Ok, I just could not stand it any more after reading this terrible reply from Mr Herring, so this is the e-mail I just sent him. I hope it wasn't disrepectful but I needed to say it and I hope Willie and Blindsow and any other DNR personel here won't take it personal but maybe pass it on to anyone else with in the IDNR who might be able to help our cause. I know it is long but bear with me, please.
Dear Mr. Herring
I am writing this in response to recent activities on the issue of Non Resident hunting privileges and Non-Resident landowners. From an article in the Daily Iowegian it appears that after a closed meeting with a group called Friends of Iowa you have basically endorsed this group’s claims that they are being treated unfairly and should have the very same rights and privileges as resident Iowa landowners. I am very confused how this can be? I have several questions for you, as I am a life long Iowa resident and a property owner for approximately 38 of my 60 years of age.
In a response to another Iowa resident, who questioned your standing on this issue, you stated that the Non-resident license quota problem is not going away, and that nonresident landowners are raising the concerns of lawmakers. Question number one is how can a nonresident’s concerns even be of any interest to any Iowa lawmaker, since those nonresidents are not allowed to vote for them, at least the last time I checked? Would not the concerns and wished of tax paying voting Iowa residents take precedent each and every time? Why would any nonresident group, no matter how much money or how strong a lobbyist they have, be allowed to “draft legislation” for the State of Iowa? Why hasn’t our very own Iowa DNR not taken a strong stand on the issue of constantly increasing the number of nonresident any sex deer licenses, instead of actually proposing increases in these quotas?
Another portion of your reply says that because more of Iowa’s forested lands will change hands in the next 10 years that we should allow these new nonresident landowners the same hunting privileges because they pay Iowa taxes and we have too many deer anyway. First let me address the tax issue. The vast majority of these forested lands owned by nonresidents are currently in the forest reserve program that basically makes those acres tax exempt. I believe that this negates that issue. As a suggestion along those lines, why don’t we pass legislation that nonresident land owners can not enroll in the reserve program, and that those nonresident acres be taxed at a 28 percent higher tax rate than those paid by resident land owners for similar acres. This would certainly increase our property tax base because of the certainty of so many nonresidents buying up much of these forested lands.
Moving on to the issue of too many deer in Iowa. How is the correct number of deer determined, and what is our current population? In light of information posted on the IDNR site I would take exception with your statement, whether rhetorical or not, that we have too many deer. I know that it was classified as “only an estimate” but in 2005 we harvested about 211,000 deer with almost 400,000 licenses issued. In 2007 with the new reporting system, there were 146,214 deer killed with 389,163 licenses issued and for 2008 it shows 142,194 total deer harvested, but I could not find any information on licenses issued. How much more population control is necessary considering our success ration has dropped to less than 30 percent and the harvest is rapidly approaching half in just 4 years? Does the IDNR really want to maintain a deer population of only 170,000 animals, as shown as the target population in your graph on your site? That in my viewpoint would mean that we could only expect to harvest about 70,000 deer which if we maintain the 400,000 licenses issued would only yield a success ration of 17.5 percent. If this is the case, why do we need to be concerned about a very few nonresident landowners, when over 80 percent of Iowa’s resident tax paying voters are unsuccessful at harvesting any deer at all? I must add that this 2008 season is the first time since 1974, I believe, that I didn’t personally harvest a deer, even though I had licenses for several seasons.
Just this last week several Iowa news stations have reported that the IDNR has decided against raising resident license fees because of hard economic times, but then in the very same sentence said that the IDNR is proposing to double the number of regular Nonresident any sex deer licenses from the current 6500 to 12,000 and this doesn’t even address the number of antlerless licenses. In 2007 there were almost 15,000 total licenses issued to nonresidents with 6500 being for any sex, or more commonly know, buck licenses. Does that mean that that total number will also double to 30,000 total licenses?
How much Iowa land do we really want owned by nonresidents, who contribute little to nothing to our State, pay little if any property tax, pay no income tax, and have created huge blocks of inaccessible to land which was once huntable by residents? How can you honestly think that this situation will ever get any better if we change the rules that existed when these nonresidents knowingly purchased their land, to grant them equal status with resident landowners? I can only see it becoming much worst, as nonresidents find ways to circumvent even those new rules. As a very simple example, if a nonresident owns 400 acres now, but under the new rules he sells 40 acres to each of 10 people. Now each of these 10 qualifies for a nonresident landowners licenses. There are no real dividing lines or fences to separate individual plots and owner ship, so it becomes unenforceable for a Conservation Officer to know whether that hunter is actually hunting on his own section. So now each of those 10 hunters can really hunt the whole 400 acres with impunity for the buck of their choice every year and can still enter the nonresident lottery for one of the 12,000 buck licenses issued. How will this discourage more nonresidents from doing the same thing after Friends of Iowa explain exactly how to do it on their website, and how many more resident hunters will loose their hunting heritage because the State of Iowa and the IDNR promoted and supported these rule changes?
I know that the overall tone of this letter is pretty harsh and critical, but I believe that I have earned the right after having purchased Iowa hunting and fishing licenses since 1965, being a strong supporter and friend to the IDNR and many of it’s personnel, serving on 2 different Friends groups for the betterment of 2 Iowa State Parks, and acting as an informal self appointed “watch dog” for a large public hunting area near my home. I have been a part of Pheasants Forever and the National Wild Turkey Federation and have tried to help enhance and protect our Iowa outdoors experiences. I respectfully ask that you and the IDNR reconsider their position on this nonresident landowner or nonresident hunter issue and please swing the scale back toward the rights and enhanced hunting experience of the resident hunters and landowners. I understand that this is a complicated issue, but as others have pointed out, we residents are the ones who support you year in and year out, not the nonresidents who will just move on to greener pastures when our deer herd diminishes. If we allow these changes now, these groups like Friends of Iowa will very likely mimic the spoiled five year old child. The child know the rules before going to the grocery store, no candy, then once in the store throws such a fit over a candy bar that the parent relents. Then after a couple of trips where the child gets the candy bar as normal, then the child wants another treat as well as the candy bar and throws another fit until it gets it’s way. The only way to stop this bad behavior is for the parent to take a strong stand and say NO and mean it and stick to it. The same principle applies to this nonresident land owner issue and the bad behavior will only stop when Iowa and the IDNR takes a stand and says NO and means it!
Thank you
Dave Steele
Floris Iowa
Dear Mr. Herring
I am writing this in response to recent activities on the issue of Non Resident hunting privileges and Non-Resident landowners. From an article in the Daily Iowegian it appears that after a closed meeting with a group called Friends of Iowa you have basically endorsed this group’s claims that they are being treated unfairly and should have the very same rights and privileges as resident Iowa landowners. I am very confused how this can be? I have several questions for you, as I am a life long Iowa resident and a property owner for approximately 38 of my 60 years of age.
In a response to another Iowa resident, who questioned your standing on this issue, you stated that the Non-resident license quota problem is not going away, and that nonresident landowners are raising the concerns of lawmakers. Question number one is how can a nonresident’s concerns even be of any interest to any Iowa lawmaker, since those nonresidents are not allowed to vote for them, at least the last time I checked? Would not the concerns and wished of tax paying voting Iowa residents take precedent each and every time? Why would any nonresident group, no matter how much money or how strong a lobbyist they have, be allowed to “draft legislation” for the State of Iowa? Why hasn’t our very own Iowa DNR not taken a strong stand on the issue of constantly increasing the number of nonresident any sex deer licenses, instead of actually proposing increases in these quotas?
Another portion of your reply says that because more of Iowa’s forested lands will change hands in the next 10 years that we should allow these new nonresident landowners the same hunting privileges because they pay Iowa taxes and we have too many deer anyway. First let me address the tax issue. The vast majority of these forested lands owned by nonresidents are currently in the forest reserve program that basically makes those acres tax exempt. I believe that this negates that issue. As a suggestion along those lines, why don’t we pass legislation that nonresident land owners can not enroll in the reserve program, and that those nonresident acres be taxed at a 28 percent higher tax rate than those paid by resident land owners for similar acres. This would certainly increase our property tax base because of the certainty of so many nonresidents buying up much of these forested lands.
Moving on to the issue of too many deer in Iowa. How is the correct number of deer determined, and what is our current population? In light of information posted on the IDNR site I would take exception with your statement, whether rhetorical or not, that we have too many deer. I know that it was classified as “only an estimate” but in 2005 we harvested about 211,000 deer with almost 400,000 licenses issued. In 2007 with the new reporting system, there were 146,214 deer killed with 389,163 licenses issued and for 2008 it shows 142,194 total deer harvested, but I could not find any information on licenses issued. How much more population control is necessary considering our success ration has dropped to less than 30 percent and the harvest is rapidly approaching half in just 4 years? Does the IDNR really want to maintain a deer population of only 170,000 animals, as shown as the target population in your graph on your site? That in my viewpoint would mean that we could only expect to harvest about 70,000 deer which if we maintain the 400,000 licenses issued would only yield a success ration of 17.5 percent. If this is the case, why do we need to be concerned about a very few nonresident landowners, when over 80 percent of Iowa’s resident tax paying voters are unsuccessful at harvesting any deer at all? I must add that this 2008 season is the first time since 1974, I believe, that I didn’t personally harvest a deer, even though I had licenses for several seasons.
Just this last week several Iowa news stations have reported that the IDNR has decided against raising resident license fees because of hard economic times, but then in the very same sentence said that the IDNR is proposing to double the number of regular Nonresident any sex deer licenses from the current 6500 to 12,000 and this doesn’t even address the number of antlerless licenses. In 2007 there were almost 15,000 total licenses issued to nonresidents with 6500 being for any sex, or more commonly know, buck licenses. Does that mean that that total number will also double to 30,000 total licenses?
How much Iowa land do we really want owned by nonresidents, who contribute little to nothing to our State, pay little if any property tax, pay no income tax, and have created huge blocks of inaccessible to land which was once huntable by residents? How can you honestly think that this situation will ever get any better if we change the rules that existed when these nonresidents knowingly purchased their land, to grant them equal status with resident landowners? I can only see it becoming much worst, as nonresidents find ways to circumvent even those new rules. As a very simple example, if a nonresident owns 400 acres now, but under the new rules he sells 40 acres to each of 10 people. Now each of these 10 qualifies for a nonresident landowners licenses. There are no real dividing lines or fences to separate individual plots and owner ship, so it becomes unenforceable for a Conservation Officer to know whether that hunter is actually hunting on his own section. So now each of those 10 hunters can really hunt the whole 400 acres with impunity for the buck of their choice every year and can still enter the nonresident lottery for one of the 12,000 buck licenses issued. How will this discourage more nonresidents from doing the same thing after Friends of Iowa explain exactly how to do it on their website, and how many more resident hunters will loose their hunting heritage because the State of Iowa and the IDNR promoted and supported these rule changes?
I know that the overall tone of this letter is pretty harsh and critical, but I believe that I have earned the right after having purchased Iowa hunting and fishing licenses since 1965, being a strong supporter and friend to the IDNR and many of it’s personnel, serving on 2 different Friends groups for the betterment of 2 Iowa State Parks, and acting as an informal self appointed “watch dog” for a large public hunting area near my home. I have been a part of Pheasants Forever and the National Wild Turkey Federation and have tried to help enhance and protect our Iowa outdoors experiences. I respectfully ask that you and the IDNR reconsider their position on this nonresident landowner or nonresident hunter issue and please swing the scale back toward the rights and enhanced hunting experience of the resident hunters and landowners. I understand that this is a complicated issue, but as others have pointed out, we residents are the ones who support you year in and year out, not the nonresidents who will just move on to greener pastures when our deer herd diminishes. If we allow these changes now, these groups like Friends of Iowa will very likely mimic the spoiled five year old child. The child know the rules before going to the grocery store, no candy, then once in the store throws such a fit over a candy bar that the parent relents. Then after a couple of trips where the child gets the candy bar as normal, then the child wants another treat as well as the candy bar and throws another fit until it gets it’s way. The only way to stop this bad behavior is for the parent to take a strong stand and say NO and mean it and stick to it. The same principle applies to this nonresident land owner issue and the bad behavior will only stop when Iowa and the IDNR takes a stand and says NO and means it!
Thank you
Dave Steele
Floris Iowa
