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

Friend's of Iowa didn't go away!

If they are having a problem with too many deer on their properties, I am more than willing to buy doe tags and go help them out /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
 
Not to fan the flames, at the last Deer Study Commission the Chairman, Mr. Herring, wanted to give the FOI representative a chance to speak. Remember, FOI did not have a seat on the committee so their representative sat in the gallery, like me, and pretty much, like me, kept his mouth shut. Mr. Herring felt it was appropriate for FOI to be heard because they represented a group that he felt should be “at the table” along with guides, outfitters and other parties who would gain monetarily from an increase in NR tags.

Mr Herrring asked the committee if they would allow the FOI rep to speak, they agreed to hear him. Before he could speak and me not being a shrinking violet, I asked the chairman if I could address the committee. Mr. Herring started to say “No” but I asked him to poll the committee and see what they though, the committee agreed to let me speak.

I was about as nervous as I’ve ever been. So many things ran though my mind while the FOI rep spoke. When he was done I went into some sort of “automatic mode”. To this day I have no memory of what I exactly said but I remember refuting the numbers of NRs landowners who want to hunt because only 42 NR landowner Antlerless tags were sold. I reminded the committee that a NR land owner can buy an antlers tag and party hunt so they can kill a buck every year. I talked about displaced hunters and Mr. Herring said I can’t prove it, but I said this is “empirical” knowledge so we went back and forth on that. Then he asked me if resident hunters would support an increase in the cost of tags. I spoke about the increase being a “push” when it came to the amount of money the DNR sends back to NR applicants who don’t draw, so if the system and quota stays the same we would gladly pay the increase, but if you raise the NR draw limit then we would not support it. I went on to say the HUSH program was important and a few other things.

Of course when I sat down I started to remember what else I wanted to say. I didn’t hit transferable tags, deer sanctuaries and a few others.

Anyway, I’m late for a pain party also known as Physical Therapy so I’ll expand more on this later today.

The ‘Bonker
 
I'll will be the last person to sit down and not fight for what Iowa has. Like I've stated before, I probably won't always live in this state, but I sure would like to come back and bow hunt it every 3 years, and would be excited about the wait.

But I do believe that this world is taken over by money, and FOI is showing what they can do in dollars and cents. I personally think that this state is in for a bad ride in the next year or two. I wish everyone the best, and if I could afford it, I would buy up 10,000 acres of prime whitetail country and let most hunt.
 
Fatboy, what's wrong with that? Ok, them trying to change the laws that have been on the books for decades, how's that for a start? You have no problem with a group trying to change the laws to benefit their own "greedy" interests WHILE the rest of the state has to bare the side effects I listed above, *read what I wrote- if you disagree with the side effects- let's have that discussion and debate BUT I truly believe that is VERY ACCURATE.

The other thing in response to your question- I don't think the MAJORITY of the members and power behind them are just "hard working hunters" like you and I. Nope, I don't believe that- I believe they are giant realtors, outfitters, gigantic land owners, etc. Basically the tiny % of folks that have tons invested and tons to gain. I'm not saying the wealthy and realtors are bad BUT in answer to your question- they are not "regular guys" who own an 80 acre piece, NOPE.

Let's have the debate (and there OBVIOUSLY is a DEBATE)- they'll destroy Iowa hunting, decrease access drastically, sky rocket land prices, leased land will be everywhere and the VAST MAJORITY of land that's hunting land (5-7% of ia is timber) will be owned by NR's. Is that what you want? Well, that's what will happen. Let's debate it if you disagree.
 
I'm going to try and change the law so I can legally sell Crack-Cocaine. It will provide money to many in Iowa's economy and will have direct benefit to certain groups of people.

Side effects to the rest of iowa and society? Ahh, let's forget that part cause there's money to be made and good for my monetary interests!!!! /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

*My silly example is not meant to be equivilized or construed as serious /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sligh1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fatboy, what's wrong with that? Ok, them trying to change the laws that have been on the books for decades, how's that for a start? You have no problem with a group trying to change the laws to benefit their own "greedy" interests WHILE the rest of the state has to bare the side effects I listed above, *read what I wrote- if you disagree with the side effects- let's have that discussion and debate BUT I truly believe that is VERY ACCURATE.

