Email from the Iowa Farm Bureau

[dedgeez]

received this email today. Draw your own conclusions!

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has proposed a new three-year $2.2 million pilot program to open up private land for public hunting.

While Farm Bureau members recognize the value of expanding hunting opportunities and habitat, this program 1) creates another costly expense when state government should be focused on reducing expenses and balancing the budget and 2) fails to adequately address farmer liability and other landowner concerns. Farm Bureau members are encouraged to email DNR their comments opposing the program by Thursday, February 3.

If the Wildlife Habitat on Private Lands Promotion Program is approved, DNR plans to contract with private landowners who develop wildlife habitat on designated acres and allow public hunting access on those acres. DNR intends to pay for the program with funds it secured from a federal grant and the state’s Fish and Game Protection Fund.

The official program proposal is alarmingly short on details. It doesn’t give landowners absolute liability protection from lawsuits, including ones resulting from personal injuries and property damage caused by hunters. And it doesn’t address other important issues for participating landowners, including cost-share, incentive rates, contract cancelation process and penalties, weed control, law enforcement responsibilities, limits on hunting in standing crops and possible land management or endangered species restrictions.

It also creates another program to fund while the state government tries to cope with a $263 million budget shortfall and the DNR’s Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund (the largest source of revenue in DNR’s annual budget) remains on pace to run out of funding in 2014!
Email DNR by 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, February 3. Tell them you oppose a program that’s costly for Iowa and risky for landowners. Click the link at the bottom of this message to take action now!
Sincerely,
Zach Bader
Grassroots Program Manager
Iowa Farm Bureau

 

[dedgeez]

And no I did not put the bold letters in Red!

Just figured I would share with you guys what the Farm Bureau's stance is! Not surprising if you ask me.

 

[revup]

makes sense............

 

[Packnasty]

It's about time. I'm in full support.

In Wisconsin, they have the "forest crop law", which gives landowners a tax break to allow public access.

I don't think there is enough public land in the state, and we need to find ways to promote accessibility for those without means.

Go Pack

 

[dedgeez]

It's about time. I'm in full support.

In Wisconsin, they have the "forest crop law", which gives landowners a tax break to allow public access.

I don't think there is enough public land in the state, and we need to find ways to promote accessibility for those without means.

Go Pack

I think you may have read this wrong! This is letter from the FB opposing the DNR's proposal. I support the opening up of some more land to hunting as well. The FB is trying to shut this down due to liability concerns amongst others. Imagine that....the FB worried about liability and crop loss. hmmmm

 

[revup]

All a farmer would need to do, is have the hunter sign a hold harmless agreement.
Simple fix for the liability concerns.

 

[River1]

Farm Bureau sure is a pain the Iowa Sportman's ass. Anyone know if they've ever supported anything good for wildlife and our outdoor community?

Depressing to drive around the country side.....for most of our State it's baren wasteland once the crops are out . There used to be so much life in those fields, now just bare ground, crops, fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides. The fences are even dissappearing!

 

[180class]

I'm confused. Farm Bureau was the biggest pusher of getting our deer numbers WAY down throughout the state, correct? Now when the opportunity arises to reduce the heard even more in those "high density privately owned areas" they are against it?

 

[risto2351]

I think you may have read this wrong! This is letter from the FB opposing the DNR's proposal. I support the opening up of some more land to hunting as well. The FB is trying to shut this down due to liability concerns amongst others. Imagine that....the FB worried about liability and crop loss. hmmmm

So depending on how many do it the whole state
could be public hunting?

 

[Shredder]

You would think they would want it...more opportunities to take out deer eating their crops.

 

[THA4]

So depending on how many do it the whole state
could be public hunting?

no, probably not, its like the walk on program in kansas. Not all land owners have to participate. Essentially, the state will lease the hunting rights from the landowner and make it public access. the landowners WILL NOT be liable for anything that happens on that property while hunters are using it.

its a good thing and we could benefit greatly from it. I would totally support it!

 

[dedgeez]

So depending on how many do it the whole state
could be public hunting?

I would assume they have certain areas already staked out based on a certain demographics! But you know what happens when you assume things

I suppose it's possible but highly unlikely. Not every landowner will agree to this.

I think it is a great idea overall, but there like anything else it's not going to be for everyone, and I'm sure there will be certain areas that get left out.

Im just the messanger boy!

 

[singlecoyote]

I don't think very many if any land owners in my area would do this. They either hunt it themselves (and friends/family) or let someone else hunt it, knowing exactly who is on their land. I can't see to many landowners being ok with not knowing who was using their land.

 

[Packnasty]

I think you may have read this wrong! This is letter from the FB opposing the DNR's proposal. I support the opening up of some more land to hunting as well. The FB is trying to shut this down due to liability concerns amongst others. Imagine that....the FB worried about liability and crop loss. hmmmm

yup, we're on the same page. I would never want to be mistaken for supporting the farm bureau. :grin:

(on a side note, I think it's totally shady that the new DNR director is a former lawyer for the farm bureau, but i digress...)

 

[stickbow]

The FB is advocating AGAINST the possible opening of more PRIVATE land which they claim protects and provides safe refuge to deer. Also denying the farmer to make their decision regarding the matter on liability issues as well as denying monies for wildlife land improvements.At the same time the FB SCREAMS for additional deer harvest. WHAT BASS ACKWARD LOGIC IS THAT. I am tired of the DNR as well as IBA caving to the desires of special interests(FB/INS CO/Legislature), while we as the chief funders of the wildlife take it in the shorts and they (dnr) avoid the issues we want addressed(increase tresspass fines, shorten, earlier, or no doe season, no rifles, problems with coyotehunters able to tresspass/shed hunt all over under the guise of retrieving dogs. If we could get enough hunters to follow, buying NO extra doe tags for a season would get their attention. And i doubt the dnr could recruit enough NR hunters to harvest the does even if tags were cheap.

 

[dedgeez]

The FB is advocating AGAINST the possible opening of more PRIVATE land which they claim protects and provides safe refuge to deer. Also denying the farmer to make their decision regarding the matter on liability issues as well as denying monies for wildlife land improvements.At the same time the FB SCREAMS for additional deer harvest. WHAT BASS ACKWARD LOGIC IS THAT. I am tired of the DNR as well as IBA caving to the desires of special interests(FB/INS CO/Legislature), while we as the chief funders of the wildlife take it in the shorts and they (dnr) avoid the issues we want addressed(increase tresspass fines, shorten, earlier, or no doe season, no rifles, problems with coyotehunters able to tresspass/shed hunt all over under the guise of retrieving dogs. If we could get enough hunters to follow, buying NO extra doe tags for a season would get their attention. And i doubt the dnr could recruit enough NR hunters to harvest the does even if tags were cheap.

That is about the most intense post I've seen.

On a side note, I couldn't agree with you more!

"take it in the shorts" HAHAHAHAHAHA that is funny right there! :way:

 

[Sligh1]

This whole organization- FARM BUREAU is new to me in the last couple years (since I started paying attention to them). Since then, I think they have fallen on the wrong side of almost any issue I've noticed AND I think they've been behind MANY of the bad decisions we didn't even realize they were the source of. They seem to be the puppet masters behind the curtain too often. I hope hunters can & continue to successfully organize and push back against these guys, I think they are worse for our cause than many realize. I know they are mega-powerful & have mega-$ into this whole thing BUT folks can't take these guys lying down and hunters & iowa citizens should be having far more voice & impact on what's going on VS the massive reach & power of this group.

This is too bad they'd fight this. Kansas has done really well with walk-on land. Private land owners have total choice in this, it's great and would sure allow a lot more access for folks.

 

[risto2351]

That is about the most intense post I've seen.

On a side note, I couldn't agree with you more!

"take it in the shorts" HAHAHAHAHAHA that is funny right there! :way:

I agree. :way:

Lets tell it like it is. I respect that.


I would have to think this one through a little before I would agree to it.
I am not for FB, but depending on how the program works I really would not want just anybody roaming all over on land around me anytime they wish if the adjacent farmers were in the program. Just my .02 though.

 

[huntemup]

It time the Farm Bureau gets exposed for their hypocrisy! They rarely have a clue as to what they are doing.

 

[DWilk]

This program sounds good in theory... adds public hunting opportunities, adds needed habitat..., but we need to take a look at it from a deer hunter's perspective.

The regular Joe hunter is seeing deer numbers dropping because most of us share hunting ground. FB, insurance companies, and the DNR argue that the herd needs reduced.

The areas with high deer densities aren't owned by people interested in this program. Nobody that manages their ground for deer is going to open it up to public hunting, and obviously no anti-hunters with refuges are going to jump on board.

I hate to say it, but I agree with Farm Bureau opposing it right now, just for a different reason than they do....

I would support the program only if we get a handle on how the state's deer herd is being managed. If this came into effect, it would just continue to throw out of wack the balance of deer numbers across the landscape, and consequently worse hunting for the majority of deer hunters in our state.