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

Hunting lobby- NR and NR landowners

It it way to early to be having this argument.
Dor is correct about no one is very organized(guides,outfitters non res landowners) but they are starting to make some noise in DM.I'm not paranoid it just a lot better to be on the offense instead of defense.If a legislator hears from one outfitter or nr landowner then he should hear from 10 Iowa hunters how they feel.It just makes more sense to be aggressive instead of taking the passive approach and try to correct anything after the fact. It's hard to win at anything if you are on your heels all the time.
If I understand correctly Il. & Ks will be making some changes, the open door policy may not have been the best idea after all.
No one should ever say that a group is all evil or all good(nr, guides, Ia. landowners) you have good ones and bad ones just like anything in life.It's just my opinion but given the choice I will taken an Ia. landowner over a nr landowner almost every time. They live closer to the ground and that in it's self makes it easier to manage the deer on their ground.
Please note I never said all or always any where in this post .
How about we all just enjoy the harvest forums now, there will be plenty of time to kick this around after the hunting season closes.
 
Not that I wanna keep answering for pharmer, but I think he is talking about personality, not location. We have all met the guy who thinks he is smarter than you, thinks he has more money than you and likes to remind you of both at every opprotunity. Since they know it all, they just don't get it if somebody has a better, proven idea. I got no time for people like that.

I don't think there is a fight to be picked here. I belive pharmer is selling his Iowa ground to buy ground in his new state, Caintucke. It is true, however, that the collective IQ of both states went up by 20 points when he moved.

The 'Bonker
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: elkhunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If I understand correctly Il. & Ks will be making some changes, the open door policy may not have been the best idea after all.
</div></div>

Kansas is making changes, but not closing the door. They are probably going to allow more NR next year, making leasing an even bigger problem here. It's never too early to be talking about these things,IMO. Keep up the good fight boys. Iowa is about the only state left not letting the NR overrun the place.
 
Sorry for the late reply, HS wrestling meet all yesterday…
Anyway, a fight wasn’t my intent. But an explanation was. I have been blessed to live in many Midwest states and over sea’s . What I have learned from this experience is that where someone lives isn’t a reflection of who he is, his action speak to that, be it Detroit or Cedar Rapids or the dollars in his pocket…
The “just don’t get it” commit I thought was intended about doe reduction on the 640 acre leased land, but wondering if that was if fact the case, or something else??
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The “just don’t get it” comment I thought was intended about doe reduction on the 640 acre leased land, but wondering if that was if fact the case, or something else??
</div></div>

I think some resident landowners are just as guilty as NR landowners in "protecting" their property and getting all wrapped up in the "big buck" mania. Where we live or where are from has nothing to do with anything...it's how we live our lives that is important.

For the most part in my area, NR landowners control very large amounts of prime habitat and do in most cases no herd management at all. Just as Elkhunter mentioned I am not saying all but many are very arrogant simply because of the "fat wallet" syndrome. This only causes hard feelings not only among resident hunters but neighboring landowners who have their crops decimated not to mention constant car/deer problems.

I certainly understand all the emotions on both sides and I personally have grown weary of the never ending battle. Most NR's are great people regardless if they are landowners or just visiting every few years to hunt.

I do fear however...based on what I see with current laws, what will happen if we "open the floodgates" and let all NR landowners purchase tags every year. I can see no good that can come from it...

Every farm that ends up being purchased for the sole purpose of deer hunting by either resident or NR only increases our overall deer problem, which in turn causes our polititians to pressure our DNR to come up with more/better methods of controlling our deer. I think we all know how that is working out.. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

I don't pretend to have the answers... no one is really happy with things now and will become even more unhappy in the future...unless there is indeed a "magic bullet"

Years ago I defended my property and "my deer" with a vengence but eventually learned I was much better off if I shared this land that God has blessed me with. Now I let friends and neighbors help me with "herd control"...even if it means never killing a huge buck.

Life is about choices and NR landowners that choose to build a trusting relationship with a few resident hunters to help manage the deer in their area will go along way in solving the NR/resident conflict.

As to pharmers original question...I believe that the realtor lobby is encouraging the NR landowner every year/any deer tag.

The IDNR and outfitters are encouraging and increase in NR tags overall.

The Farm lobby and lawmakers encourage anything that gives any appearance at all of having a positive affect on reducing our deer herd. Often there efforts are completely misguided and have the complete opposite affect.

As Randy mentioned already...no need for arguments and mud slinging but hopefully we can all work together to continue to have the quality deer herd and hunting in Iowa that is important to so many of us.
 
I apologize for singling out Detroit, I know pricks from Chicago too. :)

Maybe the answer should be NR landowner "earn a tag" by getting X number of antlerless deer harvested every year by letting friends, neighbors, and relatives hunt- they "earn" a landowner tag for their own.
 
maybe the answer is for outsiders to quit trying to change iowa's laws to serve there own purposes
 
Phamer/Dbltree/Fishbonker..
Thanks for the insight. Once again no mud slinging meant, just trying to understand all view points. The NR landowner yearly any sex tag is a debate with many sides. As soon as my wife has her nursing degree, we’ll probably be residents in Des Moines, so that would solve my family hunting issue…
 
this would be the same as if someone were to buy 40 acres in the california hills(not live there), then try to get their kid into USC and pay residents tuition.
 
Teeroy,

The folks trying to change the rules are not "outsiders" but people who reside and work in Iowa towns in the real estate industry, insurance industry, your own DNR, etc. Perceptive NR's have bought, and are continuing to buy, waiting for "Iowans", who have positioned themselves to take advantage of the rush, to change the rules. These folks finally realized the value of land thrown aside as non-tillable and are trying to make a buck. Your fight is with your own.
 
As a NR, I think you Iowans would be absolutly crazy to let NRs have easy access to licenses (buck). I've had the priviledge of hunting there twice and came home empty each time but had the best hunting ever. Waiting a few years for those tags is well worth it to me, if it was easy to get tags the quality would fall off for sure.
Maybe with the wait for tags it keeps SOME of the slob hunters out of Iowa. I think that if a guy is willing to wait a few years to get a tag, he is probably a "higher caliber hunter".
This is just my thoughts but my advice would be to be very careful with changes, once the scales tip the other way, they're not coming back.
 
AS a NR landowner myself, I would love to see NR landowners given the ability to harvest more than one antlerless deer a year. And i mean just doe tags , not the ability to party hunt off of a doe tag. If you are truly looking to manage your land, then it would be nice. I let at least 2 local people hunt my land and i think i need to kill 40 does a year . Further more, if the dnr wants to increase the nr tags, then make it earn a buck and make the one time hunter help ou with the population control. More NR buck tags is not the answer. I sat for 20 days this year on my farm with just a video camera, had a great time, would be nice to kill some does at the very minimum,
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: khbofa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AS a NR landowner myself, I would love to see NR landowners given the ability to harvest more than one antlerless deer a year. And i mean just doe tags , not the ability to party hunt off of a doe tag. If you are truly looking to manage your land, then it would be nice. I let at least 2 local people hunt my land and i think i need to kill 40 does a year . Further more, if the dnr wants to increase the nr tags, then make it earn a buck and make the one time hunter help ou with the population control. More NR buck tags is not the answer. I sat for 20 days this year on my farm with just a video camera, had a great time, would be nice to kill some does at the very minimum, </div></div>

I fully agree with that...the NR landowner should be able to get antlerless only bow tags to their hearts desire at an affordable rate!

Good post!

I understand I would never let the flood gates open on my land as a NR landowner, but I would like to be able to get the buck to doe ratio in check at an affordable rate the way I saw fit. That is, control of the who, when, and where, of doe management tool type of thing.

/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
 
According to the CO I talked to this fall, the NR archery antlerless only tag is history. The DNR is doing away with them next year.
 
Doing away with the NR doe license would be an excellent move ... we may loose some revenue upfront but after talking with a few CO's that have spent countless hours with investigations, arrests and prosecution - I think it is safe to say we actually would save money by not selling these tags when factoring the CO's time costs.

Now NR doe tags sold during the shotgun season are no different than buck tags IMO because of party hunting.
 
i agree, very few people pay 400 dollars for a doe tag without thinking something to the effect that if a giant walks buy they will figure a way to tag it. all i am saying is this, N R landowners are accounting for a significant amount of land in Iowa. With that goes the problem of increased doe populations, NR landowners in many cases are building doe breeding grounds without any real ability to keep the population down, now combine that with the fact that deer harvest will probably be down this year with 2 consecutive bad weather weekends which kept many hunters from traveling. Dnr should find a way to let NR landowners kill does even if it is the doe only season in january when it is 5 degrees outside. Its just a thought,
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> NR landowners in many cases are building doe breeding grounds without any real ability to keep the population down, now combine that with the fact that deer harvest will probably be down this year with 2 consecutive bad weather weekends which kept many hunters from traveling. Dnr should find a way to let NR landowners kill does even if it is the doe only season in january when it is 5 degrees outside. Its just a thought,
</div></div>

But in fact every NR landowner has a perfect ready made tool to help in managing the doe herd....resident hunters.

Build a trusting relationship with a few resident hunters who would be more then willing to hunt in the late season and fill their freezers...and all sides win. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom