J_Barton
Member
This may have been brought up before.....owning land, be it by a resident or non-resident owner, does not entitle you to deer or any other wildlife. All free roaming wildlife in Iowa belong to the State of Iowa. The State of Iowa is composed of it's voting residents and goverment only.
Essentially, non-residents have no voice in our wildlife decisions. They can do whatever they want with their land, but not the deer. If they want rights to the deer on their land, they should high fence the property, and then compensate the State of Iowa.
Shouldn't the voting residents of Iowa be threatening lawsuits to pursue their State of Iowa wildlife on NR land that is off limits ??
Essentially, non-residents have no voice in our wildlife decisions. They can do whatever they want with their land, but not the deer. If they want rights to the deer on their land, they should high fence the property, and then compensate the State of Iowa.
Shouldn't the voting residents of Iowa be threatening lawsuits to pursue their State of Iowa wildlife on NR land that is off limits ??
Limb Chicken
Active Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">as a voter in iowa, i would think i have the right to call any and all lawmaker's ethics into question. especially in this time of corporate bailouts, and watchig these bailout fund go to bonuses for the very people that drove these banks into the ground. </div></div>
This is true but keep your friends close and your enemies closer. When I write I pretend I am talking to my Mom. If I wouldn't talk to my Mom in the tone or manner that I am writing it probably isn't going to be too well received. Yes you vote but these people are also human beings. I understand this is a passionate issue but sometimes we need to take a step back and look at how we are acting/being perceived. Just food for thought.
Be the squeaky wheel but be the one that gets the grease, not the one that gets replaced. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
This is true but keep your friends close and your enemies closer. When I write I pretend I am talking to my Mom. If I wouldn't talk to my Mom in the tone or manner that I am writing it probably isn't going to be too well received. Yes you vote but these people are also human beings. I understand this is a passionate issue but sometimes we need to take a step back and look at how we are acting/being perceived. Just food for thought.
Be the squeaky wheel but be the one that gets the grease, not the one that gets replaced. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
BJohnson
Well-Known Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Yes you vote but these people are also human beings. I understand this is a passionate issue but sometimes we need to take a step back and look at how we are acting/being perceived.</div></div>
I agree and also look at it this way. The only real reason I can figure out that Dr. Hellickson posts on IW is to excite our passions and most likely negatively impact the manner in which we communicate our positions to our legislators. If he is successful (i.e. we communicate to the legislators in an unpolite manner), he may garner more support from legislators frustrated by such unpoliteness. If we keep our emails civil I don't see how his posts here do anything but merely up the posts on whatever topics he starts and also increase the level of CIVIL communications by most of us to our state legislators (which in the end should hurt FOI's chances).
Think about it.
I agree and also look at it this way. The only real reason I can figure out that Dr. Hellickson posts on IW is to excite our passions and most likely negatively impact the manner in which we communicate our positions to our legislators. If he is successful (i.e. we communicate to the legislators in an unpolite manner), he may garner more support from legislators frustrated by such unpoliteness. If we keep our emails civil I don't see how his posts here do anything but merely up the posts on whatever topics he starts and also increase the level of CIVIL communications by most of us to our state legislators (which in the end should hurt FOI's chances).
Think about it.
blake
Life Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Elkhunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not saying anyone hasn't been, but please be polite and respectful.
The legislators I've dealt with, only want what is best for Iowa.Sometimes they don't understand all the ramifications.Most have no idea what a deer management program is.
Please be polite. </div></div>
I am fully aware of the merits of being polite and always using good manners when contacting state and federal representatives.
However, it seems the older I get the less tolerant I am for many of our representatives. Many have been in office far too long and are way too friendly with lobbyist and big money. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif
Then we have the new representatives, who appear to be totally clueless………. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif
We even have some state employees at high level positions who are supposed to have the best interest of Iowa residents and the renewable game resources in mind. What are these people thinking?
Sorry, I have no tolerance for stupidity! /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif
PM
Ron Wyllie
Southwest Iowa IBA Area Representative
[email protected]
BJohnson
Well-Known Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Brent,
Thank you for contacting me about this issue. I served on this committee during the interim last year and I can tell you that there are no impartial members on the committee. The insurance companies are representing their interests, the hunters are representing theirs, the farmers are representing theirs, I am not fearful of another group representing it's interests limiting the ability of the committee to reach consensus. We shouldn't be scared to hear the perspectives of others no matter how much we disagree with them. I am not opposed to them being on the committee, I am opposed to large increases in the number of out of state deer tags like this organization seeks because I believe you are correct in your thoughts about what the end result will be. I am not scared of hearing their concerns and disagreeing with them I do it all the time on lot's of different issues with lot of different people so I guess maybe it doesn't bother me as much.
One thing I would like your opinion in this area is a the idea of requiring out of state hunters to earn their buck by filling 2 or 3 doe tags first. If we did this could we increase the number of out of state tags without losing the ability to manage the heard?
I look forward to hearing back from you,
State Representative McKinley Bailey
</div></div>
I will say that Mr. Bailey is not afraid to disagree with people as evidenced by his separation from other Dems related to the recent vote on state bidded contracts. I appreciated his personal reply to my email also. I told him I would think about his question and get back to him on my opinions. First off, my concern would be in the enforcement of such a requirement as the DNR staff probably is not adequate to handle this issue and I have heard stories of outfitters in WI getting busted for shooting does for their "clients" before arrival so they could hunt bucks on day one of their booked hunts. Secondly, I also do not see how this would lessen the impact on future land access issues. Any other opinions as to what Mr. Bailey should hear on this question??
Thank you for contacting me about this issue. I served on this committee during the interim last year and I can tell you that there are no impartial members on the committee. The insurance companies are representing their interests, the hunters are representing theirs, the farmers are representing theirs, I am not fearful of another group representing it's interests limiting the ability of the committee to reach consensus. We shouldn't be scared to hear the perspectives of others no matter how much we disagree with them. I am not opposed to them being on the committee, I am opposed to large increases in the number of out of state deer tags like this organization seeks because I believe you are correct in your thoughts about what the end result will be. I am not scared of hearing their concerns and disagreeing with them I do it all the time on lot's of different issues with lot of different people so I guess maybe it doesn't bother me as much.
One thing I would like your opinion in this area is a the idea of requiring out of state hunters to earn their buck by filling 2 or 3 doe tags first. If we did this could we increase the number of out of state tags without losing the ability to manage the heard?
I look forward to hearing back from you,
State Representative McKinley Bailey
</div></div>
I will say that Mr. Bailey is not afraid to disagree with people as evidenced by his separation from other Dems related to the recent vote on state bidded contracts. I appreciated his personal reply to my email also. I told him I would think about his question and get back to him on my opinions. First off, my concern would be in the enforcement of such a requirement as the DNR staff probably is not adequate to handle this issue and I have heard stories of outfitters in WI getting busted for shooting does for their "clients" before arrival so they could hunt bucks on day one of their booked hunts. Secondly, I also do not see how this would lessen the impact on future land access issues. Any other opinions as to what Mr. Bailey should hear on this question??
risto2351
Well-Known Member
BWJ,
I guess I am wondering why we need to make the NR earn a buck
with shooting 2 or three does when what we are doing now is reducing the deer herd? /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif
With the increased fee for NR tags (hopefully) and the reduced population what we are doing except with a little tweaking is working.
Good point on future land access issues and outfitters. As soon as the gate is open we will have problems.
I guess I am wondering why we need to make the NR earn a buck
with shooting 2 or three does when what we are doing now is reducing the deer herd? /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif
With the increased fee for NR tags (hopefully) and the reduced population what we are doing except with a little tweaking is working.
Good point on future land access issues and outfitters. As soon as the gate is open we will have problems.
HighJumper
Member
Couple things I have issue with. I understand this legislator to be straight foreword in his thinking and not easily influenced by a group like this, but he is only one legislator. As we all know money talks in politics. Lobbyists frequently write the rules that are voted on. This FOI outfit can make their opinions known without being given a seat at a dinner table where they do not belong.
On the subject of earn a buck for non-residents to allow an increase in NR tags and still control the population? You have got to be kidding. Why would we third party contract a job that our residents are doing and want to continue doing, to Non Residents and increase resident hunter displacement and decrease the opportunit for our residents. We must maintain resident access to this State resource. 6,000 is the number. Thats it.
I personally would be happy to pay more for tags if it would put this issue to bed because this is really about money. I will support a sales tax percentage dedicated to IDNR, but I am tired of the constant effort to give Non Residents more opportunity when we all know that takes away from resident opportunities. I want my kids to have somewhere to hunt even if I cant spare 3500 bucks a pop to hunt in my own state.
On the subject of earn a buck for non-residents to allow an increase in NR tags and still control the population? You have got to be kidding. Why would we third party contract a job that our residents are doing and want to continue doing, to Non Residents and increase resident hunter displacement and decrease the opportunit for our residents. We must maintain resident access to this State resource. 6,000 is the number. Thats it.
I personally would be happy to pay more for tags if it would put this issue to bed because this is really about money. I will support a sales tax percentage dedicated to IDNR, but I am tired of the constant effort to give Non Residents more opportunity when we all know that takes away from resident opportunities. I want my kids to have somewhere to hunt even if I cant spare 3500 bucks a pop to hunt in my own state.
teeroy
Life Member
if FOI gets a seat at the table, representing a few hundred NRLO's, where is the equal representation for the 100,000 resident deer hunters?
i've said it before, but FOI getting a seat on the deer committee, is akin to china getting a seat on the senate.
i do like representative bailey's attitude about hearing them out, and disagreeing with them, but its the representatives that don't have any idea about hunting, and don't know any better, who could easily be swayed, that don't need to hear FOI's b.s.
i've said it before, but FOI getting a seat on the deer committee, is akin to china getting a seat on the senate.
i do like representative bailey's attitude about hearing them out, and disagreeing with them, but its the representatives that don't have any idea about hunting, and don't know any better, who could easily be swayed, that don't need to hear FOI's b.s.
moosehunter
PMA Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> One thing I would like your opinion in this area is a the idea of requiring out of state hunters to earn their buck by filling 2 or 3 doe tags first. If we did this could we increase the number of out of state tags without losing the ability to manage the heard?
</div></div>
I agree with Brent. It would be hard to enforce. Also, I don't think we need to ask NR to earn a buck unless we have to. And I think Iowa would loose NR sales as well. If I was a NR coming here for a week to hunt but had to spend the 1st however many days shooting does I might concider going somewhere else.
</div></div>
I agree with Brent. It would be hard to enforce. Also, I don't think we need to ask NR to earn a buck unless we have to. And I think Iowa would loose NR sales as well. If I was a NR coming here for a week to hunt but had to spend the 1st however many days shooting does I might concider going somewhere else.
The earn a buck for any deer hunters in Iowa is unenforceable, and especially so with out check stations. If you thought that NR bow hunters abused the antlerless bow tags because the temptation was just too much, what do you think would happen when 2 does and a 180 buck stop at a pile of Come Here Deer and no doe tags had been filled yet? I doubt that one of the does gets shot! Before some get upset let me add the usual disclaimer. I am not saying that all NR bow hunters would do this, but those who caved in before and put a doe tag on a big Iowa buck because they just could not stand it, would certainly cave in again and a good number of others as well. This is the main reason given by the IDNR for not having those bow tags any longer for NRs. Even with check stations I have heard of several hunters checking in the same doe up in Wisconsin for their earn a buck program. The other thing, as I have been preaching, we are already killing too many does for future good hunting in Iowa.