risto2351
Well-Known Member
Land?
I guess you have all yours locked up already?
If not it will be a lot harder to find a place to hunt?
I have to agree with Kat on this one.
I guess you have all yours locked up already?
If not it will be a lot harder to find a place to hunt?
I have to agree with Kat on this one.
cedar creek
Banned
And what's to stop nrlo's from becoming outfitters? And if nrlo's are given yearly landowner tags now; what's going to stop them from leasing other land in the future? Not to mention the influx of more nrlo's! Our current landowner tags can be distributed to tenant's, wives, and even children. I see the yearly nrlo tags as a bigger threat than increasing the nr hunter tags.
If a nrlo leases land his tag is not good on the leased property. It would be pretty dumb to lease land you cant hunt! nrlo would have a hard time being a outfitter without living there. It is my understanding if i own 80 acres or 1000 acres I get 1 tag, how could I become an outfitter? Again keep in mind I do like it the way it is now but fear they are going to change either this or add 6000 more tags. I think this is better.
cedar creek
Banned
If we give in to the yearly nrlo tag's now; what's to stop the nrlo from argueing they should have the same rights as a resident landowner? That's basicly what the nrlo's are doing right now. They believe they are being discriminated against.
risto2351
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily.
Yes they need the money but there are other ways
for them to get it.
Shoot2Kill
Active Member
BOOYAH! and that dudes from Minnesota! Atleast some of the NR's can understand what we're fighting for! Thanks for the post S2K! I think you should send that to the FOI
25 year former IA resident here with plans to hopefully return someday and I just don't want to see it all go to hell down there before I can get back. :way:
LoessHillsArcher
PMA Member
I know this bill was shot down but this is one person who would've had a say in this bill and his response to my email...
"In regards to SF 219, I am still in the process of weighing the pros and cons of the non-resident land owners permitting process.
I appreciate your interest and concern and your input will weigh into my decision.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Tim Kapucian"
This is someone we should be inconact with, it appears he is on the fence about the issue of non-resident landowner deer tags. His email is [email protected]
"In regards to SF 219, I am still in the process of weighing the pros and cons of the non-resident land owners permitting process.
I appreciate your interest and concern and your input will weigh into my decision.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Tim Kapucian"
This is someone we should be inconact with, it appears he is on the fence about the issue of non-resident landowner deer tags. His email is [email protected]
Skully
PMA Member
Here is a sample of what could be sent to him:
Hello, My name is __________and I am a resident land owner and outdoorsman from __________County. I am concerned about the Senate File 219 that was filed and sent to the Senate Natural Resources committee today. This is a bill that would allow nonresident landowners with contiguous tracts of 80 acres or more to purchase either sex deer licenses each year. Meaning they would not have to enter a draw or “lottery” to receive a buck tag for our hunting seasons. This may not seem like much of an issue at first glance but its overall effect could have a great impact on resident hunting opportunities. Residents of Pike County Illinois and others have seen what happens when these types of bills are passed. Outfitters and wealthy non-residents will come here to purchase timber ground, “non-farmable land” which is much more affordable in Iowa than in many other states. Iowa is known as a “Big Buck” hot spot as you will read in any outdoor magazine or see on any hunting show on television and is a dream destination for deer hunters all over the US. This bill would do nothing to help control deer numbers in the state. In fact, it would be unhealthy for the Iowa deer herd. Hundreds of acres tied up by Outfitters are managed for “bucks” and often the doe populations explode in these areas as the bucks are the animal of choice for “trophy hunters”. What limited public hunting land we have would be over run with resident hunters who have been pushed out of their traditional stomping grounds. It is already happening. I have watched it happen to many friends and have had it happen to me personally. Passing this bill would only add fuel to the fire. Our hunting roots run deep here in Iowa and I would hate to see the future generations of resident hunters suffer due to the lack of land access. Most good deer hunting ground will be locked down from free permission hunting and our residents will be the big losers.
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!!!!
Please help us keep what we have by voting NO on this bill!
Thanks, _______________
2-22-11
Just copy and paste if you like! :way:
oldgene
PMA Member
Here's the response I got from Jerry Behn
Eugene:
Thanks for taking the time to give me your thoughts on SF 219 and HF 45. I was unaware of the existence of SF 219 and your comments on it will help me if the bill moves through the committee process. As a land owner, who does allow hunting, it seems ironic to me that we receive complaints about deer damage to crops and trees, etc. and yet, some don't allow access to hunters. I am always open to suggestions on how to improve hunting options.
In regards to HF 45, it was changed a lot in its final form here in the Senate and, as I understand it, the prohibition on the DNR buying land was removed. It was argued that much of the funds to the DNR are federal, and may require a state match. Without the state match, federal funds would be lost as well.
That argument may indeed be accurate, but since the federal government borrows roughly 40% of its overall budget, we really shouldn't be spending either state or federal funds right now. I have seen some very questionable spending done by the DNR, but with a new director, maybe he will do a better job. We will see . . . .
Thanks again for your comments. I really appreciate your input.
Sincerely,
Jerry
Eugene:
Thanks for taking the time to give me your thoughts on SF 219 and HF 45. I was unaware of the existence of SF 219 and your comments on it will help me if the bill moves through the committee process. As a land owner, who does allow hunting, it seems ironic to me that we receive complaints about deer damage to crops and trees, etc. and yet, some don't allow access to hunters. I am always open to suggestions on how to improve hunting options.
In regards to HF 45, it was changed a lot in its final form here in the Senate and, as I understand it, the prohibition on the DNR buying land was removed. It was argued that much of the funds to the DNR are federal, and may require a state match. Without the state match, federal funds would be lost as well.
That argument may indeed be accurate, but since the federal government borrows roughly 40% of its overall budget, we really shouldn't be spending either state or federal funds right now. I have seen some very questionable spending done by the DNR, but with a new director, maybe he will do a better job. We will see . . . .
Thanks again for your comments. I really appreciate your input.
Sincerely,
Jerry