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

DNR Layoffs

bkcrrtnps said:
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.....
Click to expand...

Last I knew, this has zero to do with trespassing.

Nonresidents buying up hunting land has already impacted most of the outdoorsmen I know. None of it positive. I don't know of a single hunter that has not lost opportunity to nonresident landownership. I'm sure that is not the case in all areas, but it certainly is in the better hunting areas. Allowing NR's the opportunity to hunt more will absolutely promote more and more NR land ownership. Want to pay to play? I did it several years ago. I bought farms for my family and friends to hunt. I am good to go. Not everyone has the resources to go out and secure a legacy hunting spot. I know several guys that have given up deer hunting completely due to the competition for access to decent ground. Close minded is ignoring the inevitable. Why would anyone support NR opportunities that will most definitely impact local outdoorsmen negatively? So far, the only reasons I have ever heard involve money. The only reason a resident would support the expansion of NR land ownership is because they would gain financially. Or, they just don't have a clue. Its really just that simple. Plenty of solid examples have been given in the past on this topic. You can continue to ignore them, but that doesn't make them go away and it certainly does not change the facts.
 
1. The overall economy of Iowa would not suffer one bit without NR landowners/ hunting. It is so far down the list that from a statistical standpoint it is zero. Agriculture is by far #1. Then you have renewable energy (Iowa leads the nation), advanced manufacturing (Vermeer,etc), IT (Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc), healthcare, finance, etc, etc, etc. As in my previous post you have THOUSANDS of people that have moved here because they wanted the benefit of hunting all the time. The economic impact of those folks over lifetime blows NR economic impact out of the water. They make an impact every single day. I'm not against NR hunting at all, as is, but to say they make some sort of huge economic impact is foolish. I was a NR Hunter before I became a resident so I understand the desire.

2. DNR funding is a function of overall government funding. One thing we could ALL agree on and fight for is how much the DNR gets out of the general fund. Government waste is disgusting if you dig into it.

3. If NR landowners got the same benefits of residents the average price of ground would skyrocket overnight. This is not debatable. To me that is a major reason not to change it in itself. Selfish? I can see how someone could have that point of view but I'm going to fight for my kid to have a chance to someday own land and not have inflated pricing because the market is inflated by people from Chicago, new Jersey, etc driving the market to a point in becomes unaffordable to most.
 
The future of hunting is this state scares me. It really bothers me the direction we are heading on so many different levels. This debate is only one of our many issues we will be facing going forward. If this past year is any indication as to whats to come look out. I am in 100% agreement with Fletch and iowabowhunter as to what any change to our current NR laws could impact. There isn't too much more to add to their arguments but unfortunetly when it comes to doing what most resident sportsmen feel is right our legislation has there heads up there @$$. Whats next to come down the pipe crossbows, airguns, high powered riffles, NR license increase, CWD eradication zones, the list goes on and the special interest groups have the $$$$. Sure a lot of NR landowners say they like the tag situation the way it is now but I can guarantee you a large majority of them would secretly jump on the chance to have that changed. Anyone follow what a few of the Iowa deer tags sold for on eBay here in the last few weeks? Most are upward of 10,000 dollars. It's astonishing what some are willing to pay for that one tag. Just imagine what they would pay for land and the opportunity to hunt every year.
 
A little late in the year for the old argument to spring up but it's been a long off season I guess.

What really sucks is we had a chance to raise license fees in the last legislative session and missed out. From my understanding that bill had wide ranging support from the general outdoor community. It was a stiff increase, IMO, but well past due and justified. My only problem with it was I didn't see an increase in LO tags. I am philosophically opposed to LO tags in general and definitely apposed to them being an extra tag and at such a reduced rate. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!;)
 
As posted earlier "DNR funding is a function of overall government funding. One thing we could ALL agree on and fight for is how much the DNR gets out of the general fund. Government waste is disgusting if you dig into it."
This topic would have not been brought up if not for the $100 million state deficit. The DNR will and always will be the the first to take a hit. By allowing NR land owners to hunt more often will not change our deficit and only hurt our resident hunters for a chance at land ownership or lost property.
Back in the day out of state pheasant hunters brought more to the rural economy then NR landowners do now.
I would like to see the DNR bring back the fees to use state and county recreation areas like we had in the 80's. Even though we are all tax payers, the sportsman is always the ones that pick up the tab, whIle are parks, bird watching, hiking, camping could help with some of the loss.
 
mplane72 said:
A little late in the year for the old argument to spring up but it's been a long off season I guess.

What really sucks is we had a chance to raise license fees in the last legislative session and missed out. From my understanding that bill had wide ranging support from the general outdoor community. It was a stiff increase, IMO, but well past due and justified. My only problem with it was I didn't see an increase in LO tags. I am philosophically opposed to LO tags in general and definitely apposed to them being an extra tag and at such a reduced rate. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!;)
Click to expand...

I will say this.... I think the requirement to qualify for a LO tags needs to be a lot higher than 2 acres! To me, that is a pretty silly number. I don't have the right number, but 2 sure doesn't seem like it.
 
IowaBowHunter1983 said:
I will say this.... I think the requirement to qualify for a LO tags needs to be a lot higher than 2 acres! To me, that is a pretty silly number. I don't have the right number, but 2 sure doesn't seem like it.
Click to expand...
Though the minimum acreage for a LO tag may seem ridiculous; they are still required to hunt only that small parcel of acres. At least the landowner is guaranteed a place to hunt every year! Those who are opposed to the LO tags in general might think twice when it comes time to secure private land to hunt. How many shotgun hunt in a party with a landowner? Who's land are you hunting? I can see public ground being even more crowded the day LO tags are no longer issued!
 
Resident vs. NR argument aside and back to the real issue at hand, the simple fact is we need to increase revenue. The easiest, quickest, simplest way to do that would be an over-all percentage increase on ALL licenses/tags, bump LO tags to $10, charge a registration fee on bicycles like we have for boats/atv's/utv's/snowmobiles, and charge a park usage fee for all users instead of just campers. Everything on that list other than the bicycles would directly affect me, and I still would be 100% in support of all of those items.
 
Last edited:
It worked out well in Illinois, just keep increasing Revenue and never look at decreasing expenses or waste. Putting that aside, I wouldn't mind paying the normal fee of $27 for the landowner tag instead of the $1. Especially for deer.
 
Hawk32 said:
The future of hunting is this state scares me. It really bothers me the direction we are heading on so many different levels. This debate is only one of our many issues we will be facing going forward. If this past year is any indication as to whats to come look out. I am in 100% agreement with Fletch and iowabowhunter as to what any change to our current NR laws could impact. There isn't too much more to add to their arguments but unfortunetly when it comes to doing what most resident sportsmen feel is right our legislation has there heads up there @$$. Whats next to come down the pipe crossbows, airguns, high powered riffles, NR license increase, CWD eradication zones, the list goes on and the special interest groups have the $$$$. Sure a lot of NR landowners say they like the tag situation the way it is now but I can guarantee you a large majority of them would secretly jump on the chance to have that changed. Anyone follow what a few of the Iowa deer tags sold for on eBay here in the last few weeks? Most are upward of 10,000 dollars. It's astonishing what some are willing to pay for that one tag. Just imagine what they would pay for land and the opportunity to hunt every year.
Click to expand...
I'm a NR and do not own land. I've hunted both public and private in the past. Why would I or any other nr pay $569 to hunt a deer if the quality of the product is diminished by allowing more hunters in? That's why I am in favor of not changing anything. I'll pay the $ if the quality is there. Otherwise I'll hunt some other state.
 
You're not paying 569.00 for an archery tag. You're paying 569.00 + 200.00 for four points + 60.00 for app. fees = 829.00.
 
I just don't grasp how people, especially some residents, dont see the negative impact this would have. Even for NR's why? The quality that IA has is because of the way the regs are now. Open it up and I would think just 5 years later the quality is going to drop significantly, unless you truly are in and surrounded by a sanctuary of like minded land owners. Public land will go to junk and getting permission on private ground will truly be out the window.

I hate to think of the future in this state in say 10-20 years from now. Going to have to have $$$ or be besties with someone that does. Or maybe not, maybe thinks being opened up and adding on the weapon changes etc will have run its course and the demand and interest will be gone and things could be rebounding.

Just like anything anymore, its all about money, sad.
 
MN Hunter said:
I'm a NR and do not own land. I've hunted both public and private in the past. Why would I or any other nr pay $569 to hunt a deer if the quality of the product is diminished by allowing more hunters in? That's why I am in favor of not changing anything. I'll pay the $ if the quality is there. Otherwise I'll hunt some other state.
Click to expand...

MN Hunter-- the +1 would not add more hunters. Second no argument on here limits or hurts the hunting.

The argument of letting NR have +1 could hurt access to property. As mentioned earlier it could bring in more buyers, but it's not like they are not buying already. Many big landowners like Winke, Drury, Lakosky,
Lindsey--were NR and now are R. Tags Didn't stop them from buying up big chunks.

It's about resident access, that's where the argument is.

The reason the hunting is good, is the December gun season.

Restricting NR tags helps, but I think everyone can admit the real reason states like Iowa and Kansas produce big mature bucks is the timing of the gun season.

If they ever change that, Iowa would be similar to Missouri ... no matter if they restrict tags.
 
I agree! Quit changing chit that potentially alters the dynamics of what we have. I don't really have a problem with giving NR who own maybe at least an 80 a free point. It would be a polite thing to do for paying taxes, growing food plots, etc... but it won't change much and won't create income so won't likely happen.
The states failure to raise license fees won't help the Iowa resident at all. In the long run it will just insure that the really good hunting will only be available to those who can and will pay for it, one way or another.
 
WOW this thread has gotten way of topic!! It started about layoffs and the subject changed to NR landowners..... go figure.
All that has been said at the end of the day this is a Iowa resident issue and not NR. As Iowa residents hopefully we can convince our seemingly blinded elected officials that we need that increase.
This issue will come up again next session so phone calls and emails must be sent.
Whitetail hunting and deer in general is now a political issue and in the hands of the blind year after year. We all MUST become more involved to keep our state a place that as residents we can continue to enjoy whatever we enjoy doing in the great outdoors of this state.
 
Non-typ. said:
You're not paying 569.00 for an archery tag. You're paying 569.00 + 200.00 for four points + 60.00 for app. fees = 829.00.
Click to expand...
Back in the late 90s my buddy drew 4 years in a row zone 9. You know, before the Internet. And before shed hunting was cool. In '12 I drew with one pt.
 
In 2012 I drew with 2 points in unit 4 that's gone. I bought my farm in 2001. The first 6 years I owned it I drew 4 tags in 6 years so things have changed.
 
If some one owns land as a Non resident to archery hunt they either have a way longrange plan or are very misguided.
I advise all the clients that I work with to explore all legal options to hunt the land they own as often as possible.
Most are surprised they can get a doe tag every year "guaranteed " and party hunt the limit is also only limited by the number of people in your party. Once this idea is embraced the process of owning land becomes much more torable. This is also way cheaper than the alternative of Governer tags. Only negative is you cannot hunt with a bow. I don't get what all the fuss is about most Non res landowners I know hunt every year.
 
hans1 said:
If some one owns land as a Non resident to archery hunt they either have a way longrange plan or are very misguided.
I advise all the clients that I work with to explore all legal options to hunt the land they own as often as possible.
Most are surprised they can get a doe tag every year "guaranteed " and party hunt the limit is also only limited by the number of people in your party. Once this idea is embraced the process of owning land becomes much more torable. This is also way cheaper than the alternative of Governer tags. Only negative is you cannot hunt with a bow. I don't get what all the fuss is about most Non res landowners I know hunt every year.
Click to expand...
Worst hunting law in Iowa. I don't understand why it's on the books. You should be required to have a buck tag to shoot a buck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom