Legislative Proposed Changes

[BugleMIn]

Here are some House Files or Senate Files i.e. proposed rule changes.

HF 2058 Crossbow Deer Season

The bill directs the Natural Resources Commission to establish a separate season for taking deer with a crossbow by any deer hunter licensee. The bill strikes a provision that limits the use of a crossbow to handicapped persons who are physically unable to use a bow and arrow.

HF 2065 Armed Forces Licenses (also SF 2012)

The bill provides that members of the armed forces who are serving on active duty and are stationed in this state shall be considered residents for the purpose of purchasing hunting, fishing and trapping licenses or licenses for related activities.

SSB 3028 Non-Resident Deer Licenses

The bill increases the number of annual non-resident deer hunting licenses from 8,000 to 16,000. The Department of Natural Resources shall provide for the distribution of 8,000 of the 16,000 non-resident licenses to residents who operate bed and breakfasts or commercial guide services and to resident landowners who are actively engaged in farming who host non-resident deer hunters. A non-resident owning land in this state may apply for one of the remaining 8,000 non-resident licenses. If the non-resident landowner is unsuccessful in the drawing for the licenses they shall be given preference for an antler less non-resident deer license. The natural resources Commission shall determine the number of antler less only deer licenses available annually.

My comments start here....

Giving farmers tags to sell is common practice out West. One question is Must the non-resident tags given to resident farmers be used on his property only? Or are these tags statewide for the non-resident to go where they want?

Another question is this, what constitutes a commercial guide service? Didn't they kill a bill last year to register guides? Can I make a business card and ba da boom "I'm in the guide business" and then buy non-resident tags for my friends from Arizona?

I wonder what the "going" price will be for one of these tags. Supply and Demand dictate the price. Some ranchers in New Mexico get $2000 for a elk tag, others get $750. This is a plot to give farmers another source of income, unfortunately the farmers will like that income and resident hunters will end up paying more to hunt in years to come.

I don't care about the crossbow law, as long as it is in conjuntcion with archery and archery is not shortened due to it.

Blindsow, what is your take on all this?

 

[Rembrandt]

I don't see a problem with the crossbow season, but would like to hear any negatives concerning it first....

I've read that the increase in non-resident tags is an effot by the DNR to recover lost revenues due to shortfalls in sales of resident (hunting) licenses...some reports say around 12,000 less Iowa Resident hunting licenses were sold in 2001.....that means the DNR is hurting financially....this could open the door to more Lease hunting....???

I'm bothered by the commercialization of "Deer Hunting" in general.....when you look at some of the other states that have followed this path....lease hunting begins to take over. Get your checkbooks out....cheap hunts may be a thing of the past....

[This message has been edited by Rembrandt (edited 01-31-2002).]

 

[STICK&STRING]

I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT I HAVE MIXED FEELINGS ON THE PROPOSED CROSSBOW SEASON! ON ONE HAND I AM ALL FOR PEOPLE GETTING OUT INTO THE WOODS IN PURSUIT OF WHITETAILS, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND THE WOODS SEEM TO BE AWFULLY CROWDED RIGHT NOW! I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE ON THE PROPOSED SEASON BEFORE I MADE UP MY MIND ON THE ISSUE.

 

[Blind Sow]

I'm not sure what you mean by "as long as it is in conjunction with archery..." The crossbow does not belong in the regular archery season. If a crossbow season is established (and I hope one is not) it belongs in the gun seasons.

I'd like to know what constitutes a "separate season" for crossbow as the bill dictates. As I posted earlier on this bill (about a week ago) if it is indeed a separate season I see three options:

(1) They will have to add days to the current deer season to accommodate a separate season.

(2) Have the crossbow season piggyback on another season (for example the archery season or the shotgun season).

(3) If the number of deer hunting days stays the same they will have to shorten one of the current deer seasons to make room for one that is exclusively for the crossbow. Under that last scenario the only one I can see shortened is the archery deer season.

The IBA is currently working with the DNR to define what constitutes a bow, arrow and broadhead. The definitions are what Dave Holt (Technical Editor for Bowhunter Magazine) wrote for the Pope and Young Club and were adopted by the Club.

In a nutshell the definition says a bow is hand-held, hand-drawn throughout its cycle powered only by human muscle. What this definition does is exclude crossbows, lockdraws and the AccuRest bow (the one with the long tube that shoots 4" darts).

Nothing in the proposed definitions deal with let-off percentages or electronic devices. The proposed definitions would not exclude any equipment that is currently legal to use in Iowa (80% let-off, electronic devices such as lighted sight pins, etc.) If someone wants to enter an animal into P&Y records they will have to abide by the Club's regulations.

I haven't heard any final tabulation on deer license sales--but I know for the first shotgun deer season they sold more than last year.

On the subject of increased NR deer tags I believe they are doe tags, not either sex. If a landowner was given tags my assumption is that they will be legal only on his property (just like his landower/tenant license).

The DNR does not regulate guides nor does any other state agency. It will be interesting on how this will eventually read.

The DNR allows the use of crossbows during the regular archery deer season for handicapped individuals with upper arm disability. These permits are issued following DNR procedures.

Doug

 

[Driftless]

Blind Sow,

Reading an explaination of the bill on the the Iowa General assembly website makes it sound like the DNR might soon be in the guide regulating business. Does the term "by rule" mean the DNR would create a rule that defines what a guide is? Just wondering. Here's the EXPLANATION:

This bill increases the number of annual nonresident deer hunting licenses from 8,000 to 16,000. The natural resource commission shall provide, by rule, for the distribution of 8,000 of the 16,000 nonresident licenses to residents who operate bed and breakfast establishments or commercial guide services and to resident landowners actively engaged in farming operations who host nonresident deer hunters.

 

[Blind Sow]

For several years the Iowa Bowhunters Association had talked with the DNR reference the topic of DNR regulating guides/outfitters in the state. During those years Al Farris, DNR Fish and Wildlife Division Administrator wanted nothing to do with it. But Farris, along with Larry Wilson (DNR Deputy Director) retired as of Jan 31 so there will be a whole new hierarchy in charge of the DNR.

With those positions being politically appointed, and the Gov behind this increase, I'd bet there is a good chance that whoever is appointed to these positions will also back these proposals. Just my guess.

Doug

 

[BugleMIn]

To clarify my "in conjunction with" on the crossbow. It would be OK with me if they put a week of crossbow hunting in with Archery like they do now with early and late muzzleoader. I have never been around a crossbow and don't have an opinion on them.

It all about money in my opinion. We have something non-residents want (Deer) and somebody or some group with money wants to capitalize on it. Let the farmers make a little money at same time.

Tom don't care about us hunters, look what the goof did with the dove bill. It's funny how the they just raised fees and DNR is broke. I've heard many hunters say it was OK to raise the fees more than they did, who'd the legislators listen too? Legislators were pissed at DNR about the dove bill sneaking in last year.

And now I have to listen to non-residents bitch about the cost of a turkey tag. $189 is steep for one bird.

Too bad the republicans don't have a strong candidate to get him out of office.

I'm rambling...

 

[DeerHunter]

What are the facts concerning the Robertson-Pittman(?) funds. What exactly is that money for and isn't some of it going into the general fund? Also, if they want to sell additional DOE tags, it would be a win-win situation for everyone, in my opinion. I have friends that come back to Iowa to hunt with their family and I know they would shoot a doe, save some money, and still enjoy themselves. However, what are the odds that every penny generated would stay in the DNR?

 

[Rembrandt]

There was an amendment to the Iowa Constitution a few years back that passed in the general election, it states that money from hunting and fishing licenses must go to it's intended purpose and can not be used in the general fund for other purposes.

Pittman Robertson money is the Federal tax generated on the sales of guns and ammunition/hunting related items. There are specific guidelines that must be followed for it's use. I believe Iowa receives about 2-3 million each year from this fund. Dingle-Hart(?) is the Federal tax collected on fishing related items....

Ponder this...a few years ago the State of Utah doubled the non-resident license fees while leaving resident fees the same.....non-resident hunters were ticked to say the least. They took their money and went elsewhere to hunt....Utah DNR then found itself in the red and had to lay off over 25 employees, reduce expenditures for vehicles, pay raises, and other services....they shot themselves in the foot, it's taken several years to get back to where they were before the blunder. Hopefully Iowa officials will learn from others mistakes.....



[This message has been edited by Rembrandt (edited 02-01-2002).]

 

[Guest]

I like the crossbow the way it is...for handicapped individuals. There is no need for this season...just go to the Bowsite and read what Ohio has put up with. It is a rather lazy mans way to bowhunt....just my opinion.

No need to add it during bowhunting. We already have an early youth before bow, and an early muzzleloader during bow season. As a bowhunter, I feel this is enough. It is hard enough as it is without putting a bunch more people in the timber that wouldn't be there otherwise.

16,000...that is a little excessive to me. Illinois is restricting the # of NRs and we are allowing more. The problem is legislatures are running the DNR, not the people who should. So were are all screwed in the end.

 

[GDCooper]

"SSB 3028" means it's a Senate Study Bill, which as I recall means it is in a Senate Committee at best, long way from being enacted. Any bill that interests or concerns you bear watching (you can on the Legislative web page until one gets really hot, then moves to fast for the page to keep up), but nothing to get one's shorts in a tight bunch for at this stage. If if becomes a Senate file/bill, that's the time to let your Senator and Representatives know how you feel.

My guess is that the idea originated from southern Iowa or similar rural area (could verify origin with a little research, which can provide a better indication of its chances) where it's gotten to be VERY hard to make a living from "straight" farming, and guiding or leasing for guiding is becoming a means of providing a few extra dollars that may keep a family afloat, and help a regional economy that is much in need of help. Pro guiding/land leasing is not a trend that is particularly good for hunters or hunting in general, but there's another side to every story. Visit southern Iowa and observe, see if you could begrudge some hard-working people an opportunity to make a few extra bucks. Not exactly a wealthy bunch of metro yuppies like my neighbors and I used to be (don't fit the "young" part anymore). At least it's more understandable than ticket prices for pro sports, where all of the best seats go to big dollar corporate sponsors and the average schmuck is lucky to get an overpriced seat with spotting scope range of the playing field, and the money lines the pockets of some destitute like George Steinbrenner or (insert name of favorite multi-millionare here).

Doesn't thinking about all of that make you feel warm all over?? Have a nice day.

 

[Two Beards]

Hopefully the crossbow regulations will remain as they are. They certainly don't belong in the archery season...it's more like a gun shooting an arrow, than a bow.

Blind Sow...is there someone we can contact with our thoughts on these bills? 16,000 NR tags? 8000 going to outfitters? We don't need all the problems states like Illinois are and have been going thru. I agree with Rembrandt...the commercialization of deer hunting is very upsetting...to say the least. Are there not other options to increase revenue? When was the last time we,as residents, had an increase in the price of our general hunting license? What about selling a limited/extra amount of deer(doe) tags for the various seasons?

I've seen similar posts on other boards in regards to other states,not too many sit in the middle. Most of us have strong feelings one way or the other.

TB

[This message has been edited by Two Beards (edited 02-01-2002).]

 

[kelcher]

My feelings are pretty clear on this one. The increase in NR licenses if they are any sex will increase the amount of Iowa land that is leased by guide services. This will take away opportunity from residents to hunt in many areas. I can understand that the Iowa DNR needs to have revenue in order to function in the state, but they are not in the business of making money. What good does it do us, meaning residents, if the DNR increases revenue but in the process takes away our opportunity to enjoy the game that they are trying manage?