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

DNR Layoffs

Hardwood11 said:
Two years without a post, nice to see your loyalty to the site.
Click to expand...

I'm loyal to the rights of Iowans that choose to live, work, raise their families and enjoy the outdoors here.

Whiners come and go. Some stay longer than others. But, in the end, it does them no good. The smart ones move here or move on.
 
Welcome back to Iowawhitetail.com

fletch920 said:
I'm loyal to the rights of Iowans that choose to live, work, raise their families and enjoy the outdoors here.

Whiners come and go. Some stay longer than others. But, in the end, it does them no good. The smart ones move here or move on.
Click to expand...

Welcome back after that long vacation
 
hans1 said:
Things are Changing in Iowa at a fast pace I know more residents leasing land than ever. I was involved in a recent farm sale and had 4 offers competing and they were all residents ironically the seller was a Non Res buying a larger farm.
I really don't think Iowa needs to increase the Non Res quota. If I was able to make any change to the current system I would give Non Resident landowners one permanent preference point. This wouldn't cause any great rush to buy land but would allow a slight advantage over someone with no investment in Iowa. I also think the cost of the nonresident tag could be raised without changing the demand much.
Click to expand...


Was this in Lucas County ? If so, I was involved also.
 
As a non resident I like Iowas current regulations in regards to nr hunting. There is no need to open up the flood gates and allow more nr hunting. Regardless if they own land or not. If the regulations change I think the quality of hunting will dramatically go down hill. All nr landowners were aware of the regulations before purchasing property.
 
I moved to Iowa 11 years ago, if you want what is available here, move. Otherwise own land somewhere else. No issue finding a buyer I bet. I wouldn't be for any landowner perks. You made the choice to buy knowing the regs. Land is hard to come by, be thankful you have some of your own. As far as cost, I don't think NR should carry the whole load, but I bet a 100$-200$ more wouldn't stop hardly anyone. As far as residents, why not set up and incremental increase over a set number of years? I would pay more but why Jack it 40% in a year. Also 10$ landowner tag makes alot of sense to me. Don't be handing out so many depredation tags either.
 
Maybe I'm just not as hooked into deer hunting but I couldn't ever see myself paying $500 or more for a tag to hunt deer plus travel and equipment fees to boot if the state I lived in had deer, which most do. Now I would possibly pay that to hunt bear, moose, antelope etc, species we do not have. As an Iowa resident that does not own land and has very limited access to private on top of the low population levels the last few years I can't imagine they come close to selling out NR tags. Could an increase in NR fees be a financial loss then? Not many out of staters hunting Grundy County...
 
Tim Hull said:
We pay taxes on CRP, Ha. So the taxpayers practically make your farm payment or pay for the farm and you had to pay taxes on it? What an injustice?
Click to expand...

I don't personally have much CRP in Iowa, but in most cases the taxpayers are not paying for the farm. The tillable ground will help make the payment, or even timber, in many cases. That is why buying a 50/50 farm is smart for many hunters, they get income from the farm.

I guess I do not feel guilty about taking CRP money, since I pay a bunch in income and property taxes anyway. With Obamacare, I now pay for other peoples health insurance as well.

You won't make me feel guilty, I take advantage of CRP in MN, and Iowa and am proud of the checks I receive and the habitat we create for wildlife. Meanwhile others have $50,000 trucks, and no land.
 
fletch920 said:
I never left. I live here. I like the benefits of being a resident of Iowa.

But, I hear that South Dakota is a nice place to visit. I might check it out sometime. ;)
Click to expand...

South Dakota is great, and to have 640 acres or more to hunt, that is a good option...no lose situation either way;)
 
fletch920 said:
I like the idea of +1 preference for landowners. We pay property taxes and income taxes on CRP/cash rent. This would help and I think it would cool down the infighting between R and NR (work together for and manage the herd appropriately.)

Hardwood11, Today at 2:39 PM Report

Some things never change. lol

I bet you do like that idea. But, South Dakota sounds like a much better option for you. Why wait?
Click to expand...


I'm a resident and I like that idea, not all Residents are selfish when it comes to NR......
 
Last edited:
Not all residents care about their resident neighbors losing opportunities to enjoy the natural resources. That's their prerogative.

Not all residents understand the consequences of their actions. That's their simplicity.

Is this a family site? I don't get here much. Not used to seeing profanity on forums.
 
I am not against NR. I have a couple NR friends hunt with me a year. They are an important part and are needed. I would rather have someone every 3-4 years than every year hunting next to me. But I am against any benefit to NR landowners over NR.
 
Oct-Lull

I see both sides of this argument. My questions is if they implemented the +1 for NR landowners, what would be the major concern? More NR buying land? I guess I feel like I know the market pretty well---been watching it weekly since 2000,. I have had farms in Lucas, Warren, Ringgold, Taylor and Union County the prices mostly go up, with some corrections at times...I do not think it would do much to demand (the demand is already high). I mean some hunting farms in Decatur County are $5000/acre. This rule would not increase tags?

The positive is it would probably get more landowners on board with management, more cooperation with R and NR...I don't see any real downside to your local hunting, your farms will not be affected, and if anything, it will mean fewer hunters on public land.

Either way, it is what it is.
 
Hardwood11 said:
Oct-Lull

I see both sides of this argument. My questions is if they implemented the +1 for NR landowners, what would be the major concern? More NR buying land? I guess I feel like I know the market pretty well---been watching it weekly since 2000,. I have had farms in Lucas, Warren, Ringgold, Taylor and Union County the prices mostly go up, with some corrections at times...I do not think it would do much to demand (the demand is already high). I mean some hunting farms in Decatur County are $5000/acre. This rule would not increase tags?

The positive is it would probably get more landowners on board with management, more cooperation with R and NR...I don't see any real downside to your local hunting, your farms will not be affected, and if anything, it will mean fewer hunters on public land.

Either way, it is what it is.
Click to expand...

Why should the rules change to make any accommodation whatsoever to a NR landowner? What changed that should allow for them to receive an added benefit?

I have friends that are NR landowners. I am not an enemy of the NR landowner that abides by the rules as they exist. I have helped them for years on their lands for absolutely nothing in return. I don't even hunt their land. I simply enjoy helping like minded folks. But, none of them expect any more than what they were given when they purchased their properties. They understand the slippery slope that added "benefits" would cause. Anyone that has a grasp on the details understands what would happen.

That being said, ANY added benefits to a NR that owns land will most certainly create more interest in NR land ownership. I personally know guys that are watching this very close and would jump at the opportunity to buy ground here if there is a change to rules. Its simply not in the best interest of those that choose to live here and hunt here. Never will be.
 
fletch920 said:
Not all residents care about their resident neighbors losing opportunities to enjoy the natural resources. That's their prerogative.

Not all residents understand the consequences of their actions. That's their simplicity.

Is this a family site? I don't get here much. Not used to seeing profanity on forums.
Click to expand...

Residents of Iowa are the worst offenders when it comes to trespassing, etc. The guys spending a million on a farm aren't. Change is constant and allowing more NR to buy land or whatever isn't going to hurt current LO or residents. Simplicity? How about the resident who is so close minded that they think allowing the NR landowner an opportunity to hunt a little more frequently is bad? Give me an example (one that is actually feasible) of how allowing a NR LO to have 1 pref point starting out will effect you negatively? Iowas economy would suffer drastically if it wasn't for the NR hunter/landowner.....
 
I think our DNR resources are in really bad shape if Iowa needs to rely on NR landowner's license money to stay operating. I know the Friends Of Iowa group want us to believe they own 1/3 of the state, but I don't see giving them the right to hunt every year making any significant difference in funding. It is however very disturbing to think that much of our farmland belongs to people who don't even live in our fare state. This may very well be part of our problem instead of a solution!
 
Well hunting isn't my #1 concern. I have been watching for years to get 50- 200acres in my area for farming and raising my children in a rural setting. Hunting is an added bonus. If you don't think that giving a landowner a permanent point will add to the interest of NR to own land you are kidding yourself. I have heard the words "slippery slope" a million times with this goofy pistol cartridge bill and this is no different. It's opens a door we can't close. If a 150 comes up close to me and 3 extra buyers enter the picture from out of the state that hurts my chances. If it hurts my chances .01 % I am against it. Tons of specialist land companies all over the internet these days trying to "make dreams come true". Not to mention I don't know of many who give out permission to locals to hunt, and why would they, it's why most buy it in the first place. But with the locals you can build a relationship might. I too know a handful of NR that would buy tomorrow of it gave them a leg up to getting a tag. Just the way it is.
 
It makes a guy wonder what the folks in Mn would say if some of us guys from out of state wanted to have not only an opinion but also a voice in how they need to manage their walleye population. Think about it.....this should not even be a discussion. As was said before, as a non resident you knew the laws/regs when you bought. If other states offer more opportunities it's a no brainer! Go kill some deer and birds at the same time!

Some don't believe that giving a NR that owns land +1 preference pt will effect anything, do some research. Talk to some of the residents of Ill. There's a ton of ground for sale in Missouri, ask yourself why these NR aren't buying land across the border. Iowa is the way it is because of the way the dnr has ran it, not to mention the residents who join organizations to help keep it the way it is. I have 3 young boys that I hope someday will get to enjoy what I have growing up. It scares the hell out of me to think that if I don't buy/lease land my kids may never get an opportunity to go hang their own stand on a piece of private ground in the state they grew up in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom