Avoiding change VS managing it

[Hardwood11]

Really. Why else would a non-resident feel that they should automatically be given the same rights as a full-time resident? It's an entitlemant mentality. Plain and simple. Many non-residents bought ground when it was still fairly inexpensive banking on the fact that the laws would change. Some have given up and sold, others are still wishing and fighting. It is definitley an entitlement thing.

No way, I bought long ago, prices of tags have soared. Archery doe tags have been eliminated. I'm not asking for anything other than restore what we had and let me hunt my ground every year. That is not entitlement.

I'm 100% conservative, never felt entitled to anything I'll leave that to the democrats

 

[Hardwood11]

This is the whole point. Available ground to hunt is shrinking at an alarming rate as you mentioned. In your opinion what would hold a NR from buying ground in iowa from a hunting perspective today? What happens when the NR quota triples to 18,000? If NRs can get a tag yearly what would hold them back from buying cheap timber ground? Now cheap is a relative term. Expensive to me but my buddies from georgia laugh at our low prices for timber ground. Both those buddies say they would buy ground tomorrow if they could get a tag each year. In my opinion, the flood gates would open.

Liv; it's not going to 18,000 no way!! The NR are buying already, I'll probably buy more. Here is a fact I like the state, I like the site, I like you guys. I've got two new "good friends" from this site.

Bottom line is when 25% of the landowners in Iowa are NR, you will need to listen, possibly a minor change?? Extra doe tags/youth tags? That will not affect anyone on this site??

 

[Liv4Rut]

The majority of Iowa hunters do not get 3 buck tags and to be honest out of the guys that are managing for deer thay do get them I do not know many who fill all 3 on their own land. I know my dad has owned his farm for 10 years and he filled one landowner tag but only shot one buck the entire year. There are not too many farms that can support top end deer. A lot of the farmers I know that only gun hunt do get a landowner tag but not many of them bowhunt or buy a statewide gun tag. I would love to see how many people actually kill 3 bucks per year. I know tons of guys that get them locally plus I am a sales rep for eastern, ia and travel all over talking to hunters and out of all of them I do not know one person that filled 3 buck tags. I think if we actually knew the numbers it has no affect on anything.

It is mind boggling how little hunting ground Iowa really has. I travel all over the state and a lot of it is farm ground with no cover. I beleive we have 450,000 acres or so of public ground and I hunt a lot if and i would day a lot of them are 30%+ ag ground you dont hunt so in reality we may have 250,000 -300,000 acres if you deduct ag ground and reservoir surface area. Not a ton of ground really compared to other states.

Another thing in my opinion is the nr tag prices are insane. It does prevent hard working folks from experiencing Iowa. I also think with a high price tag people will make sure they come home with something even if it is not what they hoped for.

What I would like to see just once is a less than stellar state to adopt Iowas seasons and method of take. A lot of them if you simply took gun season out of the rut that would be huge. I find it hard to beleive that these deer cant make it passed 2.5 years old. The mentality of if I dont shoot it someone else will would go a long way too. Im sure there is a lot of tradition in any buck is a good buck too that would need to be broken.

That is fine and dandy but people arent coming here looking to shoot what they can in their own state. If they want to trophy hunt you would think somehow some way other states could be come.better.

The problem is nobody likes change including Iowans. We arent greedy, we are just protecting what we have. Deer hunting as a whole as changed and it is sickening.

 

[Liv4Rut]

Liv; it's not going to 18,000 no way!! The NR are buying already, I'll probably buy more. Here is a fact I like the state, I like the site, I like you guys. I've got two new "good friends" from this site.

Bottom line is when 25% of the landowners in Iowa are NR, you will need to listen, possibly a minor change?? Extra doe tags/youth tags? That will not affect anyone on this site??

Kansas never thought they would open the doors to anyone as well. I agree, you should be able to get doe tags possibly youth tags. Maybe if they gave you an extra preference point it would help. When you draw this year instead of starting off at zero you have 1 point since you are a landowner. It would at least get you hunting one year earlier. If every NR who owns land today could hunt every year for bucks I could care less. It is the unknown if you opened it up so every nr landowner got a buck tag is what scares me. Would it go from 25% to 40%? Who knows. Right now is fine with the number of nr landowners we have it is the future ones that are worrysome. It is simply a land access issue.

 

[iabwhntr]

I'm sure many NRs don't feel this way but I see it like this, you don't want to live here but you want the same opportunities as the residents. Doesn't matter if you own land here, you don't LIVE here. Owning land is kind of a loophole that was never open. You still get treated the same as every other NR and you don't like it. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you looking for different treatment from other non residents? Regardless of your justifications I think you might be.

 

[hoosierhunter]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think is a fair number of buck tags to be issued?

That's an interesting debate too.

I'd say a resident gets one tag good for any weapon, but party hunting must be eliminated. If you own a qtr section you get another tag. If you own a section you get a third tag.

As a non resident you need a qtr section owned to get one tag.

Or maybe the NR owners need an approved management plan ok'd by the DNR before they get tags.

 

[jmoose]

Another thing in my opinion is the nr tag prices are insane. It does prevent hard working folks from experiencing Iowa. I also think with a high price tag people will make sure they come home with something even if it is not what they hoped for.

You beat me to it Liv. I don't think it's fair that you gotta be rich to hunt Iowa. this might piss off a couple of the NR landowners on here, but i would actually like to see them lower the NR tag prices, but make the draw a little tougher. If the tags are affordable, anyone can come here and hunt, but if it takes 4-5 years to draw, maybe less NR would be buying up land here.
for all the NR landowners on here, if you don't like Iowa's regs, sell your ground for a premium price and use the money to buy ground in your own state.

 

[iabwhntr]

Bottom line is when 25% of the landowners in Iowa are NR, you will need to listen, possibly a minor change?? Extra doe tags/youth tags? That will not affect anyone on this site??

Is any body here in favor of the Japanese influencing our laws? Well they own quite a bit of land here in the U.S.. Should we then change the way we do things to cater to them a little more?

 

[fletch920]

Things change:

Names like Winke, Lakosky, Drury, Kisky. They are at all time highs in exposure levels.

Your govt just robbed your general wildlife fund of 8-9 million. Who's going to put that back?

Farmers and NR hunters own more ground than ever right now. Farmers usually want deer dead and they do not care who kills them.

Insurance companies are lobbying more than ever to increase harvest levels.

You are absolutely right. Farmers want deer killed. The farmers I know hate seeing non-residents buy ground by them because they know that the local deer population will explode. Why...because very few non-residents allow local hunters access and they only come to kill one or two does and maybe a buck every few years. Most farmers hate the idea of non-resident landoowners. They will not side with you to be sure. Same goes for insurance companies, they know that large blocks of land that are posted no hunting by non-residents are the problem, not the solution. You have made a great case against yourself. Non-residents do not and will not kill enough does, even if they are allowed to hunt every year. That is simply not their interest. You dont buy ground here to come kill does, you can do that at home.

Glad to see that you finally came right out and said it, you think you should be entitled to hunt your Iowa ground every year. Too bad that is not how it works and will likely not change. You too will see that in time.

 

[hoosierhunter]

What I would like to see just once is a less than stellar state to adopt Iowas seasons and method of take. A lot of them if you simply took gun season out of the rut that would be huge. I find it hard to beleive that these deer cant make it passed 2.5 years old.

The biggest problem other states have is land has been broken up into too many small parcels to manage effectively. Our Indiana gun season runs for 32 days plus another 7 day doe only season. It's horrible having the guns boom from mid nov until Jan. Now we are getting a primitive ML season on top of that.

 

[Liv4Rut]

The biggest problem other states have is land has been broken up into too many small parcels to manage effectively. Our Indiana gun season runs for 32 days plus another 7 day doe only season. It's horrible having the guns boom from mid nov until Jan. Now we are getting a primitive ML season on top of that.

I agree that is a problem. Why not change it? Why not model Iowa's seasons? Even if the ground is broken up if you move the gun season dates out of the rut and make it shorter more deer would make it correct? Those bucks would make it and be larger. Iowa is broken up pretty well in a lot areas and keeps getting broken up more and more each day the way these land auctions are going breaking up every parcel into little chunks.

 

[hoosierhunter]

You are absolutely right. Farmers want deer killed. The farmers I know hate seeing non-residents buy ground by them because they know that the local deer population will explode. Why...because very few non-residents allow local hunters access and they only come to kill one or two does and maybe a buck every few years. Most farmers hate the idea of non-resident landoowners. They will not side with you to be sure. Same goes for insurance companies, they know that large blocks of land that are posted no hunting by non-residents are the problem, not the solution. You have made a great case against yourself. Non-residents do not and will not kill enough does, even if they are allowed to hunt every year. That is simply not their interest. You dont buy ground here to come kill does, you can do that at home.

Glad to see that you finally came right out and said it, you think you should be entitled to hunt your Iowa ground every year. Too bad that is now how it works and will likely not change. You too will see that in time.

Fletch

Your farmers have bought the ground and are allowing very few hunters if any on there. Way worse than any NR can ever do. Farmers are the heart of the problem. They can't own all that property and expect a few hunters to properly manage it, yet it constantly happens.

As for the insurance companies, your also very wrong here. The insurance world could care less about the " Iowa landowner" and them losing hunting rights. I work in the industry and its not even a blurb on the radar. Money matters to them.

In terms of entitlement. Do the deer belong to the people or the govt? If the answer is people, then that includes landowners which doesn't distinguish where your home state is.

Yes NR will kill does if given the opportunity to manage correctly. Giving someone a buck tag 1 out of every 3 years does not entice someone to manage correctly. It's adverse selection. They get treated wrong so in return why on earth would they want to help out the very hand that punches them in the face? They won't and I wouldn't expect them to. They will continue to buy the ground and throw up a middle finger. It's a completely screwed up relationship. Both sides are wrong IMO.

 

[ironwood]

Things change:

Names like Winke, Lakosky, Drury, Kisky. They are at all time highs in exposure levels.

Your govt just robbed your general wildlife fund of 8-9 million. Who's going to put that back?

Farmers and NR hunters own more ground than ever right now. Farmers usually want deer dead and they do not care who kills them.

Insurance companies are lobbying more than ever to increase harvest levels.

Real farmers don't want their marginal pasture ground tied up in some deer haven and making it more difficult for them to pasture their cows. The resource of publicly owned deer is just one little piece to the logic behind the why this whole approach would be a crappy idea.

 

[hoosierhunter]

I agree that is a problem. Why not change it? Why not model Iowa's seasons? Even if the ground is broken up if you move the gun season dates out of the rut and make it shorter more deer would make it correct? Those bucks would make it and be larger. Iowa is broken up pretty well in a lot areas and keeps getting broken up more and more each day the way these land auctions are going breaking up every parcel into little chunks.

I have battled this heavily. I've attended the meetings and written officials etc. The issue we have are:

70% of IN hunters kill 0-1 deer.
Our tags are not either sex tags
We have "I shot a buck" syndrome bad!
Out DNR is paid off heavily from the insurance industry.

We have county limits for does with no aggregate. I'm a lifetime license holder and I could kill an extreme number of deer if I chose to.

I offered the idea of removing the gun season from nov and offering all of dec. as a solution. The majority of hunters just are weekend warriors and just want to hunt the rut. They complain about never seeing big bucks. They want them just dropped in their laps without any work.
I proposed earns buck and the DNR responded that they do not want a wisc backlash on their hands, yet they claim they are in it for the wildlife.

It's really a joke

 

[Bowman D]

This is simple...NR landowners knew the regs when they bought, it is what it is! Dont like it? Go somewhere else. Don't ruin this for the rest of us.

 

[Hardwood11]

You are absolutely right. Farmers want deer killed. The farmers I know hate seeing non-residents buy ground by them because they know that the local deer population will explode. Why...because very few non-residents allow local hunters access and they only come to kill one or two does and maybe a buck every few years. Most farmers hate the idea of non-resident landoowners. .

Fletch; NR do not get tags, you nailed it, the point of this whole argument, they cannot effectively manage their property due to lack of tags and the price of tags

 

[Liv4Rut]

I have battled this heavily. I've attended the meetings and written officials etc. The issue we have are:

70% of IN hunters kill 0-1 deer.
Our tags are not either sex tags
We have "I shot a buck" syndrome bad!
Out DNR is paid off heavily from the insurance industry.

We have county limits for does with no aggregate. I'm a lifetime license holder and I could kill an extreme number of deer if I chose to.

I offered the idea of removing the gun season from nov and offering all of dec. as a solution. The majority of hunters just are weekend warriors and just want to hunt the rut. They complain about never seeing big bucks. They want them just dropped in their laps without any work.
I proposed earns buck and the DNR responded that they do not want a wisc backlash on their hands, yet they claim they are in it for the wildlife.

It's really a joke

That is a joke. The real joke to me is when a NR comes on here and preaches what is best for Iowa or trys to change Iowa's laws. We have a good thing. You know it and the whole country knows it. Why ruin it? I am only 30 years old. I have been hunting 21 years. I have seen land access decline dramatically. Down in van buren county 15 years ago we could hunt all week and not touch the same place twice. Now that group dont even shotgun hunt because of nowhere to really go.

The reason is not because of big farmers buying ground it is because the farmers died, farms got broken up and a lot in that county are NR landowners and leased ground.

If we allow more NR or free buck tags to NRLOs land being bought up and leasing will only be worse. This will displace residents.

Most nonresidents are kind of like honey badgers, they dont give a sh+t about us as long as they can hunt much bigger deer than they can at home. Most residents want NRs to be able to enjoy a good hunt. I have helped dozens myself. One must realize though how fragile Iowa really is before big changes are made.

I have seen huge changes in 20 years. I will see bigger changes in 20 more years but I will not just stand by and let them happen even if my voice means nothing to anyone much like your voice means nothing to your dnr.

 

[hoosierhunter]

Liv


I think more NR's want to help that own ground as opposed to those who don't.

NR's aren't going to change your rules. The money grab is going to do that with your politicians. That's why I started this post. It's just a matter of time before the money is too much to ignore. Govt is big business. The idea is for everyone to have a educated response to what will be forthcoming.

 

[ironwood]

Liv; it's not going to 18,000 no way!! The NR are buying already, I'll probably buy more. Here is a fact I like the state, I like the site, I like you guys. I've got two new "good friends" from this site.

Bottom line is when 25% of the landowners in Iowa are NR, you will need to listen, possibly a minor change?? Extra doe tags/youth tags? That will not affect anyone on this site??

This statement makes no sense. Land ownership has nothing to do with the publicly held resource. Do you also think that Iowa land should be available to China to purchase? Maybe when 51% of the land is owned by China things will change.

 

[150 Class]

Reciprocity is fine with me. Many states already do that.

The NR pays more than they should (JMHO). It could be argued that the tags sell out and there are more in line so when you look at supply and demand, they could be charged more, but I will say it is embarrassing to me that our state charges our fellow NR hunter the price they do.

This is a resident concern. I hate to sound cold but the NR has no say in this. They can try to be the squeaky wheel but us residents will grease that wheel when we remind the IA government that we vote and the NR does not. This is an Iowa resident issue and concern.

The NR landowner already gets more than the non-landowner.

The NR doe bow tag was a big mistake (the temptation tag). While it was allowed at one time, I will fight with all of my might against anyone who tries to get that one back on the books, landowner or not.

We have a good thing here when it comes to deer hunting in IA. There are changes I would support. Giving NR landowners more privileges than what they already get is not one of them. More negatives than positives from where I sit. The NR landowner is the only one who benefits from such change.

Money to ignore? What money?