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

Your Stance?

OneCam

OneCam

Well-Known Member
The below document was prepaired by the Pheasant's Forever . . . what's your stance?

This should make for some interesting conversation.

The Iowa DNR has Proposed Legislation To Significantly Increase Non-Resident Deer and Turkey Licenses
Quotas. This proposed legislation has implications for Your Hunting in the future.


How should Pheasants Forever respond? We need your input on this question.


FACTS--

DEER:
Total proposed increase would be 6500 permits, mostly any sex (allows buck harvest)

Current Any Sex Permits for Non Residents would increase from 6000 to 12,000 (Doubles)

Current Antlerless Only Permits for Non Residents would increase from 2000 to 2500 (up 25%)

Current Cap that restricts NonResident Bowhunters to 35% of these Permits would be lifted.

TURKEY:

Current Turkey Permits for Non Residents would increase from 2300 to 3500 (52% increase)

A Few Things to Consider:

DNR Needs the Revenue-- This would generate about $1.5 Million (a temporary $$ fix only)

Nonresident pressures already limit private lands hunting access (as do resident pressures)


How does this action serve the interests of resident sportsmen?

How would these funds be used?

What are the impacts on accelerated leased hunting & recreational land purchase of doubling any-sex non-resident permits & removing bowhunter caps?


What will the affect of this action be on access opportunities of resident sportsmen and on future access opportunities for their kids?

Will this make it more difficult for you to hunt in the future?

Deer management is difficult at present. Will additional lockups of land by nonresidents or the outfitters serving them worsen these problems?

What other funding alternatives for DNR can be pursued?

Funding cuts and program curtailments, and cost saving measures

Short Term Fixes: increase in resident deer/turkey fees/habitat stamps, etc.

Long-Term Fixes

Licensing with pre-set annual increases or indexed to inflation



Public funding of natural resources (Missouri model, % of sales tax)



Are there any other alternatives?


Answer the questions on the ballot below and return those answers to me today by email. Ballot must be completed before 8:30 AM on Wednesday, 1/28/04.
PICK ONE CHOICE ONLY (If you choose #4, answer question # 5 as well) & You May Vote Only Once. If you voted by paper ballot at the convention, you may not vote again.



TELL PHEASANTS FOREVER WHAT YOU THINK:



1. ________ I FULLY SUPPORT THE DNR'S PROPOSED INCREASED QUOTAS FOR NONRESIDENT DEER AND TURKEY PERMITS (Doubles # of any-sex deer permits)?



2. ________ I OPPOSE ANY INCREASE IN NON-RESIDENT DEER AND TURKEY LICENSE PERMIT QUOTAS


3. ________ I WOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE MY OWN LICENSE COSTS INCREASED RATHER THAN INCREASE NON-RESIDENT DEER AND TURKEY LICENSE QUOTAS


4. ________ I FAVOR A STRUCTURED INCREASE IN NON-RESIDENT DEER PERMITS WITH A CAP ON ANY SEX DEER PERMITS BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF THE NUMBER OF RESIDENT DEER HUNTERS ISSUED THE PREVIOUS YEAR. I FAVOR A SIMILAR APPROACH WITH NONRESIDENT TURKEY PERMITS.


5. ________ IF YOU CHOSE # 4 ABOVE--WHICH CAP BELOW DO YOU FAVOR? A CAP AT CURRENT LEVELS (EXAMPLE--6000 ANY SEX NonResident P ERMITS/173,000 RESIDENT DEER HUNTERS) = 3.5%


AT 173,000 RESIDENT DEER HUNTERS (example only--this # could go up or down): NR CAP =

_____3.5% OF RESIDENT HUNTERS = 6000 NONRESIDENT Any Sex PERMITS (CURRENT LEVELS)

_____5% OF RESIDENT HUNTERS = 8650 NONRESIDENT Any Sex PERMITS (2650 more than present)

_____7.5% OF RESIDENT HUNTERS = 12,975 NONRESIDENT Any Sex PERMITS (6975 more)

_____10% OF RESIDENT HUNTERS = 17,300 NONRESIDENT Any Sex PERMITS (11,300 more)
 
#2. As I've stated before the money made from non-resident hunting is not going to significantly help the state debt. Take all the money from the casino's, gas tax, tobacco tax and hunting licenses and we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars possibly close to billions. WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING? There is so much money coming in yet it's going out just as fast, and towards what? I guess it's just a sore subject for me.
 
#2 I already see to many "NO HUNTING, LEASED PROPERTY" signs round here. If they get this past they might as well put up signs that say " IF YOU LIVE IN THIS COUNTY, SORRY YOU HAVE NO PLACE TO HUNT"
 
I too would be opposed to ANY increase in non-resdident permits. I was also wondering if you can take this poll and put it in a form that the users of the site could respond to these questions by cheking the boxes, it would be interesting to tally the results.
 
I would definetly go with number 3, to keep my ground. With everything else inflating in prices, I think that I could live with a little increase in fees to keep things the way they are now.
 
#3 The money has to come from somewhere. If you leave it up to the NR, I doubt hes gonna let you hunt his timber, and you may not need that license anymore...
 
This doesn't pick a number but why not raise the NR anysex or buck only tag cost until the supply matches the demand. Would the present number of tags sell out at $500? Reduce the doe only tag if needed to manage the numbers. Either way the $ are only a short term fix whether we take money from resident increases or issue more NR tags.
 
I'm a NR and my family owns land in Iowa so I'm kinda split. I would love to have a tag every year but what good is it if the quality goes down to what it's like here in MI. I would vote number 5 and put it at 5% or 7%, Kansas sets there NR limit the same way.

FYI: if you voted #3 it would only take $11.00 per Iowa resident hunter to generate the same $$ from the 6000 NR any sex deer tags.

Tim
 
#2 & #3 for me. I be willing to pay twice what I pay now for a tag. Think about what a round of golf costs and compare that to the time you spend in the woods on the cost of one deer tag. Well worth the cost of a tag in my opinion!
 
#3) I'd be more than willing to pay double the $$.$$ for a tag. Although, I would rather go with # 2 so I didn't have to pay double!!!
 
#2

i would like more info on missouri's system. as i understand it, residents pay 1/8 of a cent in sales tax, and this money goes directly to the dnr. legislators can't get their greedy little hands on these funds, nor can they rob from these funds to funnel money into other programs. the dnr is completely funded from this money. they create their own budget and don't have to beg congress for more money. their resident tag/license costs remain low. they don't have to cut costs like we have seen in iowa (state/county park services have been slashed)
i think something like this would be great here. our legislature will never allow it though, because they can't access the funds. i had heard that minnestoa was trying to pass a similar system. does anybody have more info into these systems? any min, missou hunters have some insight into them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom