Discussion in 'Legislative Forum' started by Fishbonker, Jan 16, 2019.
We did indeed. The financial hit to the Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund is why we registered against.
I agree. Let the DNR manage the seasons.
The financial hit? From a $2 landowner tag?
I doubt the financial impact would be significant. At any rate the IBA opposes many other legislation that would be fund raisers. Yet somehow we're to believe funding is a deciding issue with the IBA?
Not buying it.
Guess I better extend my IBA membership another 3 years. Glad they are opposing this bill. Common sense is reason enough for me!
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
I can already hunt every season besides early muzzleloader season on my farm now as it stands. Statewide Archery any sex, Landowner for both shotgun seasons and Late Season Muzzleloader any sex tags. Landowner antlerless tags do NOT go by the County quota system. I also get an additional any sex tag for my Urban hunt and have since 2005. As I get older (48 now) I would love to just be able to hunt when the weather and hunting conditions are good and the Landowner tag that is good for any season would be awesome.
I definitely understand it. I qualify for a landowner tag, have 3 kids, a wife that works 12 hour shifts and every other weekend. I'd love to have a tag valid for every season because I never know when I will be able to sneak away. As much as I would like it selfishly, I can see the negative effects that would come with it immediately (potential for people to lose access to ground) and then in years after the fact that anyone not able to get a LOT tag will feel like they need a floating tag also.
That's OK. Momma can't keep all her children happy all the time.
Can you elaborate on the financial hit?
Does the revenue from LOT tags go to a different fund or same as over the counter?
It isn't the $2 tag, it is the fact that a landowner would not have to buy any other tag, at regular price, and be able to hunt every season.
This is the scenario that could/would play out.
Johnny buys his LOT tag and archery tag and goes hunting. If/when he arrows a buck, he would tag it with statewide archery tag. He would keep hunting with his bow. Say he doesn't get a second buck tag with the bow. Then he just goes into gun season(s) using his LOT tag. If he ends up filling it, he can go purchase a statewide gun tag of his choosing to pursue buck #3. If he doesn't fill the LOT tag, he never buys the gun/muzzy tag and the state is out their $28.
With the potential of being out $56 if they just purchase the landowner tag and no bow tag and either end up not filling any tags or fill their LO tag late in the season
From your scenario they aren't out anything. Johnny bought 2 tags. A statewide which is $33 and a $2 LOT tag. It doesn't state in the regs that you have to buy 2 statewide tags every year
I buy a lot of tags every year, some get filled, some don't. So if I don't fill them, do I get my money back?
yeah they are. As it stands now in the above scenario the LOT tag would not be good for the gun season so if Johnny wanted to gun hunt he'd be spending $28.
My scenario: $28 + $2
Rules today: $28 + $2 + $28.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the rule, just giving the basis for the argument against the proposed change as it pertains to $$$
I can get a LOT tag today, and still let people party gun hunt my ground with my gun doe LOT tag, and shoot my monster I am after (Mind you, I know some people who sit in stands and shoot whatever, and tag whatever for people, not the traditional pushing)... Its a slippery slope, I see the point of trying to stop it because again, it simply opens the can of worms to allow it to all move that way.
If you take a step back and look at all of the bills that have been proposed this year several of them have a negative impact on the FWTF. No fishing license, life time trout license, tags for 27 year old children, reduced cost for youth tags, floating tags for private land owners as well as public land owners, voter registration, organ donor status and electronic display (good bills but who is going to pay for the computer programing cost?) there may be more that I can't remember and more that may be introduced.
I asked the DNR for their analysis of the cost to the FWTF from theses bills. It turns out it is a longer process than I thought. I figured they'd just shoot me a number but they are running it through the Legislative Analysis Services. This way the DNR can't be accused of skewing the numbers, sort of like the Congressional Budget Office in DC. The only result I have seen so far is HF218 floating public land owner tags would cost the DNR 2.2 million.
So "big picture time", there are legislators who have personal grudges against the DNR for what ever reason. They cannot stand seeing the DNR even come close to a well funded department and they seem to enjoy sticking it to then at every opportunity. If anyone has the time and inclination go through all of the bills proposed so far this year that would have a negative affect on the FWTF or involves the DNR in some way you will see a pattern develop.
As for private land owner license revenue I'm not sure who gets the writing fee. Maybe the company that the DNR farms this process out to, maybe the store that has the ELSI machine, maybe the county Recorder? I don't know. Of more importance though is tags some private land owners may not purchase for other seasons. The FWTF needs funds for the DNR to manage wildlife in the public trust effectively.
I agree with Bonker and will add you should read new paragraph and explanation to HF 218
16 NEW PARAGRAPH . f. If a nonresident fails to take a deer 17 during the season being hunted, the person may use an unfilled 18 tag in a subsequent deer hunting season using the method of 19 take authorized by rule for the season being hunted. 20 Sec. 3. Section 483A.27A, subsection 3, paragraph a, Code 21 2019, is amended to read as follows: 22 a. A resident mentor and a resident apprentice hunter must 23 also purchase deer hunting licenses and tags to hunt deer and 24 wild turkey hunting licenses and tags to hunt wild turkey. 25 Deer hunting licenses and tags purchased by a resident mentor 26 and a resident apprentice hunter must be valid for the same 27 seasons and zones. An unfilled tag due to the failure to take 28 a deer in a prior season by the resident apprentice or resident 29 mentor shall be valid for subsequent seasons as long as the 30 person using the tag uses the method of take authorized by 31 rule for the season being hunted. When hunting wild turkey, a 32 resident mentor having a license valid for one of the spring 33 wild turkey hunting seasons may accompany and aid a resident 34 apprentice hunter who has a valid wild turkey hunting license 35 -1- LSB 2140YH (2) 88 js/rn 1/ 2
H.F. 218 for any of the spring seasons as provided by rule. When 1 hunting wild turkey in the fall, a resident mentor and a 2 resident apprentice hunter must each have a fall wild turkey 3 hunting license valid for the current year. A transportation 4 tag issued to a resident apprentice hunter shall not be used to 5 tag a deer or wild turkey taken by another person. 6 EXPLANATION 7 The inclusion of this explanation does not constitute agreement with 8 the explanation’s substance by the members of the general assembly. 9 This bill allows a resident or nonresident hunter to use an 10 unfilled deer tag in a subsequent deer hunting season if the 11 hunter failed to take a deer in the season being hunted. For 12 purposes of a resident apprentice and a resident mentor hunting 13 deer, deer tags are considered valid for the same season when 14 the resident apprentice or the resident mentor uses an unfilled 15 deer tag from a prior season as long as the person using the tag 16 uses the method of take authorized by rule for the season being 17 hunted.
I think that the FWTF funding excuse is a stretch. I would guess that there is minimal revenue from a land owner tag (especially after you have to print it out ). I would be willing to pay the full amount of a normal tag for the land owner tag. Heck, even put a rule in that you have to purchase a normal tag before the land owner tag. The land owner tag is more about meeting conservation goals on private properties that are not open to the public.
The electronic licenses have worked very well in Wisconsin and have eliminated the need for special printers and paper/stickers. The "computer programming" can likely be duplicated and have minimal investment for the Iowa DNR to implement. it will save a lot of money and headache in the end if implemented correctly.
Just charge me $60 for a landowner tag good for all seasons. Problem solved. I’d pay more than that too for the privelege.
So would I, but would you support that option for the general public? I bet there are a lot of hunters who would willingly pay $60 or more for a floating tag.
Separate names with a comma.