JNRBRONC
Well-Known Member
Check the Iowa DNR regs. They are on-line.
cedar creek
Banned
Other than having poor chances of killing a trophy buck in NW Iowa; you really don't know how lucky you are. Part of the reason for fewer trophy whitetail is much fewer wooded land in NW Iowa. That's also why you haven't been bombarded by NR landowners. Because your area of Iowa is mostly open land the farms tend to be much larger. Maybe that is why you can't imagine NR's purchasing small parcels as significant. Imagine smaller farmsteads spread out over many acres of wooded land like eastern, and southern Iowa. Now imagine in the last 15 years of these farmsteads being broken up and sold off like large building lots. These are being divided up in affordible parcels by realitors tailored to the investor. Many of these investors are nonresindents. I see daily advertising on 40 acres that two 10 point bucks were harvested in 2009. Now you so proudly pronounce the 6 to 7 thousand for farmland. Well in eastern Iowa 40 acres of woods is fetching 4 to 5 thousand an acre. Not to mention the lost right of ways to fields etc. Once again that probably doesn't mean too much to a farmer who has primarily flat open land. What will you do when you can't gain permission to hunt in southern or eastern Iowa? Believe me should this bill ever pass; you better have a family farm that not only has good deer hunting, but siblings that aren't willing to sell out for the almighty dollar.
Last edited:
JNRBRONC
Well-Known Member
I do, but I'm not going to do your research for you. If you are so set on changing the regs here, maybe you should familiarize yourself with them. All of them, not just the ones you want to change.
risto2351
Well-Known Member
Really do not see what you are getting at?
Is that why you are trying to have the government change the law
for your enjoyment and what you want?
dbltree
Super Moderator
It was meant to be an analogy...you are not a resident of Iowa, they are not residents of PA.
Being an American citizen has absoutely NOTHING to do with this argument, being a resident of Iowa does.
These bills are dead for this year...I'll see you all back here next year, and the next and the next.......
I'm carefully reading & absorbing the content of the other posts and I plan to respond, but I'd just like to say that I'm not 'proudly pronouncing' that land is selling for $6000-$7000/acre here. I only stated that to illustrate that land is at an all-time high.
Sorry if you took it as bragging in some way.
Fishbonker
Life Member
Ya know what kills me about the price of ground in the deer rich counties of Iowa? The relative value of recreation ground to farm ground. A recreational owner will gladly pay 2K/acre or more for marginal farm ground where as the producer who is looking at the same piece of ground calculates the CSR or pasture value of the ground. How many pairs (cow/calf) can you run on gullies and timber at 2K/acre? Doesn't pencil out. So not only are there access issues for hunters but there are production issues and loss of land access for local farmers in the deer rich/recreation belt of Iowa.
You can’t afford to buy pasture land for your cow/calf herd if the average sale is 2K/acre. You will lose your ass and that is what much of the recreation belt is, pastureable ravines and woods. And you know if this ground is sold for its recreational value the new owners aren’t about to cash rent it out for pasture.
Iowa Dave, it takes a man of courage to post an opinion that runs counter to the thoughts and beliefs of the majority of the members here. I applaud your courage, but until you have lost hunting ground to NR landownership you will not understand how desperate this will become if any of the current rules change. Not to mention if you are a young farmer trying desperately to get a start and you are up against an NR bidder for ground that will pencil out at 1K/acre or less and the NR who comes from an entirely different economy than Iowa’s and can afford to pay 2K for crappy farm ground.
Not only is it good for resident hunters but it is good or resident producers to keep the price of ground in line with the actual production profit potential of the ground that may be for sale. The only folks that will come out ahead if the rules change are the realtors and land speculators.
The ‘Bonker
You can’t afford to buy pasture land for your cow/calf herd if the average sale is 2K/acre. You will lose your ass and that is what much of the recreation belt is, pastureable ravines and woods. And you know if this ground is sold for its recreational value the new owners aren’t about to cash rent it out for pasture.
Iowa Dave, it takes a man of courage to post an opinion that runs counter to the thoughts and beliefs of the majority of the members here. I applaud your courage, but until you have lost hunting ground to NR landownership you will not understand how desperate this will become if any of the current rules change. Not to mention if you are a young farmer trying desperately to get a start and you are up against an NR bidder for ground that will pencil out at 1K/acre or less and the NR who comes from an entirely different economy than Iowa’s and can afford to pay 2K for crappy farm ground.
Not only is it good for resident hunters but it is good or resident producers to keep the price of ground in line with the actual production profit potential of the ground that may be for sale. The only folks that will come out ahead if the rules change are the realtors and land speculators.
The ‘Bonker
Very well put Bonker.I have been to a lot of estate/farm auctions.You can easily tell who the recreational land buyers are.The state will be in sad shape when all the old farmers decide its time to retire and move to town.How will they be able to justify seeling their farm for its production potential value when someone is willing to pay twice that for recreational purposes.
cedar creek
Banned
I'm sorry also. I didn't mean it as it sounds. I simply wanted to point out to you, and anyone else who doesn't understand what's going on already with land values in non agricultural areas with so called trophy potential. I can't even imagine what land prices would bring should a bill like this pass. I remember in the mid 1980's the Galena territories in Illinois was selling 40 acre parcels for 4 times it's value because it was known for trophy potential. I have several friends who invested in some of this land, and had great hunting for about 5 years. Now they don't even hunt that land. They also can't get their money back out of it.
Iowabowtech
New Member
I am NOT meaning to pick on you personally Magnus, but if this doesn't make the point, I don't know what would. You are already buying in speculation that our laws will change. How many others have done the same? Now...how many will follow suit if the law actually DID change?
Here's my two main problems with the arguments I've read here and in other like threads over the years:
1.) Most NRLO's suggest that they are just a drop in the bucket and changing the laws would not harm deer hunting as a whole in Iowa. Yet we already have speculative land buyers who's numbers are going to compound into significant numbers upon the enactment of the desired changes.
2.) On a related note to #1, I have yet to see a NRLO, in any thread of this type, who has addressed the issue of our limited timber resource and how limited access by resident hunters on a broad spectrum would be detrimental. Does ANYONE actually believe that land purchases made by outside interests are going to result in adequate access by the resident hunters who actually have the tags to maintain the herd at the DNR's goals?
Think about the above question carefully because if this occurs, and all the NRLO wants is to be able to hunt their ground with a single LO tag, where do the rest of the kills come from? What tools do the DNR have left to ensure deer are kept in balance in these areas? Any increase in resident tags will be completely fruitless since few to none will have access. The only viable solution will be to allow limitless antlerless tags to the NRLO so they can reduce the numbers themselves.
If anyone wishes to try and make the argument that NRLO's across the board will allow enough resident access to make this whole thing work out without raising NRLO tag allocations, go for it but IMO you are setting yourself up for an epic fail. It's an impossible argument.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
I can't speak for anyone else, but when I owned a farm in Iowa, I let some locals hunt deer and turkey on it. Some hunted it with permission and some hunted it without permission. I never drew a tag and I have since sold the property. The new owner, also lets locals hunt it, it was an average hunting farm... tillable with some draws and timber in Lucas County
Now, I am looking for another farm right now. Would love to own 80-160 acres. Personally, I will buy one regardless (landowner tag) will not influence my decision. Property is fairly reasonable in parts of your state, and the income from crop and CRP is better in Iowa compared to most states.
So in light of that, if anyone knows of a farm for sale that has tillable/CRP and some river bottom or timber, I am interested and if you give me a lead on it, I will let you hunt it and I am serious! Lots of advantages of having a local help you with food plots, habitat work, game cameras, etc... I really can't see any other way of doing it. Send me private PM...
Now, I am looking for another farm right now. Would love to own 80-160 acres. Personally, I will buy one regardless (landowner tag) will not influence my decision. Property is fairly reasonable in parts of your state, and the income from crop and CRP is better in Iowa compared to most states.
So in light of that, if anyone knows of a farm for sale that has tillable/CRP and some river bottom or timber, I am interested and if you give me a lead on it, I will let you hunt it and I am serious! Lots of advantages of having a local help you with food plots, habitat work, game cameras, etc... I really can't see any other way of doing it. Send me private PM...
magnus
PMA Member
IAbowtech: I didn't buy land in IA because I was expecting the laws to change (although I'm still hoping they will). I bought land in IA because for many years I've been passionate about hunting trophy whitetail bucks and, in the offseason, doing what I can to improve their habitat. Over the years I've either bought or controlled all of the land that I can in my part of eastern PA (which isn't much compared to more rural IA, but 150-ac in my neck of the woods is a pretty good chunk of land). However, "at the end of the day", the top end buck anyone can expect to harvest with any regularity in PA is in the 140-class ... and that's if you're really lucky. So, now that I'm in my 50s, kids are in college, and I can spend less time working my day-job, I decided to purchase some land in IA and do what I can to make it a place where mature bucks will want to spend time. An Iowa mature buck has much greater trophy potential than a PA mature buck. I'm also hoping to be able to hunt it more often than once every 3 years (avg years it takes to draw a NR archery tag). Don't know if this all makes sense to you or not, but it's my story.
I believe that allowing NRLOs to buy one any-sex tag (not expecting anything for free), and a number of anterless tags, to hunt just their own land each year is a very reasonable request and expectation. As has been said on here, perhaps DNR or legislature should set a minimum # acres, in an effort to avoid abuse. I don't think many NRLOs would have a problem with this, as long as the acreage minimum is reasonable. By allowing NRLOs to hunt/manage their own properties, I think the concerns you listed about the effects on the deer herd as well as the health of IA's limited forests, will be sustained.
I believe that allowing NRLOs to buy one any-sex tag (not expecting anything for free), and a number of anterless tags, to hunt just their own land each year is a very reasonable request and expectation. As has been said on here, perhaps DNR or legislature should set a minimum # acres, in an effort to avoid abuse. I don't think many NRLOs would have a problem with this, as long as the acreage minimum is reasonable. By allowing NRLOs to hunt/manage their own properties, I think the concerns you listed about the effects on the deer herd as well as the health of IA's limited forests, will be sustained.
Iowabowtech
New Member
Very well then. Beyond this post, any further reply on my part would only be repeating the same things I have said already.
Tragedy Of The Commons
The tragedy of the commons refers to a dilemma described in an influential article by that name written by Garrett Hardin and first published in 1968.The article describes a situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.
This article and it's underlying premise is often used to debate availability of resources in academics. It was referenced many times in my studies as a Fish And Wildlife Biology major at ISU ever so many moons ago. The theory raises some interesting points that seem to have application in this argument and ones like it. But it is an argument that has run it's course IMO. I certainly don't think it's a worthless debate however because I believe there will be many readers of this thread that will forsee the long term ramifications on this State's resources and will act accordingly.
Best regards and thanks for the civil debate.
Tragedy Of The Commons
The tragedy of the commons refers to a dilemma described in an influential article by that name written by Garrett Hardin and first published in 1968.The article describes a situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.
This article and it's underlying premise is often used to debate availability of resources in academics. It was referenced many times in my studies as a Fish And Wildlife Biology major at ISU ever so many
moons ago. The theory raises some interesting points that seem to have application in this argument and ones like it. But it is an argument that has run it's course IMO. I certainly don't think it's a worthless debate however because I believe there will be many readers of this thread that will forsee the long term ramifications on this State's resources and will act accordingly. Best regards and thanks for the civil debate.
Magnus..I think you might as well hope to win the lottery.I seriously doubt (and hope) the state will EVER guarantee NRLO and any-sex tag every year.The voices of a couple hundred NRLOs will be drowned out by the many thousands of resident hunters and landowners.
It just blows my mind to think there are people that can afford to spens $1500-$3000 per acre for land they can only hunt bucks one every 3 years or so.You can cash rent or do some share cropping or anything you want but I still see it as money well spent somewhere else.But to each thier own.I doubt even if I won the lottey I would by land in Arizona to hunt elk and only be able to draw a teg every 3 or 4 years.
It just blows my mind to think there are people that can afford to spens $1500-$3000 per acre for land they can only hunt bucks one every 3 years or so.You can cash rent or do some share cropping or anything you want but I still see it as money well spent somewhere else.But to each thier own.I doubt even if I won the lottey I would by land in Arizona to hunt elk and only be able to draw a teg every 3 or 4 years.
kbnelson3
Supporter of Landowners
Seriously? I bet 75% of people on this website would label Barack Obama a socialist and a communist for saying something that runs along those lines. This idea that it's "not fair" because someone has more money and can afford to pay more is rediculous. It's called supply and demand. Land is in high demand and short supply; therefore, land prices will continue to rise. Land prices for recreational ground will NEVER deflate because there is only 'x' amount of land. The whole non-resident thing aside, anyone that thinks land is going to someday magically get cheap again is a damn fool. So many of you are naive to think that demand for land in Iowa, non-resident or otherwise, will go down if you pass enough laws and scream loud enough. I can't help but think of the scene in Dances with Wolves towards the end where the one Indian asks Kevin Costner about how many whites are coming and Coster basically says they're coming, they're going to keep coming and there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it. Land is going to continue to be bought up, sometimes by people that are not going to be Iowa residents. Generational land turnover will continue to move land ownership out of state. This is a fact. You can't bury your head in the sand and hope it goes away. Iowa needs to work with non-resident landowners to ensure the future of a great deer herd. Instead, being hostile to non-residents as the IBA and IWF are currently doing is going to make non-resident landowners even more reluctant to let residents on their ground.
Why not just pass laws saying non-residents can't buy land in Iowa? Wouldn't that solve all of your crying and whining? You will take a non-residents taxes, tag fees, and money spent in the state of Iowa but you don't want them to enjoy themselves too much.
Last edited:
Thinkin Rut
PMA Member
What would solve yours?
kbnelson3
Supporter of Landowners
This will fall on deaf ears because anyone in IBA/IWF will refuse to listen to anything but:
-increase NR tag numbers to say, 9,000 or 10,000. It's a pretty meager increase. You would potentially be staring at another $2mil in revenue. Because apparently nobody in the state of Iowa can afford to buy their own land to hunt on or feels that the land they currently hunt is going to get gobbled up by non-residents, use that money to buy more land for public hunting. Get creative with the funding from the legislature, make some cuts here and there, that $2mil goes a long ways in securing roughly 1,000 acres per year. That's just off the extra NR license sales. I'd suspect there would be a small bump in tax revenue and economic growth off hotel rooms and other NR expenditures.
-Grant one preference point to landowners in every draw. Landowners are taxpayers. That should count for something. Taxpayers and Joe Blow from Pennsylvania or Texas are not equal and should not be treated as such. Non-landowners would have the opportunity to draw a tag but would not have the same success rates as non-landowners.
-Same price of doe tags for NR landowners as residents pay. If Iowa is really serious about getting the herd thinned out, charging $150 or whatever it is for a doe tag is not going to get it done if they want support from non-residents. That sends the wrong message. Heck, if they're really serious about getting numbers down, the cost should basically be whatever it cost to print the tag and run the registration process, for anyone buying a doe tag in Iowa.
-remove the 35% cap on archery tags. it's pointless.
-Eliminate all governor's tags. Sorry Bill Jordan, Drury's, Primos's, etc. The state of Iowa doesn't need to be "promoted" for deer hunting. For what reason should Blake Shelton get a governor's tag? Does playing the guitar and singing make him more deserving of a tag? If all of you on this board aer so supportive of the average Joe struggling to scrape by and go hunting, you should screaming for the governor's tag to be done away with, just as you rabidly denounce any concession made to Non-residents, no matter how insignificant.
I just laugh at how non-resident sportsmen aren't supposed to buy land. And then non-resident investors are chastised for buying land. If no Iowa residents can afford it, whos going to buy it? Land prices aren't going to magically deflate to what they were 10 or 5 years ago. Today is the lowest prices you will see for land for forever. The same for tomorrow. And 6 months and a year from now. It's only going up.
-increase NR tag numbers to say, 9,000 or 10,000. It's a pretty meager increase. You would potentially be staring at another $2mil in revenue. Because apparently nobody in the state of Iowa can afford to buy their own land to hunt on or feels that the land they currently hunt is going to get gobbled up by non-residents, use that money to buy more land for public hunting. Get creative with the funding from the legislature, make some cuts here and there, that $2mil goes a long ways in securing roughly 1,000 acres per year. That's just off the extra NR license sales. I'd suspect there would be a small bump in tax revenue and economic growth off hotel rooms and other NR expenditures.
-Grant one preference point to landowners in every draw. Landowners are taxpayers. That should count for something. Taxpayers and Joe Blow from Pennsylvania or Texas are not equal and should not be treated as such. Non-landowners would have the opportunity to draw a tag but would not have the same success rates as non-landowners.
-Same price of doe tags for NR landowners as residents pay. If Iowa is really serious about getting the herd thinned out, charging $150 or whatever it is for a doe tag is not going to get it done if they want support from non-residents. That sends the wrong message. Heck, if they're really serious about getting numbers down, the cost should basically be whatever it cost to print the tag and run the registration process, for anyone buying a doe tag in Iowa.
-remove the 35% cap on archery tags. it's pointless.
-Eliminate all governor's tags. Sorry Bill Jordan, Drury's, Primos's, etc. The state of Iowa doesn't need to be "promoted" for deer hunting. For what reason should Blake Shelton get a governor's tag? Does playing the guitar and singing make him more deserving of a tag? If all of you on this board aer so supportive of the average Joe struggling to scrape by and go hunting, you should screaming for the governor's tag to be done away with, just as you rabidly denounce any concession made to Non-residents, no matter how insignificant.
I just laugh at how non-resident sportsmen aren't supposed to buy land. And then non-resident investors are chastised for buying land. If no Iowa residents can afford it, whos going to buy it? Land prices aren't going to magically deflate to what they were 10 or 5 years ago. Today is the lowest prices you will see for land for forever. The same for tomorrow. And 6 months and a year from now. It's only going up.