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

Email from the Iowa Farm Bureau

This an attempt to buy off the "problem areas" where NR's own land. Instead of giving NR landowners access to their own farms they're trying to throw a couple bucks their way for resident hunters who do not have a financial or deer management stake in the acreage to help control deer numbers. No way. NR landowners pay a lot of money to own the property and manage it. Let them hunt it.
 
DWilk said:
This program sounds good in theory... adds public hunting opportunities, adds needed habitat..., but we need to take a look at it from a deer hunter's perspective.

The regular Joe hunter is seeing deer numbers dropping because most of us share hunting ground. FB, insurance companies, and the DNR argue that the herd needs reduced.

The areas with high deer densities aren't owned by people interested in this program. Nobody that manages their ground for deer is going to open it up to public hunting, and obviously no anti-hunters with refuges are going to jump on board.

I hate to say it, but I agree with Farm Bureau opposing it right now, just for a different reason than they do....

I would support the program only if we get a handle on how the state's deer herd is being managed. If this came into effect, it would just continue to throw out of wack the balance of deer numbers across the landscape, and consequently worse hunting for the majority of deer hunters in our state.
Click to expand...

I agree, this would just put more hunters on already over pressured ground. None of the "good" ground will become available.

Our government doesn't have money to fund this type of thing and imo has no business doing it.
 
I do not know a single farmer that would allow this to happen. The people I know only give permission to specific people that they know & trust. The farmers I know and have a good relationship with, have to much invested in livestock, fences, and other misc. equities to let just anybody on the ground they own. Iowa farmers in my area have a very "hands on" approach to who they let on their ground and when.

I know I would be pissed off if the ground next to our family farm was turned into a walk-in area. You think people are having trouble with tresspassing now, wait until a walk-in area is plopped in beside you!
 
NOTHING the Farm Bureau is in favor is good for Sportsman or wildlife.

CANCEL all of your business with them!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I've only been watching Farm Bureau and all it's ridiculousness go on for a couple years. COULD anyone type something up that outlines what FB does, has done, how they fall on sportsman's issues, etc that we could all email to our fellow sportsman? If anyone could do this, start in a new thread I know a lot of folks would email this out to sportsman out there AND remind them of why we should NOT be giving FB more money!
 
dwilk said:
this program sounds good in theory... Adds public hunting opportunities, adds needed habitat..., but we need to take a look at it from a deer hunter's perspective.

The regular joe hunter is seeing deer numbers dropping because most of us share hunting ground. Fb, insurance companies, and the dnr argue that the herd needs reduced.

the areas with high deer densities aren't owned by people interested in this program. nobody that manages their ground for deer is going to open it up to public hunting, and obviously no anti-hunters with refuges are going to jump on board.

I hate to say it, but i agree with farm bureau opposing it right now, just for a different reason than they do....

I would support the program only if we get a handle on how the state's deer herd is being managed. If this came into effect, it would just continue to throw out of wack the balance of deer numbers across the landscape, and consequently worse hunting for the majority of deer hunters in our state.
Click to expand...

amen totally took words out of my mouth
 
dedgeez said:
received this email today. Draw your own conclusions!

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has proposed a new three-year $2.2 million pilot program to open up private land for public hunting.

While Farm Bureau members recognize the value of expanding hunting opportunities and habitat, this program 1) creates another costly expense when state government should be focused on reducing expenses and balancing the budget and 2) fails to adequately address farmer liability and other landowner concerns. Farm Bureau members are encouraged to email DNR their comments opposing the program by Thursday, February 3.

If the Wildlife Habitat on Private Lands Promotion Program is approved, DNR plans to contract with private landowners who develop wildlife habitat on designated acres and allow public hunting access on those acres. DNR intends to pay for the program with funds it secured from a federal grant and the state’s Fish and Game Protection Fund.

The official program proposal is alarmingly short on details. It doesn’t give landowners absolute liability protection from lawsuits, including ones resulting from personal injuries and property damage caused by hunters. And it doesn’t address other important issues for participating landowners, including cost-share, incentive rates, contract cancelation process and penalties, weed control, law enforcement responsibilities, limits on hunting in standing crops and possible land management or endangered species restrictions.

It also creates another program to fund while the state government tries to cope with a $263 million budget shortfall and the DNR’s Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund (the largest source of revenue in DNR’s annual budget) remains on pace to run out of funding in 2014!
Email DNR by 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, February 3. Tell them you oppose a program that’s costly for Iowa and risky for landowners. Click the link at the bottom of this message to take action now!
Sincerely,
Zach Bader
Grassroots Program Manager
Iowa Farm Bureau
Click to expand...




hmmmm I wonder where the DNR would get that $2.2 million...didn't I read another thread on here somewhere where Dearden said the DNR wants to increase NR tags 6,000...that $2.2 Million is about what the DNR leaves on the table every year turning down NR's..

makes sense to me take the $$ and give it to the people ...IBA has been wanting more access to public land and haven't come up with a better idea as to how to do this for hunters, sounds like something the IBA ought to support.
 
180class said:
I'm confused. Farm Bureau was the biggest pusher of getting our deer numbers WAY down throughout the state, correct? Now when the opportunity arises to reduce the heard even more in those "high density privately owned areas" they are against it?
Click to expand...

Hmmm the FB is hipocritical!! Surely not, they wont more deer shot but do not want to promote more access. Politics at their finest. Say one thing but do the opposite.
 
Packnasty said:
It's about time. I'm in full support.

In Wisconsin, they have the "forest crop law", which gives landowners a tax break to allow public access.

I don't think there is enough public land in the state, and we need to find ways to promote accessibility for those without means.

Go Pack
Click to expand...


now lets see how this is going to work. choose one what is going to happen??..a.)Cousin Moe absolutely never lets anyone hunt his land, its his and no body better trespass on it.
b.) Cousin Moe lets his neighbors Curly and Larry hunt for free because Cousin Moe is a good guy and deer are a Iowa resource that we share (just for res though)
c.) Cousin Moe gets a letter from the DNR that says we'll LEASE your land and pay you $2 buckcs an acre so you can let Curly and Larry your neighbors continue to hunt for free. But this way the gov. feels good about itself because we just created public access to private land.
d.) Cousin Moe ain't no dummy and thinks to himself ...geesh might be good $$ to be made at this Leasing stuff, I'll get me $10 an acre from some fellas ought of DM or maybe them boys from over the river. I don't need Curly and Larry any more.

OOPs
 
DWilk said:
This program sounds good in theory... adds public hunting opportunities, adds needed habitat..., but we need to take a look at it from a deer hunter's perspective.

The regular Joe hunter is seeing deer numbers dropping because most of us share hunting ground. FB, insurance companies, and the DNR argue that the herd needs reduced.

The areas with high deer densities aren't owned by people interested in this program. Nobody that manages their ground for deer is going to open it up to public hunting, and obviously no anti-hunters with refuges are going to jump on board.

I hate to say it, but I agree with Farm Bureau opposing it right now, just for a different reason than they do....

I would support the program only if we get a handle on how the state's deer herd is being managed. If this came into effect, it would just continue to throw out of wack the balance of deer numbers across the landscape, and consequently worse hunting for the majority of deer hunters in our state.
Click to expand...

Amen and Amen DWilk. The FB is on the money on this one...the private landowners with high densities won't be interested in the pittance the state can offer in order to turn their refuge into public hunting. It'll only make the land "everyone gets permission to hunt" even more of a zoo.

NWBuck
 
NWBuck said:
Amen and Amen DWilk. The FB is on the money on this one...the private landowners with high densities won't be interested in the pittance the state can offer in order to turn their refuge into public hunting. It'll only make the land "everyone gets permission to hunt" even more of a zoo.

NWBuck
Click to expand...


NWB...them refuges you mentioned quite a few are state mandated, maybe if the state loosened up the law...some private landowners would be more cooperative in allowing folks in for hunting. Never know till you try.
 
Northstar said:
NWB...them refuges you mentioned quite a few are state mandated, maybe if the state loosened up the law...some private landowners would be more cooperative in allowing folks in for hunting. Never know till you try.
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming. Nobody is forking out millions for 600 acres just to let every dick and harry in to hunt it.
 
DWilk said:
Keep dreaming. Nobody is forking out millions for 600 acres just to let every dick and harry in to hunt it.
Click to expand...


DW...I have 500 acres 1 hr away from DM...you help me with fixing her up & get the DNR/State to allow me to hunt it regularly and because we're buds I'd let you hunt it. Easy as that.
 
Northstar said:
DW...I have 500 acres 1 hr away from DM...you help me with fixing her up & get the DNR/State to allow me to hunt it regularly and because we're buds I'd let you hunt it. Easy as that.
Click to expand...

Haha do I know you?

It is pretty easy to lump everyone into one category on subjects, which isn't fair, so I will say most landowners that buy ground with hunting on their agendas aren't that open to the idea.

On a lighter note, I'm always willing to look at new properties! ha, send me a pm if you are actually interested in getting some management ideas... I do that sort of thing.
 
I kind of wonder if this is an attempt to make the bottom
two tiers of Iowa a hunter's Disneyland like was mentioned
in another post? :rolleyes:
 
How nice it would be if the DNR boss, all the DNR committee, and the legislature were actually deerhunters.

Why does it seem that have lawyers taken over elected and appointed positions?

Why does it seem like the voices that should be heard in DSM hardly even get a seat at the table?

It's a battle every single year.............
 
Sums it up I think........
picture.php
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom