blake
Life Member
The following is a copy of the email that I sent to Representative Boggess. Please read her repsonse at the bottom. Don't think she got the message!
Dear Representative Boggess,
As a politically active resident of Page County and an avid hunter/outdoor sports enthusiast, Senate file 18 appalls me, to say the least. I understand that the State of Iowa has been experiencing an economic downturn as of the last few years, matching to some degree the recession of the entire nation. I also understand that it is your job as an elected official to try and turn our states economy around by reducing expenditures, and increasing revenues - by means of legislation. Senate file 18 would no doubt add revenue to the States coffers, just as a reduction in unnecessary spending and a leaner more efficient government
would serve the same purpose. I am of the opinion, as I am sure are thousands of other hunters/licensed voters, that this can be accomplished without putting the political stranglehold on our sport and treasured
pastime.
Dwindling are the days when a hunter might approach a local farm house and obtain permission to hunt the area, sealed with a handshake, some small talk and perhaps a small gift as a token of appreciation for the opportunity to celebrate the outdoors, and get a chance at a big buck. Big money non-resident hunters, with their deep pockets and eager willingness to pay exorbitant trespass & trophy fees to farmers, have hurt tax-paying resident hunters. Land that was once hunted from generation to generation, father to son/daughter, is now being posted due to an influx of non-residents. Each year we continue to see more and more "Leased Hunting" signs appearing as it is. This trend is quite alarming, needless to say, and bespeaks of an era
where the sport of hunting was reserved solely for the Rich and Landed class, the Kings and nobility. Senate File 18 would only serve to hasten this most unfortunate phenomenon, by increasing the competition to hunt on a fixed resource: land. We ought to be combating this trend, not fueling the fire. Simply put, increasing the number of non-resident deer and turkey tags in the State of Iowa would surely spell disaster for the middle to
lower class, hard working resident hunters.
If the goal is to increase revenue and reduce the deer population, might I suggest that we consider increasing the price of resident and non-resident deer tags (slightly), and offer more doe tags and/or special
doe seasons to resident hunters, and resident hunters only. I am willing to bet that resident hunters, myself included, would be willing to pick up some of the slack and pay a few extra dollars for their tags, in
order to protect their hunting privileges from non-residents with big bank rolls. All that we ask, as law abiding hunters, conservationists and registered voters, is that you carefully consider the consequences of such a
proposal.
Respectfully Yours,
Ronald L. Wyllie
Page County Resident
Her response:
I made a request to DNR to see just how liberal we are now for resident deer hunting licenses and I am forwarding you the reply. I think that resident deer hunting is pretty much saturated, most hunters would not use more licenses than are now available. All of these hunting seasons are over and we still have huge numbers of deer all throughout this area. I have not researched the bill you mentioned, so am not sure what it would do. However, I firmly support a greater number of out of state permits. Probably more so this week, since my husband hit one with a car last weekend. An expensive trip, to say the least.
If you have suggestions for reducing the deer population, please let me know. I hear constantly from hunters, farmers, and drivers that we are greatly over populated. It is especially a problem for those who drive to work early in the morning, or return home at dusk.
Effie Boggess
Dear Representative Boggess,
As a politically active resident of Page County and an avid hunter/outdoor sports enthusiast, Senate file 18 appalls me, to say the least. I understand that the State of Iowa has been experiencing an economic downturn as of the last few years, matching to some degree the recession of the entire nation. I also understand that it is your job as an elected official to try and turn our states economy around by reducing expenditures, and increasing revenues - by means of legislation. Senate file 18 would no doubt add revenue to the States coffers, just as a reduction in unnecessary spending and a leaner more efficient government
would serve the same purpose. I am of the opinion, as I am sure are thousands of other hunters/licensed voters, that this can be accomplished without putting the political stranglehold on our sport and treasured
pastime.
Dwindling are the days when a hunter might approach a local farm house and obtain permission to hunt the area, sealed with a handshake, some small talk and perhaps a small gift as a token of appreciation for the opportunity to celebrate the outdoors, and get a chance at a big buck. Big money non-resident hunters, with their deep pockets and eager willingness to pay exorbitant trespass & trophy fees to farmers, have hurt tax-paying resident hunters. Land that was once hunted from generation to generation, father to son/daughter, is now being posted due to an influx of non-residents. Each year we continue to see more and more "Leased Hunting" signs appearing as it is. This trend is quite alarming, needless to say, and bespeaks of an era
where the sport of hunting was reserved solely for the Rich and Landed class, the Kings and nobility. Senate File 18 would only serve to hasten this most unfortunate phenomenon, by increasing the competition to hunt on a fixed resource: land. We ought to be combating this trend, not fueling the fire. Simply put, increasing the number of non-resident deer and turkey tags in the State of Iowa would surely spell disaster for the middle to
lower class, hard working resident hunters.
If the goal is to increase revenue and reduce the deer population, might I suggest that we consider increasing the price of resident and non-resident deer tags (slightly), and offer more doe tags and/or special
doe seasons to resident hunters, and resident hunters only. I am willing to bet that resident hunters, myself included, would be willing to pick up some of the slack and pay a few extra dollars for their tags, in
order to protect their hunting privileges from non-residents with big bank rolls. All that we ask, as law abiding hunters, conservationists and registered voters, is that you carefully consider the consequences of such a
proposal.
Respectfully Yours,
Ronald L. Wyllie
Page County Resident
Her response:
I made a request to DNR to see just how liberal we are now for resident deer hunting licenses and I am forwarding you the reply. I think that resident deer hunting is pretty much saturated, most hunters would not use more licenses than are now available. All of these hunting seasons are over and we still have huge numbers of deer all throughout this area. I have not researched the bill you mentioned, so am not sure what it would do. However, I firmly support a greater number of out of state permits. Probably more so this week, since my husband hit one with a car last weekend. An expensive trip, to say the least.
If you have suggestions for reducing the deer population, please let me know. I hear constantly from hunters, farmers, and drivers that we are greatly over populated. It is especially a problem for those who drive to work early in the morning, or return home at dusk.
Effie Boggess