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

Sf 219

mplane72 said:
OK, I'm new here but I have to say I'm a little disappointed. I mean the feeding ban thread went 40 pages and this thread only has 2. I hope that means everyone is busy contacting their reps. Maybe they've been out shed hunting?
On a more positive note one of my Reps. actually responded to my email and told me he would not support it.
Click to expand...


I think the reason for this is 2 fold. 1st if this was in a different forum ie whitetail conference, it would be more noticeable. 2nd, the main reason the baiting ban was 40 pages long was due to the IBA's stance on the issue. I think we are all on the same page on this issue! :way:
 
Be sure to mention in your e-mails that this bill is about helping a group of people whose only interest in Iowa is coming here to shoot a deer. They don't care about our kids,schools, businesses, quality of life, or future. SHOOTING A DEER IS IT. AND THEY CAN"T VOTE FOR YOU!!!!
 
risto2351 said:
Do you think a resident landowner would ever be able to afford
land if this passes?
Click to expand...

Risto, I know I'll get roasted for this, but I'll say it anyway. I have always had the opinion that Iowa residents have the same opportunities to buy land as any non resident does, with maybe even a slight advantage due to our close proximity and awareness of land availability(if you do your homework and some networking). Let's compare a couple of things, if you look at the national wage index, the median average income for the U.S is just over 40K. Now look at the Iowa economy index and you will find that the median income in Iowa is slightly under 40K, not much of a discrepancy if you ask me! My point is that we as Iowa residents have the same opportunities to purchase land and make money as any one else does, you just have to be motivated enough to do it. Sure you may have to travel for work or spend a few years getting a college education, but the opportunities are there if you look. America is the land of opportunity, you just have to be motivated enough to go find those opportunities! I guess what I'm trying to say is that sure there are going to be NR's that come here and offer 5k an acre for some recreational land and the farmer might sell, but if you never went and offered to buy the same farm then you are the one that lost out. We can't fault these guys for wanting land here, this place is awesome (and not just for hunting). I just get sick of guys whining about losing opportunities, when in all reality they aren't putting in the effort to find hunting ground or establish relationships with land owners or take them a gift or help with farm chores, I guess it's just like any thing else in life, the harder you work, the more you will be rewarded! If guys don't want this state to change than be proactive! Send the emails to your representatives, get involved with the IBA and other local organizations, lead by example. If guys just sit and bitch about everything, life and it's opportunities will pass you buy. Just my 2 cents!
 
If you think isn't a serious threat just look at the thread below SF219. These people mean business. They are coming from different directions now.

We got the crap beat out of us on feed/bait, where's the uproar on legislation that is a real threat. Make the calls and send the emails.
 
ElkHunter said:
If you think isn't a serious threat just look at the thread below SF219. These people mean business. They are coming from different directions now.

We got the crap beat out of us on feed/bait, where's the uproar on legislation that is a real threat. Make the calls and send the emails.
Click to expand...

What Randy said! :way: It's definately time to be heard.
 
turkeyriver said:
Be sure to mention in your e-mails that this bill is about helping a group of people whose only interest in Iowa is coming here to shoot a TROPHY deer. They don't care about our kids,schools, businesses, quality of life, or future. SHOOTING A BUCK IS IT. AND THEY CAN"T VOTE FOR YOU!!!!
Click to expand...


There, fixed it for you.

I will emphasis this point in my email to my reps. NR's are NOT coming here to shoot does! They might be trying to work the angle that they can't control the deer herd because of the difficulty in obtaining cheap antlerless tags, but don't let them kid you. It was the quality of Iowa deer that lured them into buying land here in the first place.
 
I put this under Bonker's post as well.

someone on this site who is more intelligent than I am needs to put together an email that is very professional and factual that can be used as a template for all of the IW site members as well as the IBA members and whoever else can be involved. I see this is what the FOI did and I think it makes it easy for there members to bombard these people with a mass email that can be quickly forwarded or duplicated.

Just an idea?
 
MN2IAGuy said:
I think the word "gives" is a little mis-leading.... There is a $1000 a year fee each year you would elect to participate.... Would you rather see this or more NR licenses if you had to choose?
Click to expand...
Neither. Keep your $1000 a year. I've sent two letters so far!
 
  • Deleted by N/A
Show…
dedgeez said:
very well put!:way: If you need facts to back this up, they are on the DNR website. Im almost positive that only 7% of NR issued Doe tags are filled, so this "management" angle is garbage and doesn't hold water.

The more informed and factual your emails are, the better we look!
Click to expand...

Here is some info I found taken right out of the 2009 Trends in Iowa Wildlife Populations and Harvest from the DNR website. Here is a link to the full 248 page document...

http://www.iowadnr.gov/wildlife/files/files/logbook_2009.pdf

Pages 9-35 are relevant to whitetail deer

This is one interesting section I pulled out of the booklet...

Nonresidents​

Of the 6,005 any-deer licenses
issued, 2,998 or 50% went to hunters during
the shotgun seasons, 2,103 or 35% to
bowhunters, 897 or 15% to late season
muzzleloader hunters, and 7 were drawn by
disabled nonresidents. All of these
nonresident hunters also received an
antlerless-only license (6,005 licenses) as
part of their any-deer license package.​

The reported success rates for the
any-deer licenses were 49% for the shotgun
licenses, 42% for the late muzzleloader
licenses, and 44% for the archery licenses.
Only 4% of the deer tagged by nonresidents
with any-deer licenses were does (Iowa
residents 28% does on any-deer licenses).
The reported success rates for the
antlerless-only licenses held by these
hunters were 37% for the shotgun licenses,
30% for the late muzzleloader licenses, and
19% for the archery licenses.​

An additional 2,545 Optional
Antlerless-only licenses were issued to
nonresidents. Of these, 2,280 went to
shotgun hunters, 231 went to hunters
participating in the holiday season (12/24 –
1/2/10), and 34 licenses were purchased for
the January Antlerless season. The reported
success rates for the optional antlerless
licenses were 37% for the shotgun seasons,
39% for the holiday antlerless season, and
62% during the January season.​

Collectively, the success rate for all
the nonresident antlerless licenses issued
during the shotgun seasons was 37%.​

In total, nonresidents reported
harvesting about 2,800 antlered bucks,
2,500 does, and 300 button bucks. The
reported success rate for all licenses was
38% and the overall harvest consisted of​
45% does.
 
Very good! thanks for posting this. The 7% number that I was thinking of was from the total # of does tagged by anysex tags, I didn't realize it was even lower yet.
 
Hey Elkunter don't worry this court ruling you posted in the "perfect storm thread will stop it"

109th CONGRESS
1st Session​



H. R. 731​

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


February 9, 2005 ​

Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. OTTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources


A BILL ​

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE.
(a) In General- It is the policy of Congress that is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and non-residents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting or fishing.
(b) Construction of Congressional Silence- Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the `commerce clause') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State or Indian tribe.
SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce;
(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the United States; or
(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede, or alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian Tribe as recognized by any other means, including but not limited to agreements with the United States, Executive Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.
SEC. 4. STATE DEFINED.
For purposes of this Act, the term `State' includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
END
 
Here is an email I got immediately back from Dennis Black, Vice Chair of the Senate Natural Resouce and Environment Committee...

"
Jordan,

The bill was DOA. It will NOT be debated in the Senate. I do not support.

Senator Dennis Black
"

DOA = dead on arrival? That is what I'm hoping anyway!
 
Another reply from Tom Hancock... these positive replys don't mean we should be lax about this though, just letting you know where some of these people stand.

"Hi Jordan

I do not think you are going to have much to worry about here. I am hearing the bill does not have all that much support. I will oppose if it moves, but again I am skeptical it will. You provide good points

Tom H"

The points I made in the email were what has been made on here, they seem to agree with what has been said on IW
 
dedgeez said:
I put this under Bonker's post as well.

someone on this site who is more intelligent than I am needs to put together an email that is very professional and factual that can be used as a template for all of the IW site members as well as the IBA members and whoever else can be involved. I see this is what the FOI did and I think it makes it easy for there members to bombard these people with a mass email that can be quickly forwarded or duplicated.

Just an idea?
Click to expand...


+1 good idea
 
ElkHunter said:
If you think isn't a serious threat just look at the thread below SF219. These people mean business. They are coming from different directions now.

We got the crap beat out of us on feed/bait, where's the uproar on legislation that is a real threat. Make the calls and send the emails.
Click to expand...

Ummmmm yeah.....:drink1:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom