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

Register aticles in today's paper

teacher

teacher

New Member
Julie Probasco-Sowers is at it again with her ranting about raising the non-resident quota in the Metro & Iowa section of the Sunday Register. They quote Jeff Vonk as well. anybody else think that it's time to send Juli and the opinion section some letters about other alternatives? She and Vonk state that they could open up all sorts of public land with the added revenue. Also some quotes from an outfitter and a bunch of non-resident hunters who hunted with them. Little or no comments from Iowa hunters in the article except for a Pheasant's Forever bilogist. Here's the links to the two articles.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060326/LIFE04/603260352/1039/archive

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060326/LIFE04/603260354/1039/archive
 
They will never stop trying, not with that much money at stake! Every year it will be a new battle, one that will become tougher to win.
Yesterday I ran into a a young man shed hunting who was extremely bitter and down right angry over the loss of ground to NR hunters. This same person however, had never made the slightest effort via the IBA, contacting the IDNR or legislators to make his voice heard. I understand the frustrations but I have no empathy for those that set on their hands and do nothing.
I agree that they (NR's) will continue to purchase land regardless of tag quotas, but it will limit the numer of outfitters leasing land.
In the area I live in...very soon there will be no land (hunting rights, etc.)left to fight over.....
 
[ QUOTE ]
They will never stop trying, not with that much money at stake! Every year it will be a new battle, one that will become tougher to win.

I understand the frustrations, but I have no empathy for those that set on their hands and do nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much sums it all up IMO!
 
OK- I've said this before... If they are concerned about the money and think that selling an additional 6000 tags at $309.50 is the answer because we have to refund $1.5 million each year that could be used to acquire land for residents- WHY do they refuse to let the market dictate what tags cost? I'll bet that the tags they do have available would sell out at $619.00. This is the same as selling the extra tags and yet no one will even address the issue. Would the guy from Maryland quoted in the article really stay away if the tag was double? The tag is a small percentage of what the trip costs. Less than what most will spend on a taxidermy bill. I do not get it! If you have something in demand and a limited quantity- you charge more for it until the demand meets the supply. Charge what the market will bear!
 
I agree pharmer! I know NR's don't like the idea, but western states have done the same thing...and people keep buying tags! Raise the price not the quota!
waytogo.gif
 
I hear ya, pharmer! The DNR ought to put a few on eBay and see what happens. That ought to open their eyes!
shocked.gif
 
My response in no way was a bash on NR. Some how I think there is a different agenda because I have never heard this discussed as an option by DNR or state officials. I'm very sorry if this option prices some people out of hunting as a non-resident. There are things I'd like to do that I can't afford either. At least keeping the number where it is, hunting ground won't become more scarce because of tag numbers.
 
ghfjhg kguytg ggii ur um sorry what was that? I forgot what the post was about. I cant take my eyes off the piece sign.
893shocked-thumb[1].gif
 
Most folks in the public offices do not realize the econimics of supply and demand. I agree, raise the prices of NR tags and resident tags for that matter IMO. If money is the concern, I'd be willing to pay double what I already pay to keep the current situation the same as it is.
 
I'd have to agree with everybody's responses so far. And you can count me in on the resident increase as well if thats what it takes to keep what we have, I've told my legislator that too.
And I still say the increased quota for more public land is not an even trade anyway. We will lose alot more ground than we gain. We need more public ground but why must the hunters always pay for every inch of it? How much do the horseback riders, hikers, mountain bikers, mushroom pickers, flower huggers, and anybody else that uses public ground pay for? None that I know of.

So what is this lady's deal with the deer issue anyway? Her name usually seems to be attached to the controversial deer articles.
 
Pharmer
The only flaw I can see with your logic is that if they do double the current prices and gain the extra money that won't stop some proponets. Pretty soon we would hear " If we could just have another 6000 tags to sell we could raise $3 million dollars to spend on more public land for them to hunt on and maybe even let some of you locals on also". There will always be a push for more NR hunters because they spend more easily seen cash on outfitters, motels, resturants and such things besides their licenses. It is still the residents that support most of these business and pay taxes the other 11 months when there aren't NR hunters arround. My point is if this is really a money issue it won't go away by raising more money because some one will still point out how much more money we could have by rasisng the quota.
 
The idea that you will generate 1.5 million to buy land just doesn't meet the smell test. The more NR tags you allow the more land gets leased and the local hunters are cut out. The DNR can't buy as much land as the outfitters can lease. Also, it does nothing to reduce the herd size, as was stated in the article, the DNR couldn't sell out the NR doe tags. Those guys don't want to spend $2,500 a week to shoot does. The Hoovers have leased a lot of land around my area and their clients are looking for big bucks and when those big bucks are gone those clients will take their money somewhere else.
 
I think the real deal here is that IDNR, (Vonk) keeps trying to sell us out each year. If DNR keeps asking and we keep beating up our legislators, at some point we are going to lose one time and the game is over. Why is IDNR trying so hard to pass increased anysex quotas that residents oppose to buy us more public land? Because IDNR does not have the political savvy to achieve a more sound method to fund its budget, so they are going down the road of same old same old. Have relied on license fees and see the easiest way to increase revenue is to print more license irregardless of the impact on us. We are going to need to become proactive in the future or we will loose. A resolution by the legislature to require IDNR to propose other funding mechanisms in the future? Require IDNR to identify the impact on residents of their proposals in addition to just making them each year. Each time I buy a T-bone I am paying a hidden cost for NR anysex hunting. There is a lot more to this equation than 2,500 for a week hunt times the number of license.
 
Oldgene, That answers the ? I had about the "Family Business" they were running. They tried to get you to feel sorry for this farmer who couldn't make a go of it so they "had" to get into outfitting. They never talked about how much ground they leased in the area and how many resident hunters got the boot because of their business. If it was all on their own land as the article seemed to imply then more power to them. Apparently it involves more land then just their own. Maggs.
 
They do have a lot more ground leased than they own. I've known the family for years and I use to think they were ok. Now every time I see them driving their Camo colored Dodge trucks it pi$$es me off. It not so bad that they have all their ground around them leased, they are always driving around my area looking for big bucks. Don't like and you can't make me like it. Outfitters will be the death of hunting in this state. The next thing you know you will have to be in a hunt club just to go hunting like it is in the south.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom