OFFENSE!! 2 Bills to support!! SF 293 & SF 247 EMAIL IN!!! What a great change!!!!

[Muskrat24]

Good posts!!!!
The SPECIAL INTEREST here…. The Resource. The deer herd. Other hunters. The DNR & dnr biologists & their frustrations. The legislators taking flack & attack on “u guys allow 3 bucks to be shot”. This ammo for NR’s is gonna continue to be used. If we wanna all drop from 3 to 2…. Let’s go. All for it.
Here’s my main concern with “human beings” & some “hunters”….. if we see ANYTHING where we personally have to give something up…. “No way”. I hear from literally thousands in different ways “our hunting going in wrong direction”. “We have this or that issue”. “Too much killing, too few deer. Mature deer rare”. “Regs have gotten way too liberalized”. “PLEASE GO TO 1 BUCK!!” Whatever…..
now there’s ONE BILL in 20 years that dials things back the TINIEST bit & some folks get fired up. No- I personally don’t believe the dude with 2 or 5 acres should get a THIRD buck tag. Living with 2 buck tags, to me in this current environment seems like “no big deal”. But that’s me & im not everyone. I realize I’m extreme …. If hunting went down the tubes badly enough & I had to have ONE buck tag to save the resource & future of hunters…. I’d do it in a second.
So- the reason NOT to support this bill is: it’s going to piss THAT group of people off…. Possibly causing a rift in hunting community? Genuine ?…. Are we in agreement that’s the strongest argument?

For those same folks (no disrespect & I’m being extremely genuine & open minded here on a hot topic)…. If the law was currently 40 acres for 3rd buck tag & we had a bill to drop it to 2 acres…. What would the merits or points of your debate be to pass that?

The same folks, if we proposed giving a 4th buck tag to landowners with 2 or more acres…. Would u support that or not?

Honest ?’s & good faith debate here. U ask me a direct ?….. I’ll answer it so please feel free to fire a direct ? Back. & I assure you all on any side of this discussion- this debate, process & “hot topics” are part of ANY political Bill or proposal. This is America & how we go about any changes…. Good or bad… we discuss, debate & the “good faith members” of the debate truly work together to COMPROMISE, change their minds or allow themselves to be persuaded. There’s no issue I won’t listen to POV’s or if someone wanted to bring me aside to persuade me…. I’m always open to it.

Skip, I’ve saw you mention this a few places now about the legislators firing back about allowing 3 bucks to be harvested. One, can we get the data on the number of hunters that actually harvest three bucks in one year? Second, why not go to two buck harvest and take that argument away from the legislators making it? Third how did we land on a counter offensive to the “well you allow 3 buck harvest” to increase the LOT acres? To me that is a pretty good stretch of a response going from legislators arguing “well you allow three buck harvest” and the group landing on “how bout we increase the LOT acres to 40+”…. Legislators are still going to say “well you allow three buck harvest” and they will not be wrong. So we took a problem, are fixing a DIFFERENT moral issue that arguably/factually MIGHT save ~2K bucks a year and still leave the legislators with their initial counter argument against us. Fix is simple, two buck limit EXACTLY how spring turkey is already. We should be able to get the data on how many people this truly affects with the number of hunters harvesting three bucks (small is my guess) and takes away the oppositions counter argument against us. PLUS you fix the LOT at the same time because the <40 acre owners can still harvest two bucks on their two acre parcel even after the acreage increase as proposed. So you have essentially fixed both issues. The proposed verbiage would still allow the <40 acre landowners to harvest two bucks on statewide tags which would also be accomplished by 2 buck limit AND it takes away the legislators counter argument all together. PLUS actually does something meaningful for the resource. As I have mentioned any RLO that can’t get on board with this would not have a valid statewide “resource” defense. Plenty of people that would love to shoot their ONE cull buck that they are missing out on by giving up an any sex tag. Still offer the floating LOT which is a great perk to RLO. And still allow the ability to purchase two statewide any sex licenses but only allowed to harvest two bucks unless urban.

 

[Muskrat24]

Follow-up to my post above. We continue to hear how many fewer deer habitat acres Iowa has than the surrounding “POORLY” managed Midwest states and we morally think it makes sense to allow three bucks to be harvested by RLO yet NO OTHER “POORLY” managed state around us allows for three bucks to be harvested. We take a HARD moral stance on saying <40 acre owners are not “entitled” to three bucks but >40 acres are…. No more of a moral/resource argument to allow three bucks in Iowa than there is to say 2 acres is morally not enough to get a LOT license IMO. Bad optics and hard to defend <40 you can’t but >40 you can while arguing Iowa has less habitat than surrounding states that don’t allow three at all. Unfortunately times have changed. We are more effective at killing deer with more weapons and longer seasons AND likely more hunters spending more time in the field with a much lower deer population, and less habitat than 40 years ago so it is time for a reduction to any sex harvests. BUT I also think as part of that argument we also put a 10 year cap on NR any sex licenses at the current number so residents don’t get sold out after making the sacrifice of their third buck harvest.

 

[Hardwood11]

Follow-up to my post above. We continue to hear how many fewer deer habitat acres Iowa has than the surrounding “POORLY” managed Midwest states and we morally think it makes sense to allow three bucks to be harvested by RLO yet NO OTHER “POORLY” managed state around us allows for three bucks to be harvested. We take a HARD moral stance on saying <40 acre owners are not “entitled” to three bucks but >40 acres are…. No more of a moral/resource argument to allow three bucks in Iowa than there is to say 2 acres is morally not enough to get a LOT license IMO. Bad optics and hard to defend <40 you can’t but >40 you can while arguing Iowa has less habitat than surrounding states that don’t allow three at all. Unfortunately times have changed. We are more effective at killing deer with more weapons and longer seasons AND likely more hunters spending more time in the field with a much lower deer population, and less habitat than 40 years ago so it is time for a reduction to any sex harvests. BUT I also think as part of that argument we also put a 10 year cap on NR any sex licenses at the current number so residents don’t get sold out after making the sacrifice of their third buck harvest.

You want a 10 year cap on Nonresident deer hunting, because you have to give up your 3rd buck as a resident? Are you serious or throwing out darts?

 

[newfarmer]

You want a 10 year cap on Nonresident deer hunting, because you have to give up your 3rd buck as a resident? Are you serious or throwing out darts?

I think he meant it as in "no additional tags added for ten years" I could be wrong... fearing, somehow, Nonresident landowners with 40+ acres will get tags added (thats how I read it anyway)

 

[Sligh1]

Skip, I’ve saw you mention this a few places now about the legislators firing back about allowing 3 bucks to be harvested. One, can we get the data on the number of hunters that actually harvest three bucks in one year? Second, why not go to two buck harvest and take that argument away from the legislators making it? Third how did we land on a counter offensive to the “well you allow 3 buck harvest” to increase the LOT acres? To me that is a pretty good stretch of a response going from legislators arguing “well you allow three buck harvest” and the group landing on “how bout we increase the LOT acres to 40+”…. Legislators are still going to say “well you allow three buck harvest” and they will not be wrong. So we took a problem, are fixing a DIFFERENT moral issue that arguably/factually MIGHT save ~2K bucks a year and still leave the legislators with their initial counter argument against us. Fix is simple, two buck limit EXACTLY how spring turkey is already. We should be able to get the data on how many people this truly affects with the number of hunters harvesting three bucks (small is my guess) and takes away the oppositions counter argument against us. PLUS you fix the LOT at the same time because the <40 acre owners can still harvest two bucks on their two acre parcel even after the acreage increase as proposed. So you have essentially fixed both issues. The proposed verbiage would still allow the <40 acre landowners to harvest two bucks on statewide tags which would also be accomplished by 2 buck limit AND it takes away the legislators counter argument all together. PLUS actually does something meaningful for the resource. As I have mentioned any RLO that can’t get on board with this would not have a valid statewide “resource” defense. Plenty of people that would love to shoot their ONE cull buck that they are missing out on by giving up an any sex tag. Still offer the floating LOT which is a great perk to RLO. And still allow the ability to purchase two statewide any sex licenses but only allowed to harvest two bucks unless urban.

GREAT QUESTION!!!!!
1) I’ll look at more recent data on how many bucks got shot …. I’ve seen it but it was a bit older… I would say the last 2 years the # will be way down since so many areas have been hammered with ehd, few deer, etc. The best recollection I had was subset of data had small parcel land at like “a thousand bucks per year”. Maybe 2-3k at its peak. 3 bucks total ….I would have to think it’s gone to half of its peak (guessing 5-15k at the PEAKS) since harvest is in half & probably even less since we’ve been hammered for a Couple years now.
****there’s 2 ways to improve our “buck situation” BTW…. One is to increase deer #’s & thats the most impactful. The second is to chip away at the losses where a pile go here or there. SHED BUCK SEASON….. probably a few thousand shed bucks & button bucks shot. 3rd buck tag…. Probably few thousand there. If there was stomach for it (probably isn’t since many don’t want to give an inch)… stop buck tag sharing during shotgun… probably a few thousand there. Add all these up… let’s say it’s 6-10k bucks…. That’s an extremely noticeable amount of bucks that every hunter would see the impacts of & EVERY HUNTER would then say … wow, hunting is better for EVERYONE! With a few “minor” tweaks to our seasons or regs. But, there lies the problem, no one wants to give an inch.
2) i do think it’s wise to go to 2 bucks per year. This is what I suggested. But there were so many groups or folks with concerns & complaints about small acreage that the compromise was “start with <40 acres. See how it goes & we can assess 2 bucks statewide later. Or something along those lines. When you hear from guys wanting “special tags” …. When they bring up the 3 buck tags …. About HALF the time they accompany it with “it’s so easy for you to hand out an extra buck tag, a person with 5 acres can get a third but we can’t get one?!?!”


In this whole deal here I could be called a “messenger” or maybe someone that tries to get all parties on same page in a meaningful compromise/agreement. All involved would like some concerns of various groups addressed like I’ve said & explained their POV loosely earlier in thread. They posed & I repeated a few ?’s that have been brought up when varying groups discuss/debate…. They are gonna keep coming up!!! & I can’t get one person to answer it!! This is how any debate or discussion happens on a
Bill, change or thinking through the issue….. these ?’s or variations will continue to surface & id gladly say “this is the POV of those opposed to this_____”. So PLEASE, fire some response to this….
These are ?’s that would come up way after questions like “has access gotten far worse? Buck quality deminished? Complaints & abuses of program? What other Midwest states allow 3 bucks?” etc etc etc

These are some ?’s that would be asked if someone was in the thick of debate …. Like the ?’s or not, these would be posed & folks would look at you for an answer…
A) what are the merits (in the current hunting landscape) of shooting a 3rd buck off 2 or 5 acres for example?
B) if the law was 40 acres to get a 3rd buck tag & the bill was to dropped the acreage requirement to 2 acres, would u support it? Do you think it would have any meaningful support from the public?
C) would u support Residents who didn’t own land to get a 3rd buck tag?
D) would you support a 4th buck tag for those with 2+ acres

You might hate these ?’s or ignore them but they are being asked & I haven’t heard responses that are persuasive. If you were sitting at capital with 7-8 different groups there with various positions, how would you answer it?

 

[Thinkin Rut]

Fix is simple, two buck limit EXACTLY how spring turkey is already.

The most simple, most fair and best chance to pass hands down.

The only way I could get behind 247 would be to grandfather in those currently owning or getting ready to close on a piece less than 40. I can't justify kicking a resident in the teeth.

 

[trophybluf@borderlandnet.]

I'm all about cleaning up fraud and abuse. I'm also for taking the grey areas out of the regs. This though, seems to fall into the category of don't let a good crisis go to waste. EHD being the crisis. EHD is killing way more deer than a 3 acre LO. Seems to me we're trying to fix the result of something and not the problem itself. Unfortunately EHD has no fix except the fullness of time. Hopefully we don't take our eye off the ball...the cumulative effect of everything else that plagues Whitetail hunting today. Good news though, after this cold snap the Turkey should be going nuts and sheds on the ground!

I could not agree more with your comment. What has changed since 2008, other than many devastating outbreaks of EHD, along with the big line of bs that we need to shoot almost every doe we see. EHD is a virus and I, 100% believe it can be minimized. Instead of having mega dollars funneled into CWD which is a prion disease and 100% fatal, which I believe will not be solved in anyone's lifetime on here, funnel half the dollars into EHD research. After all there is not a cure for Creutzfeldt-Jakob, which is a prion disease in humans and they have been researching it forever. CWD takes a few years to be fatal and most critters probably don't live long enough to die from the disease as opposed to EHD which kills most deer 24 to 36 hours after showing symptoms. Cattle are the main carrier of EHD and the midge transfers it from cattle to deer. If EHD were fatal in large amounts of cattle it would have been solved a long time ago.

Personally, I do not believe cutting LO tags off of small farms will solve either the population problem or create many more mature bucks. Most small land owners probably use them for convenience and not to kill another buck. I just think there are much bigger fish to fry in the future and will take everyone on board. If EHD is not minimized along with not killing your last doe, I believe we will be back here going to one or zero bucks in a season. Solve the real problem and population and tag issues will go away!

 

[Windlooker]

If small lot owners, 2 to 10 acres, are honest in no way would that justify 3 bucks in the current environment. Should have never been 2 acres. If I’m a legislator who cares about the resource how do I justify it?

Like someone mentioned many small lot are abused by hunting other properties and/or tagging other hunters deer ie nr friend/relative etc That’s common sense and it happens often. I think 40 is too small, should be 80 at least.

 

[Thinkin Rut]

I think 40 is too small, should be 80 at least.

Make it 120 as long as you grandfather the small LOs in. The reality is, if the deer population wasn't artificially pushed lower by EHD this wouldn't even be on the table....it wouldn't stand a chance in hell at being passed. This bill has all the merit in the world, I just don't like the timing of it.

 

[newfarmer]

GREAT QUESTION!!!!!
1) I’ll look at more recent data on how many bucks got shot …. I’ve seen it but it was a bit older… I would say the last 2 years the # will be way down since so many areas have been hammered with ehd, few deer, etc. The best recollection I had was subset of data had small parcel land at like “a thousand bucks per year”. Maybe 2-3k at its peak. 3 bucks total ….I would have to think it’s gone to half of its peak (guessing 5-15k at the PEAKS) since harvest is in half & probably even less since we’ve been hammered for a Couple years now.
****there’s 2 ways to improve our “buck situation” BTW…. One is to increase deer #’s & thats the most impactful. The second is to chip away at the losses where a pile go here or there. SHED BUCK SEASON….. probably a few thousand shed bucks & button bucks shot. 3rd buck tag…. Probably few thousand there. If there was stomach for it (probably isn’t since many don’t want to give an inch)… stop buck tag sharing during shotgun… probably a few thousand there. Add all these up… let’s say it’s 6-10k bucks…. That’s an extremely noticeable amount of bucks that every hunter would see the impacts of & EVERY HUNTER would then say … wow, hunting is better for EVERYONE! With a few “minor” tweaks to our seasons or regs. But, there lies the problem, no one wants to give an inch.
2) i do think it’s wise to go to 2 bucks per year. This is what I suggested. But there were so many groups or folks with concerns & complaints about small acreage that the compromise was “start with <40 acres. See how it goes & we can assess 2 bucks statewide later. Or something along those lines. When you hear from guys wanting “special tags” …. When they bring up the 3 buck tags …. About HALF the time they accompany it with “it’s so easy for you to hand out an extra buck tag, a person with 5 acres can get a third but we can’t get one?!?!”


In this whole deal here I could be called a “messenger” or maybe someone that tries to get all parties on same page in a meaningful compromise/agreement. All involved would like some concerns of various groups addressed like I’ve said & explained their POV loosely earlier in thread. They posed & I repeated a few ?’s that have been brought up when varying groups discuss/debate…. They are gonna keep coming up!!! & I can’t get one person to answer it!! This is how any debate or discussion happens on a
Bill, change or thinking through the issue….. these ?’s or variations will continue to surface & id gladly say “this is the POV of those opposed to this_____”. So PLEASE, fire some response to this….
These are ?’s that would come up way after questions like “has access gotten far worse? Buck quality deminished? Complaints & abuses of program? What other Midwest states allow 3 bucks?” etc etc etc

These are some ?’s that would be asked if someone was in the thick of debate …. Like the ?’s or not, these would be posed & folks would look at you for an answer…
A) what are the merits (in the current hunting landscape) of shooting a 3rd buck off 2 or 5 acres for example?
B) if the law was 40 acres to get a 3rd buck tag & the bill was to dropped the acreage requirement to 2 acres, would u support it? Do you think it would have any meaningful support from the public?
C) would u support Residents who didn’t own land to get a 3rd buck tag?
D) would you support a 4th buck tag for those with 2+ acres

You might hate these ?’s or ignore them but they are being asked & I haven’t heard responses that are persuasive. If you were sitting at capital with 7-8 different groups there with various positions, how would you answer it?

Your questions
What merits shooting an “extra” buck off more than 40? Again we keep all the talk about “bucks”. Let’s not forget this is any sex. I’ve thrown out my neighboring apple orchard is 37 acres and DNR says they don’t have enough damage for dep tags. So now they can’t attempt to keep doe numbers back (as they are in a no doe county). My home 17- again- where I’m registered per my DNR officer- I also have fruit trees, various fruits/vegetables, flowers, bees- etc. “homestead” if you’d like to say it that way- that we bring in money. I don’t “qualify” with this piece, but can put down my 67 acre rental, and still come back here? That’s a loophole and not right. I have 40+ deer here a night right now as they dig through everything. (Clearly it’s a time of year but still plenty on my piece)
If it was 40 and dropped to 2- again- let’s revisit qualifications first. What are the true pieces/reasoning. Are the current regulations enforceable? I’ve registered my piece, not my hunting farm and not my rental. What’s stopping me from going anywhere? Do you have true substantial reasoning to say “2” is the number? My county currently you cannot buy less than 10 acres unless it’s in a subdivision or you create one (or buy pre existing)- so my answer is 10 acres is legit for that reason. Now do I want a bunch of 10 acres parcels- no- so again- what qualifications.
Let’s be real- residents can shoot a 3rd buck with either party hunting or urban hunts. Just like owning land- it’s a choice you make if you want to or not- no one has made you only stick to 2 bucks.
4th buck tag? Again- let me go party hunt and shoot 6? Nothing stops me today from doing that.

We talk a lot about the resource and it’s always about the bucks. “People will see more bucks and thinks hunting is better”. Not the case. Let’s talk the real resource of deer in general. Making it buck versus doe is not helping any of this conversation.
Everyone has pointed to EHD, doe harvest in areas does need to stop. Maybe the areas that just were hammered with buck only during first shotgun didn’t help. Seems like they went away from some of that pretty quick and I doubt numbers rebounded that quickly.
If it’s truly about the resource and if there is truly that much push from non residents who own ground wanting tags- then the true answer is eliminate all LOT. Period, end of story. If we really are talking about the resource.

Everyone talks about the turkey tag- I will be honest- no idea what that is as I haven’t turkey hunted for 15+ years.
Is that the other best route?

 

[MarkF]

This bill is a stepping stone in the right direction, get this passed and then work on getting everyone down to 2 buck tags. This is exactly what the opposition does, get straight walls passed then get necked cartridges, get crossbows in late season then go for full inclusion. The reason the opposition does it this way is because it works and we should be doing the same thing. Gotta start somewhere

 

[Muskrat24]

You want a 10 year cap on Nonresident deer hunting, because you have to give up your 3rd buck as a resident? Are you serious or throwing out darts?

I am saying if we are referring to helping the resource which some of these bills are hiding behind, why would we as residents support reducing resident harvest to help the resource and then lose ground on the resource help by allowing more NR harvest??

 

[Muskrat24]

Your questions
What merits shooting an “extra” buck off more than 40? Again we keep all the talk about “bucks”. Let’s not forget this is any sex. I’ve thrown out my neighboring apple orchard is 37 acres and DNR says they don’t have enough damage for dep tags. So now they can’t attempt to keep doe numbers back (as they are in a no doe county). My home 17- again- where I’m registered per my DNR officer- I also have fruit trees, various fruits/vegetables, flowers, bees- etc. “homestead” if you’d like to say it that way- that we bring in money. I don’t “qualify” with this piece, but can put down my 67 acre rental, and still come back here? That’s a loophole and not right. I have 40+ deer here a night right now as they dig through everything. (Clearly it’s a time of year but still plenty on my piece)
If it was 40 and dropped to 2- again- let’s revisit qualifications first. What are the true pieces/reasoning. Are the current regulations enforceable? I’ve registered my piece, not my hunting farm and not my rental. What’s stopping me from going anywhere? Do you have true substantial reasoning to say “2” is the number? My county currently you cannot buy less than 10 acres unless it’s in a subdivision or you create one (or buy pre existing)- so my answer is 10 acres is legit for that reason. Now do I want a bunch of 10 acres parcels- no- so again- what qualifications.
Let’s be real- residents can shoot a 3rd buck with either party hunting or urban hunts. Just like owning land- it’s a choice you make if you want to or not- no one has made you only stick to 2 bucks.
4th buck tag? Again- let me go party hunt and shoot 6? Nothing stops me today from doing that.

We talk a lot about the resource and it’s always about the bucks. “People will see more bucks and thinks hunting is better”. Not the case. Let’s talk the real resource of deer in general. Making it buck versus doe is not helping any of this conversation.
Everyone has pointed to EHD, doe harvest in areas does need to stop. Maybe the areas that just were hammered with buck only during first shotgun didn’t help. Seems like they went away from some of that pretty quick and I doubt numbers rebounded that quickly.
If it’s truly about the resource and if there is truly that much push from non residents who own ground wanting tags- then the true answer is eliminate all LOT. Period, end of story. If we really are talking about the resource.

Everyone talks about the turkey tag- I will be honest- no idea what that is as I haven’t turkey hunted for 15+ years.
Is that the other best route?

CORRECTION MADE:As a RLO I can purchase two statewide turkey licenses or one can be a LOT license. I can only harvest two birds legally. Plain and simple how it should be for deer.

 

[newfarmer]

As a RLO I can purchase two statewide turkey licenses and a LOT turkey license. Even tho I have three valid turkey licenses during season, I can only harvest two birds legally. Plain and simple how it should be for antlered bucks. Crazy that they are different to start with in my opinion.

Thank you, I honestly did not know that answer.

 

[Windlooker]

I am saying if we are referring to helping the resource which some of these bills are hiding behind, why would we as residents support reducing resident harvest to help the resource and then lose ground on the resource help by allowing more NR harvest??

How are we increasing NR harvest? NR allocation is still at 6000, the bill that was reserving 600 nrlo tags has been amended removing that item, nr party hunting was eliminated by the dnr and the bill suggesting tags at half price for nr family members is slow walking. It died last year and will this year too.

 

[Muskrat24]

How are we increasing NR harvest? NR allocation is still at 6000, the bill that was reserving 600 nrlo tags has been amended removing that item, nr party hunting was eliminated by the dnr and the bill suggesting tags at half price for nr family members is slow walking. It died last year and will this year too.

SF 179 to start

Would you be interested in supporting increasing NR tags when the majority of the hunting population and data says the resource is trending downward? How could we make an argument that certain landowners shouldn’t harvest 3 bucks (I never have) to make a baby step to help the resource but then out of our same mouth say that it makes sense to give more opportunity (licenses) to NR. Every year we battle more liberal NR deer opportunity. If we put a cap on the total NR tags for X years at least that gets some buy in from residents that the every year bombardment of NR opportunity does not undermine the resident effort to help the resource.

 

[Windlooker]

SF 179 to start

Would you be interested in supporting increasing NR tags when the majority of the hunting population and data says the resource is trending downward? How could we make an argument that certain landowners shouldn’t harvest 3 bucks (I never have) to make a baby step to help the resource but then out of our same mouth say that it makes sense to give more opportunity (licenses) to NR. Every year we battle more liberal NR deer opportunity. If we put a cap on the total NR tags for X years at least that gets some buy in from residents that the every year bombardment of NR opportunity does not undermine the resident effort to help the resource.

SF 179 died last year and it will this year. Do you read anyone’s posts. NRs have gained nothing, I used to be one.

 

[Thinkin Rut]

Thank you, I honestly did not know that answer.

I think you can only buy 2...one is free to the landowner. Might have that wrong? One has to be the 4th season unless you commit to hunting with a bow.

 

[BDAHMS]

I’m always skeptical of groups asking for money/support. I’ll freely admit I’ve paid for the membership for this because I believed in the cause. I was skeptical from the beginning but I’d pay a lot to keep Iowa great. I’m glad I only paid the bare minimum for a membership and did not donate any real money to an organization that is cherry picking winners and losers in this fight. I’m just asking for honesty. Don’t ask for our money then tell us how you know how to spend it better than us without our input. This is why all our politics are screwed up. We’ve all seen John Kerry tell us why we need to lower our carbon footprint and drive electric cars while he traveled the world in private jets.. Just be honest with your goals. Plenty supporting all this have good intentions but there’s plenty of others that just want to limit the great residents of this state. Any reg that limits some resident with a little less land or a little less money than others is garbage. Nobody should ever listen to people that have more than you that ask you to take less while they give up nothing. That goes for everything. Not just hunting.

expand more on this if you can. To run an organization, it takes capital. To have a paid lobbyist be present to be on top of these discussions at the capital, it takes capital. The reason why companies like that ask for resources, is because it takes resources in most cases to do what's needed to help make a difference. The Board of ISC is ran by individuals that are everyday outdoorsman with the future of Iowa in mind. Are you saying the organizations that supported this bill aren't worth supporting in general because of the little guy verse big guy debate? Like stated by Skip and others, when trying to help, can't help but make someone mad, an as a result take good intentions and make them appear as bad.

Have you written in? Been publicly present to sway these bills in the direction you are passionate about? Written to the ISC to open a discussion on ways to better represent landowners of not just big parcels but yours as well since it seemed to cause questions of why you ever chose to support? I know the ISC twice has asked for opinions, topics, and discussions to better understand the general populations wants, and will again run a survey soon for issues/topics. And again, it's almost a brand-new organization that (biased here maybe since I sit on the board) outside of IBA and skip, I really haven't seen too many (hardly any) take the hard to find time, money or initiative with seeing the direction Iowa and our legislation has been going in regard to our whitetails to do much about it aside from online chat forums.

genuinely sorry to see you feel the way you did to write that about the ISC, hopefully actions on future issues can help change that perspective on not just ISC but other organizations taking action.

 

[Muskrat24]

SF 179 died last year and it will this year. Do you read anyone’s posts. NRs have gained nothing, I used to be one.

I’m just giving an option to not have to keep fighting these same type of proposed bills to improve NR opportunity every year. Then that would allow more time and capital to be spent toward “the offensive”. I’m also saying if bills are being proposed to help the resource which would impact resident opportunity, like going to two bucks total, at least we would have the assurance that legislators don’t back door more NR tags. Hopefully that makes it more clear?