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

DNR Layoffs

As I understand it, services wont be impacted, so this is really just trimming the fat. Your local foresters are still available.

You must be out of your mind if you think services won't be impacted.....

"DNR spokesman Alex Murphy says no services will be impacted by the changes, which also include the elimination of a program that helps maintain Iowa's trails. The department is also ending its participation in the AmeriCorps program."

Give it a few years and our state parks and other wildlife areas will steadily decline.... AmeriCorps workers are a huge help in our public areas. The State employees are already stretched so thin that there wasn't any fat to begin with! More like taking fingers, toes, or heck even whole limbs...... You wait give it time we'll all see
 
A lot of license money gets sent back (all that $$$ could be used to pay for these services).
 
This is why we need a increase in our license fees! The state hasn't had a fee increase in about twenty years. When the bill failed to pass this year they said programs where going to suffer..... well guess what now its happening. As sportsmen and women we need to pay up so we can continue to enjoy the great outdoors of this state.
 
That's just one step closer to letting Iowa become the next state that used to be good hunting. No thanks. I'd rather significantly increase our fees we pay as residents before opening up tags.

I was just pointing out the reality of the situation. If you send that money back, you have less for budgets, and things like buying public land for hunting.
 
Wouldn't you also agree that not sending money back would contribute to the demise of why people send their money in in the first place? It's a double edge sword.
 
I would gladly pay higher fees to hunt in state - I dont think a significant increase would be needed as even a slight increase wouldn't change the number of licences sold but would greatly increase revenue for state-
 
Wouldn't you also agree that not sending money back would contribute to the demise of why people send their money in in the first place? It's a double edge sword.
Yes if you added a lot of tags... but say 1000 tags at 550/each. Drop in the bucket.

DNR could buy a 160 for public hunting every year with that money.

That being said, they wouldn't allocate it for public land anyway... so moot point.
 
I would pay 35 bucks for my deer tags if I could see more public land boughten. Won't happen in my part of the state though . Aren't land owner tags 1 dollar ? Be an easy increase to 10 if you ask me .
 
In my opinion this is another example where certain programs/departments are fiscally starved and then pointed out as being ineffective. I am afraid that this is just the beginning.
 
Public land in our area is being destroyed... The dnr has cut down almost all the trees and turned the once wooded areas into crops... Some of the places are so bad with downed trees you can't even walk into what was once a good area to hunt. I just don't see what they are trying to do.... I see more riding trails being made...
 
I applaud the idea of smaller government always. The Dnr foresters did help fill a niche,but I believe the private sector can do it more efficiently. I have dealt with some over the years and can't say that I would miss them being gone. They seem to have a very arrogant approach to how they felt MY land should be treated. Conflict with them has caused me to avoid any projects that the state forester has to be involved with.
I also do not believe in posting anonymously when speaking of someone's livelihood
Steve Hanson.
 
I applaud the idea of smaller government always. The Dnr foresters did help fill a niche,but I believe the private sector can do it more efficiently. I have dealt with some over the years and can't say that I would miss them being gone. They seem to have a very arrogant approach to how they felt MY land should be treated. Conflict with them has caused me to avoid any projects that the state forester has to be involved with.
I also do not believe in posting anonymously when speaking of someone's livelihood
Steve Hanson.

Generally speaking I agree with your assessment of government. The foresters that you deal with in the field arnt going anywhere. They are just being reassigned to the wildlife bureau
 
I do realize the change is a restructuring not an curtailing of the foresters, There are some good ones in there I am sure. I just don't have it in me any more to deal with the bureaucracy for a pittance of cost share. If I buy or manage a farm with good dirt on it the trees have to go, I guess that is why my tree planter is sitting in rust and my dozer needs new tracks,rails and sprockets.
 
Here's an idea.....restrict resident any sex tags to 2 per year regardless of whether you own ground or not then increase the number of NR bow tags by "x" amount and you get a significant increase in cash flow. Another great idea is to increase those $1 or $2 tags to $10 and increase resident tags as well. I do think keeping things efficient and lean from a business stand point is the thing to do but at some point you can't just make cuts without increasing revenue. Increasing the number of NR archery tags would also boost the local economies significantly.
 
As a non resident I'd rather them keep the NR tag quotas the same and double the cost of it, a lot of guys would drop out of the system which would reduce the amount points it would take to draw a tag, but I still believe there's enough serious guys to still sell out thus doubling the income without effecting any of the current management practices.
 
Last edited:
As a non resident I'd rather them keep the NR tag quotas the same and double the cost of it, a lot of guys would drop out of the system which would reduce the amount points it would take to draw a tag, but I still believe there's enough serious guys to still sell out thus doubling the income without effecting any of the current management practices.

If it got to that point, I would just sell to a resident, $1000 for a whitetail is absurd. I have kids that want to hunt, and it would be pointless trying to work that out. South Dakota would be my destination, great deer, pheasant and turkey hunting, and I could double or triple my acres. So in a sense that would benefit the residents.
 
Top Bottom