perfect storm - nr landowner lawsuits

[Sligh1]

But do you think that the farmers and land owners will be selling the land they own and farm to these people??

I think 5-8% of IA is timbered. Tillable ground is a whole different animal. Most of the tillable for example is above highway 80 and is just vast fields NO deer hunter will ever buy. So, vast majority of tillable, this issue will have no bearing on. But, when you get to southern IA, eastern IA, NE IA, etc- that land is timbered, lots of farmers could care less and if the price was right, they'd sell. Lots of these folks that own land are 70-85 years old too, each day a large # of farmers are passing away- many times the land being sold. Absolutely the land will come to market.

Whatever your opinion is on this matter- now is a GREAT time to buy land. Rec prices went down during economy, interest rates are at all time lows and this "storm" of low prices and low interest rates will not last. If economy picks back up (when it does) rec prices will go up with it & if inflation hits or interest rates go up- we could be seeing 1980's interest rates in the teens. now is a SUPER time to buy!!! All you who are on the fence, you'll be kicking yourself 5 years from now - looking back to 2011 when you could have bought land for say $1,800/acre in southern IA with 5.5% interest and all of the sudden it's $3,100 acre and 8.5% interest- you'll look back and kick yourself. YOU'VE OFFICIALLY BEEN WARNED!!! :grin:

 

[Jdubs]

What if the Iowa state legislature capped NRLO tags? Current NRLO is at 21%, give NRLO their tag every year and cap it at the current level, only 20%. That would satisfy NRLO's and prevent the perceived NRLO rush. Just a thought.

 

[scottonbuck]

Interesting reading fellas- I have friends on both sides of this issue. I'll just throw a few tid-bits out there.... I don't think the solution is more state game area. Even in MI - which is FULL of state game area (millions of acres)- it gets DESTROYED & blown to pieces. It's horrible- for that matter, go to ALMOST any state, especially east of MS river, the state land (no matter the quantity) gets blown to bits- it SUCKS. Get the state competing to buy rec land and prices will go through the roof as well.

However you fall on this issue.... If they change the law and let NR land owners to get tags every year, that will open the flood gates to guys flocking here to buy up the land. I have friends all over the country that would buy land the NEXT DAY that they change the law. I'm not discussing opinion or how I feel on the issue- just stating fact- if they change the law, the land is going to get bought up by leaps and bounds and in one year, we absolutely will have a totally different atmosphere and owner-ship landscape. I can think of 20 NR guys off the top of my head that would pull the trigger in 24 hours if law changed & they'd buy up land. For better or for worse, this state's deer hunting would be transformed over-night if law was changed, everything from prices to access to leasing to outfitting, etc, etc.


On a personal note, my land would go up in value, no question. Let's say I had 1,000 acres owned, change the law, in MY OPINION, it would take about 1 year for the ground to go from say $2,000 acre to $3,000 acre or WHATEVER, I'd for sure say a $1,000 gain. If a guy owned 1,000 acres, that's a million dollar gain- IN ONE YEAR (I truly believe this is VERY VERY accurate BUT yes, is my strong opinion). Personally, I would never sell, my goal is NOT to have my land go up in value. What I'm saying is, I could CARE LESS about the money, whatever the solution is- I want what's best for hunting and for the state of wildlife, etc. I would NEVER make my opinion based on how much $ I could make. Partly because I'd NEVER cash in my land and put the $ in my pocket- true (I'll always own land) BUT I want what's best for the state- whatever that is.

Interesting discussion though folks.

I agree 100% real estate offices specializing in rec ground have a list of buyers that will buy the minute regs change and they can have a buck tag every year. Land will be bought up and leased in record numbers and Iowa will become Illinois. If your think there is a trespassing problem now wait untill access is decreased by ten fold and see what happens. I mean hell you can hunt where ever you want to for $65 and you only have to pay that if you get caught. That would ruin Iowa as we all know it and the only people hunting are ones with deep pockets. Hunter numbers would decline, license sales would drop and guess what The IDNR needs money so the raise the NR tag prices as this would be thier sole income. IT would just get ugly for the average joe both resident and NR alike.

 

[jclaws]

What if the Iowa state legislature capped NRLO tags? Current NRLO is at 21%, give NRLO their tag every year and cap it at the current level, only 20%. That would satisfy NRLO's and prevent the perceived NRLO rush. Just a thought.

And how many nr tags would that be? In addition to the 6000 tags that are already out there.

 

[cedar creek]

What if the Iowa state legislature capped NRLO tags? Current NRLO is at 21%, give NRLO their tag every year and cap it at the current level, only 20%. That would satisfy NRLO's and prevent the perceived NRLO rush. Just a thought.

Why cater to just the NRLO? I don't see an increase in revenue by just allowing NRLO's a yearly tag. If anything there will be an increase in NR hunting tags. I believe it would be much more fair to give the NRLO his yearly buck tag if he allows a given number of NR hunters to hunt his land. Forget about a cap. If the NRLO chooses not to particpate; he or she doesn't get their yearly tag.

 

[sethgade280]

This in a whole is a very sticky situation I see. I am on the fence because I own land in ia, but I don't want my investment etc to be compermised because of the after math. You all have great points!!

 

[sethgade280]

What about for every 100 acres you have to have 2 nr hunters hunting? This may help with people buying up land if they don't want others hunting it. They also would have to pay the NR fee. This would give the state more funds and the nr would be on ground already purchased and not flooding on the public areas. Ex. I own 240, so I would have to allow at least 1 more hunter in order for me to get my tag. Throw it back if you don't like it.

 

[cedar creek]

What about for every 100 acres you have to have 2 nr hunters hunting? This may help with people buying up land if they don't want others hunting it. They also would have to pay the NR fee. This would give the state more funds and the nr would be on ground already purchased and not flooding on the public areas. Ex. I own 240, so I would have to allow at least 1 more hunter in order for me to get my tag. Throw it back if you don't like it.

My math comes up with 4.4 hunters for 240 acres; so that would be 3 to 4 additional nr hunters for your land.

 

[sethgade280]

I meant 1 per 100 but that would work too. The state would get 3-4 nr fee for a 240 acre parcel every year instead of those hunters being able to hunt once every 2-3 years depending on the weapon. If you look at that.....the state would gain more funds for just my 240. $550 per hunter * 4= 2200.00 per year vs a possibe $550 depending on draw orders per year. And, they are hunting on private ground.

 

[cedar creek]

PA residents have been fighting this for years. And, no, most are not "cool with only hunting six days a week". But there's only so much you can do to try to influence your DNR-type state department.
Let me ask you, are most IA hunters cool with their ridiculous late rifle season that is responsible for so many shed bucks being killed by accident or on purpose? That season just continues year after year. These state agencies listen, sort of, but then pretty much do whatever they want in the end.

Evidently you didn't get the point i was trying to make. How do you expect to change the regulations as a nonresident; when you can't even change the regulations within your own state.

 

[cedar creek]

I meant 1 per 100 but that would work too. The state would get 3-4 nr fee for a 240 acre parcel every year instead of those hunters being able to hunt once every 2-3 years depending on the weapon. If you look at that.....the state would gain more funds for just my 240. $550 per hunter * 4= 2200.00 per year vs a possibe $550 depending on draw orders per year. And, they are hunting on private ground.

Yep; now you're getting the picture. Sadly i don't see many NRLO's participating in such a program, but maybe it will shut them up.

 

[huntemup]

What if the Iowa state legislature capped NRLO tags? Current NRLO is at 21%, give NRLO their tag every year and cap it at the current level, only 20%. That would satisfy NRLO's and prevent the perceived NRLO rush. Just a thought.

Because more of them would still buy ground and then fuss and whine like they are now until the numbers were raised. Most of the wealthy are used to everything going their way, period. If they dont get what they want, they start throwing money and attorneys at their problem until they get their way. Much like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum until mom or dad finally gives in. It's just their character. Rules that dont please them must be changed to suit their wants and needs.

 

[Hardwood11]

NR

Quote from Sligh...However you fall on this issue.... If they change the law and let NR land owners to get tags every year, that will open the flood gates to guys flocking here to buy up the land. I have friends all over the country that would buy land the NEXT DAY that they change the law. outfitting, etc.....




Skip: I agree with you on this, there would be plenty of NR buying land if they increased tags. Keep in mind, several including myself, have already bought land because they feel it is a good investment. The tags did not factor into my decision. I have owned 3 farms in Iowa and never deer hunted on any of them, but I will this year!

Many speculative buyers have already purchased in Iowa, knowing that if they increase tags, they will be in for an upward rise in price. I would compare this to speculating on a stock, and this year might be the year.

I am not 100% sure what the best avenue is...I like many things about Iowa's season and deer herd, but it could be fine tuned. Personally, I think they should offer an additional 2000 NR landowner tags with an earn-a-buck stipulation (in counties with plenty of does), then eliminate party hunting (buck/doe tag swap) of R/NR and local Iowa residents would probably net out for the better.

 

[NCHILLBILLY]

tags

if the state wants to make money then raise the nonres tag too a thousands dollars give them a tag every year and lets move on i own land here and lease 6500 and i havent run into a nonres person yet on any of it and its in van buren and jefferson counties we can try to stop the state but the state is broke they are going to do what they want inside the laws

 

[sethgade280]

Do most NR hunters hunt private or public?? If they hunt public, 2000 more hunters could really fill up these areas. imo.

 

[cedar creek]

Personally, I think they should offer an additional 2000 NR landowner tags with an earn-a-buck stipulation (in counties with plenty of does), then eliminate party hunting (buck/doe tag swap) of R/NR and local Iowa residents would probably net out for the better.[/QUOTE]
Just a few minor changes like earn a buck, and an additional 2000 NR landowner tags. I don't know how you would enforce R/NR party hunting. The DNR can't do it now much less with an additional 2000 NR tags. How about everybody throw their ideas in a hat, and we'll draw? If i owned a time share in Minnesota; i believe i'd like to give myself a larger limit of fish!

 

[THA4]

How about everybody throw their ideas in a hat, and we'll draw? If i owned a time share in Minnesota; i believe i'd like to give myself a larger limit of fish!

How about we keep things the way they are. It seems to be working pretty dang well!

 

[River1]

How about we keep things the way they are. It seems to be working pretty dang well!

Maybe just add NRLO's have to EAB with 10 does.:way:

 

[Jdubs]

I would participate in 1 NR for every 100 acres. Where do I sign up.

 

[magnus]

Yeah, sure, since nonresidents (landowners or otherwise) have to pay $138.50 for every doe tag. So, an extra $1,385 before they ever get to have a crack at a buck? That's the ol' accomodating spirit!! :way:

Maybe just add NRLO's have to EAB with 10 does.:way: