<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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. </div></div>
You know...I'm kinda curious why the IBA or even "deer hunters" should be responsible for fixing someones else's "mess"??
It's my feelings as I have already mentioned, that cutbacks will be needed and programs curtailed.
What good are ANY of these programs if resident hunters have no place to hunt?
Why would anyone even care??
Why should the average Joe deer hunter be forced to give up any hope of finding a spot to hunt while the 2 million in NR income goes to pay for...what??
They have promised more state land and all kinds of blah blah blah...but now...it's just to bail them out of a mess..... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
This thread is really however about FOI and there underhanded and arrogant attempts to achieve the same rights as Non-Residents
as we have as residents.
They are attempting this under the guise of "controlling deer herds" even though we all know that in 99% of the cases they will spend a week or two a year here in Iowa hunting a buck and then go home.
In the end, all they want is an any deer tag EVERY YEAR...
A friend sent me this FOI news letter which I find very upsetting but it gives you an idea what we are up against and how easily they can sway non-hunting legislators who have no clue about reality.... /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">+++++ATTENTION+++++
TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION
One of the biggest challenges I have every month about this time is composing the monthly update. In some months there isn’t a lot of information to share and in others it’s just the opposite. This month in particular has been very active for us due in large part because of Iowa ’s legislature being in session and monitoring the legislation both pro and con affecting our initiative.
The amount of correspondence I have received has increased significantly since the beginning of the year, especially over the last several weeks. Most of this correspondence is inquiring as to the status of our initiative and has been generated by the publicity and exposure we’ve been gaining as more individuals are becoming aware of our efforts.
We view this as a positive reflection on the efforts that we are making in Des Moines and the support that we are building there. Until this year there has never been an organized effort to provide a voice for your rights as landowners in Iowa . Our initiative has helped to generate interest from Iowa residents and non-residents alike and members in the Iowa legislature are becoming better informed of this issue. The success we have had has not gone unnoticed by groups who have long opposed the policy change that we are seeking. These groups are beginning to feel threatened by the momentum we have been able to build in favor of our initiative and as we expected they have resorted to the methods that they have found success with in the past. Their choice has been one of providing misinformation, negative attacks and threats against Iowa decision makers and legislators who are the same people they have selected / elected to their positions to represent their constituency.
Iowa’s legislators and state officials are becoming more informed on this issue. For many the decision to change their previous opinions is due to the commitment they made to their constituency to serve them and to represent their better interests. Why are there hundreds of bills introduced each year to the legislature if it’s not to change and update old policies and laws to meet the needs of the state? The restrictive Non-resident landowner policy of the past denying “ Iowa landowners” equal privileges no longer serves the state in the capacity as it was intended decades ago.
The Iowa ’s Deer Advisory Committee acknowledged the following, “It is important from a social and economic perspective for non-resident hunters to not be restricted without sound management reasons.” We have long expressed our opinion that Iowa ’s Deer Management Policy cannot be successful by excluding a growing group of landowners that is estimated near 20%. The state of Iowa has long been considered the leader in conservation and denying landowners the ability to actively manage their own properties can have severe implications all across the state affecting all of Iowa ’s stakeholders.
We are laying the foundation for change in Iowa but we can’t do it by ourselves. Many of you have asked how you can help provide support. Today make time to send a message to each of the following and ask them to support “equal landowner privileges”. Go the extra mile and contact at least 10 or more of your friends and family members to do so as well. Our opposition has been organizing a long time to oppose this challenge; we need to make sure that we are being heard as well.
Be respectful with your messages. As Iowa landowners we all embrace Iowa ’s heritage, there is room for compromise without compromising the quality of Iowa ’s wildlife which we all enjoy.
[email protected] Director of Iowa DNR
[email protected] Administrator of Iowa DNR
[email protected] Chairman for Senate Natural Resource Committee
[email protected] Chairman for House Natural Resource Committee
The Iowa DNR announced last week that it was going to discontinue pursuing an increase in fees for Iowans to hunt and fish at least until 2011. This was recommended by Gov. Chet Culver who felt that it would be unfair to raise these fees due to current economic conditions. Most of these fees had not been increased for over 6 years.
However, as we reported several months ago, the DNR is still recommending increasing those same fees for non-residents to help the department minimize the necessary reduction in staff and services. At that time the proposed recommendation was:
Nonresident Current Last Change Proposal 2009 Increase %
Hunting $80.50 2000 $110.00 36.6%
Turkey $100.50 2000 $125.00 24.3%
Fur harvester $200.50 2000 $275.00 37.1%
Deer (any-sex) $220.50 2000 $295.00 33.8%
Deer (mandatory antlerless) $100.50 2006 $125.00 24.3%
Deer (optional antlerless) $150.50 2000 $200.00 32.8%
Deer (holiday) $55.00 2001 $75.00 36.4%
The DNR while addressing the Natural Resources Committee also requested consideration to increase the current NR any sex deer quota from 6,000 to 12,000. This increase would also help to generate much needed funding that has escaped them in past years due to the lower quota. The DNR estimates the lost revenues due to the quota restrictions at nearly $2.5 million per year. The DNR stated “We have the deer. It’s an issue we need to address, and it’s not going to go away”.
The long awaited report from the Deer Advisory Committee has finally been released AND I WILL ADDRESS MORE OF THIS REPORT IN A 2ND UPDATE. I made my opinions known to you last year on this committee and they haven’t changed especially in light of the recommendations. The mission of this committee was to review Iowa ’s deer management policy and assess the economic impact of its deer. Much of what this committee has recommended to the legislature is the product of one source of information, the Iowa DNR. The committee was selected to represent a broad stakeholder group representing many organizations from across Iowa . The committee members that participated proved to be dedicated in trying to accomplish their mission. Unfortunately a major stakeholder group, Non-resident landowners was omitted from this committee. This obviously did not allow for a thorough evaluation and discussion of the facts and issue(s).
As an example of what I am talking about, during the committee meetings and presentations a DNR representative made a statement that non-resident hunters do not have an impact in controlling Iowa ’s deer population. Not a misstatement by any means considering Iowa ’s NR quota restrictions, but no one asked the question what if NRLO’s were allowed equal privileges.
This led to a recommendation in the final report that states; “Increasing the number of non-resident hunters will not control Iowa ’s deer population”.
Obviously looking at the overpopulation of Iowa ’s deer herd during the past 10 years this shortsightedness has not and does not take into consideration the long term effects of such a policy.
The Iowa DNR reports that it is not uncommon for most NR’s to have to wait 3 years regardless if they are a landowner or not to obtain a license through the Iowa’s present draw.
What happens when 3,000 NR landowners are unable to actively manage the deer herd on their own land?
Facts obtained from state reports:
Iowa Farmland 31,729,400 acres
Total Farms 89,700
Avg. Farm Size 353 Acres
Information obtained from Iowa State University “Farmland Ownership and Tenure in Iowa 2007”
Out of state landownership = 20% Of All Iowa Farmland 6,345,880 Acres
*******************************************************************************
NR Recreational Land Owners – Estimated as no state source was able to provide this information 3,000
Total Non – Resident Farms (estimated) 17,977
Total Acres Owned By NR Rec Owners(estimated) 1,059,000 Acres
Estimated Deer Per Sq. Mile (DNR) 6.85 (640 Acres = Sq Mile)
Estimated Deer Herd on NR Rec Land 11,334
1st year without hunting 3,000 NRLO farms averaging 353 acres. An assumption we made are that not all does are bred each year and a mortality rate of 5% prior to the hunting season.
Non Residents = 3,000 Landowners with 353 acres @ 3.77 deer per farm
· 2009 Pre fawning estimates = 11,334 deer herd
· (DNR) 63% of deer herd are does = 7,140 and 50% are does 1 year or older
· Does 1 year or older = 3,570 x 90% bred = 3,213 x 2 (twin fawns) = 6,426 fawns
· Does under 1 year = 3,570 x 90% bred = 3,213 fawns
Total 2009 post harvest estimate
Fawns = 9,639
Does = 7,140
Bucks = 4,194
Total deer herd = 20,973 x 5% mortality rate = 19,925
In 1 year the deer herd increased by 8,590 deer or 75%
2nd year without hunting 3,000 NRLO farms with an average of 353 acres
· 2010 Pre fawn estimates = 19,925
· (DNR) 63 % of deer herd are does = 12,552
· Does 1 year or older = 6,276 x 90 % bred = 5,648 x 2 (twin fawns) = 11,297 fawns
· Does under 1 year = 6,276 x 90% bred = 5,648 fawns
Total 2010 post harvest estimate
Fawns = 16,945
Does = 12,552
Bucks = 7,373
Total deer herd 36,870 x 5% mortality rate = 35,027
By 2nd year the deer herd has increased 23,693 deer since 2009 or 309%
3rd year prior to Fall harvest 3,000 NRLO farms with an average of 353 acres
· 2011 Pre fawn estimates = 36,870
· (DNR) 63% of deer herd are does = 23,228
· Does 1 year or older = 11,614 x 90%bred = 10,452 x 2 (twin fawns) = 20,905 fawns
· Does under 1 year = 11,614 x 90% bred = 10,452 fawns
Total post harvest estimate
Fawns = 31,357
Does = 23,228
Bucks = 13,642
Total deer herd = 68,227 x 5% mortality rate prior to Fall hunting season = 64,814
3,000 NRLO’s harvest 1 deer (able to hunt 3rd year)
Deer herd following 2011 harvest = 61,814 or an increase of 50,480 or 445% since 2009
I do ask for leniency on the estimates as my calculations don’t take into consideration the potential disbursement of part of this herd due to the increasing population. It also doesn’t take into consideration a change in the gender ratio as deer aren’t being harvested. This is only meant as an example, but may very well reflect what has taken place during the past 10 years due to the NR quota restrictions.
So answer the question yourself, would NRLO’s given the same privileges as other landowners and were able to hunt and manage their own property contribute to controlling Iowa ’s deer population?
</div></div>
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but everybody better keep up the fight or you'll have nothing left to fight for...
/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif