Legislation

[ElkHunter]

The IBA Legislative Committee is working list of bills that have been introduced or will be.Right now there is no movement of any deer legislation, but there has been some discussion between the IBA,DNR and some legislators.Things have a way of just sitting there and then moving very fast.
If there are any changes, they will be posted in this forum.In the meantime get the phone # of your Legislator ( House & Senate ) and be ready to make some phone calls.
Just remember to be polite,brief and to the point.We will have the bill numbers posted so you can tell them the bill you are against. If your legislator gets hit with a bunch of calls they will sit up and take notice.
Last year one of the key members from the Natural Resource Committee called and asked if we could call the dogs off.He would pull his legislation off the table.The phones call are IMPORTANT!!! IF WE SNOOZE,WE LOSE!!! http://www.iowawhitetail.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rambo.gif

[River1]

All quiet on the legislative front? I'm getting that CALM BEFORE THE STORM feeling. http://www.iowawhitetail.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[ElkHunter]

I gave the IBA position statement to the House Natural Resource Committee yesterday on HSB 565 & HF 2071, bills to increase NR deer tags.PF and Izaak Walton's and ICA also presented their statements.Nobody supported the DNR on this issue, no great surprise.Have no idea what the committee was thinking or how they were leaning.
There are 10 or 12 bills just sitting there,they have until Mar.5th to get out of committee or they are stranded for another year. Maybe one or two will get out,need to be ready to jump on NR bill if it comes out. http://www.iowawhitetail.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/893USA1-thumb[1].gif

[River1]

Thanks for the update http://www.iowawhitetail.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/waytogo.gif

[captain]

Thanks indeed.Keep them coming.They help.

[River1]

Elkhunter,

How was the meeting you attended the other night. Any impression of what needs to be done on the NR issues?

Thanks

[ElkHunter]

Hi River
Meeting didn't go too bad,couldn't get much of a feel on the Natural Resource Comm.Since then there has been some movement.All bills need to be out of committee by Mar.5 if not they are pigeon holed for the year.What happened yesterday was a bill came out of committee with several amendments, they wanted to make sure something came out so everything dealing with deer was tossed into one bill.Some good, some bad,at least it will make it to the house floor.I do know the bill asks for 8,000 NR any sex tags, will have to pay close attention to this one.
EVERYONE needs to know their house reps ph # and email address.The ICA will meet again soon to see if an agreement can be made on strategy.The DNR is really in a money crunch, the resident hunters may have to face a fee increase or see more NR tags being sold, something we need to be thinking about.Nobody likes it but if you're play you gotto pay.
Will try to keep people posted!! http://www.iowawhitetail.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rambo.gif

[River1]

I would rather pay a few extra bucks on my resident licenses rather than see anything changed with the NR allocation. I'm curious what others think about a resident hunting license increase. I'm just wondering though, when will the DNR get out of the hole they're in? Would this only be a temporary fix?

[ElkHunter]

Hey River
This will just be a bandaid to stop the bleeding.
Next big step will be a big coalition to see about some sales tax money like Mo.This just won't be hunters but some of the more powerful groups in the state,so you might as well start talking about this at meetings for whatever group you belong to...PF,NWTF,BASS,DU.This will need a ton of support when the time is right.

[TimberPig]

As far as I'm concerned they can raise my license fees anytime they want. I have seen the money crunch first hand. The DNR dosent even have the money to buy airplane fuel for spotlighter runs anymore, which by the way is by far the most effective way to catch them.
Face it, they need the money and I'd rather it came from me than additional NR's, no offense to them.

[trper]

I would also pay the increase in the license fee with no complaint. I talked with a DNR official last night and he advised (corrrect me if I am wrong) that the Director of the DNR would like to see the licenses increased to 12,000. They turned away over 6000 applicants last year. Thanks for keeping us informed. http://www.iowawhitetail.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/busted.gif

[ElkHunter]

Hi Trper
That's what they wanted,but DNR knows there is no support for that #.I think and this is just guess work on my part,if they get a thousand more tags they will be very very lucky. http://www.iowawhitetail.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/157RAtinybuck-thumb[1].gif http://www.iowawhitetail.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/893archer-thumb[1].gif

[teeroy]

is there any way that we can get more info on missouri's system? they are self supported, and don't have to worry about the legislature taking their funds

[Blind Sow]

I don't know how many sportsmen are aware of it but right now we are down 17 conservation officers statewide due to retirements and the DNR is looking at filling, at best just a couple, and that would be after the start of the new fiscal year (July 1).

Our southcentral distict took the biggest hit on officers--I believe 5-6 are gone. There is at least one supervisor position open (NC) that won't be filled so we can at least fill a CO position somewhere.

Each of our bureaus (law enforcement, fisheries and wildlife) had to come up with a budget reduction of $600,000 right now. Wildlife and fisheries could meet their financial aspect by cutting some projects and not buying equipment. LE is not so lucky. Since most of our expense is people we most likely will not be rehiring to our full capacity as in the past.

Districts may be shifted (which doesn't really effect the public) but reassignment of territories to cover areas that no longer have a CO will have an impact on response to the public. Officers will have to add territory to what is already assigned.

As stated before this is only a finger in the dike treatment. Without an influx of new money it will only get worse. Iowa residents have not had a license increase going on to fifteen years! Name one other thing that you have purchased in the last decade that has not gone up in price.

In Missouri's 1/8 of 1% tax goes to conservation. That idea has been introduced several times over the years in the Iowa legislature but has gone no where.

There is some deep seated animosity towards the DNR in the legislature and any type of license increase is met with the "no new tax" response.

It isn't fair to try and make nonresidents shoulder the bill, and it won't work in the long term.

Without some type of license increase or other infusion of money (long term--not short) the situation will not change.

Doug Clayton

State Conservation Officer

[captain]

[ QUOTE ]
a bill came out of committee with several amendments, they wanted to make sure something came out so everything dealing with deer was tossed into one bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elk...do you happen to know the number of this bill? I would like to research it and contact my Rep.Thanks.

[ElkHunter]

Captain
Will know more after Fridays funnel date,when I know final #'s and more details I'll post an update. There are bills,amendments and study bills who knows what the final one out will look like and be called. http://www.iowawhitetail.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Rackaddict]

Missouri Department of Conservation is a Commission like the Department of Transportation. There are, like everything else, some good and bad points to this. Structured the way they are, they have no governing body to answer to so they are very head strong, to the point of arrogance on some issues. There is a ton of tension between the MDC and the State Legislators on several issues but a lot of it in my opinion is due to the Legislature wanting to control everything they can. So it's probably the best case scenario the way it is.

I do think that it's a good idea to have a percentage of State sales tax money being allocated to the department. It does keep costs in check and allows for plenty of officers and some great programs. Hopefully soon Iowa can come up with a similar solution to meet the growing financial burdens the DNR is facing. With a percentage of the sales tax going to the Conservation Department it's a much more fairly distributed payout by the citizens as a whole who use public ground to play on for a variety of things other than hunting. Having a good budget has also allowed them to purchase large tracts of land statewide for public use.

[DC]

Those 6000 applicants that were turned away cost the state 1.8 million dollars (that's $1,800,000) in tag revenue (not to mention all the related revenues that would be brought in for this state). Seems to me our DNR is floundering, poachers and illegal hunters are flourishing, and the IBA can't think of anything to do with its money except limit the number of NR tags.

Wake up guys. Land access is decreasing, land purchases and leases for hunting are increasing rapidly, and NR licenses have not been increased in many, many years so you can't blame it on them. So what is causing all this? I know. Do you?

[OneCam]

I really look forward to more discussion on this issue as we have many hurdles to overcome in the state and many opinions to give.

So far we have kept this topic very constructive but I can foresee this possibly getting ugly, so before you hit that [continue/post] button make sure we keep it constructive and positive.

[teeroy]

hey onecam...does that include;

KEEP THE DAMN GOVERNMENT OUTTA MY HUNITNG!!!

???????

[River1]

DC,

What are your thoughts? I see you are an outfitter, so I understand why you're complaining about NR tags, but I'm interested in why you think access is decreasing?

[DC]

You have already made assumptions that are not true - as is always the case when someone tries to enlighten an IBA member. I never made a complaint - I stated a fact. I guide a few hunts so I can afford my lease because I don't have the money to buy ground. You also assumed that I stand to benefit financially from the increase. Absolutely not true. When you get to the level of contribution and commitment to improving Iowa deer hunting that I am at, dollars in your pocket don't matter. I HAVE NEVER MADE A DOLLAR FROM DEER HUNTING, but I have contributed dollars in the 6 digit range to improve Iowa Deer Hunting.

If you are willing to keep the BS out of the discussion, and put your full name and address in front of the public, I would be willing to discuss. However, I have no desire to defend my motives and contributions to people hiding behind a computer. Feel free to attack and revel in your ignorance.

[River1]

WOW http://www.iowawhitetail.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif,

I didn't mean to offend you, that's for sure. It's obvious you have some serious issues. Hopefully your rude post get's yanked and we can get on with this discussion without name calling and putting people down.

[trper]

I was about 1 sec away from pushing the submit button to reply to your post DC.
I could not do it because I did not feel that I or even yourself could reply or disagree adquetly over this forum. I spent better part of a half hour writing out a reply only to delete it. This type of agenda needs to be discussed openly in person I beieve to get a true feeling as to where a person is coming from and to truly understand and come to some type of agreement that both sides can live with. It is to easy to put the blame down on paper or on this computer. I for one will not head that direction on this forum because as a member for several years I have seen it head in a nasty direction.
We need to find a more positive way to agree to disagree. I can tell you I disagree with your position but would rather tell you why in person and listen to your response and respond in a constructive manner that benefits us both as well as the subject we are discussing. You can read alot more into a person by looking him in the eye than by reading what he writes. http://www.iowawhitetail.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/busted.gif

[BW]

Some people in this world only get to argue over where the next meal is coming from.

http://www.iowawhitetail.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/893USA1-thumb[1].gif

[bukhntr1964]

I guess I am a little bit disturbed by the facts coming out of the IBA. I hear they are in complete agreement with the DNR and then I hear the opposite. Thanks to the IBA we still have a cap on NR Archery permits of 35% which means the remainder of 65% are gun tags. Who do you think is going to kill the most Iowa bucks? I would put my money on the gun hunters!! Well there goes the deer to hunt next year.

[katy]

bkhntr - The IBA did not support the whole 30-35,000 tags they wanted to increase. We are always as supportive of the DNR. We thought there might be a couple of thousand more tags released for 04' but that got tabled in the legislature last week. The thing is, is that the DNR is short $2 million in their budget, they are down too many officers which is a shame. I myself personally think that the DNR needs to start increasing the fees on fishing, boating, hiking, camping, etc. Why is it always the deer hunters that end up flipping the bill. If it ends up that we have to pay a little more to hunt this fall to keep it the way it is now, I'm fine with that. That's MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION. The IBA meetings are always open to whoever would like to attend. Please fell free to call your area rep or board member with any questions or concerns. Please check their web site: www.iowabowhunters.org (http://www.iowabowhunters.org)

[JNRBRONC]

I agree with supertec that someone besides hunters need to help pull part of the load. There was a story on the news (KCRG 9) last week that said hunter numbers were down 20% over the last ten years. I'm afraid that raising license fees might discourage more hunters.. a nasty treadmill to be on (continued fee increases for fewer and fewer hunters).