Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Copy of a news letter

Fishbonker

Fishbonker

Life Member
Below is what I believe to be a copy of an FOI newsletter. Just thought I’d share it with everybody.

Although it may still be Summer there is plenty of work going on
keeping us busy building on the momentum from the past legislative
session. Richard Thornton who has been assisting our efforts in Des
Moines the last 2 years is still working with Senator Gronstall on
getting approval from the Legislative Council for an economic impact
study committee, it's status is still unclear but we hope to get some
positive news soon.

The foundation which we have been built our initiative upon is the "
growing economic contributions" that NRLO's make to the state of Iowa
and which have been ignored by the state in denying "Non-resident
landowner privileges". But times are changing, due in large part to
Iowa's enormous budget deficit the results of our efforts has begun to
overtake the influence that our opponents have had within Iowa's
legislature. During the 2010 legislative session our efforts to tie the
benefits of granting NRLO privileges to increased revenues for the state
of Iowa , its business owners and landowners, began hitting the mark
with many of the legislative members.

Currently, Iowa's budget deficit is near $1 billion and the legislature
has been trying unsuccessfully to dig themselves out of this hole for
the past 2 years. The impact of this deficit has affected everyone in
Iowa with a reduction in state services and programs. Yesterday the DM
Register released an article (attached) that reported the IDNR had been
responsible for ignoring and failing to enforce numerous state laws.
Many suspect it's due to poor leadership within that department others
point out that the department lacks the funds to enforce them. In
responding to the report the governor's office is quoted as saying
"...if the lawmakers are so inclined to fund this stuff that they'll
find the money".

This report comes at an opportune time for us as we begin focusing on
our goals for 2011.

With Iowa elections in the Fall and the possibility of changes from the
governor on down, new blood and new eyes may result in new ideas
prevailing. Richard has built a coalition of support within the Iowa
legislature who have submitted on our behalf "legislative opportunities"
and have assisted in educating other legislative members as to the
benefits that our initiative presents for Iowa. How this coalition will
be affected by the Fall elections is uncertain but they have proven
themselves to be effective legislators and are well respected within
their communities. Maintaining this coalition will be important for our
efforts in 2011

A new legislature given the opportunity to immediately have access to
million$ upon million$ of $$ that has been brushed off the table
annually in the past without creating a larger tax burden on state
residents, we hope will make the right decision in 2011.

As a side note to our efforts, the DNR has extended an invitation to
Friends of Iowa Landowners & Sportsmen to represent NRLO's at its
stakeholders annual meeting in August again this year. This recognition
underscores the fact that NRLO's do play a major role within Iowa...

Enjoy the rest of your summer and thank you for your support.

(I deleted the author’s name)

July isn’t even over yet and I find myself getting geared up for the elections and the next legislative session.

Oh yeah, anybody living in Senate District 50 which is the Council bluffs/Cater Lake area ya might think about not re-electing Mr. Gronstal. I don’t think he has to run again until 2012 but you can bet that I’m going to contribute to his opponent. And FOI can’t even spell his name correctly.

Oh oh yeah, if a wanna laugh check out the FOI web site and click on senate districs. They aren't even close. On second thought don't no sense in upping their visit count.

The ‘Bonker
 
  • Deleted by N/A
Show…
FOI seem to be always looking out for our better interest within our state. I guess they just want to give us all a better hunting experience? They claim to spend so much money within the state; they can throw some my way.
 
After reading that Bonker it will come down to money plain and simple.
He really did not have any other reasons why the law should be changed.

FOI definitely will benefit monetarily and residents will lose in the long run.
 
Jdubs said:
What happened around Afton?
Click to expand...
Did something get deleated in the post? Here is the main reason for FOI and ground around Afton.

Dr. Mickey Hellickson, a wildlife biologist, smiled recently when seeing that Union County, Iowa, placed nine bucks in the B&C book during the 2000s. That put Union County in a tie with six other counties for 19th place in North America’s top whitetail counties.

Okay, why was Hellickson smiling? Not only is he an Iowa native, he’s part of a hunting cooperative in Union County that currently covers 4,000 acres but has been as large as 9,000 acres since its 1996 launch. This single cooperative produced six of the county’s nine B&C entries from 2000-09.

“The biggest thing we do is selectively harvest mature bucks,” Hellickson said. “We also do year-round habitat work in the woods, maintain food plots and bring in friends and family members to help with the doe harvest every year. The bottom line is you have to let bucks reach older ages. Whether it’s rugged habitat, selective harvest or restricted access, the only way a buck can make B&C is to avoid a bullet or an arrow for at least four to five years.”

Hellickson said though it takes longer for South Texas bucks to reach such proportions, several make it each year for three reasons. “Maverick, La Salle, Webb, Dimmit and Kleberg all produce B&C bucks because they have large, private ranches with really light hunting pressure,” he said. “About 30-plus percent of the bucks on well-managed ranches reach 51/2 years and older.”

Dr. Joel Helmer, a geographer and whitetail addict at Nebraska’s Concordia University, echoes those thoughts. He created a wall-poster map for the Quality Deer Management Association that shows the distribution of bucks in the Boone and Crockett Club and Pope and Young Club record books.

“Because you’re dealing with such rarities to begin with, it doesn’t take much to influence the record books,” Helmer said. “Most counties cover a large area, but sites that produce record-book bucks are usually relatively small parts of a county with specific habitat and management differences that set them apart. In some cases, it literally can be one family or one group of hunters putting that county on the map.”

With more hunters following herd- and land-management programs that benefit deer, and with the flexible and adaptable whitetail prospering across diverse landscapes, we should expect to keep adding pages to the B&C’s record book in the years ahead.

“More bucks are making the book from New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and New England than ever before,” Balfourd said.

Hellickson agrees. “Deer hunting is the backbone of hunting in the United States, and it’s now giving people more reasons to connect with the land by managing it for deer.”


 
His operation around the afton area is WAY smaller than it has been in the past, plus you could ask Mr. Hellickson how the Kings ranch in texas is if you get to chat with him.
 
THA4 said:
I really hate those guys....
Click to expand...


Some would say the same about the IBA. I think its funny some would call to not vote for a specific legislator because of where he stands on deer hunting by non-residents that more than likely doesnt affect a large number of people. Aren't you more concerned where he stands on things like taxes, budget deficits, and job creation? Just sayin'..

I'm not meaning to be such a contrarian, but it's like on here if you don't completely support the IBA or you think that the current system is unfair to non-resident tax paying landowners, you're the spawn of satan and everyone should chastise you. The only non-residents on this website that get praise or are perceived as being well liked are the ones that agree with the IBA and patronize vocal resident IBA supporters. Sorry there's people in the world with opposing viewpoints on issues and you may not always be right?
 
Last edited:
kbnelson3 said:
Some would say the same about the IBA. I think its funny some would call to not vote for a specific legislator because of where he stands on deer hunting by non-residents that more than likely doesnt affect a large number of people. Aren't you more concerned where he stands on things like taxes, budget deficits, and job creation? Just sayin'..

I'm not meaning to be such a contrarian, but it's like on here if you don't completely support the IBA or you think that the current system is unfair to non-resident tax paying landowners, you're the spawn of satan and everyone should chastise you. The only non-residents on this website that get praise or are perceived as being well liked are the ones that agree with the IBA and patronize vocal resident IBA supporters. Sorry there's people in the world with opposing viewpoints on issues and you may not always be right?
Click to expand...
So you would have the residents of this good state throw in the towel, and knuckle under to non-resident special interest groups? And we should do this why? Because you purchased land in our state, but don't like the current hunting laws? And you don't like the IBA for what reason? Because it is an organization that supports the interest of residents of Iowa? If this doesn't make a resident of Iowa want to become an IBA member; i don't know what will. Thankfully non-residents like you can't vote in our good state, but if you had your way you'd want that too!
 
Proud IBA member here.
Just a couple quick thoughts.
1. Can someone tell me when Ia. changed the law affecting the way nr lo'ers get deer tags? Law hasn't changed!! So if you bought land and didn't know the law,that's your fault. Not mine.
2. 17 states give res lo no special breaks on big game tags and 9 states have restrictions on big game tags.
3. 34 states give nr lo'ers no break. So someone please tell how or why Ia. is so unfair.
3. Anyone know the stance/position that Ia PF has taken on nrlo issue. Lot more people groups side with the IBA than you think. Main difference is IBA isn't afraid to put it out there for all to see.
4. Finally in 2005 this was passed by Congress


109th CONGRESS
1st Session​



H. R. 731​

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


February 9, 2005 ​

Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. OTTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources


A BILL ​

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE.
(a) In General- It is the policy of Congress that is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and non-residents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting or fishing.
(b) Construction of Congressional Silence- Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the `commerce clause') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State or Indian tribe.
SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce;
(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the United States; or
(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede, or alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian Tribe as recognized by any other means, including but not limited to agreements with the United States, Executive Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.
SEC. 4. STATE DEFINED.
For purposes of this Act, the term `State' includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

5. Memberships to IBA can be bought online at www.iowabowhunters.org
 
KBnelson3 might have a different take if it was his home state that was under attack by NR's.

All the NR's complaining should just sell their land and buy ground in non resident friendly states like Ohio, besides the deer are bigger there! Ohio is the new whitetail mecca!
 
Last edited:
OK for KBnelson3 and any other NR who think this is BS that some of us Residents have issue with this. Just as an example, lets say you are a NR that owns ground near Ames. Your ground has an assessed value of $100,000. Your property taxes there will cost you $1734.28. http://apps.storycounty.com/VIS2/tax_est.aspx ( I realize that this calculator is set for a resident, and may cost more to a NR, but still a good example)

My wife and I paid over $7000.00 into the state in income taxes last year, plus the State Sales Tax:6%( local option taxes can add up to another 1%.) Which we pay year round, unlike a NR who just visits, and Gasoline Tax:: 22.0 cents/gallon, again that we pay year round, not just when we are passing through. Plus our own property taxes. So I for one cannot understand why any NR thinks they should have the right to set what our regulations in our state should be.
 
ISHEDHUNT said:
KBnelson3 might have a diffent take if it was his home state that was under attack by NR's.

All the NR's complaining should just sell their land and buy ground in non resident friendly states like Ohio, besides the deer are bigger there! Ohio is the new whitetail mecca!
Click to expand...
No; i don't want them to sell their land. They are part of the reason we have quality bucks in this state. They have created deer havens, and refuge for our younger bucks to grow trophy size. Just ask any member of FOI. Thus they feel intitled to harvest these bucks every year the same as residents. If it wasn't for the FOI; this poor state would fold for lack of money. And we wouldn't know what a trophy buck looked like; because we shoot everything in sight. If it wasn't for the FOI efforts; we wouldn't have near the quality deer hunting we have today. Just ask one of them!
 
I truly think in any state, in order to effectively manage the resources, landowners, resident or otherwise, should be consulted when creating regulations. Especially with increasing generational land turnover to non-residents, why would you want to drown out ideas from people just because they're not residents? Say you add another 4000-6000 tags. Dispersed evenly across seasons and zones, you would see little impact on residents hunting. Combined with higher revenue(that maybe your DNR could put towards creating public hunting opportunities),I think the benefits greatly outweigh the costs.

Serious question: how many of you know for sure you would be directly affected by the increase of non-resident hunters and/or a benefit for non-resident landowning hunters?
 
kbnelson3 said:
Serious question: how many of you know for sure you would be directly affected by the increase of non-resident hunters and/or a benefit for non-resident landowning hunters?
Click to expand...

Serious answer...While the impact may not be felt evenly across the whole state, I am virtually 100% certain that the prime deer zones in Iowa would see even more "competition" than they do now. (Personally, I am fairly immune to any potential impact because I already own a farm that is primarily a deer hunting/recreational property, so I consider myself somewhat neutral from that point of view. In fact, if anything, I suspect my property values would increase/spike if NR's could be guaranteed a tag, but I would rather see some semblance of order maintained to preserve a heritage where common folks can hunt in their own state without having to be really wealthy, etc.)

Many of the neighbors to my farm, Iowa residents, no longer have access to hunt in their neighborhood because most of the farms around there are leased or owned for hunting purposes. While I do not think anyone can say for sure they know what the impact of more NR tags and/or guaranteed tags for NRLO's would be, I would be willing to bet my farm to yours that the access would go down further for residents.

I do not even know what state you are from KBNelson, but I sure wish people would put as much as effort into changing the hunting regulations and/or culture in their home states as they seem to want to do in our state. If we are so backwards then why is it that folks seem to want to come here so badly? I think we are doing something right even if it was largely an accident that our "buck friendly" regs got established the way they did back in the day. (Buck friendly by virtue of no gun season during the rut and limited rifle hunting.)

I would be the first to welcome you to Iowa as a resident and I hope you shoot a big buck every time you draw a tag, but I do not support a CHANGE of the laws to accomodate NR's that bought here knowing full well what the regs were.
 
Daver said:
Serious answer...While the impact may not be felt evenly across the whole state, I am virtually 100% certain that the prime deer zones in Iowa would see even more "competition" than they do now. (Personally, I am fairly immune to any potential impact because I already own a farm that is primarily a deer hunting/recreational property, so I consider myself somewhat neutral from that point of view. In fact, if anything, I suspect my property values would increase/spike if NR's could be guaranteed a tag, but I would rather see some semblance of order maintained to preserve a heritage where common folks can hunt in their own state without having to be really wealthy, etc.)

Many of the neighbors to my farm, Iowa residents, no longer have access to hunt in their neighborhood because most of the farms around there are leased or owned for hunting purposes. While I do not think anyone can say for sure they know what the impact of more NR tags and/or guaranteed tags for NRLO's would be, I would be willing to bet my farm to yours that the access would go down further for residents.

I do not even know what state you are from KBNelson, but I sure wish people would put as much as effort into changing the hunting regulations and/or culture in their home states as they seem to want to do in our state. If we are so backwards then why is it that folks seem to want to come here so badly? I think we are doing something right even if it was largely an accident that our "buck friendly" regs got established the way they did back in the day. (Buck friendly by virtue of no gun season during the rut and limited rifle hunting.)

I would be the first to welcome you to Iowa as a resident and I hope you shoot a big buck every time you draw a tag, but I do not support a CHANGE of the laws to accomodate NR's that bought here knowing full well what the regs were.
Click to expand...

Very well said and I couldn't agree more. :way:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom