• Dear User,

    We had issues in getting your old password work with the new version of the software, henceforth kindly Reset Your Password here

    You won't be able to login with your old password

    If you do not receive the Password reset request within a few minutes, please check your Junk / Spam E-mail folder just in case the email got delivered there instead of your inbox. If so, select Not Junk, which will allow future messages to get through.

    If you still need assistance, email [email protected]

    We appreciate your patience and understanding on this matter.

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

And so it begins......again

Elvis188

Super Moderator
I asked a question on another thread and no one attempted to answer my question. I'll ask again here.
What would you rather have, a Non-Resident Landowner getting one buck tag per year or that same Non-Resident landowner leasing his land to an outfitter who can have multiple non-residents hunt bucks on the same property? It seems to me, allowing a guy to shoot one buck on his own ground is a much safer way to go than to have him lease it out to an outfitter. My understanding is that many non-residents are leasing their ground because they can't hunt their own ground every year and they want to produce some income. Again, I don't have a dog in the fight but I can't see why anyone would complain about one guy hunting one buck on his own ground yearly, versus having an outfitter hurt an entire neighborhood by killing multiple bucks on the same ground that the landowner is not currently allowed to hunt.
 

Hardwood11

It is going to be a good fall!
I asked a question on another thread and no one attempted to answer my question. I'll ask again here.
What would you rather have, a Non-Resident Landowner getting one buck tag per year or that same Non-Resident landowner leasing his land to an outfitter who can have multiple non-residents hunt bucks on the same property? It seems to me, allowing a guy to shoot one buck on his own ground is a much safer way to go than to have him lease it out to an outfitter. My understanding is that many non-residents are leasing their ground because they can't hunt their own ground every year and they want to produce some income. Again, I don't have a dog in the fight but I can't see why anyone would complain about one guy hunting one buck on his own ground yearly, versus having an outfitter hurt an entire neighborhood by killing multiple bucks on the same ground that the landowner is not currently allowed to hunt.
I think you are right on the NR if he manages it properly. I would lean that way. Some guides are very ethical and they do not over hunt the farm (mainly if they own it)--I can think of one that is near me and they have great land and they are very selective.. Leases can be a real problem if they have multiple hunters in the same stands all year long.

The worst farm in my opinion is the farm that lets everyone hunt and they shoot whatever moves.
 

sep0667

Land of the Whitetail
I asked a question on another thread and no one attempted to answer my question. I'll ask again here.
What would you rather have, a Non-Resident Landowner getting one buck tag per year or that same Non-Resident landowner leasing his land to an outfitter who can have multiple non-residents hunt bucks on the same property? It seems to me, allowing a guy to shoot one buck on his own ground is a much safer way to go than to have him lease it out to an outfitter. My understanding is that many non-residents are leasing their ground because they can't hunt their own ground every year and they want to produce some income. Again, I don't have a dog in the fight but I can't see why anyone would complain about one guy hunting one buck on his own ground yearly, versus having an outfitter hurt an entire neighborhood by killing multiple bucks on the same ground that the landowner is not currently allowed to hunt.
I would nearly think any NR doing this is nearly sabotaging themselves for when they do draw a tag. I am sure it happens though.
 

sure shot

Member
Nonresident tags are limited, hence the reason non resident land owners can't hunt every year. The total number of non resident deer tags is already fixed, so leasing out land to an outfitter isn't going to increase the total number of non resident tags.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk
 

kelcher

Well-Known Member
As a guy that wished for years that I could own some land and then finally did it, I am so happy that I didn't have to compete with even more people. Wages and salaries are a lot higher in some other states, so in my opinion making it hard to draw a tag even when you own land is a deterrent for a lot of people. Less competition for Iowan who want an opportunity to buy some land close to home. I am not anti NR, I am just very much pro resident. Sometimes these interests clash some, just like what is happening out West with tags.
 

IowaBowHunter1983

Super Moderator
Staff member
But again, the quality of deer in Iowa would only get better in my opinion if NR landowners could hunt their own farm.
Def not the case and here is why.... say that law passes.... OVERNIGHT the demand for Iowa land skyrockets. You have people lined up that would buy Iowa land if they could hunt every year. There is then a major acceleration of chopping farms up to reach the most buyers. What do you think happens to deer quality when every 200-400+ acre piece gets chopped up and sold as 40s? I've seen this movie before!
And as a secondary detriment, already poor access for Iowa RESIDENTS completely goes down the toilet.
 

Daver

PMA Member
Def not the case and here is why.... say that law passes.... OVERNIGHT the demand for Iowa land skyrockets. You have people lined up that would buy Iowa land if they could hunt every year. There is then a major acceleration of chopping farms up to reach the most buyers. What do you think happens to deer quality when every 200-400+ acre piece gets chopped up and sold as 40s? I've seen this movie before!
And as a secondary detriment, already poor access for Iowa RESIDENTS completely goes down the toilet.

Absolutely this. ^^ It is sort of happening now, many farms are being segmented and sold off as smaller pieces because the demand for high quality hunting land is already strong. Any change that "opens" it up further will accelerate that.
 

Falldreams

Active Member
Def not the case and here is why.... say that law passes.... OVERNIGHT the demand for Iowa land skyrockets. You have people lined up that would buy Iowa land if they could hunt every year. There is then a major acceleration of chopping farms up to reach the most buyers. What do you think happens to deer quality when every 200-400+ acre piece gets chopped up and sold as 40s? I've seen this movie before!
And as a secondary detriment, already poor access for Iowa RESIDENTS completely goes down the toilet.
%100 all TRUE!

This is deep subject no doubt, however people that are actually "in the know" fully understand all of these dynamics and how crushing it would be to Iowa's legendary deer quality. Once again.......Iowa's deer hunting resource and quality is sooooooooo delicate. It can all be crushed and just another over hunted state of what used to be. Just like basically what the rest of the mid west states have become in such short time.
 

Rous14

Well-Known Member
%100 all TRUE!

This is deep subject no doubt, however people that are actually "in the know" fully understand all of these dynamics and how crushing it would be to Iowa's legendary deer quality. Once again.......Iowa's deer hunting resource and quality is sooooooooo delicate. It can all be crushed and just another over hunted state of what used to be. Just like basically what the rest of the mid west states have become in such short time.
Agreed, deep subject for sure. Lots of different angles, opinions, ways of viewing it. I’m always amazed and impressed with how civil this board remains when there’s different opinions. I love it. How much better would
our country be if it was all like that!!

I’m not certain that what you describe would necessarily be the case, at least not any worse than to the extent that it already happens. Demand for hunting land has never been higher than it is right now. Despite that, my personal observation in IL, while admittedly anecdotal, is that the vast majority of NRLO don’t go through all of the hassle, time, financial commitment, sacrifice from a family standpoint, etc…. to go spend time on a 40acre piece. These folks are typically very well off financially, and are extreme deer hunter/managers. Like so many folks on here they are obsessed/passionate about killing big deer and improving the habitat. Literally every single one that I know of (probably 12-16 of them in various counties) own on average 200 acre plus parcels. I’m friends with the primary real estate company selling the majority of land in W Central IL and my wife would tell you I’m obsessed with following rec land, it’s values, the local listings etc..,and I’ll ask them but I haven’t seen this race to small parcels that you’re talking about.
I’d also add that I’m not so sure a square mile broke in to 40’s w owners like Skip wouldn’t be at least as good if not better than a similar square mile that’s like most in Iowa right now where you have deer drives, owners that don’t care about age or rack size, etc…
 

Hardwood11

It is going to be a good fall!
Rous14--is demand at all time high or is there just fewer parcels to buy/lack of supply?. I have kind of checked out on buying anything new because I feel the market is close to peak. I think some others are as well. The sales are definitely "frothy".

The insanity has to slow down and then it could be very interesting. I don't know when, but seems to be close. The high prices will scare away some buyers and there will be landowners that look at the gains and say " I'll sell for that price". Lots of factors need to slowly change and it will get interesting.
 

IowaBowHunter1983

Super Moderator
Staff member
I’m not certain that what you describe would necessarily be the case, at least not any worse than to the extent that it already happens.
Hypothetical scenario: Everyone who owns xx or more acres gets an any-sex tag in Iowa regardless of residency.

Question: Demand for Iowa land goes up, down, or stays the same from people all over the country.

..... I think we all know the answer.

(I am just one person and I personally know multiple NR's that have flat out said they would buy (or try to buy) ground if they could get tags).
 

Sligh1

Administrator
Staff member
I asked a question on another thread and no one attempted to answer my question. I'll ask again here.
What would you rather have, a Non-Resident Landowner getting one buck tag per year or that same Non-Resident landowner leasing his land to an outfitter who can have multiple non-residents hunt bucks on the same property? It seems to me, allowing a guy to shoot one buck on his own ground is a much safer way to go than to have him lease it out to an outfitter. My understanding is that many non-residents are leasing their ground because they can't hunt their own ground every year and they want to produce some income. Again, I don't have a dog in the fight but I can't see why anyone would complain about one guy hunting one buck on his own ground yearly, versus having an outfitter hurt an entire neighborhood by killing multiple bucks on the same ground that the landowner is not currently allowed to hunt.
Good question!!
Here’s my “non-answer”…. Neither. Here’s why:
1) the second NR’s can get buck tags every year: every drop of iowa timber that comes for sale will be owned by NR’s. 100000% it will climb to $7-12k/acre - no problem. When that happens - land gets subdivided smaller & smaller & quality tanks. WE ONLY HAVE 7-8% timber (I adjusted based on current stats ;) ) & it’s stacked in a few parts of the state. We are too close to the largest hunting armies in the country that want to leave their devastated states: WI, MN, MI, Etc. Every drop of land would be bought up or made so expensive that the everyday guy would be done.

2) don’t want outfitters. The fewer the better. I know maybe 2-3 that do a good job. (One is a member here but does it lightly & he’s top tier- super rare!!!). For 20-30 that do not. The average outfitter: good-bye quality hunting. I literally would sell my farm if an outfitter was anchored next to it. That’s me but that’s how bad I feel outfitting is for quality hunting. OK…. I’ll say this, I’d rather have NR landowners all over VS outfitters. If I picked one. But both would cripple the system in different ways. Like: “would u rather die by being burned alive or torn apart by wild dogs?!?” …. NEITHER!!!


The way it is now, overall is “good”. Not great. Iowa is good. Which puts it above almost all other states. Like “Michigan” - I would rate that, nothing close to “GOOD”…. I’ll call it??!?!?!!!!???…. HMMMM….. “A JOKE”. There we go! Most states are a “disaster” all the way to “mediocre”. The exceptions are big landowners & coops in any state that “self regulate” to allow bucks to reach older ages.

So- if iowa is “good” - how do we make it GREAT???….
1) totally agree- no one needs to shoot 3 bucks. It’s rarely done but I’d gladly give up a tag. If iowa was a 1 buck state - WHOA!!!
2) leave all the new seasons, more access, new this, new that - leave it alone!!!!!! NO MORE!!!!!!!! 4 months, 7 seasons, gazillion weapons - NO MORE!!!! If we wanted to make it great, reduce the season to “3 months” vs adding to it!!!

Leaving things the heck alone, no more liberalizing regs/weapons/seasons & 1 buck rule would bring iowa into a status like nothing anyone has ever seen. Improve access & opportunity for all hunters as well. All on 7-8% timber!!!!! Why other states don’t say “huh, our residents are fleeing to iowa and our hunting sucks - maybe we should copy iowa?!?” is mind boggling. MN, WI, MO, MI, PA, NE, etc - all could have the best states in the country if one ounce of common sense was implemented. Any of these states would destroy iowa if they could get their heads out of their A$$ES!!!!!!

Love my NR buddies & want em to stay here & would do exact same thing if I were them (they are smart. Other Guys stuck in those states that don’t leave- UGGGHHHH!!!!)…. BUT…. Isn’t it ironic how all of them drive across millions of acres of premium whitetail habitat, drive countless hours & spend a fortune to cross into a border that simply has different regulations!?!?!! It’s not better habitat or more of it…. It’s the same as what they left without suicidal regulations. The solution isn’t to ruin iowa- the solution is to fix these disaster states with 5-10x the habitat!
 

Rous14

Well-Known Member
Hypothetical scenario: Everyone who owns xx or more acres gets an any-sex tag in Iowa regardless of residency.

Question: Demand for Iowa land goes up, down, or stays the same from people all over the country.

..... I think we all know the answer.

(I am just one person and I personally know multiple NR's that have flat out said they would buy (or try to buy) ground if they could get tags).
Sure but your question is irrelevant to my point and my main question which is would the quality of hunting be sacrificed?

Demand and prices for land in IA could go up (as you point out) AND the quality of hunting could go up too. They’re not mutually exclusive.

You and other Iowans may say you don’t want the prices to go up and I certainly understand that. But in my opinion, too often the pathetic regulations in other states that allow for too many outfitters, too many seasons, too many nr non landowner tags, gun seasons in the rut, etc…… get blurred & blended in to the same thing as non resident landowners being able to hunt their land as just one more way that the quality in these other states are bad.
They’re not at all the same thing, not even in the same universe in my opinion, and need to be separated psychologically.

I think we’d all agree that THE most important factor in allowing for world class hunting in any given area in the midwest, despite all the bad regulations, is NEIGHBORHOOD. Give me a square mile or two, regardless of how you break up the parcels, where everyone is kinda like Skip and we’ll have the best hunting on the planet.
Now imagine a way to sorta promote or ensure that your neighbors on all sides are kinda like Skip. That’s what most NRLO’s are! Skip was from MI, he didn’t miraculously change when he became a resident of IA. And if he still lived in MI right now you’re telling me you wouldn’t want a guy like him as your neighbor!? I’d beg him to buy next to me!!
Go to your local processor on opening day of gun and see if one of those yearling bucks laying there belongs to a SINGLE nrlo. Illinois is same exact way. I’ve done it. Like all of us I have 4 landowners on my borders. One is from Wisconsin and they are extremely selective. One is a local/resident and they too are extremely selective. The other two - to my east and south are locals/residents and shoot anything that moves. It’s the same thing in every state you go to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arm

IowaBowHunter1983

Super Moderator
Staff member
Sure but your question is irrelevant to my point and my main question which is would the quality of hunting be sacrificed?

Demand and prices for land in IA could go up (as you point out) AND the quality of hunting could go up too. They’re not mutually exclusive.

You and other Iowans may say you don’t want the prices to go up and I certainly understand that. But in my opinion, too often the pathetic regulations in other states that allow for too many outfitters, too many seasons, too many nr non landowner tags, gun seasons in the rut, etc…… get blurred & blended in to the same thing as non resident landowners being able to hunt their land as just one more way that the quality in these other states are bad.
They’re not at all the same thing, not even in the same universe in my opinion, and need to be separated psychologically.

I think we’d all agree that THE most important factor in allowing for world class hunting in any given area in the midwest, despite all the bad regulations, is NEIGHBORHOOD. Give me a square mile or two, regardless of how you break up the parcels, where everyone is kinda like Skip and we’ll have the best hunting on the planet.
Now imagine a way to sorta promote or ensure that your neighbors on all sides are kinda like Skip. That’s what most NRLO’s are! Skip was from MI, he didn’t miraculously change when he became a resident of IA. And if he still lived in MI right now you’re telling me you wouldn’t want a guy like him as your neighbor!? I’d beg him to buy next to me!!
Go to your local processor on opening day of gun and see if one of those yearling bucks laying there belongs to a SINGLE nrlo. Illinois is same exact way. I’ve done it. Like all of us I have 4 landowners on my borders. One is from Wisconsin and they are extremely selective. One is a local/resident and they too are extremely selective. The other two - to my east and south are locals/residents and shoot anything that moves. It’s the same thing in every state you go to.
Yes the quality of hunting would go down. 100%. It's simple math. WAY more tags to NR's = more deer getting shot. More deer getting shot = less make it to older age class. We can't pretend all NR's are good managers. They arn't. Just the opposite IMO.

And my previous point about real estate demand and tract division is 100% valid.

I hunted way too many crappy years in Michigan to hope ANY regulation trends in the direction of other crappy hunting states.

I can only hope things in Iowa do not change and i'll fight the good fight in support of that.
 

Rous14

Well-Known Member
Rous14--is demand at all time high or is there just fewer parcels to buy/lack of supply?. I have kind of checked out on buying anything new because I feel the market is close to peak. I think some others are as well. The sales are definitely "frothy".

The insanity has to slow down and then it could be very interesting. I don't know when, but seems to be close. The high prices will scare away some buyers and there will be landowners that look at the gains and say " I'll sell for that price". Lots of factors need to slowly change and it will get interesting.
Great question Hardwood and I wish I knew haha. I agree with ya, sure seems like its got to cool off sometime soon. As you say it’ll be interesting to see what happens as interest rates continue to rise.
 

Oct-Lull

Well-Known Member
I know of at least 5 non residents that would buy land tomorrow if it got them a tag each year. The long term effects of a law like that would be negative for those who make the state home. Who cares if the quality is great if you can't compete for a spot to hunt. Whats next if you lease enough you get one too? That's a big investment as well. Then what happens when 25% of the NR allotment is locked in with NRLO ? Let's add 25% so people don't get left out. The upshot of it is there is alot of money outside of this state. Live here if you want first crack and make the sacrifice. In our area I would say not one NR is leasing to an outfitter on off years. Its not about who does more for the herd, its about keeping access for people who live here.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

About this Discussion

Top Bottom