OFFENSE!! 2 Bills to support!! SF 293 & SF 247 EMAIL IN!!! What a great change!!!!
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
My point is the same!!!!! This benefits big ag and the older generation of landowners. Whether it is now or 20 years from now it will benefit the same group of people.. This will without a doubt lead to pushback/ liberalization of regs. Those of us lucky enough to have it good will not enjoy the perks we currently have forever!! We should keep quiet and enjoy it while we can. If we become a smaller percentage of the population people will notice. We are in the top few percent! We have it awesome!! We don’t need to draw attention to ourselves any more! All LOT privileges will be on the chopping block eventually. If we are lucky that will be it!! More than likely, and history shows this, those that do not currently enjoy LOT privileges will push even more for the liberalization of our current regs and make things even worse for everyone
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
I don’t disagree at all!! If two is enough for some it is good enough for everyone!!
A little bit of up to the minute information. I went today and spoke with the Subcommittee on hsb 251 this was 500 tags out of the draw for outfitters. I spoke in opposition citing many reasons. I could make a bunch of money on this but it is way wrong on many levels. I think it did pass out of Subcommittee. It also sounds like they are trying to stop the bill ending the celeb tags. Not sure who supports that. All the people that spoke were also in favor of switching the NR draw to 65% preference and 35% lottery so I can see that passing. Good day overall interesting place. Representive Collins supports all these crazy bills.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
That’s not what I’m saying .. take steps, 2 acre parcel gets a buck tag ? Makes no sense. Pick your battles .
We’ve seen the NR lose tags—archery tag, No more party hunting—Time for the locals to give up something !
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
Haha. Exactly what has been said! Unless you want to be hypocritical and say two for thee but not for me!
Last edited:
I respect all the POV’s here & Boonerriverbucks- I do appreciate your perspective. If I disagree… I’ll say why…
Class warfare will NEVER end & u can flush so many examples out that it would turn everyone of us into an angry Liberal if we wanted to focus on it. For example…. I think SOMETHING LIKE 2/3rd of our land ownership is 65 & up. Am I mad at those older people? Of course not. It’s actually a buying opportunity for younger generation if you really think through it.
Land ownership PERIOD could get us a class war argument “you rich guys with land get an extra tag while us peasants only get 2 buck tags”. I assure you- there’s people jealous of your position & by definition- you are probably in the 1%. I don’t even think 1% of residents own land. To some, you’re that rich guy. & so what if you are?
I expect the dude with a billion dollars will have more than me, more advantages & we are not going to live equal lives. Same with the dude with 10,000 acres vs the dude with 10. Or dude with 20 acres vs the guy with no $ hunting public. We can resent each other or: 1) be content with what you have or 2) better your position.
I was the kid at 12 that got shoved onto public after my family sold my great uncles “small chunk” (I think 20-40 acres). I remember being irate (entitled & a brat almost)…. Those RICH people kicked me off and my grandpa said “too bad skip. Go buy your own land”. I was 12. I had already been saving for 2 years and that kicked into high gear. I literally remember having like “6” lawn jobs & DOUBLING it the next season so I could save more for land. I kinda knew at 12…. You can complain & be angry at these folks or you can buy your own. Had that event not happened - I would not have got motivated & would not have spent 11 years saving for land & finally doing it at 21 with $40k to my name …. Buying ground with ZERO income & wondering how I was gonna make the monthly payments.
So ya- there’s a cut off now for the program. It’s 2 acres. The guy with 1.9 might be pissed off!!!
The folks wanting the program fixed on a huge variety of levels I’ve mentioned before.. It’s not ME & it’s not one group but a huge collective of groups, legislators, law enforcement & citizens want the acreage minimum increased. Hearing THEIR argument - I don’t disagree. I voiced I’d like to see my 3rd buck tag gone. I am one dude & for now, they are debating what keeps as many folks happy & fixes most the problems. That’s Compromise. It’s not my decision. 2 or 5 acres- sure- it’s madness IMO but … all I can do is show up, discuss & debate & realize that about a dozen lobbying groups will have input & it still will come down to majority in house & senate. So- if a person has a strong opinion …. They can go to subcommittee meetings- even zoom. They can write to legislators or they can voice their position in other ways. It’s not rich or poor….. it’s simple issues with the laws: who has issues with them, who wants abuses fixed & how to do it. Like any law… this is the process & compromise is involved in about 99% of the laws that actually get passed.
My mom found this & gave this to my wife about 6 months ago.. it’s one of my “business cards” I would make to hand out to neighbors to get lawn jobs. I think i improved & put my phone # on them & services. This was when I was 10…. 36 years ago, broke family, 7 kids & willing to do whatever it would take to get work & save for LAND
Class warfare will NEVER end & u can flush so many examples out that it would turn everyone of us into an angry Liberal if we wanted to focus on it. For example…. I think SOMETHING LIKE 2/3rd of our land ownership is 65 & up. Am I mad at those older people? Of course not. It’s actually a buying opportunity for younger generation if you really think through it.
Land ownership PERIOD could get us a class war argument “you rich guys with land get an extra tag while us peasants only get 2 buck tags”. I assure you- there’s people jealous of your position & by definition- you are probably in the 1%. I don’t even think 1% of residents own land. To some, you’re that rich guy. & so what if you are?
I expect the dude with a billion dollars will have more than me, more advantages & we are not going to live equal lives. Same with the dude with 10,000 acres vs the dude with 10. Or dude with 20 acres vs the guy with no $ hunting public. We can resent each other or: 1) be content with what you have or 2) better your position.
I was the kid at 12 that got shoved onto public after my family sold my great uncles “small chunk” (I think 20-40 acres). I remember being irate (entitled & a brat almost)…. Those RICH people kicked me off and my grandpa said “too bad skip. Go buy your own land”. I was 12. I had already been saving for 2 years and that kicked into high gear. I literally remember having like “6” lawn jobs & DOUBLING it the next season so I could save more for land. I kinda knew at 12…. You can complain & be angry at these folks or you can buy your own. Had that event not happened - I would not have got motivated & would not have spent 11 years saving for land & finally doing it at 21 with $40k to my name …. Buying ground with ZERO income & wondering how I was gonna make the monthly payments.
So ya- there’s a cut off now for the program. It’s 2 acres. The guy with 1.9 might be pissed off!!!
The folks wanting the program fixed on a huge variety of levels I’ve mentioned before.. It’s not ME & it’s not one group but a huge collective of groups, legislators, law enforcement & citizens want the acreage minimum increased. Hearing THEIR argument - I don’t disagree. I voiced I’d like to see my 3rd buck tag gone. I am one dude & for now, they are debating what keeps as many folks happy & fixes most the problems. That’s Compromise. It’s not my decision. 2 or 5 acres- sure- it’s madness IMO but … all I can do is show up, discuss & debate & realize that about a dozen lobbying groups will have input & it still will come down to majority in house & senate. So- if a person has a strong opinion …. They can go to subcommittee meetings- even zoom. They can write to legislators or they can voice their position in other ways. It’s not rich or poor….. it’s simple issues with the laws: who has issues with them, who wants abuses fixed & how to do it. Like any law… this is the process & compromise is involved in about 99% of the laws that actually get passed.
My mom found this & gave this to my wife about 6 months ago.. it’s one of my “business cards” I would make to hand out to neighbors to get lawn jobs. I think i improved & put my phone # on them & services. This was when I was 10…. 36 years ago, broke family, 7 kids & willing to do whatever it would take to get work & save for LAND
Once again how can they have a bill to give outfitters tags with no way to actually know how many outfitters there are? I still don’t believe there is any requirement to be registered as one in the state?
tracker
Life Member
What a lot of folks are missing & some non-hunting legislators brought up “LOT tags - this is meant for people growing crops or income from the land. They must be filing a schedule F. Im not a hunter but there’s a lot of complaints that the program is being misused by people who are not farming the land. That’s not the intention or the law.
Ok this is the info I found as it was being discussed earlier. With the concerns with the filing the schedule F for growing crops or income I view the LOT being issued for loss of income on the property.
There is just so much variance as to the use of properties that I think this will always be a grey area unless removing the LOTs all together.
I can't find justification to the over 40s(just throwing out a number here) getting a LOT If the true meaning was for income loss but they don't hesitate to put 10-15 acres into food plots and other deer attractants on that farm that do nothing but ensure the deer never leave their property. I mean I don't know how many shows I've just started watching that don't seem to have issues to drive over 5 acres of standing corn or leave beans standing so they can place their towers over them, and they possibly are getting a LOT every year. Leaving the crop for wildlife creates the loss on the farm intentionally and also encourages the environment for it to continue to happen. So, if they can afford to drive over and leave crops for wildlife, perhaps they don't deserve the compensation tag, looks like they can afford the loss and the income wasn't the only reason they purchased the property.
There are no easy answers. I am a believer that we do need to make adjustments as we grow and learn as well. Sometimes that means we might have to give something up but that doesn't mean we can't still be allowed to enjoy the original purpose of why it started.
Defining the LOT and the criteria to maintain it for the purpose it is issued could be where we should be starting. The number of acres are irrelevant if your intents are not 100% profit and harvest. You don't see any fields around my area on this $19k per acre ground where they leave anything unpicked. Even the neighbors that get the LOT here pick all of their crop. The cows may get the stalks, but the wildlife has to sort through the remains just like the cattle.
Ok this is the info I found as it was being discussed earlier. With the concerns with the filing the schedule F for growing crops or income I view the LOT being issued for loss of income on the property.
There is just so much variance as to the use of properties that I think this will always be a grey area unless removing the LOTs all together.
I can't find justification to the over 40s(just throwing out a number here) getting a LOT If the true meaning was for income loss but they don't hesitate to put 10-15 acres into food plots and other deer attractants on that farm that do nothing but ensure the deer never leave their property. I mean I don't know how many shows I've just started watching that don't seem to have issues to drive over 5 acres of standing corn or leave beans standing so they can place their towers over them, and they possibly are getting a LOT every year. Leaving the crop for wildlife creates the loss on the farm intentionally and also encourages the environment for it to continue to happen. So, if they can afford to drive over and leave crops for wildlife, perhaps they don't deserve the compensation tag, looks like they can afford the loss and the income wasn't the only reason they purchased the property.
There are no easy answers. I am a believer that we do need to make adjustments as we grow and learn as well. Sometimes that means we might have to give something up but that doesn't mean we can't still be allowed to enjoy the original purpose of why it started.
Defining the LOT and the criteria to maintain it for the purpose it is issued could be where we should be starting. The number of acres are irrelevant if your intents are not 100% profit and harvest. You don't see any fields around my area on this $19k per acre ground where they leave anything unpicked. Even the neighbors that get the LOT here pick all of their crop. The cows may get the stalks, but the wildlife has to sort through the remains just like the cattle.
Not being combative here but all I see in majority of the other deer hunting bills at the legislature right now is pro NR. So hard for me to feel sorry for the NR especially when the bill being discussed here is also negative for residents. I am all for increasing the acreage requirement to stop the loopholes but as I have said before sometimes defense is the best offense and there are some very bad bills that have not been squashed yet.
I mentioned this on another post under this thread but I may have missed the schedule F requirement for a LOT. I file a schedule F but I thought the reg book just implies “farm income” off the tract. Maybe another way to get a handle on the abuse is to require a schedule F to be eligible. I had recommended adding verbiage to the LOT requirements to “schedule F one out of last five years” or “schedule F in preceding year of buying tag” so as to not be alienating true timber producers. Another requirement could be to have a forest harvest plan. I’m sorry bout the tree person but getting a LOT just because you own timber and have never sold a tree, have never filed a schedule F and don’t have an active forest management plan or whatever you call it should not be getting a LOT tag. I just visited the DNR page and nothing is mentioned of a schedule F for LOT eligibility, only “agriculture purpose” but the rules do say the eligibility is periodically checked with state and IRS to verify ag income and rental implying a filed schedule F.
abell3
Well-Known Member
Calling him Boonerville.... Now that's the ultimate burn Skip!
That’s not good. That will definitely increase NR land ownership/demand. It will also drive recreational ground prices up. Making it harder for Iowa residents to be able to afford land in their own backyard or get access to it. Instead of a NR landowner having to wait 3-5 years for a tag they could draw one every year just by luck. If I was a NR I’d roll the dice and buy. You guys are worried about 50 celebrity tags and LOT tags when you should be worried about 3000 NR tags being a free for all. Oh, and the outfitter tags. That is nothing new. That has been tried for years. Here is the deal. I sign up as an outfitter so I can get NR tags allocated to me as an “outfitter”. Then me and my NR buddies who own land all get a tag every year for the regular cost of the tag and any extras I sell. Like I said…Divide and concur. Hey look over there, don’t worry about what we are doing over here. Pit residents against each other while we NR slip what we want through. I keep telling you guys to get on the same page. Stop any changes to our current regulations and decrease doe harvest. ISC and the IBA better fight this bill hard and get this stopped. Or you guys won’t have to worry about getting permission to hunt when everything is leased, or being able to afford buying. Oh and the guys worried about a few sub 40 acres LOT bucks being killed. You think that is actually hurting our quality? Wait until recreational land prices top 10k acre and every rec farm in Iowa gets split into 20 and 40 acre parcels or bought by multiple member LLC. See how great Iowa is then. Better get everyone on the same page and keep their eye on the ball!
Where does ISC and IBA stand on this bill?
Ishi
PMA Member
On 247 the IBA is monitoring it. If you’re a IBA member you will get a email every week on all the bills pertaining to fish and wildlife.
If not a member why not join for 25$
You were speaking about a few different Bills, I spoke yesterday against HSB 251 the Outfitter tag bill. I can guarantee the ISC is 100 percent against this bill. I was called late Sunday to Speak at 12:00 noon monday by Phil the Lobbist . Him and I were the only 2 opposed i believe.
The billl HF 22 was changed thru amendment to remove creating a pool of NR landowners and added the language creating SF 388 which will make 35% of nonresident tags drawn randomly and the remaining 65% drawn by applicants with the most preference points.
I do not see the benefit nonresidents. I asked one of the DNR representatives to calculate the archery draw odds for zone 5
His math with this law came back at 8.1 years to be guaranteed a tag and a 11-13 % chance in the random.
The billl HF 22 was changed thru amendment to remove creating a pool of NR landowners and added the language creating SF 388 which will make 35% of nonresident tags drawn randomly and the remaining 65% drawn by applicants with the most preference points.
I do not see the benefit nonresidents. I asked one of the DNR representatives to calculate the archery draw odds for zone 5
His math with this law came back at 8.1 years to be guaranteed a tag and a 11-13 % chance in the random.
Good one!! These guys disgust me!!!
1) they got a smaller herd!!!! 15 years are harvest is in HALF!!!! Western 3rd of state has been devasted along with many regions in other parts of state - from ehd. Not to mention habitat loss
2) they can already get depredation tags!!!! Plus 4+ months of hunting season. + financial incentives to enroll ground in walk in hunting. CO’s with standing list of guys wanting to shoot does- that list that never gets demand met.
Hey Farm Bureau!!!!! Why don’t you tell your members about the facts & solutions above?????
KILL ALL THE DEER to reduce $5.2m in claimed corn damage statewide on a $11B annual corn crop. Eliminate all the deer to save $5.2m in crop damage but killing the MINIMUM economic value of whitetail of $180m per year!!! You can’t make this up - it makes no sense.
Forest reserve “pay your fair share” - the tiny sliver spent on saving our forest that will cost us possibly 50x fold in losses & costs if more forest goes (soil, future timber value, pollution costs, loss of habitat that impacts the $180m deer economy, etc). HOW BOUT THIS!?!??! How about we TRADE…. Let’s impose a tax increase on land owners for forest so they pay their fair share AND we add sales tax back to farmers (ME!!!!!) so we pay our fair share!!!! How about it Farm Bureau?
seven twenty
PMA Member
The catch with previous versions of the outfitter bill that I saw was it was a prerequisite that you had to be registered by June of 21 I think it was. Was that changed in this version? If you want land leased up and less opportunities for the non-landowners, this is the way to do it. Within 2 years everyone will be an outfitter and they”ll have to come up with a draw system for them too.
Edit: As it’s worded now, only outfitters registered with the state prior to July of 24 are eligible. If passed, would they go back and amend that date every so often? I tried last year to see how many outfitters are registered with the state and couldn’t come up with a good #. I know a few locally and none of them are registered. This passing would be a windfall for the few that are. I’m curious who is pushing It
Edit: As it’s worded now, only outfitters registered with the state prior to July of 24 are eligible. If passed, would they go back and amend that date every so often? I tried last year to see how many outfitters are registered with the state and couldn’t come up with a good #. I know a few locally and none of them are registered. This passing would be a windfall for the few that are. I’m curious who is pushing It
Last edited: