Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Pettengill Change up

ironwood

ironwood

Active Member
Read below and tell me what you think. This was new as of this Morning. She may be listening and looking for a better answer to the goal she stated in one responce I read.


House Amendment 8407


PAG LIN

1 1 Amend House File 2481 as follows:
1 2 #1. Page 27, after line 27 by inserting:
1 3 <Sec. ___. Section 483A.24, Code 2009, is amended
1 4 by adding the following new subsection:
1 5 NEW SUBSECTION. 17. An antlered or any sex or
1 6 antlerless deer hunting license that is issued to
1 7 a resident owner or tenant of a farm unit pursuant
1 8 to subsection 2 may be transferred by that owner or
1 9 tenant to a nonresident who is a close relative of the
1 10 owner or tenant of the farm unit. The deer hunting
1 11 licenses transferred shall be valid for use only on the
1 12 farm unit for which the applicant applies pursuant to
1 13 subsection 2. The deer hunting licenses transferred
1 14 pursuant to this subsection shall be in addition to the
1 15 number of nonresident deer hunting licenses authorized
1 16 pursuant to section 483A.8. For the purposes of this
1 17 subsection, a close relative is a lineal descendent of
1 18 the owner or tenant or the owner or tenant's spouse, a
1 19 child of a sibling of the owner or tenant or the owner
1 20 or tenant's spouse, or a sibling of the owner or tenant
1 21 or the owner or tenant's spouse.>
1 22 #2. By renumbering as necessary.



PETTENGILL of Benton
 
I would be for that. I have a lot of friends that moved away and would like to come home on the family farm and hunt but don't want to spend $500.
 
As I read it, its not for friends, its for family members that have moved out of state, and can hunt the family land. That is all, it wouldnt allow them to hunt the neighbors ground, or any public? And it looks like it has to be close family. So friends couldnt come back to just hunt the family farm, is that correct?
 
flugge said:
As I read it, its not for friends, its for family members that have moved out of state, and can hunt the family land. That is all, it wouldnt allow them to hunt the neighbors ground, or any public? And it looks like it has to be close family. So friends couldnt come back to just hunt the family farm, is that correct?
Click to expand...

That's the way I read it, but it looks to me to be just barely written in English, so i could be wrong! ;)
 
You guys are correct in the way you are reading the pettengill change up, however I believe you are reading Palmated's post wrong. I believe he is saying, he has friends that have moved away and would like to come home and hunt their families farm. Not his families farm. So they would be directly related. :)
 
Hey Liv, no, I didnt mean to look into it to far, and thanks for the clarification. I was just mainly making sure I read it right, and in no way was implying or assuming anything other then how i was reading it..if that makes any sense what so ever cause i just confused myself?
 
Just my first thoughts........definitely not my last........and I may change my mind.:grin:




At the heart of this, I find it hard to argue against. Iowa farmers letting their kids and grandkids come home to hunt with them on "their" farm using "their" landowner tag.

It certainly needs to be spelled out concise in that regard. Not the loose lawyer lingo above.

Contingent on closing up loopholes, including the ones all the wealthy NR landowners are using to claim residency so they can hunt here.


Finally, Pettengill needs to stop trying to ram rod this through as an amendment. Introduce it as a new bill in a future session that can be studied and approved properly by everyone.


I would like to hear more thoughts on this from others also.


And I have to admit......I am suprised. I sure didn't think she would budge off her 6000 tags. Somebody around here must be awful smooth.:grin:
 
Last edited:
I'm a non-resident (no relatives in Iowa) it will not help me in any way, but I can see the point being made. I think the issue of former Iowa residents wanting to hunt the farm that they grew up on--it has some merit. With the economy the way it is, can you blame these kids for moving to a larger city (often out of state) for a job. At least it will allow them to hunt with their family when they come home to visit or work on the fall harvest.
 
WOW. Sending e-mails really may help. I sent some e-mails to her and got a few responses and countered them with my own again. Not to toot my own horn, but here is part of the last meessage I sent her this morning before heading to Des Moines for State Basketball.... GO Cal-Wheat.

To help out these weekend farmers, I could see a better option in place of DOUBLING the tags available in the NR Draw. The DNR could offer special NR family farmer tags to help with this issue. There could be criteria to adhere to such as the family farm must be an established family farm for 10 years or more. I can relate to this very issue as I have a brother in-law living in Kansas City that cannot come home and hunt his dads ground with us, as he is not a Resident. Non of us complain, that is a cut and dry rule. I cannot belive that there would be 6000 people involed.

Not saying I had any influence in this at all but I can't help but wonder.
 
I personally see many ways for this to go sideways, but also can understand the desire to have family allowed to hunt with family. The current farm tag has never been available for grown children of Iowa residents. Would you also have to allow the land owners tag go to any close relative including a resident? Plenty of lost revinue here for the IDNR. Also as soon as this would be allowed it would/could create a much more compelling agruement for more libral NR rules.
 
I believe its just a way to chip away at something bigger and less desireable.I am a firm believer that people move away for a reason.And there is consequences for moving away.One is you are no longer a resident of Iowa anymore and shouldn't be allowed the privledges of Iowa residents.
 
archery95 said:
I believe its just a way to chip away at something bigger and less desireable.I am a firm believer that people move away for a reason.And there is consequences for moving away.One is you are no longer a resident of Iowa anymore and shouldn't be allowed the privledges of Iowa residents.
Click to expand...


If such a change where to be considered I would think it would be for residents only. I would bet even that move would be shot down.

I think archery95 is right on the money.
 
Man, I felt pretty good that the amendment didn't get on the bill and that there seemed to be a sway in things. You guys have now put a different light on it and I feel crappy about our future in hunting again.
 
Guys the emails are working, We need to continue to be the squeky wheel, only lets add more spokes to make this wheel stronger. Spread the word about Iowa Whitetails Forever and get more folks involved. The proof is in the pudding so to speak the louder the squek the more attention it gets. I believe we can only get stronger. Spread the word.
This concludes my daily rant.
 
Remember a NR can buy an antlress shotgun tag and party hunt every year. I belive there are antlreless tags left over every year. If it was about "Hunting with family" and not "Hunting for horns" this would not be an issue.

This is onther unnessesaty amendment.

The 'bonker
 
You hit it right on the head Bonker.Why would it be ok to transfer a landowner tag to a non-resident relative when as of right now a landowner can't even transfer a tag to his wife or child living at home?
 
If it is about hunting with family most often they can do that buy puchasing antlerless tags -- there is NO NEED to open this up to transfer tags to someone that is relation. Again as residents we are given some privilidges, this is one.

I grew up in Iowa, moved to South Dakota to work, and then moved by to Iowa when I got a new job. I sure would like to not to have pay state income tax like I didnt have to in SD, maybe SD can write that law saying since I once lived there they will let me still fall under their guidlines.

I know that example is extreme, however residents get resident privilidges. Also they would have to change other laws if that is the case. Plus the thing that you have to think about is enforcing it -- that would be fun for the CO's and they could just keep passing a tag around.

I vote NOT IN FAVOR!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom