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

Double the Number of Non_Res, Licenses:

Interesting....

AS a NR hoping to draw in the next year and finally coming home to deer hunt, I for one hope the fees don't go up any further - it's already steep enough for one tag. I also don't agree with doubling the amount of NR tags - that's crazy.

But - what I'm amazed at is that they are delaying a resident tag increase. Where did that come from and what are the thoughts there? Everyone blasted the NRs but what about the residents? You cannot tell me for one second that if both your gun and bow any sex tag went up $10 (just an example) that it would prohibit ANYONE from hunting. Dollar increase is inevitable - everything costs more money to operate and maintain. One of my best friends works for the DNR - they're not looking to raise fees so they can all get a fatter check - they need it to continue to maintain the ground they purchase as well as purchasing more for the state/YOU - something everyone wants right? More public land since it's all being bought up by the NRs...isn't that what we keep hearing on here? Loosing ground to NRs? Wouldn't it benefit to have a slight increase so the DNR could buy more public land for you to hunt and maintain it to it's full capacity while keeping the amount of NR tags low so as to not encourage more NR from buying up your ground and pushing you out?

6 years since the last increase? What else on this planet has not gone up in the last 6 years? Anything? Tell me who would stop hunting in Iowa as a resident if all residents were charged an extra $10 for both either sex tags next fall regardless of the economy. If I lived there I wouldn't even think twice about it and neither would any of you. I bet anyone that complains shoots a $500-800 bow, has multiple trial cams, chews dip at $5 a tin a couple times a week, smokes at $4 a pack, has new camo every other year, etc...you get my point.

I'm not trying to start an argument but just think about it, if they need more money to operate then get it from those that use the state the most and that is the resident, bottom line. Why shoudn't they?

Keep it civil...
 
If I remember correctly the IBA was asked this question and they agreed to a price increase over bringing more NR in. So I guess whom is griping about the price increase?
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: risto</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If I remember correctly the IBA was asked this question and they agreed to a price increase over bringing more NR in. So I guess whom is griping about the price increase?

</div></div>

That's what I was asking....who shot it down and why? Someone must have been if they pushed it back another year? The post said the Gov and lawmakers....did they just decide that on their own (which I guess is possible and defeats my whole previous post /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif), there had to be some push back somewhere from IA residents. In these emails to them is everyone just pushing back on more NR tags and telling them they support a resident tag increase as well??
 
From what I remember and I could be wrong the Governor decided to wait a year. I will do some looking.
 
Pretty sure the economy in general was the reason for the hold-off on the increase. With things the way the are, I think they were afraid of increasing anything at all. I for one would welcome the increase if it meant keeping things the way they are (tag numbers), but I also feel for everyone whose been either laid off or lost their jobs in the past 6 months. For those individuals, an increase could mean not being able to hunt at all.
 
how about this for a "solution"

1. leave NR tag numbers alone
2. go ahead with the 34% increase that was planned for residents
3. when sustainable funding passes, when the first money comes in from that, cut resident license fees by 20%. kind of a "pat on the back for stepping up when times are tough
4. leave NR tag numbers alone
 
Critr is correct this is what I found:

"The DNR had to postpone a move this year to increase license fees because of the poor economy, which also means less money for habitat restoration, Herring said."

I also saw this which was interesting. Now playing with numbers how do we know when most of these people did not buy a license:

"Hunters bought almost 7,000 fewer licenses in Iowa from 2002 to 2007 - a troubling sign for an activity that has long been one of the state's top tourism draws.

The total number of licenses sold to Iowans and out-of-state hunters fell to 226,108 in 2007 from 233,018 in 2002, a Des Moines Register analysis of state records found"

All of them could of packed it up in 2003 we don't know and they could play with the numbers any way they want to help their cause. (More NR) There are other ways to make money but I think they are stuck on getting more NR here.

The more I think about it the more I think the DNR is trying to sell Iowa to the highest bidder and will write it up anyway they can. Just my .02.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: teeroy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">how about this for a "solution"

1. leave NR tag numbers alone
2. go ahead with the 34% increase that was planned for residents
3. when sustainable funding passes, when the first money comes in from that, cut resident license fees by 20%. kind of a "pat on the back for stepping up when times are tough
4. leave NR tag numbers alone </div></div>

Great idea. I wouldn't even care if they 86'd the #3 objective after SF if it meant that #1 and #4 would happen. Most everyone here and every other hunter that I know said we'd much rather front the cost of higher licenses/tags to fill the gap. The governer, most likely with good intentions, shot that down and now it's leaving them scrambling. If I read the TV13 website article correctly though, Herring is pretty much saying he wants both NR tags and higher resident fees right now though, or at least within the next year. Maybe SF would help change that tune though.
 
I would certainly agree with Teeroy on his proposal.

Risto, if that info came from the Des Moines register then they are all wet. The DNR site shows that there were 389,163 deer licenses alone issued in 2007. That doesn't count any of the out of state pheasant hunters and turkey hunters, and fishermen. Very typical of misinformation given out by them.

I just broke the bank with a letter to Mr Leoupold and Mr Herring on the thread about Friends of Iowa.
 
It would be interesting to see the math on the DNR lost of income from the monstrous decline in pheasant numbers. Fix that problem through efforts of the DNR and the cash would come pouring back into their piggy bank. This would require an effort that would justify the DNRs existence. I don't think they have the stuff to manage it. The only people that seem to make sense about the deer herd and deer hunting sport within the DNR are not even allowed to speak their own mind about it. I understand they can only support department head policy while functioning in any official DNR capacity. I would expect the anti Iowa Sportsman attitude of the DNR to continue as they chase the DOLLAR and fail for the State.
 
i agree with LandBarron, its a privledge, to hunt in our state, If the DNR needs money, why havent we as licenced hunters in the state , seen any proposal on their budget, are they trimming the fat??? why do they continue to increase license fees on us hunters rather than looking at them driving new vehicals every yr?. The way the economy is, most companies have trimmed back, the midddle class have seen this crunch, and you want to raise licence fees on us to make up for the down fall.even though, we love our sport, you will soon see that some cant afford the the increases.are the big wigs willing to take a cut in pay to make up the difference?
 
I sent this email and hopefully others will too. Here's the email addresses again.

Richard Leopold, Director of IDNR
<span style="color: #FF0000">[email protected]</span>

Kenneth Herring, Conservation and Recreation Chief IDNR and meets with Iowa lawmakers
<span style="color: #FF0000">[email protected]</span>

If you don't know who is your state legislator click this link FIND YOUR IOWA STATE LEGISLATOR and be sure to let them know most importantly.

I think it would also be helpful if you would copy leaders of organizations that oppose this initiative such as the president of the IBA, Randy Taylor at
<span style="color: #FF0000">[email protected]</span>
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I am a resident of Georgia and have alot of interest in hunting deer in your state. However, the IBA has recently made me aware of the DNR's efforts to increase the NR anydeer license quota and I would respectively disagree with this initiative.

Mostly because of excellent management by your department, Iowa has the best opportunity for hunters to shoot record book bucks. This is not unnoticed by poeple like me seeking the best whitetail deer hunting experience. Most of us choose to hunt Iowa for more than the fact the Iowa has great genetics and excellent food sources. There are many states between Georgia (or insert any southern state here) and Iowa that have great genetics and excellent food sources, but only Iowa has something different, low NR quotas and therefore low hunting pressure. Thats why we come and your efforts in creating the best whitetail hunting experience should be commended.

This is why when I heard about the initiative to double the NR quota I said "No way, why would they undo a good thing that they have created?" I fear that through this effort the groups like Friends of Iowa will not be satisfied with the increase and there will more and more quota increases to the point that Iowa will not be any different than the surrounding states. It doesn't seem like that is what you would really want, to be just like IL or any other over-the-counter license state? If it ever got to that point, I'd probably wouldn't hunt Iowa anymore. I'd hunt and spend my money elsewhere as there would not be any reason to drive all the way to Iowa when I could get the same experience in W.Ky, S. IL, OH, IN, or Mo.

Why wouldn't you consider raising fees on the existing quotas? Maybe you don't realize that we would pay more. I'd have to pay $450 if I went to Colorado. At $353, Iowa is a bargain. Considering the quality of hunting, in fact its the best, increase existing fees by $100-150 and we would still come. Thats another million dollars alone. Then why don't you raise fines on criminals to make up the diffence. The fact is, that if you thought about it, you could figure out how to make up the $2.1mil difference (6000 licenses x $353). The question is whether you want too.

The other fact is that you won't get my money by turning Iowa into just another midwest state.
 
FINAL-COLLAGEflattened.gif


Iowabowhunters.org

hoofline.gif


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ibowbigbucks</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If the DNR needs money, why haven’t we as licensed hunters in the state, seen any proposal on their budget, are they trimming the fat??? Are the big wigs willing to take a cut in pay to make up the difference? </div></div>


<span style="color: #3333FF">As many of you are aware, state employee salaries are a matter of public record. </span> /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Fiscal Year 2008:
Name: Leopold, Richard A.
Position: Director of the Department of Natural Resources
Annual Salary: $103,434.00
Travel Expense: $5,251



hoofline.gif


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>United we can make a difference! Please join & Support the IBA </span>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Details&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
398ibalogo_1_.gif

PM
Ron Wyllie
Southwest Iowa IBA Area Representative
[email protected]
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blake</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


<span style="color: #3333FF">As many of you are aware, state employee salaries are a matter of public record. </span> /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Fiscal Year 2008:
Name: Leopold, Richard A.
Position: Director of the Department of Natural Resources
Annual Salary: $103,434.00
Travel Expense: $5,251
</div></div>

There's a little fat that could use trimmin'.
 
Iowa NEEDS an 1/8th cent sales tax solely allocated to the DNR. Missouri passed it into law in 1976. MDC is certainly not underfunded in any way, shape or form.
 
I would easily pay double the $27 for my any sex tag. Hell, I would even pay $100 for that tag. We get to hunt, what is over 80 days with the bow. That is awesome and we are lucky they don't have shotgun or rifle season like it is in Missouri during the rut. We don't need 6,000 more NR's buying up all the land. It is tough enough to find land to hunt in Iowa as it is now. Nr's don't come to Iowa to hunt does.
 
Hunt Stop, thanks so much for speaking your opinion and being open minded on this topic, espescially as a non-resident. You realize why Iowa is a great deer hunting state, and how to keep it that way! Your efforts are much appreciated!

As for the tag price increase for residents, i'm all for them. But the fact is that the IDNR is not looking at the big picture. There are more than just hunters that can foot the bill to make payments to the big wigs of the DNR. For instance, to foot the 100,000+ SALARY of Mr. Leopold, we could charge those who bike on state bike trails a registration fee, just like boaters and ATV'ers have to pay. Why should they get to use state trails for free when the campers foot the bill? Why should the birdwatchers and horse back riders be able to use state public land for free when the hunters foot the bill to purchase it and utlilize it?

This is what i'm talking about! What it has come down to is that the wrong people have come in charge of deciding the rules. It's easy for those who make 100,000+ per year and own there own ground (Mr. Herring) to say, "lets bring non-residents in," and have private meetings with FOI. It makes me sick.

I personally cannot believe how our own IDNR is selling us residents out. The big-wigs in the IDNR are not looking out for our best interests, and the guys in the IDNR who do are not far enough up the ladder to voice their opinion.

I see where this all starts, as a major in animal ecology at Iowa State University. I'm a senior, and I take many classes with those who are graduate students. What I find hilarious is that even though these grad students are book smart, they aren't 'real world' smart. What I mean by this is that they dont' realize turkeys can fly. They don't understand what hunting in Iowa is all about. Half of them are from the city, and think that hunting is cruel, however, they will have a masters degree in an ecology related field, and the IDNR will hire them before me.

These are the type of people we need to worry about.....

Thanks Mr. Leopould and Herring for selling out your own residents who pay your salary.

Thanks for ruining hunting in Iowa for my children.

Thanks for taking the great hunting Iowa offers now, and turning it into a mediocre state.

Thanks for giving into the pressures of those that don't live here, and thanks for ruining my passion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom