S
Shoe
Guest
I have the answer to the entire problem.
NO non-residents at all ,
it will solve everything.
NO non-residents at all ,
it will solve everything.
License Fee
- Thread starter Little Al
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
kbgibby
Threebeards
While I don't always agree completely with what the DNR does, it never ceases to amaze me how some people on this forum fault the DNR for raising license fees to generate operating funds, especially during the recent years' budget cuts. Yet these same people are some of the first to complain about lack of enforcement.
On the whole, the DNR has done a good job managing the state's deer herd which is primarily why we have so many people coming here for trophy deer. If we've got a prime commodity (big bucks) that people are willing to pay for, why not make the most of it by charging what the market will bear for non-resident licenses. It is so typical of Iowa to lose out in situations like this because we fail to take advantage of our strengths (and as a native Iowan I can say that!)
What concerns me is the increase in the number of outfitters or game farms, many of them from out of state, who are buying or leasing private land. The license fee is the smallest portion of what they charge for these hunts and the only part of the money that's staying in the state of Iowa. If we do anything, we should license the outfitters!
I've sounded off on this before so won't take up any more time here.
On the whole, the DNR has done a good job managing the state's deer herd which is primarily why we have so many people coming here for trophy deer. If we've got a prime commodity (big bucks) that people are willing to pay for, why not make the most of it by charging what the market will bear for non-resident licenses. It is so typical of Iowa to lose out in situations like this because we fail to take advantage of our strengths (and as a native Iowan I can say that!)
What concerns me is the increase in the number of outfitters or game farms, many of them from out of state, who are buying or leasing private land. The license fee is the smallest portion of what they charge for these hunts and the only part of the money that's staying in the state of Iowa. If we do anything, we should license the outfitters!
I've sounded off on this before so won't take up any more time here.
moosehunter
PMA Member
OK. Here is an explaination at the end of SF 18. It is pretty much black and white.
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 license.
Think about this for a minute. Increase anysex tags to 12,000 and concentrate that number to the states most productive areas, what do you think is gonna happen. What are many of these hunters gonna shoot when they don't see that wall hanger and theres one day left in their season. How much pressure can the deer herd take. The DNR and the Legislature needs to here from us NOW.
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 license.
Think about this for a minute. Increase anysex tags to 12,000 and concentrate that number to the states most productive areas, what do you think is gonna happen. What are many of these hunters gonna shoot when they don't see that wall hanger and theres one day left in their season. How much pressure can the deer herd take. The DNR and the Legislature needs to here from us NOW.
bjkpharmd
New Member
I need to clarify soemthing I probably didn't say very well. I want to give a big thanks to the DNR, the job they do with their budget is incredible. Thanks guys. If this fee debate is about money then keep the numbers of NR tags the same but increase the price. Keeping the numbers the same but increasing the price will add $ without more pressure than the current number of tags. Why should I be worried about what it costs as long as the NR is willing to pay. I just wish the DNR actually got the money. There are alot of folks posting here talking about pricing people out of the game in Iowa. Adding a doe tag or whatever to their NR permit- I'm sure that if you are here to hunt meat you could do so cheaper at home. I had friends that were residents that wanted to hunt the bonus season in Van Buren but tags were gone. Iowa has already missed a great revenue opportunity & as far as other states with lower fees- are people beating a path to their door?
Rackaddict
Life Member
Hey guys, Have you ever taken a moment to think about what the price of a resident hunting license would cost you if you had to absorb the loss of state income by eliminating NR hunting? I have read many posts in the past saying that the state is broke etc. State revenue has to come from somewhere. Maybe you would be happier paying higher taxes. I'm sure all the anti hunters love this kind of bickering between people who should be on the same team. Kind of sad when you think about it.
G
Guest
Guest
I would like to think that our Iowa legislature has more to worry about than NR deer hunting quotas/fees. I mean, this is an every year thing! It is getting old. I know alot of the oufitters have gotten together to pressure for increases. Perhaps of they would let up, we might be able to balance our budget, worry about our schools,roads,infrastructure,hog lots, crime,creating jobs, etc. But screw that...MORE NR TAGS BABY!!!!!!!! I love politics.
I have already expressed my thoughts about increases in NR license numbers, and the price has nothing to do with it. I have gotten tired of everyone saying that Iowa's NR fees are way to high, so I checked some other states.
Wyoming deer sp $320 + sg $75 =$395.00
New Mex deer qual $$310 + $75 =$385.00
S Dakota Spec buck $505 + $100 =$605.00
Reg deer $155 + 100 = $255.00
Minn multizone buck$251 + $78. =$329.00
These are just a few that I picked at random, but it doesn't look like our fees are much out of line. I think we can offer better quality hunting than most of these states.
I don't think that we should limit the numbers of NR hunters by the price of licenses. I agree that we would have just as many hunters and probaly many more problems with leasing and NR land ownership. With the higher fees would come more affluent hunters with the resourses to lease or buy large tracs of land, or hunt with outfitters who would do the same thing. This wouldn't help our problems with land avalibility. I think the only fair way is still to limit the number of licenses. I don't think we should be passive on this issue. If you haven't done so yet please contact your Senator and ask him to say NO to increasing the NR licenses to 14500.
I hunt in some other states and don't them to limit my access by the amount of money I can afford for a license. If the main reason for the proposed increase is revenue for the DNR then we need to find a better way to raise money. I think there should be a guide or outfitter license. If there was a substancial fee for this that went strictly to the DNR, the outfitters would just pass it along to their customers whom we all know have way to much money any way. I would also not mind a small increase in our resident fees if it would actually help our DNR. My licenses are the cheapest part of my hunting and fishing gear, and gives me a lot of inexpensive entertainment.
Wyoming deer sp $320 + sg $75 =$395.00
New Mex deer qual $$310 + $75 =$385.00
S Dakota Spec buck $505 + $100 =$605.00
Reg deer $155 + 100 = $255.00
Minn multizone buck$251 + $78. =$329.00
These are just a few that I picked at random, but it doesn't look like our fees are much out of line. I think we can offer better quality hunting than most of these states.
I don't think that we should limit the numbers of NR hunters by the price of licenses. I agree that we would have just as many hunters and probaly many more problems with leasing and NR land ownership. With the higher fees would come more affluent hunters with the resourses to lease or buy large tracs of land, or hunt with outfitters who would do the same thing. This wouldn't help our problems with land avalibility. I think the only fair way is still to limit the number of licenses. I don't think we should be passive on this issue. If you haven't done so yet please contact your Senator and ask him to say NO to increasing the NR licenses to 14500.
I hunt in some other states and don't them to limit my access by the amount of money I can afford for a license. If the main reason for the proposed increase is revenue for the DNR then we need to find a better way to raise money. I think there should be a guide or outfitter license. If there was a substancial fee for this that went strictly to the DNR, the outfitters would just pass it along to their customers whom we all know have way to much money any way. I would also not mind a small increase in our resident fees if it would actually help our DNR. My licenses are the cheapest part of my hunting and fishing gear, and gives me a lot of inexpensive entertainment.
M
Monster Doe
Guest
Iowans,
SF 18 IS BAD FOR US! This may be redundant, but use the link above to find who your congresspeople are and tell them to deny their support to the bill! More NR tags=more NR landowners, leases, and big money outfitters.
Pharmer,
I totally agree with you. The demand is there, shouldn't the price follow? Yes.
As far as the reciprocal license pricing proposed by other states, who cares? Chances are it will be bordering states that don't have as much to offer as our own state, at least when it comes to quality whitetails. Missouri (PE #1) can charge $5000 for all I care, I don't think any of us will lose sleep over it.
SF 18 IS BAD FOR US! This may be redundant, but use the link above to find who your congresspeople are and tell them to deny their support to the bill! More NR tags=more NR landowners, leases, and big money outfitters.
Pharmer,
I totally agree with you. The demand is there, shouldn't the price follow? Yes.
As far as the reciprocal license pricing proposed by other states, who cares? Chances are it will be bordering states that don't have as much to offer as our own state, at least when it comes to quality whitetails. Missouri (PE #1) can charge $5000 for all I care, I don't think any of us will lose sleep over it.
I want all of us to realize what some people have been saying about this issue. Those who say "I don't care what other states do", or "let the demand dictate the price of NR licenses" "no NR hunters peroid". I know that some of these things are said in frustration and with sarcasim, but we as hunters can't afford to be so short sited. We can not isolate ourselves just because we have great deer hunting right now, that might not be the case in a few years. What happens when some of us want to expand our hunting or fishing horizons? These kinds of things effect all of us as hunters.
I just read that hunter numbers dropped by 7% from 1996 to 2002 with continued drops projected. We need to stop this trend before we no longer have the political power to avoid hunting bans, and it can't be done by baning hunters based on their disposable income. Unless we do something ourselves no one will do it for us. Wheather we like it or not hunters aren't very well thought of in the USA and world wide and this kind of selfish isolisim will only make it worse.
I am against increasing the numbers of NR, but I don't want to do it by price because sooner or later this will come back to haunt us. I have a while to go before retirement, but I have a lot of plans for hunting and fishing trips outside of Iowa. If we let price alone dictate, people on limited or fixed incomes are eliminated and that could be me or you in a few years. Why do we have the right to tell a person that if they don't have $2000.00 for a license they can't hunt deer or elk, or bears, or pheasants, or anything else which is not a very limited quanity such as Big Horn or Dall sheep? The current fee of $310.00 should not create a real hardship on any hunter wanting to come to Iowa, but we need to be realistic about price increases.
Bottom line if you are against this bill then contact your Senator and let them know. They can't know how we fell with some kind of dialog.
I just read that hunter numbers dropped by 7% from 1996 to 2002 with continued drops projected. We need to stop this trend before we no longer have the political power to avoid hunting bans, and it can't be done by baning hunters based on their disposable income. Unless we do something ourselves no one will do it for us. Wheather we like it or not hunters aren't very well thought of in the USA and world wide and this kind of selfish isolisim will only make it worse.
I am against increasing the numbers of NR, but I don't want to do it by price because sooner or later this will come back to haunt us. I have a while to go before retirement, but I have a lot of plans for hunting and fishing trips outside of Iowa. If we let price alone dictate, people on limited or fixed incomes are eliminated and that could be me or you in a few years. Why do we have the right to tell a person that if they don't have $2000.00 for a license they can't hunt deer or elk, or bears, or pheasants, or anything else which is not a very limited quanity such as Big Horn or Dall sheep? The current fee of $310.00 should not create a real hardship on any hunter wanting to come to Iowa, but we need to be realistic about price increases.
Bottom line if you are against this bill then contact your Senator and let them know. They can't know how we fell with some kind of dialog.
jharrell
New Member
Bowmaker, I appreciate your posts, I truly hope the deer herd holds out for all Iowa residents with CWD being so prevalent just across your boarders.
As far as the reasons I hunt, they don't have to do with meat. For what I pay a year to hunt, I could buy a butchered beef and that would be the case if I just hunted at home if I figure in all my hunting gear. I don't hunt for the racks. More than not I have come home from Iowa with a doe. I would go as far to say I wouldn't hunt Iowa if I hadn't married a Iowa girl with a farmer for a dad that loves bow hunting. His love for it infected me. He taught me how and now I have been hunting with him for over 13 years. 13 years ago tags were less than $100 but deer hunting meant diddly squat back then. I wonder how many in this post have been bow hunting Iowa for over 13 years. If you have, you didn't get into it because the equipment was fancy or the camo was scent free and you could get it in 10 different patterns, because that stuff didn't exist, or because you were looking for the P&Y buck of a lifetime, I didn't even know there was such a thing, you did it because there is no other one on one sport like it. We have a group of three or four guys that hunt Missouri, Iowa and Colorado. We have been to Colorado for the last four years with one cow being the only take for all of us for the last four years. Obviously we don't go for the meat or the racks but for the rolls of pictures, fellowship, laughs and comradery. Those things are priceless. Unfortunately Colorado is getting a bit pricey as is Iowa so there will be less of those great times in the future. You don't have to have a dead animal to be successful in my book. If a animal you are hunting comes within your range you have done what you came out to do.
What does this have to do about fees? Nothing really, I'm just getting tired of hearing from all these people who seem to know why everybody comes to Iowa to hunt. You don't know why, so don't assume you do. You can't put a price on why I hunt but you can price me out of hunting. I do not agree with SF18 but I don't agree that prices should be any higher either. If the DNR needs more deer management then put more deer on one tag. I don't care if it is resident or non as long as it gets the job done.
I would like to think we are in this hunting thing together but...
As far as the reasons I hunt, they don't have to do with meat. For what I pay a year to hunt, I could buy a butchered beef and that would be the case if I just hunted at home if I figure in all my hunting gear. I don't hunt for the racks. More than not I have come home from Iowa with a doe. I would go as far to say I wouldn't hunt Iowa if I hadn't married a Iowa girl with a farmer for a dad that loves bow hunting. His love for it infected me. He taught me how and now I have been hunting with him for over 13 years. 13 years ago tags were less than $100 but deer hunting meant diddly squat back then. I wonder how many in this post have been bow hunting Iowa for over 13 years. If you have, you didn't get into it because the equipment was fancy or the camo was scent free and you could get it in 10 different patterns, because that stuff didn't exist, or because you were looking for the P&Y buck of a lifetime, I didn't even know there was such a thing, you did it because there is no other one on one sport like it. We have a group of three or four guys that hunt Missouri, Iowa and Colorado. We have been to Colorado for the last four years with one cow being the only take for all of us for the last four years. Obviously we don't go for the meat or the racks but for the rolls of pictures, fellowship, laughs and comradery. Those things are priceless. Unfortunately Colorado is getting a bit pricey as is Iowa so there will be less of those great times in the future. You don't have to have a dead animal to be successful in my book. If a animal you are hunting comes within your range you have done what you came out to do.
What does this have to do about fees? Nothing really, I'm just getting tired of hearing from all these people who seem to know why everybody comes to Iowa to hunt. You don't know why, so don't assume you do. You can't put a price on why I hunt but you can price me out of hunting. I do not agree with SF18 but I don't agree that prices should be any higher either. If the DNR needs more deer management then put more deer on one tag. I don't care if it is resident or non as long as it gets the job done.
I would like to think we are in this hunting thing together but...
Headgear
I hope you don't think I'm against NR hunters because I'm not. I don't like the idea of having 14500 of them in Wapello, Davis, and Van Buren counties, but any hunter with values like you talk about is always welcome. Our deer hunting could be gone in two years with CWD, black tonge, and west nile, and then where would we all be. The old saying is we can fight together or sink alone. I don't want to be that lonley!
I hope you don't think I'm against NR hunters because I'm not. I don't like the idea of having 14500 of them in Wapello, Davis, and Van Buren counties, but any hunter with values like you talk about is always welcome. Our deer hunting could be gone in two years with CWD, black tonge, and west nile, and then where would we all be. The old saying is we can fight together or sink alone. I don't want to be that lonley!
N
Ned Flanders
Guest
Up until now I have always just sat back and enjoyed reading this message board, but this topic is too important to not add my two cents.
Bowmaker hit the nail on the head with his comment about 14,000 non-residents hunting in his area. The truth of the matter is that 95% of those 14,000 non-residents would be hunting in the top 15 or so counties. Evenly spread out this number would be bad enough, but the majority of Iowa doesn't have great deer hunting. Nobody is paying to hunt in Grundy County. You ever been to the northcentral part of the state? The only trees you see are in farmyards. Those of us that live in the "prime" areas are already up to our necks with fellow hunters competing for a finite amount of hunting space.
I can't afford to pay to hunt, simple as that. Don't even bring up hunting on public land, thats a joke in itself. The more non-resident tags out there, the more land that will be bought or leased by non-residents. This puts a squeeze on the remaining hunting areas, and pretty soon I have to bid against my neighbor and pay to hunt farms I used to hunt on a handshake.
What would I like to see done? Leave the number of NR tags where it is and give out an equal amount of NR tags for each county and make the tags good for that county only, to keep counties like Van Buren, Allamakee, etc. from being taken over like Pike County Ill. has been. Spread em out over the whole state.
If the DNR is scrapped for cash, I don't have all the answers. But letting in 6,000 more NR is only hurting the hunting experience for Iowa hunters. The DNR should put whats best for the deer population first, whats best for Iowa hunters next, and if there is room for non-residents left give them third billing.
I don't blame anyone from out of state for wanting to hunt Iowa or buy hunting land in Iowa, but there just ain't room enough at the inn for 14,000 of em.
Bowmaker hit the nail on the head with his comment about 14,000 non-residents hunting in his area. The truth of the matter is that 95% of those 14,000 non-residents would be hunting in the top 15 or so counties. Evenly spread out this number would be bad enough, but the majority of Iowa doesn't have great deer hunting. Nobody is paying to hunt in Grundy County. You ever been to the northcentral part of the state? The only trees you see are in farmyards. Those of us that live in the "prime" areas are already up to our necks with fellow hunters competing for a finite amount of hunting space.
I can't afford to pay to hunt, simple as that. Don't even bring up hunting on public land, thats a joke in itself. The more non-resident tags out there, the more land that will be bought or leased by non-residents. This puts a squeeze on the remaining hunting areas, and pretty soon I have to bid against my neighbor and pay to hunt farms I used to hunt on a handshake.
What would I like to see done? Leave the number of NR tags where it is and give out an equal amount of NR tags for each county and make the tags good for that county only, to keep counties like Van Buren, Allamakee, etc. from being taken over like Pike County Ill. has been. Spread em out over the whole state.
If the DNR is scrapped for cash, I don't have all the answers. But letting in 6,000 more NR is only hurting the hunting experience for Iowa hunters. The DNR should put whats best for the deer population first, whats best for Iowa hunters next, and if there is room for non-residents left give them third billing.
I don't blame anyone from out of state for wanting to hunt Iowa or buy hunting land in Iowa, but there just ain't room enough at the inn for 14,000 of em.
G
Guest
Guest
I actually don't mind hunters from neighboring states like Missouri. Some of my best friends are from Missouri
They don't tend to lease so much, will visit several times to scout, and understand what we are going thru in regards to leasing, etc.
I have to agree with the fellows above. Most of the NRs hunt in this part of the state. And down here, it is not just an endless array of deer habitat. It is only two counties wide on the bottom part of the state....not alot of room down here. I just have always thought it would be neat if NRs would put as much effort and $ into the deer herd in their own state instead of worrying about the laws in ours. Then there would be no worries. Like anyone else, we get tired of having outsiders telling us how to run our herd.
I have to agree with the fellows above. Most of the NRs hunt in this part of the state. And down here, it is not just an endless array of deer habitat. It is only two counties wide on the bottom part of the state....not alot of room down here. I just have always thought it would be neat if NRs would put as much effort and $ into the deer herd in their own state instead of worrying about the laws in ours. Then there would be no worries. Like anyone else, we get tired of having outsiders telling us how to run our herd.