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

SF 464- now SF 581 - additional updates & contact info.... please read & write in!!!

Sligh1

Sligh1

Administrator
Staff member
New number with amendments

Not one hunting group on the Deer Study Group, all deer haters. Now renamed to: SF581

Passed on a hybrid voice/rollcall. Not really sure how that is possible but the Senators voting no must have wanted their vote on record and the yes votes wanted to hide.



Here is a link to the video. Senator Dotzler stuck up for us and Senator Green dismissed us. It’s all in his tone of voice. The section of the meeting pertaining to SF 464 starts at about 2:40:25. That is the actual time of day not the length of the video. It only last a few minutes.



Link: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/dashboard?view=video&chamber=S&clip=s20210315020150225&dt=2021-03-15
 
Last edited:
This week we focus on one piece of legislation, SF 464 is extremely important to the natural resources in Iowa in a harmful way. If you are a constituent of one of the Senators on Ways and Means Committee listed below, please contact them. Actually ALL Senators and Representatives need to be contacted. Both the Senate and House need to hear from sportsmen and women. Talking points against SF 464 are listed below.



“Find Your Legislator” https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislators/find



SF 464 (formerly SF 427) - Deer Population - Under current law, deer hunting licenses are allocated by zones and counties. The bill establishes a January antlerless deer hunting season in a county whenever that county has unsold antlerless deer hunting licenses available in its county quota set by the natural resource commission. The commission will establish the season dates. The bill sets the time when a person may purchase a license for the January season and states that the license is valid only in the county identified on the license.

The bill makes a rifle with a barrel length of at least 16 inches and firing centerfire ammunition propelling an expanding-type bullet with a maximum diameter of no less than 0.233 inches and no larger than 0.500 inches and with a published or calculated muzzle energy of 500 foot pounds or higher the approved method of take for the January antlerless deer hunting season.

The bill requires DNR to conduct a study to determine the estimated deer population in each county in this state.

The bill also reduces the fine for taking an antlerless deer out of season from the current fine of $1500 down to $50.

Approved with an amendment by the Ways and Means subcommittee
 
 
Talking points on SF 464- now SF 581



*The DNR hires some of the best biologists in the country. We should allow the professionals to do their job. I once heard a DNR director say “If we are getting chewed on equally by both sides of the equation, we are probably in a good place”.



*When the public and legislators are driving around this time of year, they see large groups of deer. We have just gotten through the worst winter in several years, deer will gather in the best food sources still remaining. Very soon they will move back into their core areas, and the large herds won’t be seen.



*Access is a big problem for most sportsmen and women in Iowa. Our State is ranked 48th in the nation for the amount of public areas open to hunting. As such, we rely heavily on private landowners to allow access. Over the last few years thousands of acres have been bought up for private recreational use, the result being public access has been greatly reduced. Most individuals who have purchased this land want more deer, mainly big bucks. Thus hotspots are created and many times the deer, not knowing the property boundaries, cross the fence on to the neighbor that might not be in favor of more deer. So the deer eat the neighbor’s crops and then hop the fence back to the private refuges.



I’m asking that you not support SF 464.



Feel free to add any comments, just be polite and respectful



The reason I cannot support this legislation is I cannot support any legislation that curtails or limits Iowa residents to any natural resources opportunities. I am primarily a bowhunter but cross over and enjoy all forms of the great outdoors.
 
Sligh1 said:
Talking points on SF 464- now SF 581



*The DNR hires some of the best biologists in the country. We should allow the professionals to do their job. I once heard a DNR director say “If we are getting chewed on equally by both sides of the equation, we are probably in a good place”.



*When the public and legislators are driving around this time of year, they see large groups of deer. We have just gotten through the worst winter in several years, deer will gather in the best food sources still remaining. Very soon they will move back into their core areas, and the large herds won’t be seen.



*Access is a big problem for most sportsmen and women in Iowa. Our State is ranked 48th in the nation for the amount of public areas open to hunting. As such, we rely heavily on private landowners to allow access. Over the last few years thousands of acres have been bought up for private recreational use, the result being public access has been greatly reduced. Most individuals who have purchased this land want more deer, mainly big bucks. Thus hotspots are created and many times the deer, not knowing the property boundaries, cross the fence on to the neighbor that might not be in favor of more deer. So the deer eat the neighbor’s crops and then hop the fence back to the private refuges.



I’m asking that you not support SF 464.



Feel free to add any comments, just be polite and respectful



The reason I cannot support this legislation is I cannot support any legislation that curtails or limits Iowa residents to any natural resources opportunities. I am primarily a bowhunter but cross over and enjoy all forms of the great outdoors.
Click to expand...
Skip do you have a link to the update bill with the amendments?
 
Thanks Skip and all,

What I shared—pulled from several on these threads:

Dear

Thank you for hearing my concerns. I was raised in Iowa and left the state after graduating from high school. 17 years later we moved back to this great state to raise our family. One of the joys of living in Iowa is having a world-class deer hunting experience. My father and I own a farm in southwest Iowa and have enjoyed hunting with our family. We battle poachers every year.

These two bills will not enhance nor improve deer hunting for Iowa residents.

SF581 — It is absurd to reduce the current fine from $1,500 down to $50 for poaching any kind of poaching. We battle poachers all year long. If anything, increase the fine to deter the behavior and cover the State’s cost in recovering the fine — and create more revenue for the State of Iowa. Please do not make it easier for them.

As it relates to the deer population management issue, please leave that to the DNR biologists and do not make changes to antlerless deer tags or the methods of take that are available. Although rifles are already in play, we do not need changes to allow more calibers or rifles for doe management at this time. This will further degrade the age structure of the deer herd that residents and non-residents alike come to Iowa to hunt and hurt overall population numbers. Long-term, there is a revenue impact here that will decrease non-resident interest and all of the tag and preference point fees.

HR60 — I am opposed to providing special privileges to outfitters. Outfitters who run a successful business do not need tags allocated to them. They book and work with hunters who are going to draw a tag for the upcoming season. This bill will result in requests for additional non-resident tags, requests for non-resident landowners to receive tags and other changes that will hurt Iowa residents’ ability to access land and have a quality hunt. Additionally, this bill will result in more outfitters being formed and more land being leased for the outfitters’ business - again impacting the average Iowan’s access to land. Even if the proposal limits outfitters to those currently formed, we know that they will lobby to change that in short order. Out of state hunters do not overrun public land so this bill doesn’t help with that phantom problem either. Further, our non-resident tag preference point system is more favorable than most other highly desired states for big game. Again, it’s currently working well.

Hunting is already inching towards turning into a ‘rich person’s’ sport and that shouldn’t be the case - this bill will exacerbate that and further hurt land access for residents.

Both of these bills are counterproductive to maintaining Iowa as a destination state for the long-term and more importantly, are bad for Iowa residents’ land access and quality hunting opportunities.

Please vote against HR60 and SF581 for your fellow Iowans.

Respectfully,
Chad


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Hawk32 said:
Thanks Skip..I emailed all of them.. Politely;)
Click to expand...

Politely? I guess there is a first time for everything. :cool:

Just a note to everyone, I don't start new threads every time a bill number changes. I like to keep the original thread so everyone can see the existing discussions and history. If a bill number does change I'm pretty good at posting it the same day it changes.

This is not to say that there shouldn't be more than one thread as it may bring more attention to the bill/issue when the numbers change, and anything that brings more attention and activity is a good thing. I just choose to keep posting in the original thread.

Thanks to all who are active. We can't do it without you.
 
This bill is now on the Senate Daily debate calendar for tomorrow 4/6/21.

We had heard this bill was dead but it appears to have ben resurrected. Contact your Senator again.
 
bigbuckhunter88 said:
Any update on how this ended up today?
Click to expand...

It was not debated and dropped off the debate calendar. I don't know what is going on as I still have a lot to learn about how this all works. There are several different calendars in the senate, the daily debate is just one of them. There is also a ways and means calendar and this bill should be on that calendar because it is a ways and means bill, but I can't seem to find a specific published ways and means calendar. What I can find is according to the rules of the senate bills on the ways and means calendar can be called up at anytime. I'm not sure that it will be, like I said, I'm still trying to figure this out.

Now, on the way it probably really works; I have heard that old school money has taken a new interest in this bill. If the rumors are true the bill could be dead, it is just a rumor but I've got my fingers crossed. It is shaping up to be, in my opinion, old school sportsmen with clout fighting an insurance company with bags of money.

The LSA published a fiscal impact report on this bill. Link to the fiscal impact report: FISCAL IMPACT LINK
 
This bill is back on the debate calendar for tomorrow 4/21/21.

This bill has more lives than a cat. It would be beneficial to send your Senator an email tonight to remind them to vote no on SF 581.

I heard as recently as last Thursday that this bill was dead.
 
Passed the Senate today 34-14.

Link to the debate: SF 581 DEBATE

The clip is just shy of 4 minutes, pretty slow and hard to watch but it gives you an idea of the thinking behind the bill.

The bill will move to the House, probably the Ways and Means committee.
 
Another LSA fiscal note was done this time on the bill's impact on the DNR budget: LSA FISCAL NOTE #2

This is pretty easy to interpret, but even easier to cut and paste the important part:

Assumptions
• The number of illegal harvest penalties will remain similar to FY 2020 at 11.
• The number of depredation licenses sold will remain similar to FY 2020 at 3,649.

Fiscal Impact First Year
A reduction of $1,000 in revenue per illegal harvest (11) is expected, for a total of $11,000. A reduction of $13 in revenue per depredation license (3,649) is expected, for a total of $47,000.

Recurring
It will cost an estimated $150,000 to conduct a study every three years, assuming a contract with Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service.
The change will cause a permanent reduction of approximately $62,000 to the Fish and Wildlife Protection Fund in the first year (FY 2022).
The study will create a recurring cost of $150,000 every three years to the Fish and Wildlife Protection Fund.

Keep buying those licenses and tags so we can make up the short fall in the FWTF. You know damn well the legislature will never pay for it, if this passes.

EDIT: to add that the House has yet to assign this bill to a committee.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom