Old Buck
Life Member
Ghost
Life Member
SF 18 Explanation.....
This bill increases the annual limit on nonresident turkey hunting licenses from 2,300 to 3,500.
The bill increases the number of nonresident deer hunting licenses available from 8,500 to 14,500, and provides that there will be 12,000 annual nonresident any sex deer hunting licenses available, and 2,500 annual nonresident antlerless only deer licenses available. The statutory requirement that only 35 percent of the nonresident deer hunting licenses shall be sold to bow and arrow hunters is stricken.
The bill provides that a nonresident owning land in this state who is unsuccessful in the nonresident any sex deer hunting license drawing has preference to receive a nonresident antlerless only deer hunting licence.
It took me some time to find this so I thought I would post it to save you all some time if you were interested.
Ghost
This bill increases the annual limit on nonresident turkey hunting licenses from 2,300 to 3,500.
The bill increases the number of nonresident deer hunting licenses available from 8,500 to 14,500, and provides that there will be 12,000 annual nonresident any sex deer hunting licenses available, and 2,500 annual nonresident antlerless only deer licenses available. The statutory requirement that only 35 percent of the nonresident deer hunting licenses shall be sold to bow and arrow hunters is stricken.
The bill provides that a nonresident owning land in this state who is unsuccessful in the nonresident any sex deer hunting license drawing has preference to receive a nonresident antlerless only deer hunting licence.
It took me some time to find this so I thought I would post it to save you all some time if you were interested.
Ghost
I sent mine; have you? Iowa legislators need to hear from you!
Hey Robert,
Lynn Schwager here from Bellevue. I was curious as to your views on Senate File 18 which has been proposed by Angelo. I feel that by increasing the number of non-resident tags we are only costing Iowa residents opportunity to hunt. If you could take the time to log on to www.iowawhitetail.com and go to the whitetail conference you will see how most Iowa hunters feel on the issue. Most are willing to pay a little more to protect and expand their hunting opportunities in Iowa. Southeast Iowa is being overrun with non-resident hunters and landowners. They are seeing local farms tied up with leases and agreements with outfitters. This situation is very similar to Pike County IL where the middle class hunter can't afford to hunt anymore and the idea of getting permission to hunt without getting out your checkbook is laughable. This should not be our vision for Iowa! I take pride in the fact that Iowa is usually "behind the times" when compared to other states. I'll gladly trade our slow paced life and low crime rates for all the "progress" other states enjoy. Why would we allow hunters from out of state to come in and "help control the deer herd" when the residents are more then willing to do it. If the answer is $ then simply look at how quickly the bonus doe tags are sold throughout the state. Residents are willing to pay to play and until we stop doing our part we should always be given the first opportunity. Iowa ranks very low in amount of public land available; please don't support a bill that will further diminish our hunting opportunities. I look forward to your reply and again invite you to visit www.iowawhitetail.com for a more comprehensive look at Iowa hunters' opinions.
Lynn J. Schwager
[email protected]
Hey Robert,
Lynn Schwager here from Bellevue. I was curious as to your views on Senate File 18 which has been proposed by Angelo. I feel that by increasing the number of non-resident tags we are only costing Iowa residents opportunity to hunt. If you could take the time to log on to www.iowawhitetail.com and go to the whitetail conference you will see how most Iowa hunters feel on the issue. Most are willing to pay a little more to protect and expand their hunting opportunities in Iowa. Southeast Iowa is being overrun with non-resident hunters and landowners. They are seeing local farms tied up with leases and agreements with outfitters. This situation is very similar to Pike County IL where the middle class hunter can't afford to hunt anymore and the idea of getting permission to hunt without getting out your checkbook is laughable. This should not be our vision for Iowa! I take pride in the fact that Iowa is usually "behind the times" when compared to other states. I'll gladly trade our slow paced life and low crime rates for all the "progress" other states enjoy. Why would we allow hunters from out of state to come in and "help control the deer herd" when the residents are more then willing to do it. If the answer is $ then simply look at how quickly the bonus doe tags are sold throughout the state. Residents are willing to pay to play and until we stop doing our part we should always be given the first opportunity. Iowa ranks very low in amount of public land available; please don't support a bill that will further diminish our hunting opportunities. I look forward to your reply and again invite you to visit www.iowawhitetail.com for a more comprehensive look at Iowa hunters' opinions.
Lynn J. Schwager
[email protected]
M
Monster Doe
Guest
E-mail your Senator, it takes five minutes.
To find their e-mail address, go to the website Old Buck posted in this thread and just click on the "Find my Legislators" button.
To find their e-mail address, go to the website Old Buck posted in this thread and just click on the "Find my Legislators" button.
I wasn't going to post but I just can't resist.
I'm one to 'err on the conservative side. I think everyone is pretty happy now with what they've got why change? Yeah, change is good, yadda, yadda, yadda.
JonV, what drives you to want more non-res. tags issued when we the residents can do what needs to be done? I love deer meat, I love to hunt deer, let the residents have first access to all available antlerless deer tags and if there are any available after that let the non-res have a shot at them. I have a feeling they wouldn't get a chance because the Iowans would jump on them like hungry wolves.
Times are changing and apparently for the worse, I'm seeing more ground being bought and closed to locals.
Lately (last 4 years)I've gotten more phone calls from my landowners saying. "Sorry, just sold the farm, here's the new landowners name, I'll put in a good word for you." than phone calls coming in saying "Hey I just bought a farm near you, would you like to come and hunt?"
Okay, I did it, I'm done discussing anything to do with leasing, outfitting, and Non-Res. it just seems to cause friction between all of us.
Sorry if I offended anyone, but I felt like expressing my 1st ammendment.
Pupster
I'm one to 'err on the conservative side. I think everyone is pretty happy now with what they've got why change? Yeah, change is good, yadda, yadda, yadda.
JonV, what drives you to want more non-res. tags issued when we the residents can do what needs to be done? I love deer meat, I love to hunt deer, let the residents have first access to all available antlerless deer tags and if there are any available after that let the non-res have a shot at them. I have a feeling they wouldn't get a chance because the Iowans would jump on them like hungry wolves.
Times are changing and apparently for the worse, I'm seeing more ground being bought and closed to locals.
Lately (last 4 years)I've gotten more phone calls from my landowners saying. "Sorry, just sold the farm, here's the new landowners name, I'll put in a good word for you." than phone calls coming in saying "Hey I just bought a farm near you, would you like to come and hunt?"
Okay, I did it, I'm done discussing anything to do with leasing, outfitting, and Non-Res. it just seems to cause friction between all of us.
Sorry if I offended anyone, but I felt like expressing my 1st ammendment.
Pupster
Tomo
Member
Hi folks,
As a non-resident I can see that the talk about raising the amount of NR licenses is clearly about generating revenue for the state along with appeasing the insurance companies by reducing the herd. $328 x 6000 = $2 million. Not sure what a resident doe tag costs but I'm guessing it's nowhere near $328. The only problem is that NRs are coming to shoot your bucks not your does.
Be careful. We have the same thing going on here in South Dakota with pheasant hunting. I've been shooting pheasants for 10 years now with my father-in-law and his brothers who all grew up in the heart of pheasant country near Winner. 10 years ago we could hunt anywhere we wanted because they knew everyone. Every year since then it has become harder and harder to get permission. This year we were denied by long time friends because as they stated, With what these outfitters are paying us to hunt birds on our land we can pay three hired hands for a year.
Pheasant hunting is big business in SD and the resident hunters are the ones who have taken the hit. Plus the local businesses welcome the non-residents with open arms. You ought to see the price of a Super 8 motel room on opening day.
South Dakota is a big state but you wont see these outfitters setting up in Western SD because there are no birds there. Not saying that there are no deer in Western Iowa but they just dont have the reputation that SE Iowa has for big deer. Reminds me of Pike County, Illinois
Tomo
As a non-resident I can see that the talk about raising the amount of NR licenses is clearly about generating revenue for the state along with appeasing the insurance companies by reducing the herd. $328 x 6000 = $2 million. Not sure what a resident doe tag costs but I'm guessing it's nowhere near $328. The only problem is that NRs are coming to shoot your bucks not your does.
Be careful. We have the same thing going on here in South Dakota with pheasant hunting. I've been shooting pheasants for 10 years now with my father-in-law and his brothers who all grew up in the heart of pheasant country near Winner. 10 years ago we could hunt anywhere we wanted because they knew everyone. Every year since then it has become harder and harder to get permission. This year we were denied by long time friends because as they stated, With what these outfitters are paying us to hunt birds on our land we can pay three hired hands for a year.
Pheasant hunting is big business in SD and the resident hunters are the ones who have taken the hit. Plus the local businesses welcome the non-residents with open arms. You ought to see the price of a Super 8 motel room on opening day.
South Dakota is a big state but you wont see these outfitters setting up in Western SD because there are no birds there. Not saying that there are no deer in Western Iowa but they just dont have the reputation that SE Iowa has for big deer. Reminds me of Pike County, Illinois
Tomo
Daver
PMA Member
John V - a clarification please... I have read posts of yours where you talk about the personal frustration of asking permission and being denied, etc. and how this led you to purchase your own land, etc. Also, I believe you have remarked that it isn't difficult for a resident to get permission by asking, etc.
Yet in other posts you remark about how big a state Iowa is and that myself and others are over-reacting to NR's increasing influence. If Iowa in fact has as much "elbow room" as you seem to indicate how come you bought land to ensure a place to hunt? These comments seem to me to oppose each another, could you please explain this? ( BTW, I am being sincere in my question here.)
I can only tell about what I have experienced and what I know from others, and no I do not believe I am over-stating the situation in SE Iowa one bit. If there are another 6000 NR's, where do you think they are going to end up? I'd guess it is pretty likely they will target the aforementioned prime deer areas of the state and intensify the competition further.
I plan to write my legislator on this subject, thanks to Maggs for starting the post.
Yet in other posts you remark about how big a state Iowa is and that myself and others are over-reacting to NR's increasing influence. If Iowa in fact has as much "elbow room" as you seem to indicate how come you bought land to ensure a place to hunt? These comments seem to me to oppose each another, could you please explain this? ( BTW, I am being sincere in my question here.)
I can only tell about what I have experienced and what I know from others, and no I do not believe I am over-stating the situation in SE Iowa one bit. If there are another 6000 NR's, where do you think they are going to end up? I'd guess it is pretty likely they will target the aforementioned prime deer areas of the state and intensify the competition further.
I plan to write my legislator on this subject, thanks to Maggs for starting the post.
O
Ollie
Guest
I am a resident who owns land and hunts in southeast Iowa, Van Buren County to be exact. The previous post, in my opinion and observation, is overstating the impact of non-resident hunters, non-resident landowners, and lands being tied up by leasing. Yes, there are non-residents who are buying land in the area. Yes, there are some outfitters who lease land in the area. But to compare to Pike County, Illinois is a far, far stretch. There is more than adequate acreage for residents to gain permission to hunt, in addition to public game lands. This may be little consolation to those who find the property they are used to hunting has been sold or leased, but there are other places where permission can be secured by a polite person who is willing to do a little work knocking on doors.
I don't understand the attitude that even more license tags should go to residents and no more to non-residents. Just how many deer do you want to kill before we let a few additional non-residents enjoy the opportunity to hunt in Iowa? Right now just about any Iowa resident can kill two bucks by hunting two separate seasons and can kill as many does as they want by participating in many of the special doe reduction hunts that take place across the state. I don't mind the IDNR making more antlerless licenses available to resident hunters, but at the same time I see no justifiable reason, other than simple greed, to not have a modest increase in the number of non-resident tags.
I don't understand the attitude that even more license tags should go to residents and no more to non-residents. Just how many deer do you want to kill before we let a few additional non-residents enjoy the opportunity to hunt in Iowa? Right now just about any Iowa resident can kill two bucks by hunting two separate seasons and can kill as many does as they want by participating in many of the special doe reduction hunts that take place across the state. I don't mind the IDNR making more antlerless licenses available to resident hunters, but at the same time I see no justifiable reason, other than simple greed, to not have a modest increase in the number of non-resident tags.
john v,
I'll bet there used to be plenty of opportunities in Pike County, IL when they first became popular too. Every year it got a little worse and now my brother-in-law says it's not even worth trying to ask. The one thing IL has going for it is the "Golden Triangle" got so famous that the rest of the state got pretty much ignored. I know of a few places in the state that permission can still be gained simply by asking. As for my "greed" for deer, my county had 300 extra doe tags issued and I was gone when they became available. By the time I returned they were gone. I missed an opportunity to hunt in my area on properties that I've scouted and had stands established in. If they need more deer killed why not issue more tags for people like me? I live here and pay taxes all year and yet you don't think I'm justified by wanting to be at the front of the line for tags? I wish you the best of luck in SE Iowa as far as your hunting ground goes. I would love to be wrong about this issue but i don't think history supports that. $ will rule if we open the door! Maggs.
I'll bet there used to be plenty of opportunities in Pike County, IL when they first became popular too. Every year it got a little worse and now my brother-in-law says it's not even worth trying to ask. The one thing IL has going for it is the "Golden Triangle" got so famous that the rest of the state got pretty much ignored. I know of a few places in the state that permission can still be gained simply by asking. As for my "greed" for deer, my county had 300 extra doe tags issued and I was gone when they became available. By the time I returned they were gone. I missed an opportunity to hunt in my area on properties that I've scouted and had stands established in. If they need more deer killed why not issue more tags for people like me? I live here and pay taxes all year and yet you don't think I'm justified by wanting to be at the front of the line for tags? I wish you the best of luck in SE Iowa as far as your hunting ground goes. I would love to be wrong about this issue but i don't think history supports that. $ will rule if we open the door! Maggs.
M
Monster Doe
Guest
Maggs,
I have also sent mine.
Maybe we could do an online list of "signatures" from people who do not support the bill from this website. I totally agree with you and personally know quite a few iowawhitetail.com members that would like to shut the door on the proposed NR license increases, but want to stay out of the heated arguments that develop within topics related to it. I also know about 50-60 people that are not members who feel the same. Let's get something organized!
I have also sent mine.
Maybe we could do an online list of "signatures" from people who do not support the bill from this website. I totally agree with you and personally know quite a few iowawhitetail.com members that would like to shut the door on the proposed NR license increases, but want to stay out of the heated arguments that develop within topics related to it. I also know about 50-60 people that are not members who feel the same. Let's get something organized!
Hey doemaster, I would support anything that would help get the word out. I understand those who want to avoid the heated debates. I'm not trying to start a divisive issue here but I think everyone needs to stay informed. I'm also not against NR hunters. I've run into alot of them and have helped point them in the right direction when I knew something about the area they were hunting. I just don't think the number needs to be increased. I have family that has moved out of state as well & would love to have them come back & hunt with me but even they agree they'd rather participate in the draw and leave the access as easy as it is now. None of us can afford to lease land(maybe someday we'll be able to pool enough $ to purchase) but we're more then willing to share our kill and help out any way we can. It's worked well so far so why mess with success? Maggs.
It's easy to not worry about limited access when you have your own place already secured. To john v I say "Good for you. You've accomplished what many of us dream about. I hope to someday be in the same situation." But at the same time I'd ask you not to forget the rest of us; the majority of Iowa hunters who will never be in your position. If all the land (or at least the majority of it) is controlled by leases and outfitters at some point the landowners will need us non-landowning poor souls to at least thin out the does! The State is not big enough for all deer hunters to own their own little piece of heaven even if we did have the means to do so. Change is inevitable but that doesn't mean we can't affect it to make it positive change. Maggs.
I do have a small piece of ground in SE Iowa and am still very much opposed to a NR license increase. I have e-mailed both my representive and senator about this subject. The way I see it if we have another 6000 NR licenses and each one ties up 50 acres, either through leasing or outfitter leases, that ties up 300,000 acres of ground. That is a lot of square miles. I don't see that as a drop in the bucket.
Just thought I'd let everyone know Iowa Pheasants Forever sent me an e-mail over the weekend about the NR license increases. If we don't want these increases then we should contact our legislators and let as many people know about our feelings as possible. Don't holler if you don't try!!
W
WHTFANTASIES
Guest
John V
I guess it is easy for me to agree especially as a non resident who owns land in Iowa. We talk to several landowners ever year who welcome us back to hunt there property. We have developed a great number of frienships with some great people in Iowa . I have to tell you that this only adds to our excitement every year when we await the results of the draw .(our nonresident friends are almost as happy as we are to here when we have drawn). I agree the impact of the additional licenses is minimal and controled . All the people we know are also e-mailing ther legislators to cast there approval of raising the allocation of tags to nonresidents. They suprisingly enough are asking there friends to do the same. Bottom line we can all work together and keep it controlled, i could see the grip if they were adding 15,000 more tags . Lets face it, it took how long to just get it over 10,000 tags ,i really don't believe the legislation or the people are going to let it get out of control. I just wish they would let us as anonresident kill a doe and a buck. There have been years that on the last day or two i along with some friends have taken doe to allow the young buck a chance to grow .
I guess it is easy for me to agree especially as a non resident who owns land in Iowa. We talk to several landowners ever year who welcome us back to hunt there property. We have developed a great number of frienships with some great people in Iowa . I have to tell you that this only adds to our excitement every year when we await the results of the draw .(our nonresident friends are almost as happy as we are to here when we have drawn). I agree the impact of the additional licenses is minimal and controled . All the people we know are also e-mailing ther legislators to cast there approval of raising the allocation of tags to nonresidents. They suprisingly enough are asking there friends to do the same. Bottom line we can all work together and keep it controlled, i could see the grip if they were adding 15,000 more tags . Lets face it, it took how long to just get it over 10,000 tags ,i really don't believe the legislation or the people are going to let it get out of control. I just wish they would let us as anonresident kill a doe and a buck. There have been years that on the last day or two i along with some friends have taken doe to allow the young buck a chance to grow .
You guys have hit on exactly the reason why we're so fired up on this issue. In most parts of the State permission can still be had with a little legwork; although it sounds like the SE part of the State is changing fast. It's not so much the effect on the deer herd but on the opportunity to hunt. Sure we can afford 6000 more deer killed but we want the residents to have first shot at them. Until you have numerous leftover doe tags how can you say the residents can't or won't do the job. You talk about NR hunters and landowners being treated more fairly; hell it wasn't that long ago when there was no such thing. I've never posted on the topic of NR landowners & whether they should have an annual tag because that opens a whole new can of worms as to how do you manage it? As far as the family who has moved away, most Iowans can say that about a member of their family. I can too and I'd love for all my brothers and in-laws to come back & hunt every year but it just isn't going to happen. That's life and we deal with it, just as we deal with the odds of drawing a big game tag out west. Those are the rules and if you want to play then you follow them or you stay home.
It's no surprise that you have non-resident friends who are welcomed with open arms by the farmers here. Hell, I'd like to think we're all accomodating (sp?) to all the hunters we meet as long as they are responsible and ethical. Iowans are friendly and most farmers think there are too many deer. I'd hate to ever see that change. I just think that a majority of Iowa hunters feel that if money becomes the driving force behind deer hunting and hunting opportunities then we lose all the good things that go with it.
As far as Pike County IL how can you say that can't happen here? I'd like to see the total # of acres of public ground in IL compared to Iowa. What good does it do to spread out the tags into zones where they already don't sell out? The good zones will still sell out & then you bring on the specter of more outfitters, leasing and $ buys the deer. It's easy to argue for more NR tags when you A)Already own your own hunting ground B)Have alot of NR friends that you'd like to have come & hunt with you C)Know that with your income you'll be able to pay to play no matter how expensive the sport gets. I ask once again; "Don't forget about the rest of us middle-class Iowans who only want to continue to experience the joy of hunting the deer that we all consider our own".
As a closing note to any of our legislators who may have taken the time to visit I say; "Give Iowans a chance first. When we stop buying enough tags to thin the herd properly and according to our Biologists recommendations, then bring on the increase in NR tags. When we show you that we've been priced out of the market or that our freezers can't hold any more meat, then bring on the increase. Please don't encourage a situation that will only lead to less opportunities for us". There, I think I'm done now. Maggs.
It's no surprise that you have non-resident friends who are welcomed with open arms by the farmers here. Hell, I'd like to think we're all accomodating (sp?) to all the hunters we meet as long as they are responsible and ethical. Iowans are friendly and most farmers think there are too many deer. I'd hate to ever see that change. I just think that a majority of Iowa hunters feel that if money becomes the driving force behind deer hunting and hunting opportunities then we lose all the good things that go with it.
As far as Pike County IL how can you say that can't happen here? I'd like to see the total # of acres of public ground in IL compared to Iowa. What good does it do to spread out the tags into zones where they already don't sell out? The good zones will still sell out & then you bring on the specter of more outfitters, leasing and $ buys the deer. It's easy to argue for more NR tags when you A)Already own your own hunting ground B)Have alot of NR friends that you'd like to have come & hunt with you C)Know that with your income you'll be able to pay to play no matter how expensive the sport gets. I ask once again; "Don't forget about the rest of us middle-class Iowans who only want to continue to experience the joy of hunting the deer that we all consider our own".
As a closing note to any of our legislators who may have taken the time to visit I say; "Give Iowans a chance first. When we stop buying enough tags to thin the herd properly and according to our Biologists recommendations, then bring on the increase in NR tags. When we show you that we've been priced out of the market or that our freezers can't hold any more meat, then bring on the increase. Please don't encourage a situation that will only lead to less opportunities for us". There, I think I'm done now. Maggs.
Daver
PMA Member
All - some math clarification... increasing the NR tags from 8500 to 14,500 is a 6000 license increase, or in other words, getting pretty close to doubling the amount available.
If anyone thinks that NR's are not buying land in SE Iowa right now almost as fast it comes up they haven't spoken with a realtor in that area lately! Forget about deer hunting for a minute and imagine a region of our state that is predominantly owned by NR's. A recent Des Moines Register article said that 45% or so of a given southern Iowa county is already owned by NR's, many of whom have placed their dream farms in Forest Reserve and taken them off the tax roles! ( The 6-10 days they spend in a local motel each year doesn't do much for the local economy or community.)
I am troubled by that, it makes me think this state is shaping up as a deer hunting playground for the rich and famous while the greatest share of "locals" find land ownership beyond their reach. ( Even residents buying hunting land are predominantly not from the surrounding area, they are city dwellers looking to lock down a hunting place for the future.)
Think about the Iowa kid that graduates from "fill in the blank" high school in a given area, is his future destined to work for a wealthy landowner, be they a resident or NR? Sounds like we are heading for serfdom, because precious few are buying land to make a living farming it themselves.
John V - thanks for the clarification, that makes better sense now. I admire your dedication to your opinions and I am sure you are a great steward of the land you own. While I think we probably have more in common than some of these posts would suggest, I believe we do have an honest difference of opinion related to the effect of NR's. I have no problem with anyone in the world who does like you did, move to Iowa and work here and buy land. To me, that's the American Way, to reference other posts by others! Although, something tells me you had to sacrifice a bit to live here in terms of forfeiting a higher salary you could have earned elsewhere, etc.
I do have a problem with NR's wanting all the privileges an Iowa resident has, whether they are land owners or not. IMO more NR licenses will only intensify the phenomenon of people buying land strictly for deer hunting, which I think is ultimately detrimental to the "fabric" of the rural Iowa communities. Iowans live in Iowa, period. If you don't live in Iowa, you are a NR, simple.
To me it is not so much about the deer as it is the control of the land, be it via leasing or purchase. I agree that there are enough deer to support NR's killing a couple thousand more each year, the problem is that a disproportionate share of NR's want to either buy the land outright or control it via leasing. Say what you will, this shuts out local Iowans and I believe negatively affects local Iowa communities more than I think you are realizing.
Lastly, I really have serious doubts if the legislators are fully cognizant of the side effects of increasing NR licenses. IMO it could be argued that they are selling out the resident hunters and prospective local landowners, albeit indirectly and unintentionally, while they think they are somehow increasing tourism, DNR revenue or whatever.
If anyone thinks that NR's are not buying land in SE Iowa right now almost as fast it comes up they haven't spoken with a realtor in that area lately! Forget about deer hunting for a minute and imagine a region of our state that is predominantly owned by NR's. A recent Des Moines Register article said that 45% or so of a given southern Iowa county is already owned by NR's, many of whom have placed their dream farms in Forest Reserve and taken them off the tax roles! ( The 6-10 days they spend in a local motel each year doesn't do much for the local economy or community.)
I am troubled by that, it makes me think this state is shaping up as a deer hunting playground for the rich and famous while the greatest share of "locals" find land ownership beyond their reach. ( Even residents buying hunting land are predominantly not from the surrounding area, they are city dwellers looking to lock down a hunting place for the future.)
Think about the Iowa kid that graduates from "fill in the blank" high school in a given area, is his future destined to work for a wealthy landowner, be they a resident or NR? Sounds like we are heading for serfdom, because precious few are buying land to make a living farming it themselves.
John V - thanks for the clarification, that makes better sense now. I admire your dedication to your opinions and I am sure you are a great steward of the land you own. While I think we probably have more in common than some of these posts would suggest, I believe we do have an honest difference of opinion related to the effect of NR's. I have no problem with anyone in the world who does like you did, move to Iowa and work here and buy land. To me, that's the American Way, to reference other posts by others! Although, something tells me you had to sacrifice a bit to live here in terms of forfeiting a higher salary you could have earned elsewhere, etc.
I do have a problem with NR's wanting all the privileges an Iowa resident has, whether they are land owners or not. IMO more NR licenses will only intensify the phenomenon of people buying land strictly for deer hunting, which I think is ultimately detrimental to the "fabric" of the rural Iowa communities. Iowans live in Iowa, period. If you don't live in Iowa, you are a NR, simple.
To me it is not so much about the deer as it is the control of the land, be it via leasing or purchase. I agree that there are enough deer to support NR's killing a couple thousand more each year, the problem is that a disproportionate share of NR's want to either buy the land outright or control it via leasing. Say what you will, this shuts out local Iowans and I believe negatively affects local Iowa communities more than I think you are realizing.
Lastly, I really have serious doubts if the legislators are fully cognizant of the side effects of increasing NR licenses. IMO it could be argued that they are selling out the resident hunters and prospective local landowners, albeit indirectly and unintentionally, while they think they are somehow increasing tourism, DNR revenue or whatever.