Fishbonker
Life Member
The Legislative Committee of the IBA met with the new director of the DNR today. We found Mr. Lande to be open and honest, not to mention a great story teller. He is an avid upland game and waterfowl hunter. He can remember the days when pheasants were everywhere, jack rabbits were in abundance and deer were scarce.
We had an open and frank discussion about increasing the number of NR tags and NRLO tags. He said he has heard from far more NR/NRLOs than residents on this issue. We hit all the points familiar to the argument.
He discussed a plan that would allow NRLOs to hunt their ground every year in exchange for the public to be able to hunt “some” of the NRLOs land. He also discussed the “walk in” plan that was discussed here on IW a few weeks ago. There was a bit of a twist though, the DNR, through a Federal grant, would pay for the landowner to make habitat improvements. In return the landowner would agree to allow public hunting for “X” number of years and if the landowner decided to cancel the agreement the landowner would have to pay back a portion, based on the years they allowed hunting. For example if the landowner signed up for 10 years, opted out after 5 then the land owner would have to reimburse the DNR for 50% of the cost. Our point was that they could opt out and lease the land for more than they had to repay. None of this was written in stone yet.
He touched on needing to find common ground. Using a football metaphor he said we all need to live between the 40’s and not behind the 20’s.
We also touched on Governor’s tags. By his reaction I’m not sure he knew they existed but don’t expect any change there.
All and all it was a good meeting. The meeting lasted about 45 minutes and was more of a get to know each other meeting than setting policy meeting. He knows where we stand.
After the meeting we walked up to the Capital and met with our lobbyist who got us a brief meeting with Rep. Rayhons about the house bill/companion bill to SF 219 (NRLO tags). He is one of the sponsors of the bill. He said the bill is dead. This is not so say it won’t resurface as an amendment to any other bill. We still need to be on watch for the amendments.
We had an open and frank discussion about increasing the number of NR tags and NRLO tags. He said he has heard from far more NR/NRLOs than residents on this issue. We hit all the points familiar to the argument.
He discussed a plan that would allow NRLOs to hunt their ground every year in exchange for the public to be able to hunt “some” of the NRLOs land. He also discussed the “walk in” plan that was discussed here on IW a few weeks ago. There was a bit of a twist though, the DNR, through a Federal grant, would pay for the landowner to make habitat improvements. In return the landowner would agree to allow public hunting for “X” number of years and if the landowner decided to cancel the agreement the landowner would have to pay back a portion, based on the years they allowed hunting. For example if the landowner signed up for 10 years, opted out after 5 then the land owner would have to reimburse the DNR for 50% of the cost. Our point was that they could opt out and lease the land for more than they had to repay. None of this was written in stone yet.
He touched on needing to find common ground. Using a football metaphor he said we all need to live between the 40’s and not behind the 20’s.
We also touched on Governor’s tags. By his reaction I’m not sure he knew they existed but don’t expect any change there.
All and all it was a good meeting. The meeting lasted about 45 minutes and was more of a get to know each other meeting than setting policy meeting. He knows where we stand.
After the meeting we walked up to the Capital and met with our lobbyist who got us a brief meeting with Rep. Rayhons about the house bill/companion bill to SF 219 (NRLO tags). He is one of the sponsors of the bill. He said the bill is dead. This is not so say it won’t resurface as an amendment to any other bill. We still need to be on watch for the amendments.
but I have been trying to connect the dots between these guys and Lande. I don't understand why he is so concerned with NRLO usage and tag quotas? Money? Pressure? Favors? Just seems like he would have been straight forward with you guys on the motive?
