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

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

Nrharris said:
Removing tenants from the LOT is a crock. The tenant on ag ground is the one that is hurt by wildlife damage. I as a tenant would fight that till I'm blue in the face. And it's not about being able to shoot 3 bucks. I haven't shot a deer in 3 years. It's about being able to hunt more seasons to have a better opportunity.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The tenant was who this was created for. Even if abused.
 
newfarmer said:
So I will play my "best case scenario" for any form of Landowner tag cleaning up. Call this a 4-5 year plan for example. You would never be able to tackle this all at once.

1- No more tenants. I think this is abused.
2- Landowner on Deed only. (Remove LLC? etc? I dont know how that works in the scheme of it to be honest) and that includes, no family aka kids, spouse, whatever unless name is on the deed, then still only the number of tags allotted.
3- Reduce to 1 any sex, 1 antlerless (could be 2- but don't need 3) start slow, less complaints
4- You get LOT, you do not get depredation tags- same, you get depredation tags, no LOT.
5- 10 acre minimum in 1 parcel, 20 acres total owned. I hammer the point, there are areas that you cannot buy a 40 acre parcel "easily". My farms- I would be buying crop ground at 15,000/acre to try to add more to any of my pieces. I think "Real" numbers would go a long way. Leave it this way for a few years
6- Lower to 1 LOT any sex. Leave it like this for a few years
7- Eliminate LOT tags OR give a LOT 1 floating any sex tag into the 2 buck max for Iowa.

I think if you slow played it, you would have a TON of support.


Only downfall- as a landowner, I wish we could always get 1 antlerless tag. I am in a county with NO doe tags. So always getting one doe tag would be nice to use IF I needed to, but thats purely for my own selfishness.
Click to expand...

Why 20 acres? Because you then qualify?
I have 19. Not fair to me!
 
DMarley83 said:
Why 20 acres? Because you then qualify?
I have 19. Not fair to me!
Click to expand...
Literally just plugged in numbers- I don't care either way.
I heard on a podcast today that a "decent sized" farm in Iowa is 160 acres. And that the AVERAGE farm is 345 acres. I guess lets plug those numbers in instead?
I have been fighting since the beginning either all or none... I just proposed steppingstones to maybe curb the division that is going to be in the state of Iowa. And believe me, it will happen unfortunately. Suddenly its going to be- "well they think they are better than me with 40 acres so why should I care?" "ISC pushed for this, so why should we support them?" They will push for rifles and crossbows because they will not care as much. Its true- the ones of us on this site are not those people- but you all know people who will be that way.
Everyone keeps talking about "the guy with fruit trees"- the unfortunate thing, the local Apple Orchard next to me is 37 acres. Thats their full-time jobs. I really don't know how someone can say "X" number of acres is the key when you don't know how anyone makes their living on their land. Currently, as I have stated too, we are in a no doe county. They don't get "enough damage warranted for tags" in their last conversation with the DNR. So they use their LOT. Take that away- yikes, unfortunate.
 
Had a non hunting legislator reach out & wanted to discuss these 2 or get some insight. Sounds like support is good.
In a nutshell the ? Posed to me that I said i would post on here & one good comment that lead to this ?…. Paraphrasing….

“Skip, im understanding the resource is hurting & getting a lot of feed back from hunters that: #’s down, no where to go, not filling tags, many not filling even 1 buck tag, disease issues and general concern about the decline of Iowas hunting. I will support things that help the resource & lift up the system for the hunters of this state. I also am concerned with the economics of hunting & losing a big chunk of our economy”
“celeb tags seem like a no brainer”. “On the other bill, how specifically would this hurt the resource, access or the concerns I’m hearing - if folks with 2-39 acres had 2 buck tags?” “Do you feel like hunters are willing to put the greater good over their desires for more tags?”
That last questions is one I said “I have thoughts and they are this___. But- I’ll get back to you on part of this. Please, respectfully reply on that. I’ll be at capital tomorrow & i would like the other perspectives as I am fair & balanced & open minded. I did say that I felt the overwhelmingly majority will put the resource, other hunters & fixing some issues above many of their self interests if there’s merits to those efforts.

Fire back, I’ll be meeting with several tomorrow & for the first time I’ve seen, we have non-hunting legislators wanting to learn more about hunting & our POV & wanting to KEEP IOWA GREAT. I’ve never seen or felt this in 20+ years until the past few years. Whatever opinions you have on XYZ subject - the fact that we have the backing of many legislators & other groups is HUGE. Regardless of one issue- the bigger movement is absolutely going in a positive direction. We better all be applauding that!!!!
 
We are always saying and concerned that our DNR and state is under funded. With the decline of deer and harvest numbers by all groups will we be declining again with less tags sales in the future?
Less antlerless tags out the door means less income for our DNR and natural resources we all enjoy.
Maybe it's time for everyone to just buy all your tags? I mean none of us spent all that money on ground just because we could get a free tag to hunt. Thats horrible business practice lol. I bought ground so my family always has somewhere to hunt and not worry about always trying to find permission.
I don't have 40 acres, isn't an option to obtain the surrounding ground to get there. Won't make any difference if I'm not eligible for a free tag. I will gladly purchase a tag the rest of my life to enjoy the ground I was fortunate to purchase and share with my family and friends. Lack of access to public ground is probably more of a factor vs the public ground hunter always having to purchase a tag for the experience.
Not getting a free tag isn't going to stop what I'm passionate about. It seems like when you release an arrow these days and don't recover it you've lost almost $25.
If your fortunate enough to have a herd that is costing you financially because of crop damage you should still be able to get in touch with the DNR and they can assess how they could help.
Maybe it's time to help our resource instead of ourselves. Reset everything and give ourselves a couple years to make intelligent decisions based upon how the resources rebound.
 
Sligh1 said:
I’ll do my best to explain the different groups discussing this & different angles
1) the first time I personally heard different groups discussing this was when some NR buck tags were being debated. The folks who wanted NR buck tags or NRLO buck tags made countless/repeated points like “we can’t one buck tag when your residents get 2 & guys with 5 acres can even get another buck tag!!!!!” This type of comment was used OFTEN. To the point where some legislators said “wait, we give out a 3rd buck tag for 5 acre parcels!?” This type of debate & comment has come up many times & will continue to be used as ammo. Like it or not- they have a point & to the “average dude” listening to this, it does seem absurd.
2) co’s & dnr have had constant battles with this. I can’t explain their position perfectly but something along the lines of: a) abuses of this b) getting 3rd buck tag on parcels that almost don’t even support deer. C) guys locking up access that would be tagged out but keep going due to more tags. D) complaints on over crowding of public where folks use their statewide tag on public & keep their LOT until they finally need it. E) abuses of program/tag & misuse where folks are ticketed or breaking laws that take a lot of time away from CO’s. F) biology complaints on how many mature bucks an area or section can hold. Most agree any block it’s a “handful”. I’m not getting this perfect & don’t mean to speak for them but a lot of issues.
3) folks at capital, at dnr events & hunter feedback “we don’t need 3 buck tags!!” “Most states are 1 or 2 & I don’t have a place to go to even shoot 1!!”
4) access to quality land & quality game are #1 & #2 issues in state based on hunter data. Bills that may impact that will get some support.
5) I believe, loosely, the subset data was something like “1,000+ bucks on small parcels” Statewide. Not including other issues folks had with tags. When kills are 50k bucks & lot of ticked off or cocerned hunters.. this isn’t nothing.
6) dnr & legislators have got hammered by residents “don’t do XYZ cause we don’t even use or need 3 buck tags!!!!” (Like change NR tags)
7) on the LOT issue- I didn’t hear T up for debate. I heard a couple comments “why do they need them when it’s a buck??? They can shoot 2 bucks so why wouldn’t we give them Tenant doe tags?” If it’s ever debated…. I have heard above + “they can also get dep tags”.

I’m not really debating above or my pov. Trying to explain what I’ve heard & some different POV’s out there
Click to expand...

This post would have been great on page 1
 
I’m for both as long as it’s all tags removed, if it’s truly about the resource. Again- there is zero data that says the deer ever get shot on “2 acres”. That’s the thing. If there was a revamp to the system to list out all parcels, and someone only had 2 acres- boom- removed. But it still doesn’t stop the tenant/renting problem- which will very potentially not help the cause of this bill.
My question- why is the LOT one that you haven’t heard a peep about on ISC FB? They should have people write in and support too right? I feel like lack of acknowledgment speaks volumes too
(Clearly my own opinion- and I can support 110% getting rid of the tag. Only if it’s all- and sucks I won’t be able to shoot does off my farms in no doe counties)
 
newfarmer said:
I’m for both as long as it’s all tags removed, if it’s truly about the resource. Again- there is zero data that says the deer ever get shot on “2 acres”. That’s the thing. If there was a revamp to the system to list out all parcels, and someone only had 2 acres- boom- removed. But it still doesn’t stop the tenant/renting problem- which will very potentially not help the cause of this bill.
My question- why is the LOT one that you haven’t heard a peep about on ISC FB? They should have people write in and support too right? I feel like lack of acknowledgment speaks volumes too
(Clearly my own opinion- and I can support 110% getting rid of the tag. Only if it’s all- and sucks I won’t be able to shoot does off my farms in no doe counties)
Click to expand...
If there is rampant fraud on the tenant portion of LOT licenses, then how about showing proof of schedule F to register and make you update you're registration yearly.
 
Nrharris said:
If there is rampant fraud on the tenant portion of LOT licenses, then how about showing proof of schedule F to register and make you update you're registration yearly.
Click to expand...
absolutely agree- again, I think there are ways to clean it up before they start taking. Just my opinion the baby steps need to happen otherwise there will be an uproar. I think this has been a very constructive discussion on here, thats not always the case with Facebook or most of the general population.
 
newfarmer said:
I’m for both as long as it’s all tags removed, if it’s truly about the resource. Again- there is zero data that says the deer ever get shot on “2 acres”. That’s the thing. If there was a revamp to the system to list out all parcels, and someone only had 2 acres- boom- removed. But it still doesn’t stop the tenant/renting problem- which will very potentially not help the cause of this bill.
My question- why is the LOT one that you haven’t heard a peep about on ISC FB? They should have people write in and support too right? I feel like lack of acknowledgment speaks volumes too
(Clearly my own opinion- and I can support 110% getting rid of the tag. Only if it’s all- and sucks I won’t be able to shoot does off my farms in no doe counties)

When one applies for a lot the dnr asks for a parcel number and queries the county assessor website to check it. They know exactly how large tracts are.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom