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

Hf 327 & sf219

like2hunt said:
1). As an American citizen with legal rights I do feel compelled to voice my opinion about issues that affect me.I dont understand how that makes me selfish. 2). You would not stand by and let someone tell you that you couldnt hunt your own property either.
3). If Illinois had the same rule for Iowa residents owning land in Illinois I could better accept it. 4). I guess my position is that I am proud to have been able to buy some land .When you are in your 40's a tag every couple years may not seen too bad but when you are in your 60's it takes on a whole new meaning.
Click to expand...

From your post above.... ( I added th numbers)

1). You can hunt every year so it seems you are upset about not getting a "Buck" tag everyyear, that is the rule hear, so yes it makes you sound very selfish.
2). Again, NOBODY is telling you can't hunt your own ground, hunt it all you want every year for what is legal, including antlerless deer, have a ball, knock yourself out, thats why you bought the ground right, to hunt?
3). If it would make you feel better, push for the law to be changed in ILL to be the same as Iowa, and have it noted that no NRLO is grandfathered in.
4). Refer to number 1 and number 2 above, it really is qute simple.

As other have said NRLO's keep saying they can't hunt their ground every year and that is BS in their opinion. YOU CAN HUNT, just not an antlered deer, so is this just horn envy and jelousy on your part? Seems so.
 
If you nonresident owners in iowa feel bad about only being able to bow hunt bucks every few years on your own land, imagine how we feel in Maine, I will be lucky to hunt moose once or twice in my lifetime in my own state on my own land, bull or cow.
 
also using Illinois as an example is weak because everyone sees what is happening there with no tag restrictions the hunting is going downhill. SO why would any Iowan want that to happen here? and its still a pointless argument.. NR landowners can still hunt anything every year on their land besides an antlered buck. Almost every state has something in the regs that benefits residents over NR. are you going to bitch about not getting an elk tag out west if you can't draw with the same frequency as the resident can?
 
The bottom line is this....the Non Res Landowners that are on here complaining are only concerned about their land. The rest of us on here are interested in what is best for the entire state. There have been more posts about this topic on this site than I care to even mention, and it all boils down to one question. What is best for the state of Iowa and it's residents?
 
reciprocity is the answer

JakeWym said:
The bottom line is this....the Non Res Landowners that are on here complaining are only concerned about their land. The rest of us on here are interested in what is best for the entire state. There have been more posts about this topic on this site than I care to even mention, and it all boils down to one question. What is best for the state of Iowa and it's residents?
Click to expand...

Jake: I 100% agree with what you are saying, but here lies the issue. If the concern was only for the residents, then no hunting or fishing would be allowed by any state by a non-resident. Every state would be better off eliminating NR tags, then it would be better for the residents correct?

So that is a tough argument. Obviously I and all my fellow Minnesotans would be better off is we only let NR fish every (3) years, or if we limited bear tags to once every (5) years. Where do you draw the line, that is what most of the argument on here is?

As you know, Iowa is the only state in the nation that does not allow a NR landowner to archery hunt his/her property every year, and it has the highest tag fee. So it should not be a surprise that someone questions that?

To say, well you knew the rules when you bought your land does not apply to me, since I purchased my land, the rules then changed, archery doe tags are no longer allowed.

Reciprocity is the answer. Keep your (3) year wait on archery tags, and then all states should issue a (3) year wait on archery tags for Iowa residents.
 
Hardwood11 said:
Obviously I and all my fellow Minnesotans would be better off is we only let NR fish every (3) years, or if we limited bear tags to once every (5) years. Where do you draw the line, that is what most of the argument on here is?
Click to expand...
I don't see any problem with that. If Minnesota residents would be better off only letting NR's fish every three years; i believe they should do it! Same goes with bear hunting every 5 years. They are Minnesota's resources, and should be controlled by Minnesota's residents. I don't for one second believe if i owned land any where in Minnestoa, and still lived in Iowa, that i should have equal rights as if i lived there. I believe that is where the line is drawn and should stay. Pretty simple really!
 
cedar creek said:
I don't see any problem with that. If Minnesota residents would be better off only letting NR's fish every three years; i believe they should do it! Same goes with bear hunting every 5 years. They are Minnesota's resources, and should be controlled by Minnesota's residents. I don't for one second believe if i owned land any where in Minnestoa, and still lived in Iowa, that i should have equal rights as if i lived there. I believe that is where the line is drawn and should stay. Pretty simple really!
Click to expand...


Agree 100%
 
Hardwood11 said:
Jake: I 100% agree with what you are saying, but here lies the issue. If the concern was only for the residents, then no hunting or fishing would be allowed by any state by a non-resident. Every state would be better off eliminating NR tags, then it would be better for the residents correct?

So that is a tough argument. Obviously I and all my fellow Minnesotans would be better off is we only let NR fish every (3) years, or if we limited bear tags to once every (5) years. Where do you draw the line, that is what most of the argument on here is?

As you know, Iowa is the only state in the nation that does not allow a NR landowner to archery hunt his/her property every year, and it has the highest tag fee. So it should not be a surprise that someone questions that?
QUOTE]
I for one know that Minnesota has changed the laws in the best interest of the state. I hear stories all the time of how people used to go there to fish and bring home more fish than what their vehicles could carry. One group of people going up there to fish 3-4 times a year could almost run a lake out of fish. Now I go up there and adhere to slot limits, and all kinds of other regs. And, you will not here me complain about it either. Those regs are in place for a very good reason. And, I am not saying that Iowa does not want non-res hunters. Only saying that the current laws are in place for good reason. With all respect intended, you keep talking about your land, and your land only. We are talking about what is best for the state.
Click to expand...
 
Hardwood11 said:
Jake: I 100% agree with what you are saying, but here lies the issue. If the concern was only for the residents, then no hunting or fishing would be allowed by any state by a non-resident. Every state would be better off eliminating NR tags, then it would be better for the residents correct?

So that is a tough argument. Obviously I and all my fellow Minnesotans would be better off is we only let NR fish every (3) years, or if we limited bear tags to once every (5) years. Where do you draw the line, that is what most of the argument on here is?

As you know, Iowa is the only state in the nation that does not allow a NR landowner to archery hunt his/her property every year, and it has the highest tag fee. So it should not be a surprise that someone questions that?

To say, well you knew the rules when you bought your land does not apply to me, since I purchased my land, the rules then changed, archery doe tags are no longer allowed.

Reciprocity is the answer. Keep your (3) year wait on archery tags, and then all states should issue a (3) year wait on archery tags for Iowa residents.
Click to expand...

I think you are exactly right, if non-resident fishing is inhibiting Minnesotans from enjoying the resource, the laws should indeed be lobbied to be changed by the tax payers of your state. In Wisconsin, they would throw a fit if anyting hindered non-residents from fishing just based on the economic impact for all the resorts, guides, bait shops, restaurants, etc...., but if limitting non-resident fishing opportunities would be beneficial to resident minnesotans, you are justified in trying to change the laws.

although I still think fishing vs whitetail hunting is a stretch ( catch and release proves tricky with whitetails and that limits opportunities), I think the voices of the individuals that elect the officials should be heard above the ringing of cash registers- if it helps the business owners and residents of minnesota to limit non-resident fishing opportunities, I wish you the best in your efforts to limit fishing to non-residents.
 
However anyone feels on this issue, I'd be fine with the reciprocity from other states. I will say, I personally don't know ONE person that leaves IA to hunt other states to deer hunt. I do have many buddies from other states that come here though, super glad to have them! I "KNOW OF" a few that do leave for other states (and I mean a FEW) but they only do it for a change of scenary, a fun trip and they have some amazing giant tracts their buddy's own in other states. My home state of MI could make me wait 20 years for a deer tag and it would be "all good" with me, I won't be buying a tag there in 20 years anyways (or ever again for that matter, unless they pull a 180 in deer management). Iowa is the best state out there, there's just no question. Whatever happens, I just hope it stays that way & ANY changes of ANY kind (I don't care what the regulation change is, I hope it's made carefully. Example- late antlerless is an idiotic season of medium level damage IMO) make me especially nervous since we only have about 5-7% timber here and it's such a fragile system/resource.
 
Last edited:
Hardwood11 said:
Jake: I 100% agree with what you are saying, but here lies the issue. If the concern was only for the residents, then no hunting or fishing would be allowed by any state by a non-resident. Every state would be better off eliminating NR tags, then it would be better for the residents correct?

Reciprocity is the answer. Keep your (3) year wait on archery tags, and then all states should issue a (3) year wait on archery tags for Iowa residents.
Click to expand...

Your argument ins very poor here in my opinion. If you dislike something about Minnesota’s fishing Regs. fight to change them. You are a voter. Reciprocity would work just fine with almost very body you're taking too. You are a voter fight to change that in your state.

If this changed in Iowa, as you desire, it would change the whole make up of the quality deer hunting portion of the state. Cattlemen, farmers and all nr or resident hunters would be affected negatively. Truth. We just don't want the negative advance at an accelerated rate. You should work on changes you want in your on state that are going to be a benefit to Minnesota residence. Very good use of your time.
 
Last edited:
ironwood said:
Your argument ins very poor here in my opinion. If you dislike something about Minnesota’s fishing Regs. fight to change them. You are a voter. Reciprocity would work just fine with almost very body you're taking too. You are a voter fight to change that in your state.

If this changed in Iowa, as you desire, it would change the whole make up of the quality deer hunting portion of the state. Cattlemen, farmers and all nr or resident hunters would be affected negatively. Truth. We just don't want the negative advance at an accelerated rate. You should work on changes you want in your on state that are going to be a benefit to Minnesota residence. Very good use of your time.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, boy I didn't think of that:rolleyes:. Did I say anything about disliking the fishing regs in MN, you must have read another post. Any argument that is against your opinion is a poor argument in your opinion.

FYI, they proposed changing the walleye limit in MN from a limit of 6 fish to 4 a few years ago. So many NR's called the MN DNR and said that they would quit coming to MN if they could not keep 6 walleyes, that they backed off from the change. There were 8 letters to editor in the MN Outdoor News from Iowa residents complaining about the change, so don't think for a minute that your fellow Iowa neighbors are not trying to influence regulations in another state.
 
FYI, they proposed changing the walleye limit in MN from a limit of 6 fish to 4 a few years ago. So many NR's called the MN DNR and said that they would quit coming to MN if they could not keep 6 walleyes, that they backed off from the change.
Click to expand...

Holy smokes, what a weak DNR!!!!

Letting people from another state steer legislation over being able to keep a couple fish, and by using an empty threat, holy smokes.
 
Hardwood11 all that shows is the residents of Minnesota must not have called or emailed the powers to be. I suggest you try it because it does work, start showing up at the meet and greets. I used to send emails and that was it, got some feedback but once I started showing up at the little corner get togethers and they knew my name they paid more attention to me and what I as a voter in their district wanted! Bottom line is all the money in the world from NR's isn't going to sway someone who has just witnessed 3 sitting supreme court judges bounced from their so called untouchable positions! They want to stay in office and they will listen to those who support or oppose them!
 
ISHEDHUNT said:
Bottom line is all the money in the world from NR's isn't going to sway someone who has just witnessed 3 sitting supreme court judges bounced from their so called untouchable positions! They want to stay in office and they will listen to those who support or oppose them!
Click to expand...
Well said!
 
Why not charge $5,000 per tag for non-resident landowners to shoot a buck each year?

They have already proved with the governor tags that people will pay it. Just more money for Iowans anyways.

They could still do the draw but have a 100% gaurantee that one can hunt if he or she pays the $5k...
 
I would say that MN needs to get better people in their offices first and foremost before worrying about what Iowa should do with THEIR deer herd. I mean, if thats all it takes to sway the MN DNR I am dang glad we have the ones we have. That are actually going to respect Iowans opinions, but look out for what is best for the state of IOWA.
 
NR voice

It is more than just NR calling or sending e-mails to the MN DNR, it is also the resorts, hotels and casinos in MN lobbying to keep limits attractive to NR. If we limited NR to one license every (3) years the resorts would all go under. There are 10,000 lakes in MN, which means thousands of resorts, they are a powerful lobby. And to go on the record, I am not saying I want that to happen. My business is dependent on tourism as well, most of MN is. T

There are Iowa residents that own cabins on the lake I live on, they fish every day up here, same limit as I have, except they like to fish for bullheads more than walleyes:D

I welcome NR to all of our lakes, we have good fishing, I just thought (4) walleyes per day was plenty, but they still kept the limit at (6).

Also, I understand deer hunting and fishing is not a equal comparison, but my point is, every state listens to the NR, I guarantee they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom