Missouri Survey on Non-Resident Hunting

[Primosguy]

The numbers don’t support that statement. Look at the charts. You may want to believe that it’s all the NR fault but how many people that knock on your door to hunt do you say yes to? There has been a 10 fold decrease ish for one increase in NR tags. I know of plenty of residents that have locked their land down for themselves or family. NR haven’t caused the drop in resident access alone. The greed of someone else shooting MY buck or MY up and comer has more to do with it. Plus the unrealistic goal that there is a boomer behind every tree like they see on TV to only be disappointed. The younger age groups want immediate and EASY trophy’s and when that doesn’t get fulfilled they go golf.

It seems like you're insinuating every hunting resident in Missouri is blaming NR hunters for all of our problems. Quite the opposite in my personal opinion, I blame the MDC for the unlimited access they give to the NR hunters, not the NR hunters for taking what's given. If Iowa allowed unlimited over the counter NR tags or guaranteed NR landowners a tag each year do really think that would not have an effect on hunting land access and quality of the herd? Of course it would, these regulations are what make Iowa great and a standard of what other states should aspire to be. Would allowing 10s of thousands of NR hunters into the state and depleting the quality of the resource and access to the resource be the fault of the NRs, or the fault of the Iowa DNR for letting it happen? It would be the fault of the DNR by way of the NR, and the NR would get blamed for simply doing what they're allowed to do.

As DWGH mentioned in another post the lower quality of the hunting nowadays in northern Missouri is somewhat due to overcrowding and has reduced many resident hunters time spent in the field. The lower hunting quality in my opinion is due to many different MDC issues/regs, but the limited access to quality hunting ground is definitely on the shoulders of the NR. Again, by way of the MDC. I don't specifically know what numbers you were referring to when you said "the numbers don't support that statement" but I can assure you that I've tried to find my friends a lease up around my farm for the last 4 years and everything is leased to NRs from Arkansas. They are great guys. Not blaming them in any way shape or form, but that is a fact that they lease all the surrounding farms. Those numbers do support my statement. If Missouri went to a draw like Iowa has and a tag was given every 6 years as opposed to over the counter, do you think those guys from AR would still pay to keep that lease each year? I would think probably not. And once those farms became available for lease again, I'm confident they would be filled by Missouri residents hunters.

I completely agree with you that NR hunters are the low hanging fruit and get unfairly blamed for many of Missouris problems, but I hold the MDC responsible for letting it happen, not the NR. That being said, the NRs absolutely do have a direct effect on reducing access to resident hunters.

 

[Muskrat24]

It seems like you're insinuating every hunting resident in Missouri is blaming NR hunters for all of our problems. Quite the opposite in my personal opinion, I blame the MDC for the unlimited access they give to the NR hunters, not the NR hunters for taking what's given. If Iowa allowed unlimited over the counter NR tags or guaranteed NR landowners a tag each year do really think that would not have an effect on hunting land access and quality of the herd? Of course it would, these regulations are what make Iowa great and a standard of what other states should aspire to be. Would allowing 10s of thousands of NR hunters into the state and depleting the quality of the resource and access to the resource be the fault of the NRs, or the fault of the Iowa DNR for letting it happen? It would be the fault of the DNR by way of the NR, and the NR would get blamed for simply doing what they're allowed to do.

As DWGH mentioned in another post the lower quality of the hunting nowadays in northern Missouri is somewhat due to overcrowding and has reduced many resident hunters time spent in the field. The lower hunting quality in my opinion is due to many different MDC issues/regs, but the limited access to quality hunting ground is definitely on the shoulders of the NR. Again, by way of the MDC. I don't specifically know what numbers you were referring to when you said "the numbers don't support that statement" but I can assure you that I've tried to find my friends a lease up around my farm for the last 4 years and everything is leased to NRs from Arkansas. They are great guys. Not blaming them in any way shape or form, but that is a fact that they lease all the surrounding farms. Those numbers do support my statement. If Missouri went to a draw like Iowa has and a tag was given every 6 years as opposed to over the counter, do you think those guys from AR would still pay to keep that lease each year? I would think probably not. And once those farms became available for lease again, I'm confident they would be filled by Missouri residents hunters.

I completely agree with you that NR hunters are the low hanging fruit and get unfairly blamed for many of Missouris problems, but I hold the MDC responsible for letting it happen, not the NR. That being said, the NRs absolutely do have a direct effect on reducing access to resident hunters.

I’m not saying that at all but what I am saying is MO could allow zero NR licenses and the access for MO residents to private ground would not get much better if any. I don’t believe that the farms IF let go by the AR hunters would not be leased up again. The numbers I am referring to are on the tag and harvest data charts letemgrow posted. 10 less R tags for each one NR increase. If the AR hunters can draw every other year you think they are going to let the lease go? I’m local to the state and I have lost far more permission from locals locking it down than I have from NR leases. No doubt different area of the state but eliminating 100% of the NR tags is not going to greatly open access in several parts of the state. I do think there would be some net gain to the public pressure. My guess is the AR hunters will stagger their draws within their group to keep leases if it comes to a draw system. And what I am saying is the access issue is because of people locking down ground to improve their hunting experience and that is BOTH NR AND R.

 

[Primosguy]

I’m not saying that at all but what I am saying is MO could allow zero NR licenses and the access for MO residents to private ground would not get much better if any. I don’t believe that the farms IF let go by the AR hunters would not be leased up again. The numbers I am referring to are on the tag and harvest data charts letemgrow posted. 10 less R tags for each one NR increase. If the AR hunters can draw every other year you think they are going to let the lease go? I’m local to the state and I have lost far more permission from locals locking it down than I have from NR leases. No doubt different area of the state but eliminating 100% of the NR tags is not going to greatly open access in several parts of the state. I do think there would be some net gain to the public pressure. My guess is the AR hunters will stagger their draws within their group to keep leases if it comes to a draw system. And what I am saying is the access issue is because of people locking down ground to improve their hunting experience and that is BOTH NR AND R.

I agree, if the MDC stopped over the counter tags and the AR hunters gave up the leases they definitely would get leased again. My point is that they would in turn get leased by residents, thus granting more access to resident hunters. I also agree there could be some strategic staggering of hunting parties to make sure one member a year got to hunt, etc. and would entice them to keep the lease. All valid points. I'd be interested in limiting the tags and dividing them into gun/archery and making them pick one or the other. That way at least there would be reduced pressure in each season. At the end of the day I do agree with what you're saying and I'm not blaming the NR. But access is limited due to the fact that it is based on land, and there's only so much of it. Introducing an additional 80k NR hunters or whatever that number is to that dynamic by default would cause some people to lose access bc again, there's only so much land.

 

[Hardwood11]

The MDC is considering changes to the price and availability of tags for NR. I hope they clarify the plan as soon as possible.

It’s going to have an impact on land values if they eliminate the Nonresident Landowner Tag?

Hopefully “they”—the decision makers don’t leave us hanging on what’s next ?

 

[Muskrat24]

The MDC is considering changes to the price and availability of tags for NR. I hope they clarify the plan as soon as possible.

It’s going to have an impact on land values if they eliminate the Nonresident Landowner Tag?

Hopefully “they”—the decision makers don’t leave us hanging on what’s next ?

From what I’ve heard and read it is LIKELY going to mirror what they have done to the turkey tags. NR limited to one buck. On the turkey side you can buy a second tag for LO turkey tags are $300 one bird statewide and $190 LO one bird. Separate tags now. Sounds like they are also looking to restrict NR on public or maybe draw or pay an additional public land license.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Step in the right direction IMO. I hope the state of MO keeps going for the sake of the RESIDENTS of the state of MO. I've long said I would consider moving to northern MO if they would fix their hunting regulations.

 

[Hardwood11]

Step in the right direction IMO. I hope the state of MO keeps going for the sake of the RESIDENTS of the state of MO. I've long said I would consider moving to northern MO if they would fix their hunting regulations.

Whatever they do … they do . I’d just hope they let us know as landowners so we can either sell and buy somewhere else, or adjust to the changes .

It’s funny you hear you knew the rules when you bought on IW, until they change them …so it’s not really a phrase that should be used .

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Whatever they do … they do . I’d just hope they let us know as landowners so we can either sell and buy somewhere else, or adjust to the changes .

It’s funny you hear you knew the rules when you bought on IW, until they change them …so it’s not really a phrase that should be used .

Fair and valid point. Doesn't sounds like MO is shutting out NR amd certainly not NRLOs. Def need some changes tho. Most potential in the country... by far imo

 

[Hardwood11]

Well it’s still up in the air . If they (Missouri) went 1 buck and moved the gun season back two weeks it would be damn impressive… baby steps.

 

[Sligh1]

Here’s a real ? I ask myself …. If MI, MO, MN, WI, IL, etc - all got common sense regs…. Late gun, 1 buck, no corn piles, NR quota, crossbows put in their own season, etc…. What would happen to the desire for those living in those states to leave for “better hunting”? At 47…. I don’t want to drive 5 or 10 hours to hunt or own land. I personally think most don’t & would vastly prefer to do it within an hour of their homes.
If those common sense regs happened …. & some will…. Those guys aren’t gonna flee their states. They ain’t gonna drive 2, 5, 15 hours to hunt the same animal but an older one…. As they will have them in their own states in the numbers they wanted when they left each year for destination hunts. Each great state will get far less pressure as they won’t be the tiny handful of states or areas with great hunting. If I’m in WI & it’s $660 & 5-6 years to draw an iowa tag BUT…. Now I have a consistent chance at 4-6 year old bucks…. I’m not hunting iowa anymore. Same with any of these states.
Even MI, MN, MO & WI each have 17m to 19m acres of timber with far more deer vs 2.8m acres in iowa. If those states are great - there is almost no point in going through the hassle of coming to iowa. Those states alone & combined have almost 80 million acres of timber & 20x the amount of deer iowa has…. We have 2.8m acres of timber with less than half million deer!!!!!!
& this my friends- is the goal- every state reaches its potential for the average guy. Exactly who this helps. The everyday dude & even the serious guys who leave their crappy systems to find states that have older bucks.
If all these states had common sense regs- the only reason to go to another state would be: 1) different scenary & an adventure 2) dudes who were the crazed hunters (like I was in my 20’s) that wanted to shoot a few bucks a year & travel to do it. 3) maybe a tradition like some old deer camp or some obscure reason.
Access in all states would lighten up. Age class & balance would grow in every single case by huge amounts. Doe #’s would be properly managed (glad to explain how & why), leasing & outfitting would slow. Everyday kid & guy would have better hunting. Public lands would be less crowded. On & on. There’s literally 98-99 points of upside to maybe 1-2 points of downside if most Midwest states had common sense regs. Someone might say “better hunting will drive up land prices” …. Not so & especially not so when there’s “great or better hunting all over”. More of it- less need to buy up land & lock up access. Crap hunting drives land prices up & the demand to hunt the last few great places. Which is what’s happened in last 10-20 years. This will reverse or drastically slow that. Common sense regs help everyone & the last & most important part….. it helps the RESOURCE. That resource that has no voice. That resource which has traditionally been ignored because of “MY DESIRES” & got hammered in last 10-20 years with “sure, add anything u want!!” Common sense conservative regulations fix almost all the issues over a large area. Will fix these broken states. The states that got broke from liberal regs. About frigin time that common sense regs prevailed across the
Midwest.

 

[MarkF]

Whatever they do … they do . I’d just hope they let us know as landowners so we can either sell and buy somewhere else, or adjust to the changes .

It’s funny you hear you knew the rules when you bought on IW, until they change them …so it’s not really a phrase that should be used .

In this instance if Missouri changes the laws you’d be correct but Iowa has been a draw state based on preference points for probably as long as any of us has owned land here (possibly it’s always been that way) and that has not changed. It might have gone from 0 points 30 years ago to 6 points now but the system is still the same with the same number of tags allocated as it was back then.

 

[Windlooker]

He’s talking about Iowa eliminating the nrlo doe archery tag and the elimination of nr party hunting. Both were in place when he, and others purchased, only to be changed.

 

[Sligh1]

He’s talking about Iowa eliminating the nrlo doe archery tag and the elimination of nr party hunting. Both were in place when he, and others purchased, only to be changed.

That is a fair point. I remember when that happened. The NRLO doe archery tag was getting abused extremely bad. So I do “get it” why they changed that. I don’t disagree with u at all & also understand why they changed that.
For residents- regs have been fluid as well & ever changing…. Good or bad. Shed buck season added, taken away & added again & likely eliminated again. Gazillion doe tags added - then dialed back again. CWD seasons & tags. Short wall rifles added. Crossbows added to ML seasons.
All states & regs have changed & should change. The problem large scale is: MOST the changes have been more killing. More lethal, more weapons, more tags, more technology.
The cases of dialing it back, some great common sense examples: IN (& I think KY) going to 1 buck. CO eliminating some OTC tags for NR elk. Out west has countless examples of tightening things up quickly when they needed to. I wish regs in most states would be able to react far faster when big issues arise (access, ehd die offs, high or low populations, etc). Things have changed a lot in last 20 years- it’s just most has been the wrong direction. Truly believe we are witnessing a “revolution” right now where FINALLY the regs in these train wreck states will get corrected. I’m very optimistic about the future. For every state in Midwest that changes for the better - it actually helps iowa get some relief. It’s the right thing to do for those states- no doubt- but I will gladly take some pressure relief on our targeted state.

 

[Hardwood11]

What we run into in Minnesota is the most powerful lobbying group (The Minnesota Deer Hunters Association) are mostly gun hunters. They don’t want to move the gun season out of the rut.

A good percentage of them hunt the thick timber of central and northern MN. They won’t see as many deer without the rut is their response.

It’s a tough battle, we are outnumbered. However, the number of hunters that support moving the gun season back is increasing & it’s close to 50/50 now .

Minnesota has very minor issues with nonresidents, except for fishing. Lots of fishermen from outstate !!

If Minnesota could move the gun season back two weeks & (1) buck max! Wow .. look out !

 

[Sligh1]

What we run into in Minnesota is the most powerful lobbying group (The Minnesota Deer Hunters Association) are mostly gun hunters. They don’t want to move the gun season out of the rut.

A good percentage of them hunt the thick timber of central and northern MN. They won’t see as many deer without the rut is their response.

It’s a tough battle, we are outnumbered. However, the number of hunters that support moving the gun season back is increasing & it’s close to 50/50 now .

Minnesota has very minor issues with nonresidents, except for fishing. Lots of fishermen from outstate !!

If Minnesota could move the gun season back two weeks & (1) buck max! Wow .. look out !

Bet u that MN deer hunters association- the way u described it…. Bet u their membership is plummeting. My wild guess (with 0 insight)…. That group dies &/or a common sense group is created & overtakes that old school group that keeps MN in the crapper. Younger generation has had it with hunting & resource being ruined and going in wrong direction. 25-55 year olds get it. & they are coming into power. Common sense is coming back with this next generation. MN gets closer to changing for the better each season that goes by…. Old stubborn guys phase out & younger guys that “get it” take over. Let’s go MN!!!

 

[seven twenty]

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure the NR rules concerning party hunting weren’t changed. They just decided to enforce it as written and intended. There was no new law passed.

 

[Sligh1]

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure the NR rules concerning party hunting weren’t changed. They just decided to enforce it as written and intended. There was no new law passed.

Exactly right. The law was written 2 ways. One said for res & 1 didn’t specify. There was piles of laws like this in all categories on iowa state laws. They were tasked by Governor to go through all laws with multiple interpretations & clarify the correct intent. Had 0 to do with their cares about deer hunting in reality. They took intended or first written language that specified Resident only that was already in the law. That’s why it didn’t have to be legislated…. It already existed in 1 of 2 laws that said it was for Res.

 

[Hardwood11]

Bet u that MN deer hunters association- the way u described it…. Bet u their membership is plummeting. My wild guess (with 0 insight)…. That group dies &/or a common sense group is created & overtakes that old school group that keeps MN in the crapper. Younger generation has had it with hunting & resource being ruined and going in wrong direction. 25-55 year olds get it. & they are coming into power. Common sense is coming back with this next generation. MN gets closer to changing for the better each season that goes by…. Old stubborn guys phase out & younger guys that “get it” take over. Let’s go MN!!!

You are right, there are a lot of young hunters in Minnesota that want change. Mostly bow guys. These kids (many are my son’s age) are avid archery enthusiasts.

They grew up shooting carp and they are more into archery overall. These same guys love to hunt coyotes. I’m surprised how many of these young kids have $$$ thermal set ups already .

Hopefully they get more involve and push for change !

 

[Windlooker]

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure the NR rules concerning party hunting weren’t changed. They just decided to enforce it as written and intended. There was no new law passed.

Now we’re splitting hairs. The bottom line is NRs were hurting in shotgun season with residents/sharing tags and it was perceived, and NRs were told by cos, it was legal.

I don’t care how the law was written nr purchased land being told about that gun season loophole that existed for years. Then it was decided to be enforced and changed.

We all go 75 in a 70 mph zone going down I 35 and know we’re not getting pulled over. One day the state patrol decides 71 mph will be stopped, no more 5 or 8 mph over the limit. No law was altered but it’s a change.

I was a nrlo and I know what I was told by law enforcement. I’m a rlo now but the law was changed whether it was through legislation or hey let’s enforce it now after two decades, doesn’t matter.

 

[Muskrat24]

Either way it is a change for the better for Iowa residents and that is what should matter. I own land and hunt on permission in MO. Am I complaining about the changes MO made to NR turkey tags or the LIKELY coming changes for NR deer tags, nope. I have to choose where I am a resident. Change is going to happen and very few changes are made now in the hunting laws/states to benefit NR in any state. So why should Iowa cater to NR. Take percentage of tags allocated to NR in western states. You think any states are increasing that percentage, I can answer it, no.