perfect storm - nr landowner lawsuits

[jclaws]

Bulldogger, At least you can archery hunt your land every year.

Jdubs i dont know what part of the state you live in but there were nr doe tags leftover last year, so you can hunt iowa every year also.Actually if you knew a resident and he sat with you during shotgun season you could get a shotgun antlerless tag every year and fill his tags.actually if you party hunted with alot of local guys you could shoot as many bucks as as you have tags for.How many other states will let a non resident shoot that many deer.You just need to find some local friends that dont care about antlers.And that shouldnt be to hard.

 

[cedar creek]

Jdubs i dont know what part of the state you live in but there were nr doe tags leftover last year, so you can hunt iowa every year also.Actually if you knew a resident and he sat with you during shotgun season you could get a shotgun antlerless tag every year and fill his tags.actually if you party hunted with alot of local guys you could shoot as many bucks as as you have tags for.How many other states will let a non resident shoot that many deer.You just need to find some local friends that dont care about antlers.And that shouldnt be to hard.

That's better than his own state where he can't hunt anything on Sundays. Doesn't matter if he owns land or not! I don't think i'd being throwing rocks if i lived in a glass house. Or maybe the hunting residents of Pennsylvania are cool with only hunting six days a week.

 

[Shoot2Kill]

They have had the draw system since they instated NR hunting, I personally believe they should have an open draw for the governor tags from the people who did not draw in the general draw. I believe it is a crock that if your famous and have money and say hunting in Iowa is cool they sell you a tag every year if you want one.

NR tags used to be purchased over the counter for just over 100 bucks at one point...I bought one in 2001 when I came home on leave from the Air Force and wasn't an IA resident anymore. It wasn't long after that that the draw system was put into place if I remember correctly because I had considered going home again a couple years later and found out about the draw. Actually, it was right around the time the Drury brothers and a few other current big names really started to make their mark and Iowa started appearing all over the outdoor channel that IA went to a draw system....funny coincidence.

I'm with you on the govenors tags...what a joke.

For you NR's screaming about wanting the laws to change for your benefit...are you serious? When you bought land in IA, you knew the rules did you not? Give it a rest already.

 

[cedar creek]

Risto, I guess what I was trying to illustrate was how small a number 6000 is compared to the big picture. Out of those 6000 I dont know the success rate or the success of the resident tags but I sure its not 100 percent for either.My point has always been I dont know how many tags should be made available that needs to be established by people that really know but what ever that number is the nrlo should have the first opportunity to purchase these tags.How many nrlo's actually apply for tags anyway?No one seems to be able to come up with this number which is very important when talking about the impact the nrlo has or doesnt have.

Are the addittional 6000 nr hunters going to hunt with the 6000 that already hunt in Iowa every year? Or is that going to be another 6000 landowners who will be giving permission to hunt? I think i have a solution to this. Maybe the additional 6000 nonresidents can hunt on the nonresident landowners properties. Then the FOI landowners will be able to manage the exploding population of deer on their properties, and the resident hunters won't be impacted by the influx of another 6000 hunters.

 

[sethgade280]

So what is the TRUE BEEF with the NRLO tags? I read alot of people on hear not wanting them..which I can easily see why, but what are the really big problems you guys feel will happen?

1) The land prices can go up with out of staters buying some hunting ground?
2) More deer "could" be shot?
3) You don't want them to have hunting rights to shoot a buck every year?
4) Or what?

I want to get on the same page with you guys. Not fighting..just want to know for my knowledge. I guess one point on the land is that you own land yourself, that means your land goes up too. But if you don't own land....than I can see a problem with loosing hunting areas because the farmer wants to get rid of it to make some money. In that case, it is the farmers land and good for him to make a buck and sorry that you don't own the land that you hunt on.

Like I said, I am not fighting. I am not for or against this. Yes would it be nice to hunt iowa with the bow every year and kill a great deer...yes. But it is special to me also and i look at it as something to look forward too. I know I could get a DOE tag, but lets be honest.....why in the heck would I drive 8 hrs to shoot a doe??????? I could kill one out my door here in WI and I don't, so why would I care to do it down here. imo

Cant wait to hear back for you guys. Thanks

 

[River1]

So what is the TRUE BEEF with the NRLO tags? I read alot of people on hear not wanting them..which I can easily see why, but what are the really big problems you guys feel will happen?

I could give a squirt if NR's killed 12,000 deer every year! Like I've always said, last I checked they make more of them every November. It is not about deer getting killed.

1. Access for residents is the #1 issue. No matter what you guys say, when NR's buy ground it becomes limited access. Even harder to access than if a resident owned it for recreation. Since Iowa only has a small amount of timbered ground, the truely good areas go (have gone) first.

2. NR's usually come from stronger economies than Iowa's. They have better resources to buy Iowa ground and they drive up our recreational land prices beyond what Iowa residents can compete for.

3. The DNR's management program is struggling with limited access properties. The majority of NR's do not have the time to come here and manage their property appropriately and from what I've seen the majority don't give a lick, as long as there's a pile of deer when they come to hunt for a week.
So now what we see is a DNR managment plan that is erradicating the deer from areas with good access, while many of these limited access properties keep the insurance companies lobbying for more deer killed. It's a vicous circle and the State's deer hunting is going to pay the price.

 

[THA4]

I feel it safe to say, a very strong majority of IW participants have NO problem with NR hunters. The problem lies within a potential increase. OUR concern is resident access, which even with the current NR tag numbers, our access is getting more and more difficult because NRs know that privacy is important to a successful hunt. Therefore, they lease, buy Iowa properties and keep everyone out but themselves. I don't blame them for that. I understand where they are coming from.

HOWEVER, an increase in NR tags has little to do with the number of quality bucks that will get shot. IN fact, comparing resident hunters to non resident hunters is NOT the issues here, its not really a population issue. But if you think, 6000 additional tags will not impact the population, you are lying to yourself. With an additional 6000 NR tag increase, the amount of land that gets locked up by NR hunters, more resident land access will be lost. This is the problem....

If you guys like hunting Iowa and the quality bucks we have here, 6000 more NR tags will change that. IF that kind of thing happens, Iowa will be raped and pillaged, and we will become the next WI, MN, IL, MO, or KS.... I'm not ok with that and I will fight it to make sure that our current NR hunter program stays in place....

 

[henry5146]

so again- more nr landowner tags = less land for the resident or less access = charge $2000 for a nr landowner tag take the extra money and buy some land for residents. lets find a way to get what we want from these people who can afford to pay this kind of money for tags, do the math, its staggering the amount of land that can be bought every year for residents. lets be smarter not stubborn.

 

[THA4]

so again- more nr landowner tags = less land for the resident or less access = charge $2000 for a nr landowner tag take the extra money and buy some land for residents. lets find a way to get what we want from these people who can afford to pay this kind of money for tags, do the math, its staggering the amount of land that can be bought every year for residents. lets be smarter not stubborn.

Umm, how about no....

 

[henry5146]

thats great , ok, but clearly what we are doing has not prevented the nr landowner from buying up as much as land as he or she can afford, fight fire with fire i say, want to hurt the nr , buy up the land, its only a matter of time - i didnt say issue 6000 more nr tags, think about how much land the state could buy if 20000 nr landowners paid 2k , thats 40 million dollars, u know how much land that is , lets take out the old calculator 500 goes to the dnr as usual, 1500 x 20000= 30 mill, take 30/ lets just say 2000 acres - 15000 acres in year 1 , thats nuts ,

 

[sethgade280]

This is why I posted my question. I have land in Taylor county. I don't know the amount of hunting land available to people. I know now the situation alot of people have to find hunting areas. Are more and more farmers not allowing residents to hunt their land???? I see the farmers in my area getting more into hunting just from the year i bought the land in 2007. The guy who rents the land has a son which has taken up bow hunting and seems to be getting more into the hunting of trophy deer. I could see this being a problem also which compounds onto NR buying and locking up land.

I you guys are right. NR who buy hunting land don't want every tom dick and hairy coming on there. I let my renter hunt the land, but that is it. I do want to come down and have my best chance on shooting a big deer given the time allowance. With that being said...I just fueled the argument about the populations being higher on some ground and the dnr putting more pressure to shoot more deer.
On the flip side.........the hunter pulls the trigger. The dnr isnt sitting there with a gun to your head to shoot a deer. If the population is truley that bad, DONT SHOOT!! very simple. I do that in WI. I pass doe upon doe because I feel the numbers are not there. I also can conplain about the dnr and herd numbers because I am doing my part. If you complain and than post a harvest pick of 4 does you shot....i don't feel sorry for you one bit!!!

 

[THA4]

fight fire with fire i say, want to hurt the nr , buy up the land,

you just don't get it. I don't want to HURT the NR. I want our current and very successful management practices to be maintained. More public access would be great, but there are other options than making NR tags through the roof expensive. Thats NOT fair to the working man who loves to hunt.... everyone should be able to come and hunt here, just on a limited basis.

Additionally, expensive NR tags will have the adverse affect. The only kind of guys that could afford it will be very wealthy, the same types that can afford land without blinking an eye. More expensive tags will result in more property locked up by NRs. I promise

 

[magnus]

That's better than his own state where he can't hunt anything on Sundays. Doesn't matter if he owns land or not! I don't think i'd being throwing rocks if i lived in a glass house. Or maybe the hunting residents of Pennsylvania are cool with only hunting six days a week.

PA residents have been fighting this for years. And, no, most are not "cool with only hunting six days a week". But there's only so much you can do to try to influence your DNR-type state department.
Let me ask you, are most IA hunters cool with their ridiculous late rifle season that is responsible for so many shed bucks being killed by accident or on purpose? That season just continues year after year. These state agencies listen, sort of, but then pretty much do whatever they want in the end.

 

[henry5146]

its about getting what we need as residents , can anyone else tell me how the dnr is going to come up with 30 million dollars? u want more
state land? that means we need money and lots of it. we cant get 30 million dollars selling girl scout cookies

 

[River1]

When the sustainable funding activates, I would love to see a bill passed that allocates all NR tag revenue into agressively purchasing conservation lands. Protecting our water, land and wildlife resources first, our hunting will be protected with those purchases just the same.

 

[Sligh1]

Interesting reading fellas- I have friends on both sides of this issue. I'll just throw a few tid-bits out there.... I don't think the solution is more state game area. Even in MI - which is FULL of state game area (millions of acres)- it gets DESTROYED & blown to pieces. It's horrible- for that matter, go to ALMOST any state, especially east of MS river, the state land (no matter the quantity) gets blown to bits- it SUCKS. Get the state competing to buy rec land and prices will go through the roof as well.

However you fall on this issue.... If they change the law and let NR land owners to get tags every year, that will open the flood gates to guys flocking here to buy up the land. I have friends all over the country that would buy land the NEXT DAY that they change the law. I'm not discussing opinion or how I feel on the issue- just stating fact- if they change the law, the land is going to get bought up by leaps and bounds and in one year, we absolutely will have a totally different atmosphere and owner-ship landscape. I can think of 20 NR guys off the top of my head that would pull the trigger in 24 hours if law changed & they'd buy up land. For better or for worse, this state's deer hunting would be transformed over-night if law was changed, everything from prices to access to leasing to outfitting, etc, etc.


On a personal note, my land would go up in value, no question. Let's say I had 1,000 acres owned, change the law, in MY OPINION, it would take about 1 year for the ground to go from say $2,000 acre to $3,000 acre or WHATEVER, I'd for sure say a $1,000 gain. If a guy owned 1,000 acres, that's a million dollar gain- IN ONE YEAR (I truly believe this is VERY VERY accurate BUT yes, is my strong opinion). Personally, I would never sell, my goal is NOT to have my land go up in value. What I'm saying is, I could CARE LESS about the money, whatever the solution is- I want what's best for hunting and for the state of wildlife, etc. I would NEVER make my opinion based on how much $ I could make. Partly because I'd NEVER cash in my land and put the $ in my pocket- true (I'll always own land) BUT I want what's best for the state- whatever that is.

Interesting discussion though folks.

 

[jclaws]

Interesting reading fellas- I have friends on both sides of this issue. I'll just throw a few tid-bits out there.... I don't think the solution is more state game area. Even in MI - which is FULL of state game area (millions of acres)- it gets DESTROYED & blown to pieces. It's horrible- for that matter, go to ALMOST any state, especially east of MS river, the state land (no matter the quantity) gets blown to bits- it SUCKS. Get the state competing to buy rec land and prices will go through the roof as well.

What do you think the iowa public land will be like when half of the local guys loose there hunting spots.They are going to have to hunt public land or quit hunting because the income they make in rural iowa is not even close to the money you can make in the big citys.It is actually a lose lose situation for resident hunters and non resident hunters that cant afford to buy land,They are not going to pay 700.00 to hunt public land that is over run with other hunters.You have to look at it from both sides.If i could afford the money to buy land in another state i would want a tag every year also,and i suppose i would fight to try to get the rules changed.But as a local hunter that hunts on other peoples land,Give me a reason why local hunters should want nr landowners to get tags every year?And i have nr landowners that are friends.

 

[sethgade280]

I hear you with the NR buying up the land very quickly. But do you think that the farmers and land owners will be selling the land they own and farm to these people??

Yes, money talks, especially when what most farmers consider "worthless" untillable property is going in the 3-4 G/ acre thing, most would be stupid not to sell.... an increase in NR tags would prove my point.....

 

[henry5146]

when land went thropugh the roof 2 years ago, it wasnt like every farmer was selling their land, where the heck is a farmer going to go after he sells his land that he has lived on for 75 years. plenty of people will absolutely not sell their land away from their family .

 

[cedar creek]

So why not look at this in a different perspective. Give the nr landowners their yearly buck tag, and allocate all additional nr hunting licenses to nonresident landowners only. If the nr landowner doesn't want to participate; he or she will not be allowed a landowner buck tag every year. Iowa increases it's revenue; nr landowners get their way along with increased deer kills to better manage their land; and more nonresidents have an opportunity to hunt Iowa.