The other thing in response to your question- I don't think the MAJORITY of the members and power behind them are just "hard working hunters" like you and I. Nope, I don't believe that- I believe they are giant realtors, outfitters, gigantic land owners, etc. Basically the tiny % of folks that have tons invested and tons to gain. I'm not saying the wealthy and realtors are bad BUT in answer to your question- they are not "regular guys" who own an 80 acre piece, NOPE.

Let's have the debate (and there OBVIOUSLY is a DEBATE)- they'll destroy Iowa hunting, decrease access drastically, sky rocket land prices, leased land will be everywhere and the VAST MAJORITY of land that's hunting land (5-7% of ia is timber) will be owned by NR's. Is that what you want? Well, that's what will happen. Let's debate it if you disagree. </div></div>Easy Sligh, I am with you on this one. It was ment to be taken in (tounge and cheek) if you go back to my posts in your topic "Giant Landowners" if FOI has there way, do you not think that tv show/ video company won't buy land here or book hunts from the swarms of outfitter that will lease up the state? Are you not upset that Mark Drury and others have found loopholes to become residents to draw tags? You don't have to tell me, I lost land in the 80"s and 90' to leases and outfitters during the phesant boom and have lost deer hunting ground during the big buck craze.
 
Yeah that is gonna help a bit I suppose ;), there is one in particular that I am dying to sit in 970 days from now.

Kratz

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: muddy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jkratz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I know that when the time comes for me to return and hunt it will be a quality hunt because of the currrent wildlife management practices in place.
</div></div>

And because of your treestand hook ups back in the old stomping grounds!! /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>
 
Hey Fatboy, I must have read you wrong on that, I really wasn't mad (I always debate with logic and respect AND a strong opinion) so even if you did disagree with me, that would have been cool.

YEP- if FOI got their way- video companies, leasing and out-of-state madness would take over most of Iowa's good hunting land and would rule most of the hunting (along with tons of other problems). It would be a nightmare. I agree. It would also reverse all the management efforts that have decreased deer heard, decrease access, leasing would go out of control and land prices would be out of reach for vast majority. I could go on and on, it's not good. FIGHT BACK!!!
 
I read the bull on their website and wrote a reply. It was long winded and I gave them my opinion on what I think they are trying to do to our state. What's my opinion????? Basically everything Sligh1 has been saying in this thread. I NEVER got a reply. I'm not surprised either.
About the committee meeting, there is obviously some money involved when the Chairman asks to have a gallery member speak when it is not typical. What I mean is, not only are the money makers sitting at the table but the Chairman himself probably stands to reap some rewards from this. What about the democratic system? Shouldn't a deer study committee that will make suggestions that affect the current laws AND the people of Iowa be comprised of members who represent the interests of the public? I guess what I am saying is this, the resident deer hunter is the DNR's regular customer. We have big numbers. We spend big money right here at home every year. If we are the majority then why do those who are against us have more representation on this committee?

*edited for strong language after I calmed down a little. Sorry!*
 
Point for IBA (hopefully someone from IBA reads this):
Just a small portion of the argument and something you might have caught BUT...
Right off of FOI's website- front page, NR owning 6% of land in mid-80's to 21% now. SO almost 3/4's buying their land "recently" (during big buck craze) when they knew full well the laws of iowa and wanted to come to IA for the great hunting. SOME from that group (anyone associated with FOI) trying to change the laws. I just love how all these folks knew the laws, wanted to come here, chose to come here and NOW want to change the laws for their interests. Put that into your own words or thoughts BUT I think it's a point to consider (as you maybe have noticed and thought about the timing and %'s & considered all those folks knew the laws getting into it) - the very laws that allow for Iowa to be so great.
 
Let me say I'm not supporting or denouncing FOI, I don't know a lot about them, but here's a couple thoughts. Sligh, your worry that if access is increased will lead to more video producing, etc., has already occurred. Hunter's Specialties(Prime Time series) hunts on a piece in Decatur or Appanoose Co. If you watch last years video several nice bucks come from this property. Every year a few staffers from all the shows draw and use Iowa. H.S. hunts on property owned by Skroronski(sp)?? And of course the Kisky's, Drury's, Gregory's, Lakosky's, etc. have been hunting here for years, show casing Iowa, and causing the influx of NR's.
That said with NR ownership at 21% and increasing the DNR is faced with a dilemma not caused by them or resident hunters, but by money making video producers. NR landowners can't manage the deer because of limited deer tags, what to do?? As stated many times NR land is usually locked up and of course it's their right to do so. I do think due to limited NR tags the overall health of the herd will diminish. The other solution is to not to permit NR land ownership which is not going to happen in this country.
 
If you guys want a great example of what FOI is trying to accomplish, just look at Illinois. What was once considered one of the greatest deer herds in America has become a joke because of money hungry politicians and the lack of restrictions of non-residents. The DNR task force recently came up with the great idea of managing the deer herd based on the deer/vehicle collision numbers. They want a 9 day january kill everything season. Extend the first gun season from 3 to 4 days. It seems pretty obvious to me that the number of deer getting hit by cars in the Chicagoland area and surrounding other big cities doesn't have much to do with the management of the deer herd for the rest of the state. So with decisions like this being made it is easy to see why these people don't understand the implications of non-resident landowners. Look at the difference of land prices on comparable ground in Illinois to Iowa. Anywhere from a $1000-$2500 difference. I am half tempted to buy some Iowa land as a pure speculative investment that eventually lobby groups like FOI, insurance companies, and outfitters will get their way. I just can't feel good about making money from a situation that I don't agree with though. Morale of the story guys, circle the wagons, you have a great thing going and without the support of groups like the IBA and other organizations people will try to exploit and profit from what you have. Illinois never had enough pro-active citizens rally together to stop the storm and now it's too late. I see Iowa heading the same direction but it seems as if many of you aren't willing to sit back and watch it happen. it
 
Read Droptine's above! Nice!

Back40- we're actually making a lot of progress reducing deer heards- all this without FOI type solutions. Many out there are saying we're actually getting TOO LOW in many areas (vastly due to RESIDENT hunting solutions). Also, Get FOI having their way and you'll have 10x the amount of videoing and leasing going on as well as all the land bought up by NR. At least now they are spreading out to MO, WI, NE and other places.

I don't agree with this late doe season (again, another RESIDENT SOLUTION) we're having BUT it's a heck of a lot better than FOI solutions. I truly believe FOI would make our management so much harder as you'd have all sorts of 400 acre pieces where they are over-run because the NR will on average not shoot near enough does (I'm a resident here EVERY DAY and I have a hard time getting on top of them on my land)! There's millions of other thoughts people have debated, such as- the vast number of residents who'd love to be able to kill does off NR land. I firmly believe the obvious solution to managing IA's deer herd is through RESIDENT SOLUTIONS!!!!!

ALSO, in a sense I am putting my MONEY WHERE MY MOUTH IS (not just through IBA) but, you'll see I have a 146 acre piece coming for sale on here. If I was greedy, I'd join up and HOPE FOI gets there way (I also own another farm). That way my land would go up probably $1,000 an acre in my strong opinion. YEP- I'm putting the state, our hunting, our management OVER my self interests of MONEY- I don't want my ground to go up because FOI has their way. And yes, I again will state, with FOI- follow the money and those whose biggest care is the DOLLAR and shooting a big buck- no matter the effects to others, our wildlife, our IA citizens and to this great state- this would be detrimental.
 
'Bonker,

Thanks for representing the vast majority of Iowa deer hunters and probably most of the members of this site. It's funny when people like to claim that since something cannot be easily proven and neatly documented into some fancy power point presentation that it simply isn't true. I could claim that the center of the earth is made out of marshmallow and refuse to acknowledge any science that doesn't involve tunneling to the very core for a sample, as evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps we could assemble a list of hunters that have lost access, complete with the names of the hunters, the landowners that have refused them access, addresses of all parties, acreage, you name it, and construct a scatter plot complete with regression line demonstrating the negative correlation between an increase in NR access (increase in leases, land purchases etc) and a corresponding decrease in Resident access. Of course correlation does not mean causation, but at least it would be a start and would be shoving their own argument against the lack of evidence down their throats.
 
CLARIFICATION....
Someone was not happy with the way I treated the NR in a few of my posts above from the way they perceived it. I want to clarify- I have NOTHING AGAINST THE NR. NOTHING!!!! I used to be a NR about 6 years ago. I have friends who are NR's. I know the challenges of being a NR.

That does not change the fact that I am adimately against what FOI is doing. If I was still a NR- I would be against what FOI is trying to do and I would speak for all the NR's I am friends with that they are against what FOI is trying to do.

Bottom line, I like Iowa with the laws it has in place now, I welcome the NR's and I believe IA is the last best hunting state for whitetails out there! Just want to make sure it stays that way!! If I offended ANY NR- I apologize and that's not what my intention was.
 
Sligh,

I hope you're not referring to me, I've been on the site for almost 6 years and have no problem with NR issues. I completely understand the resident point of view due to going through the same issues in PA many years prior. In PA unless you own or know someone you don't hunt, period. As I said in my prior post I traveled to Illinois and Iowa after watching videos. Sligh, you make some good points but how do we impact the deer on locked up land, and let me say where I hunt in Iowa several resident landowners have their land posted this is not strictly a NR issue when it comes to access. Resident landowners post 600 acres to my west and nearly 800 to my north and east. They allow limited bow access and NO gun hunting.
Avid, good idea but how do you prove lost access?? Many can say they have lost access when they have not.
 
Back40, NO, I am referring to MYSELF. I used to be a NR. Someone felt as if I was bashing NR with my post. I was not. I was just using logic and facts to dispute FOI. I felt I said nothing innapropriate BUT if someone took it as something against NR, I wanted to clarify- this was meant to be a discussion on FOI.

Basically, regarding NR that own land right now- I think the state has to continue to manage each county by itself. You are ALWAYS going to have pockets of high deer numbers NO MATTER WHAT! If FOI got their way, I believe those pockets would be far worse and far more frequent- along with every other side effect I had discussed. (You can reduce those pockets by lowering deer numbers in the general area though- does especially will fill the voids on other land and move from the high population pockets to a neighbor's piece who had shot tons of them who "has room").

The state has brought down deer numbers, in many cases- too much. I would be for giving out more doe tags to NR landowners and getting Residents involved in shooting does on NR land.
 
I support more doe tags for NR landowners, but how does the DNR incorporate residents into the equation. I mean most folks are not going to allow strangers on their property. They buy the property to have a place to themselves; eliminating the worry of other hunters being there. The DNR has to let landowners, be it R or NR, access to tags to help manage the deer herd. I know that one doe tag at $200+ doesn't cut it on the property I hunt.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I support more doe tags for NR landowners, but how does the DNR incorporate residents into the equation. I mean most folks are not going to allow strangers on their property. They buy the property to have a place to themselves; eliminating the worry of other hunters being there. The DNR has to let landowners, be it R or NR, access to tags to help manage the deer herd. I know that one doe tag at $200+ doesn't cut it on the property I hunt.
</div></div>

Your post would create exactly the kind of self feeding circle we're trying to avoid. More access to tags for NR landowners = more NR landowners.

Also, when contacting legislators don't forget the Gov. himself. I'm told Culver is very much in favor of more NR anysex tags.

As for Ken Herring, he knows who his boss is there's no doubt about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom