MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Iowa public trust resource for sale

That is a great write up, Gellar. Thanks a bunch.

The extended trapping season for raccoons won't do anything, though I understand the motivation.

I do not like the idea of a spring squirrel season because that would be leaving squirrel kits starving in tree cavities. I like it just the way we have it.

It there any serious consideration of ANY rifle season for turkeys? I hope not. This ain't Texas.
 
That is a great write up, Gellar. Thanks a bunch.

The extended trapping season for raccoons won't do anything, though I understand the motivation.

I do not like the idea of a spring squirrel season because that would be leaving squirrel kits starving in tree cavities. I like it just the way we have it.

It there any serious consideration of ANY rifle season for turkeys? I hope not. This ain't Texas.
The squirrel season won’t be changed.

I should have gotten a picture of the slide but according to the presentation turkey harvest was on par with long term averages at slightly over 11000 birds in the spring and 400 in the fall. I disagree with the report from last night that said statewide the turkey population is stable or increasing according to turkey monitoring in July and august. This contradicts direct reports I have heard from other regional biologists who have been conducting nest surveys.
 
I don't have a problem with people who want to use crossbows during the archery season.

Nor do I have a problem increasing non-resident tags for landowners. Iowa's landowner tag system is absolutely ridiculous and needs a major overhaul. Residents with 2 acres can get a landowner tag in Iowa? How much habitat are you providing deer with 2 acres? The number of acres required needs to be increased significantly in my non-professional opinion. If a non-resident is providing habitat, loosing crops to deer, and paying the taxes, why shouldn't he enjoy a couple of deer tags every year. In many parts of Iowa the DNR complains that there are too many deer and wants does killed...unless you are a non-resident landowner. In that case you can probably draw a doe tag though it will cost you around $300.
 
I don't have a problem with people who want to use crossbows during the archery season.

Nor do I have a problem increasing non-resident tags for landowners. Iowa's landowner tag system is absolutely ridiculous and needs a major overhaul. Residents with 2 acres can get a landowner tag in Iowa? How much habitat are you providing deer with 2 acres? The number of acres required needs to be increased significantly in my non-professional opinion. If a non-resident is providing habitat, loosing crops to deer, and paying the taxes, why shouldn't he enjoy a couple of deer tags every year. In many parts of Iowa the DNR complains that there are too many deer and wants does killed...unless you are a non-resident landowner. In that case you can probably draw a doe tag though it will cost you around $300.
As far as land owners loosing crops do to deer I believe they can qualify for depredation tags.
 
I don't have a problem with people who want to use crossbows during the archery season.

Nor do I have a problem increasing non-resident tags for landowners. Iowa's landowner tag system is absolutely ridiculous and needs a major overhaul. Residents with 2 acres can get a landowner tag in Iowa? How much habitat are you providing deer with 2 acres? The number of acres required needs to be increased significantly in my non-professional opinion. If a non-resident is providing habitat, loosing crops to deer, and paying the taxes, why shouldn't he enjoy a couple of deer tags every year. In many parts of Iowa the DNR complains that there are too many deer and wants does killed...unless you are a non-resident landowner. In that case you can probably draw a doe tag though it will cost you around $300.
I agree with you on landowners getting tags that don’t qualify, but giving tags to nonresidents is not the answer. Actually checking on landowners when they sign up for the lot program instead of taking their word for their property qualifying and penalizing those who use a lot tag and don’t qualify might be a start. I have 5 acres that qualifies for lot tags even though I mow 1/4 of it, my house and driveway takes up 1/4 of it and so forth.

My father in law owns 1500 acres and he can get the same amount of lot tags as me. He submitted a comment about that that it’s not fair. And I think he has a valid argument.

As far as nonresidents getting lot tags, ask a resident of Illinois if they like nonresident landowners. No, because if a 100 acre piece comes for sale a group of 3 or 4 Georgians buys it and locks everyone else out. Most residents cant afford to pay the price of the nonresidents for land and they are SOL. Many hunters have left the sport because they don’t have a place to hunt.
 
Last edited:
As far as nonresidents getting lot tags, ask a resident of Illinois if they like nonresident landowners. No, because if a 100 acre piece comes for sale a group of 3 or 4 Georgians buys it and locks everyone else out. Most residents cant afford to pay the price of the nonresidents for land and they are SOL. Many hunters have left the sport because they don’t have a place to hunt.
I know better than to argue politics on an internet forum, so I'll just let my opinion stand. Anyway it's all probably moot as, by the time the legislature gets done screwing with things, then the bureaucrats at the
Do
Nothing
Right
get done with it they'll have things screwed three days from Sunday and we'll all have plenty to bitch about.

Your comment about land in Illinois is way off though. Having been a resident of Illinois and having bought and sold several properties in both Iowa and Illinois in the past two years I can assure you Iowa isn't doing you any favors on land prices. Also, I haven't seen where non-residents are buying up land to hunt in Illinois. It really doesn't make financial sense and, at the risk of insulting someone, you'd have to have rocks in your head to, as a non-resident, purchase land in Illinois right now unless you got a screaming deal. Leases? OK sure, I can see that, but purchasing land to use for two or three weeks a year at $5-10k/acre in a state that has promised to raise taxes through the roof? I've seen the opposite, non residents selling land in Illinois to residents.

There is a lot of Chicago money that buys up land in Illinois, but I've not seen the non-resident angle.
 
My place sits on a little over 2 acres here in iowa and I don’t qualify for landowners. I called the dnr and they told me if you don’t have ag crop that you are selling, its a no. I even asked if I grew apple trees on my property and sold the apples. She (dnr) became super ticked off that I would even ask a question. I thought if I do that ask I don’t know.
 
I know better than to argue politics on an internet forum, so I'll just let my opinion stand. Anyway it's all probably moot as, by the time the legislature gets done screwing with things, then the bureaucrats at the
Do
Nothing
Right
get done with it they'll have things screwed three days from Sunday and we'll all have plenty to bitch about.

Your comment about land in Illinois is way off though. Having been a resident of Illinois and having bought and sold several properties in both Iowa and Illinois in the past two years I can assure you Iowa isn't doing you any favors on land prices. Also, I haven't seen where non-residents are buying up land to hunt in Illinois. It really doesn't make financial sense and, at the risk of insulting someone, you'd have to have rocks in your head to, as a non-resident, purchase land in Illinois right now unless you got a screaming deal. Leases? OK sure, I can see that, but purchasing land to use for two or three weeks a year at $5-10k/acre in a state that has promised to raise taxes through the roof? I've seen the opposite, non residents selling land in Illinois to residents.

There is a lot of Chicago money that buys up land in Illinois, but I've not seen the non-resident angle.
I lived in pike county, IL for about 10 years. I know about nonresidents in Illinois buying land. But since this is the internet and you are from Iowa now, we aren’t gonna argue! Let’s keep Iowa the same and not overrun with outfitters and leases.
 
My place sits on a little over 2 acres here in iowa and I don’t qualify for landowners. I called the dnr and they told me if you don’t have ag crop that you are selling, its a no. I even asked if I grew apple trees on my property and sold the apples. She (dnr) became super ticked off that I would even ask a question. I thought if I do that ask I don’t know.
You are being honest, there’s to many people that aren’t. I have alfalfa on mine that might make 1 bale a year. It qualifies. And for the record, I don’t buy lot tags.
 
Lobbying by corporations. Who would have thought it ….

Give NR landowners tags in Iowa and you see a run on land prices that will make current prices look cheap in comparison. Pimping wildlife the great American pastime
 
Some more "new this year" bills:

HF 322 LO deer tags may be transferred and sold to anyone. Passed NR subcommittee, and now before House NR committee. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=hf322 bill text. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/committees/committee?ga=90&groupID=680 NR committee contacts.

The following 3 bills have a sponsor, but have not been assigned a subcommittee

SF 363 Unlimited OTC NR discount deer tags for family members of IA residents https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=sf363 [email protected] sponsor

SF 255 NR deer tag quota carveouts for outfitters https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=sf255 [email protected] sponsor

HF 375 Unlawful to discharge firearm within 1/2 mile of a school https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=hf375 [email protected] [email protected] cosponsors

This last bill is introduced by dem's and has all but zero chance of going anywhere. If implemented would remove hunting and shooting opportunities on hundreds of private parcels and some affect public land as well.
 
HF 375 Unlawful to discharge firearm within 1/2 mile of a school https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=hf375 [email protected] [email protected] cosponsors

This last bill is introduced by dem's and has all but zero chance of going anywhere. If implemented would remove hunting and shooting opportunities on hundreds of private parcels and some affect public land as well.
I don’t know If this is the same with a school, but if someone builds a house next to existing public land the 200 yard rule does not count.
 
Believe that only applies to WMAs, and buldings built post...2004?
The regs just say 200 yds from occupied structures. I don't think it says anything else.

Now that we are having all kinds of centerfires, we are going to have issues with (more) bullets passing through places they ought not.
 
The regs just say 200 yds from occupied structures. I don't think it says anything else.

Now that we are having all kinds of centerfires, we are going to have issues with (more) bullets passing through places they ought not.
" 4. a. This section does not apply to the discharge of a firearm on premises identified as a public hunting area, if the premises have been identified as a public hunting area prior to the erection of a building inhabited by people or domestic livestock, or prior to the construction of a feedlot, located within two hundred yards of the public hunting area. This subsection applies only to the erection of a building inhabited by people or domestic livestock or to the construction of a feedlot located within two hundred yards of a public hunting area, which erection or construction occurs on or after May 14, 2004."

Maybe there's a misunderstanding, but the language around 2004 exists.

Edit: and I was wrong in specifying WMA. it does say "public hunting area"
 
" 4. a. This section does not apply to the discharge of a firearm on premises identified as a public hunting area, if the premises have been identified as a public hunting area prior to the erection of a building inhabited by people or domestic livestock, or prior to the construction of a feedlot, located within two hundred yards of the public hunting area. This subsection applies only to the erection of a building inhabited by people or domestic livestock or to the construction of a feedlot located within two hundred yards of a public hunting area, which erection or construction occurs on or after May 14, 2004."

Maybe there's a misunderstanding, but the language around 2004 exists.

Edit: and I was wrong in specifying WMA. it does say "public hunting area"
The regs that I read on line didn't seem to be that detailed, and who's to know when a bird flushes, how old the building is?

This was a big issue a few years back when a guy was going to build one of those big walking-shopping malls on the edge of Ames where there was/is a public hunting area next door. Fortunately, the guy went bankrupt. Not too many years ago.
 
The regs that I read on line didn't seem to be that detailed, and who's to know when a bird flushes, how old the building is?

This was a big issue a few years back when a guy was going to build one of those big walking-shopping malls on the edge of Ames where there was/is a public hunting area next door. Fortunately, the guy went bankrupt. Not too many years ago.
It takes some homework, but I've used it, and I believe I opposed the project you're referring to. To my knowledge there have been a couple. Good thing someone else with big pockets locked that property up :cool:. I'll also be taking a leak on Tedesco's grave when it's time. For seruptitiously closing the walk-in camping on the greenbelt too. But that's for another thread...
 
Today is the end of the first funnel for the legislative session. That means any bill that has not been passed out of a sub committee and committee is dead. Hopefully, there are a few bulls that die today!
 

Forum statistics

Threads
114,007
Messages
2,040,964
Members
36,428
Latest member
daddyryann
Back
Top