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

friends of iowa news article..here they come

These are tough times and across most of the country everyday folks have had to cut back...way back!

So what programs could or should the IDNR cut back/scale back if funding is short versus selling out to the NR's?

As Fishbonker mentioned we've already mentioned that we are willing to shoulder our share of the load. Perhaps some programs may have to be mothballed for now?

Dunno...but once they double the NR tags...they will never ever go back.. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

I would mention that I expect the IDNR will NEVER stop trying to cash in on what they see as "easy pickens"...it's our legislators who we put in office who have the final say.

They are the last line of defense and they know that neither the IDNR nor NR's put them in office..... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
 
I don’t want to see anybody lose a job, but perhaps the bobcat tracking could be dropped for a few years and the harvest quotas stay the same between now and then. I’m not sure how much they spend but per bobcat harvested and/or collared it has to be substantial.

How about the trout stocking program? Stop it for a year or two until the funding is more reasonable.

Those are two examples on the wildlife side. How many programs on the clean water, hog confinement and pollution side can be reined in a little for the short term?

The ‘Bonker
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fishbonker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I need to take exception to Mr. Herring's statement about only a few people made it clear that they would be willing to pay more for licenses. I thought I made it crystal clear to you at the Deer Study Committee meeting that the majority of Iowans would be willing to pay more to keep the NR system the same. Not to mention that the IBA made you well aware of the willingness of bow hunters to pay more long before the Governor made the announcement that license fees would not be raised.

Shame on you Ken. Work for Iowans, not against Iowans.

The 'Bonker
</div></div>


agree.gif



Not only that, but a little digging to recheck views on the subject uncovered yet another interesting note. Kinda looks like you had this one all but nailed Bonker:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fishbonker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, now Mr. Leopold and Mr. Hering can claim that since they dropped the increase in resident license fees they will have to increase the number of NR tags they can sell to offset what they would have gained through a fee increase.

Can you say "POLITICS"? I knew that you could.

Which would you rather have?

The ‘Bonker
</div></div>

You just can't make this stuff up folks.
 
Why is it that when raising resident license fees was brought up here a while back I felt like I was in the minority for supporting the idea. I seem to remember a few people acting like $10 a yr or whatever it was would prevent them from putting food on the table. It now seems we all agree its necessary.A hike in doe tags wouldn't make sense but the either sex tags should go up. I sure wish they had listened to the IBA and gone ahead with a reasonable increase in resident tags instead of this garbage.
 
I am an out-of -stater and just can't believe someone would do this! I hunt Iowa because of the tremendous hunting and the great people that live there. People that do not live there have absolutly no right to have any say in how Iowans control their deer herd. I live in Michigan where there are about 900,000 deer hunters, lots of deer (probably too many) but the quality of the herd is very poor. Just because you allow more hunters doesn't by any means, mean that the herd will shrink, but I know that the quality will diminish. I know that it's sometimes frustrating for a nonresident to get a tag, but that is why the hunting so good. I am more than happy to wait every 2-3 years to get my tag, just to spend a week or two in the wonderful oak timber and the shagbark hickory fence rows of Iowa. As a hunter from Michigan please do everything you can to stop this. Believe me, you want no part of too many hunters and too many runt deer.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dbltree</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I would mention that I expect the IDNR will NEVER stop trying to cash in on what they see as "easy pickens"...it's our legislators who we put in office who have the final say.

They are the last line of defense and they know that neither the IDNR nor NR's put them in office..... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif </div></div>

Kind of funny how things turn full circle.
I think it was last year when we all were saying
that we thought it was in the best interest of the deer hunter
for the decisions to be in the DNR's hands.
Looks like the people we elected may very well be the ones to help us.
 
After going to the Friends Of Iowa website; it would appear that they want control of the deer population on their land. If they are granted the same rights as resident landowners; they could apply for permits from the DNR to eradicate deer. I think it is important to remember that not all landowners are interested in trophy deer management. I have a neighboring landowner who is a resident crop farmer, and he owns 6 farms. This guy doesn't even own a firearm! He requested and received over 50 permits to shoot deer on his land.
 
Just by way of an update, I sent the same e-mail to the Iowegian, Legislators from Davis, Wapello, Van Buren, and Jefferson counties and to Governor Culver on Tuesday. I have been gone for a couple of days but as of this morning the only response I have received has been from John Whitaker, who isn't even my Rep, but I do know him. He said he agrees with us and is working to stop any increases. Any one have any ideas how we can get any kind of feed back other the official CRAP that Mr. Herring has put out. I do find it interesting that the only real reply was to someone who supported paying higher license fees. I have not expressed any reluctance to paying higher fees, and would support some fee increases, but I was still sluffed off and deemed unworthy of any real reply because I didn't mention money. Shame on Mr Leupold also for not caring enough to even reply. That is extremely bad form for a Public Official.
 
As I sent in my dues to IBA yesterday, like I do every year. I'm a little curious when the last time IBA sat down with Ken and Rich and outlined a plan to help them through this mess. I understand that they offered to increase our bow tags and I'm fine with that, but what big picture solutions have been offered to help the DNR. They may have and I just missed it, but that should be posted on here as well.

I personally know Ken, and I can tell you he is between a rock and a hard place. I may not agree with the responses he may have sent, but the pressure he is getting may be impacting his judgement on some of these items.

I just feel we should idnetify what the pressures are that Ken and the rest of the DNR are facing, create a group of Resident experts and try to help them with whatever it is they are struggling with. Whatever our regulation structure is for hunting 10 yrs from now is, I would hope the influence of residents is more apparent then non-residents, and IBA or some other group will need to be more proactive then we are today for this to happen.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just feel we should idnetify what the pressures are that Ken and the rest of the DNR are facing, create a group of Resident experts and try to help them with whatever it is they are struggling with. Whatever our regulation structure is for hunting 10 yrs from now is, I would hope the influence of residents is more apparent then non-residents, and IBA or some other group will need to be more proactive then we are today for this to happen. </div></div>

I've been following this thread with great interest and I think this is one of the best posts yet. I feel that an expert panel of residents that can sit down and identify what the main problems are and look for positive ways to address them is the best long-term solution. If you guys defeat this latest move by FOI (and I hope you do) they will come back with another, and another...

But if there is a way to look at the pressures/problems the DNR and legislators are facing and address them in an ongoing, positive manner, I think that will go a long way toward creating a permanent solution, rather than just constantly putting out fires /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
 
I don't know Mr Herring and honestly the only contact I have had with him was probably actually with his secretary. When we ask direct questions why can't he give direct answers, so that we MIGHT be able to understand what ever pressures he is under? Why should he feel any pressure from nonresidents for any reason? They have NOTHING to do with his responsibilities to the resident sportsmen who spend their hard earned money to pay his $100,000 salary and I certainly don't begrudge him that as long as he fulfills that responsibility. If Mr. Herring has time to spend two days in meetings with FOI why doesn't he spend at least the same amount of time or more with Iowa resident groups such as the IBA, Pheasants Forever, Iowa Sportsman coalition, and actually discuss and brain storm "big picture solutions" that would benefit both instead of just endorsing an increase of NR licenses that can only be detrimental to Iowa sportsmen? I would think it is the duty of our DNR to come to sportsman groups to ask for help and solutions to their current problems, rather than waiting until we approach them when we get wind of some disconcerting proposals. We have no way of knowing what actual problems they face until they tell us. Communication can only be a two way street if both parties participate, and so far it has only been us asking "WHY" and no meaningful reply.
 
Let me tell you how he feels pressure from the non-residents. The State and DNR are very strapped for cash, but every year Ken's team has to turn away roughly $2 mil in revenue from NR's that want to hunt but don't get drawn. The NR's .like FOI, are fully aware of this and are politically putting the pressure on him to take the $2 mil, by simply letting NR landowners get tags or increase the number of NR tags. Ken would probably like as much as you and I to not increase the number of NR tags, but $2 mil is nothing to sneeze at. Hence lies the problem, if your going to walk away from that money, you need to have some solution in place to make up for it, because until we come up with one, the NR has the money, leverage, and upper hand. Welcome to politics.

I can assure you, that if we put together a plan of action and got the right Resident Expert group together to present, I feel pretty comfortable that I can get you a meeting with Ken and probably Rich.

The part that we are missing is that, these meetings need to take place in the fall. It's always better to hit the legislature upfront with momentum, then to come at them at the end of Feb. Just looks too reactive.
 
that 2 Mil that gets refunded to the unsuccessful draws gets turned around and put right BACK into the system a few months later.... i dont believe that the money they have to refund is really a big issue.... it still gets to sit in their account for few months and gain interest....

that excuse is a cop-out, plain and simple.

not to mention, if the NR tags get doubled, then the DNR will be grouchy for turning away 4 Mil in unsuccessful draws.... so what is the solution... unlimited over the counter NR tags?
 
Dont' kill the messenger, but that 2 mil is far from a cop-out, it is front and center in those discussion. There's a big difference between making interest on it for two months and keeping it. Again, I'm not defending it, but that is the heart and sole of the NR's leverage and is why the DNR is listening.
 
How about this for a suggestion, take the current $2.00 HUSH mandatory contribution off and add $3.00 to it on each of the 400,000 deer licenses issued. The HUSH money amounts to almost
$800,000.00 and with declining harvests I am not sure how valuable it is to our sport. That $5.00 per license amounts to the same $2,000,000.00. Net increase is only $3.00 to deer hunters, or if that won't work add $2.00 to every hunting, trapping, and fishing license for both residents and nonresidents. That would raise well over that 2 mill and save us all this grief. I would guess that the vast majority of us would be willing to support something like that which would not put an undue burden on anyone.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bowmaker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How about this for a suggestion, take the current $2.00 HUSH mandatory contribution off </div></div>

I thought HUSH was $1/tag?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom