the water in South Dakota is public water with public access. At least this activity doesn't require permission or land ownership. As for the hunting, I will hunt as hard as I can for as long as I can. But when it comes down to the old addage, " pay to play", I will be sitting in my boat, fishing for walleyes and catfish sipping on a cold beer.
 
Back to the future? At least the serfs knew their place. Talk about tough on trespassers and poachers...
William the Conqueror introduced the death penalty for killing a deer, and a sentence of maiming for attempting to kill a deer. These harsh penalties were not abolished until the reign of Henry III, although deer were still preserved by law for the sport of the monarch until the nineteenth century.
 
Ghost’s question:
”What do you see as being the positive/negative effects to Iowa deer hunting and the Iowa deer herd by increasing the NR deer license quota?”

That is a very good question. There are many potential impacts to Iowa’s deer resource from increasing the quota for nonresidents and the posts above have already done a good job of recognizing these impacts. Increased quotas will mean an increased incentive for nonresidents to buy more land. It will also mean an increased incentive for leasing to accommodate these extra nonresidents. However it also means that some former Iowans, our friends and family members, will get the opportunity to come back and hunt with us on a more regular basis.

From a deer management perspective the problem with increasing the number of nonresidents is not the number of deer nonresidents shoot, it is the number they don’t shoot (but that would have been shot if the ownership hadn’t changed). Some (most?) of these areas have the potential to become deer refuges. And yes this does complicate deer management. I would add however that some of the worst deer refuges I know of within the state are owned by residents. Conversely you have seen that some nonresidents do a good job of managing deer populations on their land (See OrionWhitetails post).

I believe the key to OrionWhitetails success is that they believe and practice the principles of QDM. I also believe their achievement wasn’t accomplished solely by using nonresidents hunters, it was a mix of resident and nonresident hunters sharing the land and the resource. For deer management to work in the future this sharing will need to become more common. It will take some time and trust but I think it can and will happen.

The people management perspective is the more difficult issue. Increased nonresident quotas will mean some hunters will lose access to property that they are currently hunting. I have empathy for these hunters since it has happened to me as well. These hunters are faced with the unpleasant task of finding a new place to hunt. As I mentioned in an earlier post I have already found a negative relationship between the number of nonresident hunters and the number of resident hunters in a county. This trend will only get worse if we increase the nonresident quota without changing how many zones we use to distribute nonresident hunting pressure. In my opinion we already need to spread out the pressure from nonresidents. If the nonresident quota is increased it only makes it more important that to change to county sized zones for nonresidents.

But an increase in the number of nonresidents is not the only reason people lose access to places to hunt. Loss of habitat and continued urbanization are also reducing the opportunities for hunters to find places to hunt. Any program to mitigate the impact of increased human pressure will require increased revenues. These revenues will be needed to acquire more public land for wildlife based recreation. Another option that needs to be looked into is a program to lease private land to provide access for public use. This has been done in some neighboring states with some success. There are some problems as well and these will have to be worked out for any program to be successful.

Will the revenue from nonresident deer hunters be enough to totally solve this problem? In my opinion not by itself. It might be a good start. But Iowa’s people and Iowa’s natural resources require and deserve more. In my opinion we NEED a dedicated funding source for these programs. It is not fair or feasible for hunters and anglers to foot the total bill. We NEED a dedicated funding source to provide Iowa’s people the quality of outdoor recreation they deserve. We only have to look to the south to see one example of how a dedicated funding source could be implemented and utilized. It will take a grass roots effort to make it happen. Will it start here? Will it start with you?
 
Thanks for your thoughts on the subject Willie, I'm aware that there are no easy answers to all the problems. I just see things getting even more complicated and I feel frustrated that people at the top don't see the picture at the bottom.
In a perfect world NR's and Residents working together, making use of QDM practices would be fantastic. In the real world though, it's unheard of around here. Property is fiercely guarded both by landowners and outfitters leasing land. It seems the director is year after year, despite passionate objections, determined to totally ignore the average hunter for the almighty dollar. When I read news articles he is not very specific about what any extra money would be used for, nor how thousands of resident hunters will gain from it.
How can we know that the director is hearing anything we say? If we write...will he read? The fact that he keeps attempting to ram this down our throats, shows me he could care less.
Are you thinking that we need a state tax or some specific revenue dedicated to purchasing state land or funding general DNR programs? Give us some ideas?
 
One assumption in this thread is that increased demand by non-residents will increase pressure on public lands due to land lost from leasing and/or purchase. One option to reduce this pressure is to set aside certain public units as resident only. There is a precedent for this with the 3 State Forests and Spring Turkey hunting. As someone that enjoys an out of state DIY public land hunt I hate to advocate reducing these opportunities anywhere, but a few large tract, well managed units could be for residents only. I would accept a draw for these units if they were truly managed as trophy units. Then the years that I'm not drawn I'll just smack does in my back yard. One more thought. One of the primary legislative goals of some of the farm organizations that are pushing for reductions in the deer herd is property tax relief. Perhaps hunter access to these private lands could be encouraged through property tax relief. I have seen first hand how land can be tied up. I used to hunt 4 continuous miles of timber in West Central Illinois as a kid. Virtually all of that land is locked up with outfitters today.
 
Just wanted to post a "thank you" to WJS for responding. I wouldn't want your job but I think we (Iowawhitetail) are a good source for the opinions of the Iowa deer hunting community.

Most hunters in my area are totally unaware of any proposed changes until they read it in the next year's regulation booklet the day they go to buy tags for the season. That's just the way it is!

I know what is good for Iowa deer hunting, and you know what is good for Iowa deer hunting as well. It's all the outside forces and money that really screw things up on the ground level of deer management in this state.

It just truely scares me that there will be younger generations of hunters that will have to feel the pain of our decisions made today.

Seventeen years ago I made the decision that my children would always have a place to hunt. One decision I will never regret in my lifetime!
grin.gif


Sorry so long winded, but this goes much deeper for me than making a budget at the legislative level. I'm sure you have a good understanding of what I'm trying to communicate.
 
I also read the article in the newspaper. The major force behind this they say is income. 2.5 million, when you think about it, that won't buy much land anywhere in Iowa for the rest of the residents that end up pushed off the places they currently hunt by all the land that will be bought up or leased. What are you going to do with the $600,000 you are going to make off the NR's by making them buy a mandatory doe tag? We won't see any of that money in the way of new public ground being bought.

If money was truly the driving force behind all of this you would see Willie and everyone at the DNR pushing the politicians to close the residency loopholes that currently exist. Every year more and more NR's are claiming residency and buying resident tags and it's not just the little guys doing it. A lot of big names in the industry are doing and have been doing it for years.

You think there are too many deer now wait and see how many are here once they increase the quota to 12,000. Currently almost every NR landowner I know complains about not getting enough doe tags or cheap enough doe tags. So what currently happens is their place becomes one huge doe factory.

Here is my question for Willie, how about addressing these problems before we add to them?

Chris
 
WJS, Thanks for the replys. I, for one, feel like sombody is listening when you post here.

[ QUOTE ]
However it also means that some former Iowans, our friends and family members, will get the opportunity to come back and hunt with us on a more regular basis.

In my opinion we NEED a dedicated funding source for these programs. /quote]


First quote: A little sugar to help the medicine go down? How many of the new NR tags will actually go to expat Iowans?

Second quote: The State already has a dedicated funding source. Its called the Non-resident hunter and the legislature knows it so why impose new taxes that will get them voted out of office?

Pharmer, somehow I knew that you would know the history of the English Monarchy, something I am woefully ignorant of, like most things.

OK so I screwed up the quote thingy. Sorry.

The 'Bonker
 
Wouldn't it be great if Iowa could set aside a 1/8 cent sales tax increase for the DNR to use for purchasing more land and hiring more officers ect? Seems like a fairly painless way to solve a lot of problems to me. It seems obvious to me that the people who make the decisions (legislature) are oblivious to the real solution. Who do we need to call to get this accomplished?
 
What happened to the extra money raised this year from all the antlerless tags released?? Did we buy some ground?
 
sstevens, that is one idea i've been pushing for along time. i wish there was a way to get that one pushed through
 
WJS
Along with the others I want to say thank you for your responces and input here on a subject dear to us all. For several years I have droned on and on about outfitter licensing and controls, and even though more and more outfitters are poping up and leasing more and better land nothing has been done about licensing yet. How much revenue would this simple step generate?

On the subject of increasing NR numbers I just had a thought. Why not make the increased tags only valid for some of the current know deer reserve areas, like metro areas like Des Moines or Davenport or any other metro area with large deer populations. I don't know Des Moines very well but I hear a lot about Water Works Park and Terrace Hill, also there are several State Parks that could be included. This could eliminate the extra pressure on private lands and help curb the deer populations in the areas people complain about most. This isn't just a smart a** reply I really think it is workable. These areas could be closly controled much the Burlington Ammunition Plant is and you could require a doe harvest before a buck just the way they do. With more and more cities holding urban hunts and many being under utilized NRs could be a key management tool in a more visable arena and an extra revenue source< 2.5 mill> to use toward land and habitate projects.

Several of your statements show that you at least agree with many of us on the increased impact of more NR hunters and land access and what increased population problems that will unavoidablely lead to. What can we do to help you implement some real changes instead of just adding more seasons and doe tags? I firmly endorse a sales tax of 1/8 or even 1/4% that would go to the DNR and used for Parks and Wildlife and not get bled off for other things, outfitter licensing, an extra tax on leasing imcomes, and generally trying to control our own hunting destiny. I know you will say contact our ligislatiors but lots of us have been doing that with little or no results.
the travisty of the dove hunting issue and the "orange army" shows what little effect public support and demonstrations can really have on law makers when they have their minds made up. We need some real direction from those people who know what needs to be done but can't accomplish it themselves.
 
I'm all for the sales tax idea or something along those lines. Perhaps it's an idea that IBA can pursue along with other sportsmens groups.
Right now though it would seem that the director has his own agenda...and everybody else be damned!
This past year we we're told that the HP season would most likly be a one time thing...reduce the herd and it will go away. Personally I don't believe it is going away or that we can ever reduce the herd enough to make the insurance lobby happy. Now add 6000 more NR's, more leasing, land buying etc. which in turn means more deer and where are we? Even more desperate attempts will be made to reduce the herd and I expect no one will like them...not even a little bit.
I haven't heard a soul from the top explain how we can do both...allow more NR's AND effectively control our deer herd.
I think Willie is also left somewhere between a rock and a hard spot on this problem, but I certainly commend him for trying!
It is possible that the Insurance lobby and IFB could become our allies...show them that the DNR has no possible way of controlling the herd because of the current 6000 NR tags and you can bet they will put a stop to the next 6000!!
evil.gif
 
I believe the key to OrionWhitetails success is that they believe and practice the principles of QDM. I also believe their achievement wasn’t accomplished solely by using nonresidents hunters, it was a mix of resident and nonresident hunters sharing the land and the resource. For deer management to work in the future this sharing will need to become more common. It will take some time and trust but I think it can and will happen.


[/ QUOTE ]


I only wish it was a mix of nonresidents and residents sharing the land and the resource. Orionwhitetails is located right near the place I grew up and hunt. They try practicing in QDM, which I strongly encourge, however, I do not believe in what they are doing to the county. They are currently leasing thousands of acres and it seems to grow each year. Much of the ground they lease is ground I used to hunt and many other locals but that has since changed. No locals are allowed on their lease except for a handfull of landowners. These landowners are mostly farmers and they have a hard time turning down a good chunk of money. It truly has taken a turn for the worse, however, in future years I believe some of the farmers are going to discontinue leasing due to the amount of deer not, not just does, being taken. Shooting two bucks in thousands of acres of a lease is not what I consider QDM. For the most part the non-residents hunting the leased ground only hunt during the 5 day first shotgun season and during this time they may shoot a few does, but with all the acreage they lease there are many parts that do not get hunted. I strongly agree in "Ghosts' decision" to purchase land for his children to hunt in the future. I would love to do the same but I am currently only 22 and am far from being able to purchase my own ground. The Orionwhitetails lease is just another example of a bad direction for future hunting.
mad.gif
 
All this talk of buying public ground with the extra money sounds great. But, I for one, would rather not lose my controlled spots close to home just so that I can drive an hour to hunt the new public ground with a 1000 other guys. Its not as if the state buying public ground, at who knows what location, represents an even trade for the Joe Schmo that loses his current spot. Lets say the state bought the land you currently hunt, guaranteing you permenant access to it by making it public. Does that sound ideal to you? Heck, I wouldnt even want it next to the land I hunt.

To me the value of public ground is not in its hunting opportunites, but in its ability to preserve some wild areas from development, etc. Public land is nice and I hope the DNR is somehow able to buy a bunch. I just hope that the means of aquiring it dont force us all to hunt only public.
That of course assumes that the rate of aquisition would even be remotely equal to the rate of loss, which it wont.

My point is that I dont think the gain of some public ground (even if guaranteed) justifies the losses this will cause, and I dont think we should accept that as a consolation prize. Its time for the legislature to stop sticking hunters with the bill for everything outdoor related, its time for the 1/8th cent sales tax. This whole topic is very frustrating.
 
I have to totally agree Timberpig. Imagine if right now the DNR bought even another 10,000 acres of public land and all the guys that had places to hunt had to now hunt that from now on. Things would be so overcrowded that you would think it was the public park not a hunting area. When things get to that point I'm done hunting, hell I'll quit before things get that bad.
mad.gif
 
WJS,
You use Orion as a reference to a management situation. Was there a study done or some type of log on the total number of deer harvested? Did the DNR keep track of the tags issued to the people hunting this leased ground and have them report their harvest to someone that recorded it, or was it just an estimation? How many acres of ground were these people leasing to have people hunt on, and if you can, tell us the ratio of deer harvested to acres of ground leased. If you consider this an ideal QDM situation, then someone had to record the information and not just base this on estimates. It would be interesting to see these numbers.
 
actually, their "claim" that the money will be used to buy land is a laod of b.s.! the money will go into the general fund, and will be spent however the legislature wants, not how the DNR feels it should be spent.

the FIRST thing we need to do, is separate teh DNR from the government control. all funds from licensing, fines, stamps, etc goes to the DNR. then possible add a small % of a cent sales tax to any and all aporting goods sold in the state. that alone should raise enough funds to have the DNR self supported
 
Well said TP! I'm all for public land as it ensures some wild areas will be kept free from development, however I sure wouldn't want to hunt there! The state land in my are is often referred too as a "slaughterhouse" the first weekend and those that hunt there mention they would have felt safer in Iraq!
There has to be a better way to fund buying state land and it wouldn't hurt to mention it to our legislators when we call them.
On the subject of OrionWhitails, he posted how many does they killed. If they owned or leased a couple hundred acres, then 20 does would have an affect, but if they control thousands...then it's a joke and as mentioned, only a few landowners are allowed. Aound my area, for the most part NO ONE is allowed on it, after it is leased or sold. Many thousands of acres are leased by indiviuals, by the way, and it seems unlikely to me that any type of "outfitter regulations" would be enforceable. How can one prove it's leased just because "no hunting" signs go up? Right now people are leasing land as fast they can and competion is wild! Someone may offer Joe Farmer $10 an acre today, but tomorrow someone else offers him $20 and the next week a NR writes a check for the whole farm!
It only took Chris a week or so to sell his place...so you don't have to take my word for it.
smirk.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom