ElkHunter
Life Member
House and Senate still can't agree. A few key house members won't move from their version of the deer bill.The longer it takes the more garbage gets added to it.Don't know what will happen
.
They have been doing alot of joint committee meetings, trying to reach a compromise.They seem to reach an agreement and then someone will add an item or try to amend then they go back to square one.
Right now I would say no news is good news.
They have been doing alot of joint committee meetings, trying to reach a compromise.They seem to reach an agreement and then someone will add an item or try to amend then they go back to square one.
Right now I would say no news is good news.
blake
Life Member
Many members on this site spent countless hours contacting their states government officials re: the proposed deer bills.
For some the passage of this bill is probably a bitter disappoint.
Some of you may believe that the passage of this bill is a much needed solution to controlling the deer population.
Does anyone wish to provide some feedback as to the positives or the negatives of the bill?
For some the passage of this bill is probably a bitter disappoint.
Some of you may believe that the passage of this bill is a much needed solution to controlling the deer population.
Does anyone wish to provide some feedback as to the positives or the negatives of the bill?
JNRBRONC
Well-Known Member
I shouldn't have copy/pasted SF206 into my message for two reasons: bandwidth and it lost some important formatting. Instead I would encourage people to go to: SF206 and enter SF206 into the quick find window.
As to what I think of this piece of legislation? I guess I read it as "how does it impact me?" and it doesn't seem to really change what I will do this coming season. Admittedly a narrow, self-serving view of the issue.
Also, it is a little tough to read all of this "legalese" and if I read it correctly, non-residents are forced to buy an antlerless tag on top of an any sex. I think it would have been better received if it would have stated that with the purchase of an any-sex license, the non-resident receives a antlerless only tag, even if the dollar amount remains the same. I think human nature resists being "forced" into buying something they might not really want, especially when it carries a seperate fee. Overall, I don't see any huge influx of non-residents streaming in to shoot the "unlimited" doe licenses. Don't take that statement as being anti-non-resident. I have deer hunted in Missouri, Minnesota and Wisconsin. My choice of state and season was based upon whether I thought it was a good hunting value. When I hunted Wisconsin, supplemental antlerless tags were $20 each. I bought 4 and filled two while my $100 buck tag went unfilled. Today, I doubt if I would come to this state as a non-resident. The license cost is very high (IMO) and there is little public land. Everyones view of affordability is different, thus there are those who lease ground or hire an outfitter on top of buying an expensive non-resident tag. To each his own...
I like the fact that they placed a two acre minimum for a landowner license as I've seen areas around the Coralville resevoir where people buy and acre to put up a house then jump the back fence to hunt public ground or trespass on private. I'm probably delusional to think that any law would change this behavior though.
This seems to be mainly a deer preserve/deer farm bill rather than a deer population control bill. I might have missed whether a large leased track falls into the "hunting preserve" definition.
I noticed a couple of instances where the bill deferred to the DNR for special seasons, zones and bag limits. I'm glad they have left the door open for the DNR to do their job.
As to what I think of this piece of legislation? I guess I read it as "how does it impact me?" and it doesn't seem to really change what I will do this coming season. Admittedly a narrow, self-serving view of the issue.
Also, it is a little tough to read all of this "legalese" and if I read it correctly, non-residents are forced to buy an antlerless tag on top of an any sex. I think it would have been better received if it would have stated that with the purchase of an any-sex license, the non-resident receives a antlerless only tag, even if the dollar amount remains the same. I think human nature resists being "forced" into buying something they might not really want, especially when it carries a seperate fee. Overall, I don't see any huge influx of non-residents streaming in to shoot the "unlimited" doe licenses. Don't take that statement as being anti-non-resident. I have deer hunted in Missouri, Minnesota and Wisconsin. My choice of state and season was based upon whether I thought it was a good hunting value. When I hunted Wisconsin, supplemental antlerless tags were $20 each. I bought 4 and filled two while my $100 buck tag went unfilled. Today, I doubt if I would come to this state as a non-resident. The license cost is very high (IMO) and there is little public land. Everyones view of affordability is different, thus there are those who lease ground or hire an outfitter on top of buying an expensive non-resident tag. To each his own...
I like the fact that they placed a two acre minimum for a landowner license as I've seen areas around the Coralville resevoir where people buy and acre to put up a house then jump the back fence to hunt public ground or trespass on private. I'm probably delusional to think that any law would change this behavior though.
This seems to be mainly a deer preserve/deer farm bill rather than a deer population control bill. I might have missed whether a large leased track falls into the "hunting preserve" definition.
I noticed a couple of instances where the bill deferred to the DNR for special seasons, zones and bag limits. I'm glad they have left the door open for the DNR to do their job.
JNRBRONC
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Unless I missed something, the free landowner tags are for shotgun seasons only. It doesnt mention archery for landowner tags.
L Grimes
[/ QUOTE ]
I think they messed up the wording on that one. I think what they were trying to announce is that free landowner shotgun licenses (if you choose that season as a landowner) are valid for both shotgun seasons. It does say that the free licenses can be for different seasons. Hopefully the DNR will clarify this when they post the real regulations.
Unless I missed something, the free landowner tags are for shotgun seasons only. It doesnt mention archery for landowner tags.
L Grimes
[/ QUOTE ]
I think they messed up the wording on that one. I think what they were trying to announce is that free landowner shotgun licenses (if you choose that season as a landowner) are valid for both shotgun seasons. It does say that the free licenses can be for different seasons. Hopefully the DNR will clarify this when they post the real regulations.
ElkHunter
Life Member
House and senate worked out details and will send to Gov.Not a lot was changed.
Here are highlights or lowlights of bill.
SF 206, DEER MANAGEMENT. Increases the nonresident anysex deer license fee by $100 by requiring nonresidents to also purchase a $100 antlerless license. Allows the DNR to set the number of nonresident antlerless licenses. Allows the owner of a farm unit to receive one anysex and one antlerless deer license plus the tenant can received the same. The DNR must establish a deer harvesting report system to collect information from hunters on numbers killed, location, sex, etc. Authorizes the establishment of special antlerless deer season in counties where population management is needed. Adds language that gives the DNR direction to administer and enforce deer depredation administrative rules. Makes a false statement to obtain a free landowner/tenant a simple misdemeanor and revokes the person’s hunting license for one year. Keeps the nonresident hunting license fee at $80. Puts all of the $1.00 surcharge to the Stop Hunger Program. Defines farm whitetail deer separately from hunting preserve whitetails. Dept. of Ag has authority for farm whitetails & the DNR has authority to regulate hunting preserve whitetails and has authority to adopt rules. Restores the provisions regarding farm deer. Farm units for free landowner/tenant licenses must be two contiguous acres in size. Sets the minimum size of whitetail hunting preserves as 320 contiguous acres, Allows preserves to be two or more contiguous tracts. Allows the Nat. Res. Comm. to approve a smaller preserve of 160 contiguous acres and allows current non-conforming hunting preserves to be grandfathered. Requires certified fencing. Requires hunting preserve registration with the DNR with an annual fee not to exceed $350. Requires a hunting preserve owner to notify the DNR before releasing deer on the preserve. The DNR will provide transport tags for hunting preserve deer that are harvested. Allows the preserve to process the deer under rules to be developed. Requires preserve deer to be free from disease, and allows the DNR to quarantine of diseased animals. Requires plans to eradicate a reportable disease. Requires the plan to by a memorandum of agreement with the owner and approved by the DNR. Authorizes civil penalties of up to $2,500, simple misdemeanor penalties and allows the DNR to revoke fence certification. Requires the DALS and DNR to study the issues of farm deer and hunting preserves, including the potential outbreak of infectious diseases. Creates a Preserve Whitetail committee to recommend guidelines to be used by the Nat. Res. Comm. for granting of waivers from the minimum acreage requirements.
Here are highlights or lowlights of bill.
SF 206, DEER MANAGEMENT. Increases the nonresident anysex deer license fee by $100 by requiring nonresidents to also purchase a $100 antlerless license. Allows the DNR to set the number of nonresident antlerless licenses. Allows the owner of a farm unit to receive one anysex and one antlerless deer license plus the tenant can received the same. The DNR must establish a deer harvesting report system to collect information from hunters on numbers killed, location, sex, etc. Authorizes the establishment of special antlerless deer season in counties where population management is needed. Adds language that gives the DNR direction to administer and enforce deer depredation administrative rules. Makes a false statement to obtain a free landowner/tenant a simple misdemeanor and revokes the person’s hunting license for one year. Keeps the nonresident hunting license fee at $80. Puts all of the $1.00 surcharge to the Stop Hunger Program. Defines farm whitetail deer separately from hunting preserve whitetails. Dept. of Ag has authority for farm whitetails & the DNR has authority to regulate hunting preserve whitetails and has authority to adopt rules. Restores the provisions regarding farm deer. Farm units for free landowner/tenant licenses must be two contiguous acres in size. Sets the minimum size of whitetail hunting preserves as 320 contiguous acres, Allows preserves to be two or more contiguous tracts. Allows the Nat. Res. Comm. to approve a smaller preserve of 160 contiguous acres and allows current non-conforming hunting preserves to be grandfathered. Requires certified fencing. Requires hunting preserve registration with the DNR with an annual fee not to exceed $350. Requires a hunting preserve owner to notify the DNR before releasing deer on the preserve. The DNR will provide transport tags for hunting preserve deer that are harvested. Allows the preserve to process the deer under rules to be developed. Requires preserve deer to be free from disease, and allows the DNR to quarantine of diseased animals. Requires plans to eradicate a reportable disease. Requires the plan to by a memorandum of agreement with the owner and approved by the DNR. Authorizes civil penalties of up to $2,500, simple misdemeanor penalties and allows the DNR to revoke fence certification. Requires the DALS and DNR to study the issues of farm deer and hunting preserves, including the potential outbreak of infectious diseases. Creates a Preserve Whitetail committee to recommend guidelines to be used by the Nat. Res. Comm. for granting of waivers from the minimum acreage requirements.
