blake
Life Member
I get SF 397 at this sight:
www.legis.state.ia.us/cgi-bin/Legislation/Bill.pl
www.legis.state.ia.us/cgi-bin/Legislation/Bill.pl
Senate File 397
SENATE FILE
BY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
(SUCCESSOR TO SF 40)
Passed Senate, Date Passed House, Date
Vote: Ayes Nays Vote: Ayes Nays
Approved
A BILL FOR
1 An Act relating to the issuance of hunting licenses for
2 antlerless deer, providing for the disposition of harvested
3 deer meat to public institutions, requiring a report, and
4 providing a penalty.
5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
6 SF 397
7 av/cc/26
PAG LIN
1 1 Section 1. NEW SECTION. 483A.24A HARVESTED DEER.
1 2 1. INTENT. It is the intent of the general assembly in
1 3 enacting this section, to express its concern to the natural
1 4 resource commission about the burgeoning deer population in
1 5 this state, by requiring the natural resource commission to
1 6 make additional antlerless deer hunting licenses available to
1 7 encourage hunters in this state to assist the commission in
1 8 bringing the state's deer population under control.
1 9 2. DEFINITIONS. As used in this section:
1 10 a. "Department of corrections" means the Iowa department
1 11 of corrections.
1 12 b. "Establishment" means an establishment as defined in
1 13 section 189A.2 where animals or poultry are prepared for food
1 14 purposes or where wild deer may be processed or dressed for
1 15 human consumption.
1 16 c. "Public institution" means a state institution listed
1 17 under section 904.102, subsections 1 through 10, that is
1 18 administered by the department of corrections.
1 19 3. The natural resource commission shall provide, by rule,
1 20 for the distribution of antlerless deer hunting licenses,
1 21 annually to resident hunters and to applicants qualified under
1 22 section 483A.24. The licenses shall be in addition to deer
1 23 hunting licenses otherwise allocated in this chapter to
1 24 resident hunters and applicants qualified under section
1 25 483A.24 and shall be equivalent to the least restrictive
1 26 license issued pursuant to section 481A.38. Pursuant to this
1 27 section, the department shall make available for issuance at
1 28 least an additional eighteen thousand antlerless deer hunting
1 29 licenses for resident hunters for 2003=2004 antlerless deer
1 30 hunting seasons than were available for the 2002=2003
1 31 antlerless deer hunting seasons.
1 32 4. A resident hunter or an applicant qualified under
1 33 section 483A.24, who receives an antlerless deer hunting
1 34 license under this section may deliver the deer harvested with
1 35 the license to an establishment designated by the department
2 1 of corrections for processing, packaging, and delivery to
2 2 locations designated by the department of corrections. Each
2 3 antlerless deer hunting license issued under this section
2 4 shall be accompanied by a list of establishments that will
2 5 accept deer harvested with the license.
2 6 5. Each resident hunter or applicant qualified under
2 7 section 483A.24 shall be otherwise qualified to hunt deer in
2 8 this state. A wildlife habitat fee shall not be required.
2 9 The commission shall establish, by rules adopted pursuant to
2 10 chapter 17A, the procedures for allocating the antlerless deer
2 11 hunting licenses.
2 12 6. The department of corrections, may, in cooperation with
2 13 the commission, contract with one or more establishments to
2 14 receive, process, package, and deliver the harvested deer meat
2 15 to the public institutions in the manner specified by the
2 16 department of corrections and at a cost to the department of
2 17 corrections that is competitive with the cost of obtaining
2 18 similar meat products in the private sector.
2 19 7. A person violating a provision of this section or a
2 20 rule adopted pursuant to this section is guilty of a simple
2 21 misdemeanor punishable as a scheduled violation as provided in
2 22 section 483A.42.
2 23 Sec. 2. REPORT. The natural resource commission, in
2 24 consultation with the department of corrections, shall
2 25 evaluate the results of the deer harvesting program created in
2 26 section 483A.24A, and shall make recommendations suggesting
2 27 improvements to the program and whether the program should be
2 28 expanded to allow receipt of harvested deer meat by other
2 29 governmental agencies and nonprofit entities. The natural
2 30 resource commission and the department of corrections shall
2 31 file a joint report containing their findings and
2 32 recommendations with the legislative service bureau by
2 33 February 1, 2004, for distribution to the general assembly.
2 34 SF 397
2 35 av/cc/26
SENATE FILE
BY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
(SUCCESSOR TO SF 40)
Passed Senate, Date Passed House, Date
Vote: Ayes Nays Vote: Ayes Nays
Approved
A BILL FOR
1 An Act relating to the issuance of hunting licenses for
2 antlerless deer, providing for the disposition of harvested
3 deer meat to public institutions, requiring a report, and
4 providing a penalty.
5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
6 SF 397
7 av/cc/26
PAG LIN
1 1 Section 1. NEW SECTION. 483A.24A HARVESTED DEER.
1 2 1. INTENT. It is the intent of the general assembly in
1 3 enacting this section, to express its concern to the natural
1 4 resource commission about the burgeoning deer population in
1 5 this state, by requiring the natural resource commission to
1 6 make additional antlerless deer hunting licenses available to
1 7 encourage hunters in this state to assist the commission in
1 8 bringing the state's deer population under control.
1 9 2. DEFINITIONS. As used in this section:
1 10 a. "Department of corrections" means the Iowa department
1 11 of corrections.
1 12 b. "Establishment" means an establishment as defined in
1 13 section 189A.2 where animals or poultry are prepared for food
1 14 purposes or where wild deer may be processed or dressed for
1 15 human consumption.
1 16 c. "Public institution" means a state institution listed
1 17 under section 904.102, subsections 1 through 10, that is
1 18 administered by the department of corrections.
1 19 3. The natural resource commission shall provide, by rule,
1 20 for the distribution of antlerless deer hunting licenses,
1 21 annually to resident hunters and to applicants qualified under
1 22 section 483A.24. The licenses shall be in addition to deer
1 23 hunting licenses otherwise allocated in this chapter to
1 24 resident hunters and applicants qualified under section
1 25 483A.24 and shall be equivalent to the least restrictive
1 26 license issued pursuant to section 481A.38. Pursuant to this
1 27 section, the department shall make available for issuance at
1 28 least an additional eighteen thousand antlerless deer hunting
1 29 licenses for resident hunters for 2003=2004 antlerless deer
1 30 hunting seasons than were available for the 2002=2003
1 31 antlerless deer hunting seasons.
1 32 4. A resident hunter or an applicant qualified under
1 33 section 483A.24, who receives an antlerless deer hunting
1 34 license under this section may deliver the deer harvested with
1 35 the license to an establishment designated by the department
2 1 of corrections for processing, packaging, and delivery to
2 2 locations designated by the department of corrections. Each
2 3 antlerless deer hunting license issued under this section
2 4 shall be accompanied by a list of establishments that will
2 5 accept deer harvested with the license.
2 6 5. Each resident hunter or applicant qualified under
2 7 section 483A.24 shall be otherwise qualified to hunt deer in
2 8 this state. A wildlife habitat fee shall not be required.
2 9 The commission shall establish, by rules adopted pursuant to
2 10 chapter 17A, the procedures for allocating the antlerless deer
2 11 hunting licenses.
2 12 6. The department of corrections, may, in cooperation with
2 13 the commission, contract with one or more establishments to
2 14 receive, process, package, and deliver the harvested deer meat
2 15 to the public institutions in the manner specified by the
2 16 department of corrections and at a cost to the department of
2 17 corrections that is competitive with the cost of obtaining
2 18 similar meat products in the private sector.
2 19 7. A person violating a provision of this section or a
2 20 rule adopted pursuant to this section is guilty of a simple
2 21 misdemeanor punishable as a scheduled violation as provided in
2 22 section 483A.42.
2 23 Sec. 2. REPORT. The natural resource commission, in
2 24 consultation with the department of corrections, shall
2 25 evaluate the results of the deer harvesting program created in
2 26 section 483A.24A, and shall make recommendations suggesting
2 27 improvements to the program and whether the program should be
2 28 expanded to allow receipt of harvested deer meat by other
2 29 governmental agencies and nonprofit entities. The natural
2 30 resource commission and the department of corrections shall
2 31 file a joint report containing their findings and
2 32 recommendations with the legislative service bureau by
2 33 February 1, 2004, for distribution to the general assembly.
2 34 SF 397
2 35 av/cc/26
O
Ollie
Guest
It's a pretty sad day when state legislators tell the professional DNR staff how to manage the deer herd. What's next, they will decide to alter the season dates more to their liking? Sounds like these additional licenses will be given away free, which does not make sense as the DNR sells out of the antlerless only licenses each year. Why not sell more antlerless licenses as the DNR certainly could use the money.
SPLIT LIMB
Member
Very well said! Let's hope we can reach out to our senators and talk some sense into them. As,why buy extra tags when they are free?
F
full-strut
Guest
I think some of you may not be reading into the jest of the bill. Not only is it designed to reduce the herd size of our deer population, it is also designed to defray costs to the citizens of Iowa.
In summary, I do agree, the tags should not be given away free, nor can the legislative branch impose a set number of tags to be given away. They are not biologists, nor do they have a knowledge of the outdoors and the sudden decrease in the deer population.
I personally know an individual who is instrumental in bring this file to a voting platform. Their main goal in the bill is to decrease the deer population in the Greater Des Moines area and in doing so "have the state government pick up the cost of processing at an established processing facility with all meat donated to the Iowa Department of Corrections."
I, too, am a firm believer those in jail should starve as they are there for a reason, but in putting this type of plan together the cost will drastically decrease for food items within the DOC and the extra money may be used in other areas of the state.
Just food for thought, I am sure there will definetly be a redaction or clarification to my post as someone is not going to like my opinion on this one.
In summary, I do agree, the tags should not be given away free, nor can the legislative branch impose a set number of tags to be given away. They are not biologists, nor do they have a knowledge of the outdoors and the sudden decrease in the deer population.
I personally know an individual who is instrumental in bring this file to a voting platform. Their main goal in the bill is to decrease the deer population in the Greater Des Moines area and in doing so "have the state government pick up the cost of processing at an established processing facility with all meat donated to the Iowa Department of Corrections."
I, too, am a firm believer those in jail should starve as they are there for a reason, but in putting this type of plan together the cost will drastically decrease for food items within the DOC and the extra money may be used in other areas of the state.
Just food for thought, I am sure there will definetly be a redaction or clarification to my post as someone is not going to like my opinion on this one.
H
horst
Guest
full strut, im not sure what your opinion is, you dont like the fact that the legislatures set the number of tags, you dont like the fact theyre free, and you dont think the inmates should be fed but other than that your in favor of the bill
Look at every bill thats come up in the last year, they have all been aimed at putting a little more money in the DNRs bank account.Now they gotta give away 18,000 tags.And with these tags you dont even have to buy a habitat stamp to shoot deer, I know most of us will anyway but its the logic behind it that kills me.
And the number of deer is crazy, 18,000 deer is a lot of deer to kill, escpecially if what you said about it being aimed at one area of the state is true.How many years can the deer herd substain an additional 18,000 deer killed before its to low.Just the bonus tags and either sex tags have dropped the deer herd around here to the lowest level Ive seen in the 20 years of hunting them.How many years can this program last with that high of number of deer killed each year.Are they gonna stop the program when the deer herds at an "acceptable"level?Is any of the money thats freed up by this program gonna be seen by the DNR for their part in giving away $468,000 worth of tags or are they gonna just have to make up forit by raising other hunting licenses?And finally if we got an extra 18,000 deer running around whay are non residents being charged an arm and a leg to kill them, maybe they should give out a free doe tag with every non resident either sex tag, that would cut down about 7500 deer a year, a much more realistic number in my opinion.At least in that case the DNRs still making the original 300$ license fee.
Look at every bill thats come up in the last year, they have all been aimed at putting a little more money in the DNRs bank account.Now they gotta give away 18,000 tags.And with these tags you dont even have to buy a habitat stamp to shoot deer, I know most of us will anyway but its the logic behind it that kills me.
And the number of deer is crazy, 18,000 deer is a lot of deer to kill, escpecially if what you said about it being aimed at one area of the state is true.How many years can the deer herd substain an additional 18,000 deer killed before its to low.Just the bonus tags and either sex tags have dropped the deer herd around here to the lowest level Ive seen in the 20 years of hunting them.How many years can this program last with that high of number of deer killed each year.Are they gonna stop the program when the deer herds at an "acceptable"level?Is any of the money thats freed up by this program gonna be seen by the DNR for their part in giving away $468,000 worth of tags or are they gonna just have to make up forit by raising other hunting licenses?And finally if we got an extra 18,000 deer running around whay are non residents being charged an arm and a leg to kill them, maybe they should give out a free doe tag with every non resident either sex tag, that would cut down about 7500 deer a year, a much more realistic number in my opinion.At least in that case the DNRs still making the original 300$ license fee.
I have a lot of problems with this illconcieved bill. First of all who says we have a burgeoning deer population? Are there hard numbers to verify that statement. In my area I believe that the population is way down, and several others say the same of their areas. Does the whole state need this reduction, or just the Des Moines metro area where the legislators see deer?
The next thing is how will these free tags be distributed and where? If you divide 18,000 tags by 99 counties you get 181.8 tags per county. I don't see this happening. These tags will be bunched in small areas and create extra pressure during this time of winter stress. Who will get these tags and can a person get more than one, and what about outfitters? What a nightmare to enforce this. If you don't need a habitate stamp do you need a reg license, because I don't think you can get a hunting license without a stamp? will these tags be for the Jan season or will they apply to all seasons? A violation of these regualtions is a simple misdomeaner, where as other game violations can be felonies which add to the prison populations. I can see a lot of violations and abuse of this bill.
The last point I'll make is how will these tags be used? I have a feeling that a lot of hunters will get these tags and never use them. If the weather is to cold or they have just had enough hunting for the year. If they have already filled all the tags available to them they have killed 7 to 14 deer. They will get a tag just in case and because it is free. If they shoot a doe and have a tag they paid for and get to keep the meat, or a free tag that means they need to haul the doe into a processor and give it away, which will they choose? For me there would be no contest! I would much rather give it to family or friends or even strangers than to criminals in prison. I also think that some deer will be killed and then wasted because the trip to the processor is just to much effort, after all it is only a misdemeanor.
If you haven't guessed yet I am against this bill and have sent e-mails saying so. On the surface it sounds ok to let people hunt more and use the meat for the prisons to save some money, but every thing has it's price. What happens to cattle prices if deer are substituted? If we don't need as many cattle why grow as much corn? If we don't grow as much corn what will the deer eat and on and on? A little far fetched, maybe but we need to look farther than the end of our noses!
The next thing is how will these free tags be distributed and where? If you divide 18,000 tags by 99 counties you get 181.8 tags per county. I don't see this happening. These tags will be bunched in small areas and create extra pressure during this time of winter stress. Who will get these tags and can a person get more than one, and what about outfitters? What a nightmare to enforce this. If you don't need a habitate stamp do you need a reg license, because I don't think you can get a hunting license without a stamp? will these tags be for the Jan season or will they apply to all seasons? A violation of these regualtions is a simple misdomeaner, where as other game violations can be felonies which add to the prison populations. I can see a lot of violations and abuse of this bill.
The last point I'll make is how will these tags be used? I have a feeling that a lot of hunters will get these tags and never use them. If the weather is to cold or they have just had enough hunting for the year. If they have already filled all the tags available to them they have killed 7 to 14 deer. They will get a tag just in case and because it is free. If they shoot a doe and have a tag they paid for and get to keep the meat, or a free tag that means they need to haul the doe into a processor and give it away, which will they choose? For me there would be no contest! I would much rather give it to family or friends or even strangers than to criminals in prison. I also think that some deer will be killed and then wasted because the trip to the processor is just to much effort, after all it is only a misdemeanor.
If you haven't guessed yet I am against this bill and have sent e-mails saying so. On the surface it sounds ok to let people hunt more and use the meat for the prisons to save some money, but every thing has it's price. What happens to cattle prices if deer are substituted? If we don't need as many cattle why grow as much corn? If we don't grow as much corn what will the deer eat and on and on? A little far fetched, maybe but we need to look farther than the end of our noses!
F
full-strut
Guest
I understand your point, I do have many issues that are left unclear. My main issue is the person I have talked to said if you hunt in the Des Moines area, you will be able to fill your tag in about every residential area with a tree on the property. The deer population is a burden to them, but not to me in Southern Iowa.
I DO feel the replacement of the meat in the prison system would do a supreme justice to the amount of budget restrictions now mandated by the state.
I do not feel that placing the deer meat in the prison system will run out any cattle farmer, row cropper, etc.. This is only a means of reducing the budget and lowering the deer population. As stated, I do not think the accurate number depicted of 18,000 tags is feasible as many counties do not have the population that other counties do.
I do feel that we should reciprocate with other states on the number of licenses issued and the licenses should be issued on a drawing per county for non-resident hunters.
This would reduce the number of out of state hunters who purchase a tag and head to where ever the last magazine article was written or the last TV show was produced in hopes of staking their claiming on an Iowa trophy, due to a restriction of the number of licenses issued for that particular county.
As most of you know, Iowa has gained a large amount of notoriety for the walking world record, the Jerry Martin Buck, the Swehela Buck, as well as many, many others.
The bill is only a suggestion which will probably not make it due to the wording. I am only saying parts of the bill are understandable and other parts of the bill definetly need clarification.
I DO feel the replacement of the meat in the prison system would do a supreme justice to the amount of budget restrictions now mandated by the state.
I do not feel that placing the deer meat in the prison system will run out any cattle farmer, row cropper, etc.. This is only a means of reducing the budget and lowering the deer population. As stated, I do not think the accurate number depicted of 18,000 tags is feasible as many counties do not have the population that other counties do.
I do feel that we should reciprocate with other states on the number of licenses issued and the licenses should be issued on a drawing per county for non-resident hunters.
This would reduce the number of out of state hunters who purchase a tag and head to where ever the last magazine article was written or the last TV show was produced in hopes of staking their claiming on an Iowa trophy, due to a restriction of the number of licenses issued for that particular county.
As most of you know, Iowa has gained a large amount of notoriety for the walking world record, the Jerry Martin Buck, the Swehela Buck, as well as many, many others.
The bill is only a suggestion which will probably not make it due to the wording. I am only saying parts of the bill are understandable and other parts of the bill definetly need clarification.