loneranger
Well-Known Member
I have been emailing some of the Reps.One has responded, and told me he had not heard of a proposal yet to raise general Out-of-State quotas, but he had heard rumors about changing the Out-a-State Land Owner rules.
Non Res Landowner Permits, may be on the Table:
- Thread starter loneranger
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
I do not own land Iowa yet but plan to buy lext few years. I will be going to Denver Colorado to start my job after graduation. I think that this need to be changed. If you pay property tax, why should't you get a reduced tag. The flip to this is that everyone out of state would try to buy land in Iowa so that they can hunt Iowa cheap. Its a flip for me.
C
cheryl19
Guest
way you avoid that is by putting minimum land limits on the rule, has to be some amount of acreage that wont allow just anyone to come in, by 1 acre of land and suddenly this person qualifies for tags. I think, it is 40 acres in illinois an kansas, but I am not sure. other rules like only 1 owner per parcel no matter how big. cant have 10 guys buying 100 acres land now they are getting tags. It is a tricky subject. Lot of variables,
Kansasdeerslayer
PMA Member
KS minimum is 80 acres to get landowner tags.
N
nine
Guest
You can check up coming bills on the iowa government website. I heard there is a bill for more tags for nons but have not checked into it my self. it would be on the website before alot of reps would see it if they on not on the nat resource committee..
jkratz5
Well-Known Member
IL has a 40 acre minimum, but I do believe if 10 guys go in on 400 acres that all 10 can get landowner tags, don't quote me on that but I do believe that is how the regs read. I am up in the air about the rule personally and know that if IA passed it and I was leaving this state I would probably look to purchase a chunk of land because of the quality of hunting we have. I think this will be a hard one to push through as I believe there are alot of voices out there that will push for this not to happen.
C
cheryl19
Guest
like i said, has to be some regulations in place, you know maybe if the minimum land is 80 acres and 3 guys buy 240 then they get 3 tags, something like that , multiples of 80, etc. at that rate I could buy land and list my 20 friends as co-owners and then it becomes something very bad. I believe the state should give something to the non resident landowner but not give them enough to destroy the great hunting that iowa offers
N
nine
Guest
Re: Non Res Landowner Permits, may be on the Table
look at the bill under the thread Bill nothing saying anything about non landowner tags. End of discussion.....
look at the bill under the thread Bill nothing saying anything about non landowner tags. End of discussion.....
C
cheryl19
Guest
Re: Non Res Landowner Permits, may be on the Table
we can go on and on and on, its endless debate, so in summary, why not, non resident landowners make a contribution to the great state of Iowa , if all they want to do is shoot few deer on their own propery, what the heck is the big deal, i realize the issue is greater than etc,, but at the end of the day that is what we are talking about 1-2 deer a year. what about doe mangement some guy has 400 acres land or whatever, you dont think he should at least be able to kill a bunch of doe's every year. i never said iowa should open the flood gates and make it a free for all.
we can go on and on and on, its endless debate, so in summary, why not, non resident landowners make a contribution to the great state of Iowa , if all they want to do is shoot few deer on their own propery, what the heck is the big deal, i realize the issue is greater than etc,, but at the end of the day that is what we are talking about 1-2 deer a year. what about doe mangement some guy has 400 acres land or whatever, you dont think he should at least be able to kill a bunch of doe's every year. i never said iowa should open the flood gates and make it a free for all.
dbltree
Super Moderator
Re: Non Res Landowner Permits, may be on the Table
[ QUOTE ]
if it does pass, looks like I will be stuck on public ground the rest of my life, and my kids, and their kids
[/ QUOTE ]
All the more reason to keep fighting to prevent something like this from happening.
[ QUOTE ]
he had heard rumors about changing the Out-a-State Land Owner rules
[/ QUOTE ]
There may be nothing in writing but if a legislator says they've heard rumors...then that's enough to shoot them an email letting them know how you feel.
I'd rather discuss just about anything but the "politics" of deer hunting but if we want anyplace for our future hunters to hunt...we better understand that this "discussion" will never end...
[ QUOTE ]
if it does pass, looks like I will be stuck on public ground the rest of my life, and my kids, and their kids
[/ QUOTE ]
All the more reason to keep fighting to prevent something like this from happening.
[ QUOTE ]
he had heard rumors about changing the Out-a-State Land Owner rules
[/ QUOTE ]
There may be nothing in writing but if a legislator says they've heard rumors...then that's enough to shoot them an email letting them know how you feel.
I'd rather discuss just about anything but the "politics" of deer hunting but if we want anyplace for our future hunters to hunt...we better understand that this "discussion" will never end...
PYBucks
Member
Re: Non Res Landowner Permits, may be on the Table
[ QUOTE ]
This would be ten times worse than raising the non-resident tags to 9000
[/ QUOTE ]
Benny ask yourself, who would you rather have for a neighbor? A local outfitter with a 4 or 5 clients every week of the season or a NR landowner that gets a bow tag every year? If your not sure come check out my land and it will be pretty clear who you would want for a neighbor.
If a NR wants to hunt IA every year he can do it now. Just buy an antlerless tag and party hunt with his resident neighbor. I perfer to bow hunt so I have to play the lottery game but the party hunting option is looking better and better.
I don't think giving NR landowners a tag would make that big of a difference. We're talking a few hundred tags at most that would be only good on their own land anyway.
Another 3000 tags is only going to help the outfitters expand their operation. That's who I would be worried about if I was a resident.
Tim
[ QUOTE ]
This would be ten times worse than raising the non-resident tags to 9000
[/ QUOTE ]
Benny ask yourself, who would you rather have for a neighbor? A local outfitter with a 4 or 5 clients every week of the season or a NR landowner that gets a bow tag every year? If your not sure come check out my land and it will be pretty clear who you would want for a neighbor.
If a NR wants to hunt IA every year he can do it now. Just buy an antlerless tag and party hunt with his resident neighbor. I perfer to bow hunt so I have to play the lottery game but the party hunting option is looking better and better.
I don't think giving NR landowners a tag would make that big of a difference. We're talking a few hundred tags at most that would be only good on their own land anyway.
Another 3000 tags is only going to help the outfitters expand their operation. That's who I would be worried about if I was a resident.
Tim
Daver
PMA Member
Re: Non Res Landowner Permits, may be on the Table
Tim - I think your point is valid that the "average" NR land owner is a more valuable neighbor than someone that leases their land or allows many uncontrolled hunters, etc. But the problem that I think Benny is getting at is that as soon as NR's can be guaranteed an anysex tag every year then there will be quite a few more farms purchased by NR's, thereby restricting access to resident hunters and intensifying the issue still further.
The issue of res v. NR is a many sided issue, not just a simple two sided affair. If it was just two sided then we could probably all agree pretty quickly on the best resolution.
Personally, I don't see it so much as a res v. NR deal, nor do I think we could not handle some more bow hunters in the woods each Fall, it is more that once the restrictions relax then more people, res and NR will buy or lease more land to ensure their piece of the pie, effectively sidelining a range of others, mostly residents. I truly wish other states would begin to manage their resource well enough that a person didn't "have" to go to Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, etc, to find good deer hunting.
The way I see it is that many resident Iowans are fighting to protect good quality deer hunting that ironically the people that are coming here cannot find in their own home state. Whether we did it on purpose or by accident, our game regulations are a key factor that makes us an attractive destination v. the many places that the NR's come from. So why do so many, but not all, of the NR's seemingly insist on telling us how best to manage the herd? (BTW - nothing personal against you, these are just my opinions. I hope you shoot a booner every time you draw a tag here, whether you own land or not.)
Tim - I think your point is valid that the "average" NR land owner is a more valuable neighbor than someone that leases their land or allows many uncontrolled hunters, etc. But the problem that I think Benny is getting at is that as soon as NR's can be guaranteed an anysex tag every year then there will be quite a few more farms purchased by NR's, thereby restricting access to resident hunters and intensifying the issue still further.
The issue of res v. NR is a many sided issue, not just a simple two sided affair. If it was just two sided then we could probably all agree pretty quickly on the best resolution.
Personally, I don't see it so much as a res v. NR deal, nor do I think we could not handle some more bow hunters in the woods each Fall, it is more that once the restrictions relax then more people, res and NR will buy or lease more land to ensure their piece of the pie, effectively sidelining a range of others, mostly residents. I truly wish other states would begin to manage their resource well enough that a person didn't "have" to go to Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, etc, to find good deer hunting.
The way I see it is that many resident Iowans are fighting to protect good quality deer hunting that ironically the people that are coming here cannot find in their own home state. Whether we did it on purpose or by accident, our game regulations are a key factor that makes us an attractive destination v. the many places that the NR's come from. So why do so many, but not all, of the NR's seemingly insist on telling us how best to manage the herd? (BTW - nothing personal against you, these are just my opinions. I hope you shoot a booner every time you draw a tag here, whether you own land or not.)
ElkHunter
Life Member
Re: Non Res Landowner Permits, may be on the Table
Good point Daver.
Let me throw out is question to our nr friends.
1. How many of you would like to have your home state DNR run their deer management,tag quotas, and seasons the way Ia. does?
2.What are the res of your state doing to improve deer hunting in your state?
Good point Daver.
Let me throw out is question to our nr friends.
1. How many of you would like to have your home state DNR run their deer management,tag quotas, and seasons the way Ia. does?
2.What are the res of your state doing to improve deer hunting in your state?
Limb Chicken
Active Member
Re: Non Res Landowner Permits, may be on the Table
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I don't see it so much as a res v. NR deal, nor do I think we could not handle some more bow hunters in the woods each Fall, it is more that once the restrictions relax then more people, res and NR will buy or lease more land to ensure their piece of the pie, effectively sidelining a range of others, mostly residents. I truly wish other states would begin to manage their resource well enough that a person didn't "have" to go to Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, etc, to find good deer hunting.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I don't see it so much as a res v. NR deal, nor do I think we could not handle some more bow hunters in the woods each Fall, it is more that once the restrictions relax then more people, res and NR will buy or lease more land to ensure their piece of the pie, effectively sidelining a range of others, mostly residents. I truly wish other states would begin to manage their resource well enough that a person didn't "have" to go to Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, etc, to find good deer hunting.
[/ QUOTE ]
PYBucks
Member
Re: Non Res Landowner Permits, may be on the Table
Daver, I know the issue is very complicated. I usually don't post because most guys aren't going to change their opinion. We've been talking about this issue for a long time and both sides are still making the same points.
Good hunting,
Tim
Daver, I know the issue is very complicated. I usually don't post because most guys aren't going to change their opinion. We've been talking about this issue for a long time and both sides are still making the same points.
Good hunting,
Tim
PYBucks
Member
Re: Non Res Landowner Permits, may be on the Table
Elkhunter, there are few things the IA DNR does that I wish MI would do. But a lot of what you guys do would actually make my state of MI worse. If you own land in IA you can get 3 buck tags! In MI we're limited to 2 bucks tags, one buck as to have 4 points on a side. But we have so many hunters that we truely need to go to a lottery for residents. But it would never fly with the average hunter. Heck, we can't even get down to a one buck limit. Can you imagine the DNR telling a guy he can't shoot a buck even for one year.
Not to take anything away form the IA DNR, but if they had 750,000 deer hunters like we have in MI you guys wouldn't have big bucks either. So there's a lot of luck involved. But not having gun season in November, limiting hunters to one buck per weapon does help unlike here in MI.
MI and many of the eastern states actually have better habitat than IA, KS, and IL but we simiply have too many hunters.
I'm not even going to touch the party hunting regulation.
Tim
Elkhunter, there are few things the IA DNR does that I wish MI would do. But a lot of what you guys do would actually make my state of MI worse. If you own land in IA you can get 3 buck tags! In MI we're limited to 2 bucks tags, one buck as to have 4 points on a side. But we have so many hunters that we truely need to go to a lottery for residents. But it would never fly with the average hunter. Heck, we can't even get down to a one buck limit. Can you imagine the DNR telling a guy he can't shoot a buck even for one year.
Not to take anything away form the IA DNR, but if they had 750,000 deer hunters like we have in MI you guys wouldn't have big bucks either. So there's a lot of luck involved. But not having gun season in November, limiting hunters to one buck per weapon does help unlike here in MI.
MI and many of the eastern states actually have better habitat than IA, KS, and IL but we simiply have too many hunters.
I'm not even going to touch the party hunting regulation.
Tim