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

Regulating outfitters and land leases

The attitude of many residents reminds me of time I spent living in a popular resort town on a lake, everyone bitched about how the tourists were coming to their town and crowding "their" beaches and water. Of course they hated to admit that the tourists were also supporting their businesses. I understand everyone’s frustration, no one wants to pay for something that they have been getting for free for years. But leasing hunting land has been going on for many years, I know people in Michigan who have leased property to hunt on for the past 30 years, they lived in a city and knew that if they didn’t want to share public land then they were going to have to secure a private piece. That is the way it is pretty much all over the state,and Im sure other states as well.

My commitment to QDM has not worked too well so far. In 2004 out of over 20 applicants I had 1 hunter draw a tag. In 2005 I did a little better getting 7 tags out of 40 applicants. So for the past couple of years I have had to rely on myself and a few family members and friends to get some extra does off of the property. This year should be better since even without an increase in license quotas I will have more hunters. I decided to fine guys if they don’t shoot a doe this year not because I want the extra money or think that it will be punishment enough but just to tell them that they need to, for the sake of quality hunting in the future and the majority of the hunters will understand this-if they dont then I dont want them to come back. I was also thinking about doing a (free) organized late-season weekend doe hunt for residents where I would put something up on the discussion board inviting hunters to come out and sit in my insulated blinds for an afternoon, it would be perfect for bringing kids that are just getting into hunting.

And no I am not getting $5000/$6000 per person. I am not doing this to get rich, so no I don’t have to run large amounts of hunters through. I haven’t even broke even yet for the money I have spent on food plots and equipment. I truly enjoy hunting and I really enjoy watching guys come out and see bucks bigger than they have ever seen, for the most part it doesn’t even bother them if they don’t shoot one-just seeing one off in the distance is sometimes excitement enough.

And back to the QDM, both farms that we hunted were previously only hunted by a group of shotgun hunters who drove it once and were done for the year, so I don’t think I am taking any less deer than usual. Two farms that we are working on leasing for the upcoming years have not had any hunters (other than trespassers) for the past 5 years in one case, and 20+ in the other. So would non-resident hunters be better than no hunters at all?
 
Nine

Your original post said that you had turned into an outfitter to save the family farm because it was in danger of being sold because you couldn't make the payments. I don't mean this unkindly but if that is truly the case and you have actually lost money for the last two years with only 8 hunters, then you need to find a better way to save it. From your own statements, it sounds like you are trying to justify your outfitter business by saying it is to save the farm. If the farm were truly in danger it would be gone in the 3 or 4 years you are taking to make any money outfitting. As for your hunters not caring if they get a buck, what will they feel like after a couple trips and several thousand dollars invested? Will they expect to take one then with or with out shooting a doe? Every one here has their own agenda, myself included, and I feel that yours is to get more NR licenses so that you can maybe get more NR hunters. From a business view point I can't blame you but from a resident hunter viewpoint all I can see is decreased acess for residents on your leased grounds. As you get more hunters you need more ground which means less for us. I realize that there are a few, very few, farms that haven't been hunted much but that really isn't the cast with 99% of the leased acres. I don't like the reasoning that because other states have had leasing for years, we should have it to. If this is such a good thing for Michigan why do so many hunters want to come here instead? Why is their deer herd so out of balance? Why don't they have the caliber of bucks we do. Our deer here have came about as a result of our seasons, the way we hunt them, our land base, and general management practices. If we start doing all the things that other states do differently, will not our deer herd follow suit and give us the same crappy hunting that those other states now enjoy? Where will the Iowa hunters have to go then to lease land so they too can shoot little deer like everyone else? Other states have had smog, high crime, and traffic jams for years also, but we don't need it. In answer to your statements about the farms not being hunted and some NR hunters being better than none, NO. The majority of NR hunters going onto a farm that hasn't been hunted in 20 years will expect huge bucks and probably won't settle for anything less after having to pay a fee to hunt there. There fore they would only harvest the best most mature bucks with the best genitics which hopefully could be passed on. If there were no hunters then those genitics could spread out like ripples in a pond as some of those bucks roam through some of the local chick (doe) bars during the rut. Also if there is an over poulation on these farms the does will drive off their buck fawns and move the genitics pool arround a little more. Some times no hunters can be much better than just a few hunters, depending on what and how those few hunt.
 
I would have to disagree with you Bowmaker on the question, "Isn't a non-resident better than No-hunter at all". I would have to agree with Nine that it would be better. Everytime I go to the woods I have the intention of shooting the buck with the biggest rack, im not out there for the experience of shooting a buck. As far as the farm that hasn't been hunted in 20 years, if nine is gonna make guys shoot does, or shoot does himself then how is it better to not be hunted? A mature buck has already spread his genes to many does, but just because the buck has good genes doesn't mean the doe does. A farm that hasn't been hunted in 20 years is most likely over run with genetically inferior does producing bucks that nobody would consider genetically superior. Having this safe haven will eventually bite yah in the behind. I have seen it before, especially in state parks that have alot of timber but little crop ground. All you ever see in these places is 40-50 does and scrub bucks, with the occaisional stud. Now they are finally letting people shoot those does. This last summer I lived in an area that has probably one of the highest concentrations of deer in Iowa. There were alot of nice bucks but that is about it, not many could make the 160 mark. The guy I lived with has many sheds from bucks as they age and suprisingly not many could make the 155 inch mark. I don't know about you guys but I don't want those kind of genetics spreading over to other areas. Now if this farm is only a couple hundred acres and not hunted then I would have to agree it would be better not to be hunted by anyone in the pure greed that it would hold better bucks for me sitting on the fence, because I would pound every doe that walked out over many years. If this farm was several thousands acres, then I would have to disagree. Overall I don't mind outfitters, that have good qdm principles. If they want to stay in business they will ensure a good quality hunt and try to put a limit on the size of bucks shot. I would rather own ground next to a outfitter that would shoot only mature bucks instead of immature ones. Sooner or later one of those lil guys will be a walking stud . Plus if people are putting pressure on ground, it will only benefit the neighbors in pushing deer out to them. Then maybe more does could get shot, and that farm that hasn't been hunted might get better over time. Nine, it sounds to me like your doing a great job.
smile.gif
 
Lots of good comments here about a situation that's tough to get a handle on. As I see it, the problem is how to manage the deer herd when you're losing control (as well as resident access), through leases and land purchases, of the areas that need the management the most.

I don't fault landowners one bit for making extra $$$ by leasing the hunting rights or buying land strictly for hunting. But their failure to properly manage deer on their land is having an adverse affect.

As I've said in other posts, landowners who do not allow public hunting on their land should not receive payments for crop damage. You shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

If, as Koba says, the state is more concerned about revenue, then maybe we need to take a closer look at how much of that lease money landowners are claiming as income? I would venture a guess that there tens of millions of dollars worth of leases in this state and very little of it winds up on the 1040.

Nor do I have a problem with outfitters trying to make an honest living. But like many other businesses, I think outfitters should be licensed and limit the number of tags they can buy. And I would tie the number of tags they get to the amount of land they're leasing. That way, there's no incentive to "hide" leases. Hunters hunting with a specific outfitter must purchase their tags through the electronic licensing system in the presence of the outfitter and the outfitter must provide proof of his license. (We basically do the same thing by requiring proof of Hunter Safety training in order to purchase a license.) That way, an outfitter can't purchase more than his quota of tags.

To me, the number of NR tags - be it 6,000 or 12,000 -- isn't as much of an issue as the access problem it's causing. We need incentives or penalties to keep land from being tied up in leases without proper management.
 
Wow, thanks for the vote of confidence LIV4RUT, I didn’t think anyone would agree with me about anything. I'm glad that someone understands that any good outfitter is going to follow QDM and that will benefit all hunters in the area.

Now to clarify things I was not saying that Iowa should follow Michigan's example of how to manage a deer herd. I was just explaining that if landowners are getting paid for hunting rights in other areas it usually won’t take long for landowners that aren’t getting paid to realize they are missing out. And the leasing of land isn’t responsible for Michigan’s out of balance deer herd, it’s the attitude of the majority of the hunters who will shoot any buck that comes their way because they believe that if they don’t their neighbor will. There are area’s of Michigan that produce great bucks and coincidentally the terrain is very similar to that of Iowa, and yes the majority of this area is probably leased.

Now I think it is inevitable that more land in Iowa is going to be bought or leased for hunting, by residents and non-residents alike, and letting 6,000 more hunters into the state is not going to make that much of a difference one way or another. But rather then trying to fend off these extra hunters why don’t unhappy residents focus their energy on trying to secure places to hunt in the future? I read the minutes of the last NRC committee meeting and they discussed the access program that they want to implement with the money raised by additional NR licenses. They are trying to get together with representatives from other states that have successful access programs so that they can start one in Iowa.

“Vonk went on to say that the sporting community’s opposition to moving forward with a public lands access program and trying to force a no action from either department will perpetuate the exact problem being talked about.” I’m sure that most will tear his comments apart and talk about what an idiot he is but he is right, that is exactly what is going to happen.
 
[ QUOTE ]

“Vonk went on to say that the sporting community’s opposition to moving forward with a public lands access program and trying to force a no action from either department will perpetuate the exact problem being talked about.” I’m sure that most will tear his comments apart and talk about what an idiot he is but he is right, that is exactly what is going to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said that any of us are against public access?? The idea that thousands of resident deer hunters should sacrifice their chance to hunt...to pay for a few hundred acres of state land is insane!!
Public land should be paid for by ALL the residents of Iowa not by allowing more NR hunters.
Where is the current 2 1/2 million dollars from NR tags going??? Is the State using that money to procur public access???
What assurances do we have that even a dime of money from extra tags would go for public access???
The Director is trying to send us on a "guilt trip" which has my opinion of him somewhere at the botton of the barrel!
mad.gif

A case in point is tobacco money that the states get from tobacco companies to curtail smoking. In all but a very few cases, states use very little for the purpose it was intended. It goes for other state programs and I feel that's exactly where our current and future $$'s are and will go as far as the DNR is concerned.
Personally I feel there would be too many loopholes to directly regulate outfitters, but you can expect us to continue the fight to limit NR tags to the current quota.
 
I have got to agree with the last post from Michigan. I used to live/hunt, in MI. The DNR there used TB, and every excuse they could,, to decimate the deer pop. Unlimited doe/fawn, permits were available for 5 yrs. Before the push, there were rarely any doe permits available for my area. I asked the local Biologist why every season. He said there surveys showed deer numbers in my area were low. When the unlimited killing opened up, I asked him why,,all of a sudden there were too many deer. He told me, the Biologist's opinion had not changed ,but that they were changing due to pressure from above. Finally, the yr I left, I read a small admission,in a local paper that the DNR admitted they had taken alot of pressure from the Insurance lobby and AG. dept to form harvest quotas. One reason I moved out here was for the better hunting. Got so I could sit in the Nat. Forest I hunted in, 100 sq miles of it, and be lucky to see two deer in a week of sitting. Too bad to see the same pressures on here in Iowa. Glad I got out here when I did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom