House File 2015 - Landowner Tag Changes

[seven twenty]

...."deer only deer hunting license, to the owner of a farm unit or a member of the owner's family, but only a total of two licenses for both"...

ok...does this mean the licenses can be used by the farm unit owner's family member, WITHOUT the farm unit owner, hunting with them in the field?

ie...Grandpa (the farm unit owner), letting his son or grandson hunt with the (2) landowner tags, while grandpa is not in the field with them...

I don't see where that is clarified.....that's not good.

Grandpa, Mom, Trust, LLC, Corp: they are being used that way already. Really doesn’t change that aspect. I guarantee that tags are issued to people who aren’t listed on the trust or aren’t a board mbr on the LLC/Corp etc… (lack of updated paperwork)
If there was an issue, they can just claim to be the tenant. As long as no 2 claim the same parcel, who’s going to figure it out. The way it works right now, you could have a half dozen people hunting the same parcel with a LO tag.

Example: A family has 20 separate parcels. The parcels are registered to different “names/trust/LLC/wife/sister” or whatever. Grandpa, 2 sons, and 3 grandsons each get an LO tag for a different parcel because the current system allows it. A couple of them may claim as tenants, but it’s still allowed. All parcels are considered the *family” farm so they all hunt the best piece. Cash renters that get LO tags are hunting the same parcel as the owner because it can’t be enforced.

While technically it may be illegal, it would be almost impossible to enforce. The State just needs to come out and say that you can only use the LO tag on the parcel that the tag is registered under. If you’ve got ground in 2 different counties, pick which one you want to use your LO tag on for example.

 

[newfarmer]

Grandpa, Mom, Trust, LLC, Corp: they are being used that way already. Really doesn’t change that aspect. I guarantee that tags are issued to people who aren’t listed on the trust or aren’t a board mbr on the LLC/Corp etc… (lack of updated paperwork)
If there was an issue, they can just claim to be the tenant. As long as no 2 claim the same parcel, who’s going to figure it out. The way it works right now, you could have a half dozen people hunting the same parcel with a LO tag.

Example: A family has 20 separate parcels. The parcels are registered to different “names/trust/LLC/wife/sister” or whatever. Grandpa, 2 sons, and 3 grandsons each get an LO tag for a different parcel because the current system allows it. A couple of them may claim as tenants, but it’s still allowed. All parcels are considered the *family” farm so they all hunt the best piece. Cash renters that get LO tags are hunting the same parcel as the owner because it can’t be enforced.

While technically it may be illegal, it would be almost impossible to enforce. The State just needs to come out and say that you can only use the LO tag on the parcel that the tag is registered under. If you’ve got ground in 2 different counties, pick which one you want to use your LO tag on for example.

My opinion- should only be listed as owner/family. The tenant is where it gets used and abused way more than family in my opinion. For example- a guy used to be the “tenant” for his dad’s piece. But they both claimed LOT. Dad as owner, son as tenant. Just so they each could get 3 tags a year

 

[Windlooker]

The Bonker has been missing going on 3 years now. Where is he

 

[Earnhardt]

Grandpa, Mom, Trust, LLC, Corp: they are being used that way already. Really doesn’t change that aspect. I guarantee that tags are issued to people who aren’t listed on the trust or aren’t a board mbr on the LLC/Corp etc… (lack of updated paperwork)
If there was an issue, they can just claim to be the tenant. As long as no 2 claim the same parcel, who’s going to figure it out. The way it works right now, you could have a half dozen people hunting the same parcel with a LO tag.

Example: A family has 20 separate parcels. The parcels are registered to different “names/trust/LLC/wife/sister” or whatever. Grandpa, 2 sons, and 3 grandsons each get an LO tag for a different parcel because the current system allows it. A couple of them may claim as tenants, but it’s still allowed. All parcels are considered the *family” farm so they all hunt the best piece. Cash renters that get LO tags are hunting the same parcel as the owner because it can’t be enforced.

While technically it may be illegal, it would be almost impossible to enforce. The State just needs to come out and say that you can only use the LO tag on the parcel that the tag is registered under. If you’ve got ground in 2 different counties, pick which one you want to use your LO tag on for example.

Ok, let me start off here...I'm NOT a land owner, and I do NOT have any relatives who meet the criteria of getting land owner tags...

So what is legal with this New Bill becoming law?

Let's say John Johnson is an 80 acre land owner, so he will/can now get (2) tags for his property. (1 Any Sex, 1 Doe tag)

John Johnson's dad, is also a land owner (separate piece of land) who owns a minimum of 80 acres of land, so the dad can now also get (2) Land Owner tag and he can give those (2) tags to his son John Johnson? Who already has (2) Land Owner tags from his own property.

So the son John Johnson, can now get a total of (2) Any sex Land Owner tags, and (2) Doe Land Owner tags? With the combo fo his tags, and the tags his dad gave him?

I thought this Bill reads that the (1) individual, John Johnson, can only get (2) Land Owner tags? In any manner or combo, either with his 80 acre piece, or his dad's.

Thanks

 

[newfarmer]

Ok, let me start off here...I'm NOT a land owner, and I do NOT have any relatives who meet the criteria of getting land owner tags...

So what is legal with this New Bill becoming law?

Let's say John Johnson is an 80 acre land owner, so he will/can now get (2) tags for his property. (1 Any Sex, 1 Doe tag)

John Johnson's dad, is also a land owner (separate piece of land) who owns a minimum of 80 acres of land, so the dad can now also get (2) Land Owner tag and he can give those (2) tags to his son John Johnson? Who already has (2) Land Owner tags from his own property.

So the son John Johnson, can now get a total of (2) Any sex Land Owner tags, and (2) Doe Land Owner tags? With the combo fo his tags, and the tags his dad gave him?

I thought this Bill reads that the (1) individual, John Johnson, can only get (2) Land Owner tags? In any manner or combo, either with his 80 acre piece, or his dad's.

Thanks

No- once registered, you cannot register for more pieces/properties. You simply hunt all of your pieces- which is where some of that gets real gray.
So I am a landowner with multiple pieces- I can hunt all of them. I cannot register for my dads pieces for example, but I also can’t use my landowners on them

 

[Thinkin Rut]

The Bonker has been missing going on 3 years now. Where is he

I probably didn't realize it at the time but he definitely was the goat. He seemed to thrive on it. I'd guess that is a time consuming and thankless job.

 

[Windlooker]

Well. Something happened. One doesn’t simply disappear. There’s always a trigger. What was it???

 

[Muskrat24]

I can't see them taking the additional revenue cut like that but I'm surprised they're taking the cut for the LO tags.

Is it really a revenue cut when the same ole joes gonna shoot three bucks a year. Maybe a little with the avid trophy hunter that only hunts owned/rented ground. I was thinking like you to start and a high % are gonna WANT the chance at three bucks per year IMO.

 

[Thinkin Rut]

Well. Something happened. One doesn’t simply disappear. There’s always a trigger. What was it???

My main concern would be health reasons for himself or someone close to him but whatever the reason, it was his wishes to keep that to himself and I respect that.

 

[JNRBRONC]

I probably didn't realize it at the time but he definitely was the goat. He seemed to thrive on it. I'd guess that is a time consuming and thankless job.

And never ending.

Illegitimi non carborundum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stoney]

What I’m thinking about as an LO right off is that cold front that rolls into EM…

 

[Thinkin Rut]

Is it really a revenue cut when the same ole joes gonna shoot three bucks a year. Maybe a little with the avid trophy hunter that only hunts owned/rented ground. I was thinking like you to start and a high % are gonna WANT the chance at three bucks per year IMO.

I agree 100% when talking about the new floating LO tag but newfarmer's concern was that it would morph into all tags and that would be a much greater revenue loss. I suppose that could be debatable if you had the bucks and you are dead set on filling all your available tags. That is such a toxic mindset that I can't wrap my brain around.

 

[Thinkin Rut]

What they should do- I’m general- the floating tag costs “$insert number” regular tags are normal. Idk- I think floating tag should be more money- even for a LOT

I'm thinking this is one of those things you want to die a slow death. I don't think you want to encourage this to advance in any way. This was their choice to lose the revenue and our mistake to let it happen so easily. Our energy and efforts need to be placed on next years session.

 

[newfarmer]

I agree 100% when talking about the new floating LO tag but newfarmer's concern was that it would morph into all tags and that would be a much greater revenue loss. I suppose that could be debatable if you had the bucks and you are dead set on filling all your available tags. That is such a toxic mindset that I can't wrap my brain around.

Yeah- it’s hard for a lot of us to understand it, but there are people who shoot deer just to fill the tag and then- “oh I thought he was bigger, if I wouldn’t have shot him someone else would” etc etc.
I think LOT tags won’t be the loss of revenue- I mean they aren’t free correct? I still have to pay the $2 for my first 2 each right?
I think if it ever went to statewide (which I think it will in time) the cost for a floating tag would have to be $100 (just insert number). It would never be able to be the same price.
But I say that- and there are many ways the state is losing out on money that other states are making. Hunters/outdoor folks typically are on the line it always seems. What about all the hikers/bird watchers/campers/ bike riders/ etc- anyone that uses public parks/rec areas should pay for a $10 park fee (again- insert number). The other states gain revenue that way for all of the people using the areas that will be become more crowded with floating tags (this is a whole different rant that I don’t want to snowball this conversation with)

 

[newfarmer]

I'm thinking this is one of those things you want to die a slow death. I don't think you want to encourage this to advance in any way. This was their choice to lose the revenue and our mistake to let it happen so easily. Our energy and efforts need to be placed on next years session.

Absolutely agree- I had been very vocal since youth tags went that way. I’ve got 2 little girls, I want them to understand hunting is a choice, and it’s not a last option to just do it when it works. I want them to know that not all seasons end with a deer. That’s part of the hunt. My first couple years I never tagged anything and that was ok! Made me try harder and really instilled that drive. If I teach my girls- oh we will only hunt the good days, what do they learn? That it can be that way- then things like this slide in and now boom- floating tags are here

 

[Thinkin Rut]

But I say that- and there are many ways the state is losing out on money that other states are making. Hunters/outdoor folks typically are on the line it always seems. What about all the hikers/bird watchers/campers/ bike riders/ etc- anyone that uses public parks/rec areas should pay for a $10 park fee (again- insert number). The other states gain revenue that way for all of the people using the areas that will be become more crowded with floating tags (this is a whole different rant that I don’t want to snowball this conversation with)

They take your money through taxes and give you back what they think is best!

 

[newfarmer]

They take your money through taxes and give you back what they think is best!

Don’t get me started there

 

[Sligh1]

It’ll make killing bucks easier vs harder. Some people like that. THAT is the trend & mindset WE HUNTERS have to consider…. Not “what’s best for me?” It has to change to “what’s best for the RESOURCE?”
This is a shared resource (one that’s fragile & being degraded) It’s very much like government giving certain groups “FREE STUFF!!!!” Some folks LOVE IT!!! “I’ll vote for that person cause I get something!!!” Instead of saying “might be nice to get something but we don’t have $ to spend, we are out & this is racking up debt for everyone else & screwing the system”. Some analogy like that. We all own this resource as part of this state. We have a duty to respect & care for it. No reason IMHO we need 3 bucks & 4.5 months to shoot them. Heck, with a lot of land I could wish for 6-8 buck tags for MYSELF!!!! But it would ruin the system if my desires became public policy.

REMEMBER!!!!!!! The North American game model came about to restrict hunting & killing after we saw almost every game animal wiped out because of liberal regulations & easy killing. We can point to what “easy hunting” results in!!!! RUINS things!!!!!! Eradicated almost every big game animal from the Midwest 100-ish years ago. We have seen pheasant hunting be a HUGE activity in Iowa to almost completely wiped out - in a few decades. Turkeys on the decline. Deer population HALF in under 20 years. IMO- 4.5 months & 3 bucks I can shoot “whenever” is getting out of hand. The pendulum has swung far too much to the left. We need it to swing back to the right. Doesn’t impact ME one bit. Sure impacts the everyday hunter BIG LEAGUE!!!!! A start…. I should be at 2 bucks + basically as many does as I want + an urban buck tag if I wanted…. That’s PLENTY for any one person. And that’s better for the RESOURCE!!!!!!!! All this easier & more killing @ 3 bucks per person is NOT best for the resource.

 

[Ishi]

I’m still wondering with a full time lobbyist for the IBA and ISC how was kept under cover till the last minute then BAM it’s signed and done??

 

[Rjack]

I’m still wondering with a full time lobbyist for the IBA and ISC how was kept under cover till the last minute then BAM it’s signed and done??

Those lobbyists were undecided and declared back in January. Certainly not the worst bill of the year, but one that seems needed more attention.

Link to lobbyist declarations