bjkpharmd
New Member
USO has been quiet about Iowa and other states since the AZ suit. I can't figure out if anyone is really making waves from outside the state- it almost seems like the resident's worst worries are coming from elected officials.
I figured the IBA would have their finger on the pulse of this issue.
I figured the IBA would have their finger on the pulse of this issue.
ElkHunter
Life Member
Three key points
1.DNR & some non res want more tags.
2.Non Res land owners want a any sex tag every year.
3.All groups are becoming better organized. Lots of people wanting to make money on the deer, this is the United States do what you want legally. Just don't expect the hunters of this state to lay roll over and play dead.
Two comments
1. All I'll say is put the shoe on the other foot, you have the great deer hunting in your state. Would you not fight to keep it?
2. Non res knew what the laws were when they bought land and if they didn't, they should have done some research.Don't think you can change the law without a fair amount of resistance.
Part of this post is in response to another post on IW
1.DNR & some non res want more tags.
2.Non Res land owners want a any sex tag every year.
3.All groups are becoming better organized. Lots of people wanting to make money on the deer, this is the United States do what you want legally. Just don't expect the hunters of this state to lay roll over and play dead.
Two comments
1. All I'll say is put the shoe on the other foot, you have the great deer hunting in your state. Would you not fight to keep it?
2. Non res knew what the laws were when they bought land and if they didn't, they should have done some research.Don't think you can change the law without a fair amount of resistance.
Part of this post is in response to another post on IW
bjkpharmd
New Member
"All groups are becoming better organized"
I'm asking who? What groups are you talking about and who is representing them? It is a shame you have to fight the IDNR as they are looking for revenue. The others (lets call them the boogeymen) are hard to counter unless you know who they are...
I've made the same argument on regs when I was a resident as I do now. The tag number should be set by the biologists and the price should be set by the market demand.
I'm asking who? What groups are you talking about and who is representing them? It is a shame you have to fight the IDNR as they are looking for revenue. The others (lets call them the boogeymen) are hard to counter unless you know who they are...
I've made the same argument on regs when I was a resident as I do now. The tag number should be set by the biologists and the price should be set by the market demand.
Fishbonker
Life Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pharmer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The tag number should be set by the biologists and the price should be set by the market demand. </div></div>
Yeah, why raise the number of NR tags to increase revenue, just raise the cost of the tags. The down side of that is all other states would threaten to jack up their NR prices and the hunters from Iowa who go outa state would be hurt. I suppose the "greater good" card could be played and the Iowa residents who chose to hunt outta state would just have to suck it up too.
As far as tag numbers being set by biologists, there has to be a corollary about hunting access. What good are high deer numbers and more NR tags if nobody is allowed to hunt the land they are on?
The 'Bonker
Yeah, why raise the number of NR tags to increase revenue, just raise the cost of the tags. The down side of that is all other states would threaten to jack up their NR prices and the hunters from Iowa who go outa state would be hurt. I suppose the "greater good" card could be played and the Iowa residents who chose to hunt outta state would just have to suck it up too.
As far as tag numbers being set by biologists, there has to be a corollary about hunting access. What good are high deer numbers and more NR tags if nobody is allowed to hunt the land they are on?
The 'Bonker
DOR
Life Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fishbonker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pharmer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The tag number should be set by the biologists and the price should be set by the market demand. </div></div>
Yeah, why raise the number of NR tags to increase revenue, just raise the cost of the tags. The down side of that is all other states would threaten to jack up their NR prices and the hunters from Iowa who go outa state would be hurt. I uppose the "greater good" card could be played and the Iowa residents who chose to hunt outta state would just have to suck it up too.
As far as tag numbers being set by biologists, there has to be a corollary about hunting access. What good are high deer numbers and more NR tags if nobody is allowed to hunt the land they are on?
The 'Bonker </div></div>
You are 100% on track Bonks! Tag prices are out of control if you are a multi-state threat.
Yeah, why raise the number of NR tags to increase revenue, just raise the cost of the tags. The down side of that is all other states would threaten to jack up their NR prices and the hunters from Iowa who go outa state would be hurt. I uppose the "greater good" card could be played and the Iowa residents who chose to hunt outta state would just have to suck it up too.
As far as tag numbers being set by biologists, there has to be a corollary about hunting access. What good are high deer numbers and more NR tags if nobody is allowed to hunt the land they are on?
The 'Bonker </div></div>
You are 100% on track Bonks! Tag prices are out of control if you are a multi-state threat.
DOR
Life Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pharmer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So no one can tell me who the NR people getting organized are?
It seems like folks are being paranoid and it sets the stage for the NR vs resident debate and whips up emotions. You can't fight an enemy you can't identify.
What are the suggestions on access?
</div></div>
Pharmer you make a good point.....I don't know of any really organized groups, probably a good thing too or you would have the next IL on your hands. Maybe the Farm Bureau? or som big Ins outfit? No outfitters group as far as I know and its to far of a reach for USO to get worked up.....speculating here...don;t know for sure
It seems like folks are being paranoid and it sets the stage for the NR vs resident debate and whips up emotions. You can't fight an enemy you can't identify.
What are the suggestions on access?
</div></div>
Pharmer you make a good point.....I don't know of any really organized groups, probably a good thing too or you would have the next IL on your hands. Maybe the Farm Bureau? or som big Ins outfit? No outfitters group as far as I know and its to far of a reach for USO to get worked up.....speculating here...don;t know for sure
Fishbonker
Life Member
Several ideas come to mind. As much as I hate the government telling us what to do, let’s say they do aerial/road counts of deer in a certain area. They notify the land owner(s) that he needs to thin the heard or face losing some federal/state money. The next year the counts remain the same or go up. He is either penalized or he can allow hunters to help thin his herd. Third year, counts remain the same or go up, he loses money and is strongly urged to open his land. I don’t know what the end point would be, some land owners would rather pay the penalties than allow hunting.
Unfortunately the land owner would say “OK, give me tags for free that I can sell to NR hunters” so that idea isn’t so good.
Another one, if somebody wants to lease their land for hunting, they have to notify the DNR, who would then do a survey, tell them how many deer need to be harvested, the land owner would pay for the survey. The next year the DNR would do a follow up survey, if the number was too high they would request the land owner to request the lessee kill more deer. The down side of this one is the same as the first.
If the land owner can prove that he made a good faith effort to kill more deer but weather or some other problem prohibited the take of their quota no punishment would be levied.
Maybe the best idea would be to offer tax breaks or incentives of some kind for the land owners to open their land to hunting. I think this is already being done in other states, one of the Dakotas maybe?
Just some quick thoughts, none that are really workable except the last one.
The ‘Bonker
Unfortunately the land owner would say “OK, give me tags for free that I can sell to NR hunters” so that idea isn’t so good.
Another one, if somebody wants to lease their land for hunting, they have to notify the DNR, who would then do a survey, tell them how many deer need to be harvested, the land owner would pay for the survey. The next year the DNR would do a follow up survey, if the number was too high they would request the land owner to request the lessee kill more deer. The down side of this one is the same as the first.
If the land owner can prove that he made a good faith effort to kill more deer but weather or some other problem prohibited the take of their quota no punishment would be levied.
Maybe the best idea would be to offer tax breaks or incentives of some kind for the land owners to open their land to hunting. I think this is already being done in other states, one of the Dakotas maybe?
Just some quick thoughts, none that are really workable except the last one.
The ‘Bonker
hillrunner
PMA Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe the best idea would be to offer tax breaks or incentives of some kind for the land owners to open their land to hunting. I think this is already being done in other states, one of the Dakotas maybe?
</div></div>
I like this idea but Im unsure how productive it would be. I would be interested to hear the results from a state already impleminting this idea.
Sorry pharmer I cant really answer your question. I think I remember State Farm and maybey Farm Burea hiring lobbyists on their behalf but Im not sure n/r tag quotas was the issue. n/r tags may have been 1 issue but I seem to remember rifles and more liberal gun seasons being more at the center.
</div></div>
I like this idea but Im unsure how productive it would be. I would be interested to hear the results from a state already impleminting this idea.
Sorry pharmer I cant really answer your question. I think I remember State Farm and maybey Farm Burea hiring lobbyists on their behalf but Im not sure n/r tag quotas was the issue. n/r tags may have been 1 issue but I seem to remember rifles and more liberal gun seasons being more at the center.
bjkpharmd
New Member
I have not been a NR until this year but there will be more deer (almost all antlerless) harvested on the properties I own than last year and we have never been shy about taking does. Just more friends with youth tags and multiple late season rifle tags that will get the job. There is 640 acres leased on two sides of one property that the guy from DETROIT is really proud and too much of a REAL hunter to shoot does. In the past 4 years, between the other neighbor and I we have almost 90 does taken off a total of less than 200 acres. No matter what we do, there are more does than we can shoot.
I'm selling or in the process of trying to sell a couple pieces of property because I can't hunt as much as I want, I as much as anyone knew the rules when I decided to move. Somehow I got on a spam list asking for $ for a landowner rights lobby. I let my IBA membership lapse but I'm not going the other way either.
I'm selling or in the process of trying to sell a couple pieces of property because I can't hunt as much as I want, I as much as anyone knew the rules when I decided to move. Somehow I got on a spam list asking for $ for a landowner rights lobby. I let my IBA membership lapse but I'm not going the other way either.
Outdoor Family
New Member
Phamer
Could you explain your reason for capitalizing Detroit and real in your response?
Could you explain your reason for capitalizing Detroit and real in your response?
Fishbonker
Life Member
If I had to guess they are capitalized to show the guy from Detroit probably looks down his nose at Iowa hay seeds and REAL because he considers himself a real hunter because he only shoots bucks and thinks QDM is a bunch of BS.
Only my opinion becuase thats what I'da done.
Am I close?
The 'Bonker
Only my opinion becuase thats what I'da done.
Am I close?
The 'Bonker
bjkpharmd
New Member
That Bonker- He never rode the short bus.
There are NR that don't get it, only see what their fat wallets will get them. It really was DETROIT but you could make the same case for CHICAGO, ST LOUIS, or others. This guy really KNEW what was best for Iowa.
I'm not sure FB is worried about who gets the tags as long as they get the deer numbers down. In fairness to IBA, I should say that I also let my FB membership lapse.
There are NR that don't get it, only see what their fat wallets will get them. It really was DETROIT but you could make the same case for CHICAGO, ST LOUIS, or others. This guy really KNEW what was best for Iowa.
I'm not sure FB is worried about who gets the tags as long as they get the deer numbers down. In fairness to IBA, I should say that I also let my FB membership lapse.
Outdoor Family
New Member
Phamer
What do you mean with "NR don't get it"??
Also, not sure what "Fat Wallet" means as you are selling some of your properties???
What do you mean with "NR don't get it"??
Also, not sure what "Fat Wallet" means as you are selling some of your properties???