Gellar
Well-known member
I manage public land in one of those counties you stated earlier. I get complaints weekly on noise and light pollution from bowfishers.
Iowa public trust resource for sale
- Thread starter Pucky Freak
- Start date
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 2,106
The only equitable thing to do is make it as easy as possible to kill deer until the golden goose of resident whitetail hunting is fried, quality sucks, and you can no longer buy a tag OTC. We must stop being unfair to those who care about hunting so little that spending 2 hours to learn how to shoot a compound is overly burdensome. (Sarcasm)
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 2,106
I wish MN had a Skip Sligh or Randy Newberg..
Gellar
Well-known member
The 2024 Iowa legislative session begins today. I will be in Des Moines Friday and Saturday at the annual REAP Congress. REAP is the Resource Enhancement and Protection Act that provides funding for a lot of Natural Resource programs in the state. The Congress is held annually and delegates from each county will be in Des Moines to meet with legislators and tell them what we would like to see done with the money that is set aside for REAP.
Ben Nicholson
Well-known member
Will there be any discussion on getting IWILL funded?
Gellar
Well-known member
The short answer is YES! There will be much discussion on funding IWLL. Reading the minutes from each local REAP Assembly almost all of them made recommendations to fund IWLL.
REAP and IWLL are very similar things but they are different funding sources. REAP is from gaming revenue, IWLL would be from a state sales tax increase. The goal of the REAP Congress is to get REAP fully funded at the current formula and not let it sunset. Fully funded is $20 million, but it never has been since its inception in 1989. This year $12 million was appropriated. REAP is in place until 2026 so the way I understand it is if they passed IWLL today both IWLL and REAP would be funded until at least 2026. From what I have heard there is not much hope of getting IWLL funded for this session. But if the governor keeps lowering income tax, and possibly doing away with income tax in Iowa, that money will have to be replaced, somehow. A sales tax increase would be one way to replace some of that lost money that was generated through income tax. If a sales tax increase happens the first 3/8ths of a cent would go towards funding IWLL as was voted on by the residents of Iowa in 2010.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
I agree that sales tax will be brought to the surface sooner than later. There is going to be a strong push to shrink the natural resources share of the allocation w/ the very different political atmosphere now vs when IWILL was passed.
Republican legislature right now is firmly is anti-public land and anti-public natural resources.
“…the bill strikes a provision from Code of Iowa on open-space lands. The bill would remove language that “in addition to other goals for the program, it is intended that a minimum of 10 percent of the state’s land area be included under some form of public open-space protection by the year 2000.”
iowacapitaldispatch.com
Republican legislature right now is firmly is anti-public land and anti-public natural resources.
“…the bill strikes a provision from Code of Iowa on open-space lands. The bill would remove language that “in addition to other goals for the program, it is intended that a minimum of 10 percent of the state’s land area be included under some form of public open-space protection by the year 2000.”
Senate passes agriculture, natural resources budget bill with public lands provision • Iowa Capital Dispatch
An earlier bill which opponents feared would limit public land acquisitions failed in the House during the second funnel.
iowacapitaldispatch.com
Gellar
Well-known member
Polling shows that even more Iowans would be in favor of the IWLL if it was brought to vote today with the same formula. It passed by 63% in 2010.I agree that sales tax will be brought to the surface sooner than later. There is going to be a strong push to shrink the natural resources share of the allocation w/ the very different political atmosphere now vs when IWILL was passed.
Republican legislature right now is firmly is anti-public land and anti-public natural resources.
“…the bill strikes a provision from Code of Iowa on open-space lands. The bill would remove language that “in addition to other goals for the program, it is intended that a minimum of 10 percent of the state’s land area be included under some form of public open-space protection by the year 2000.”
Senate passes agriculture, natural resources budget bill with public lands provision • Iowa Capital Dispatch
An earlier bill which opponents feared would limit public land acquisitions failed in the House during the second funnel.
Senator Zumbach who they interviewed in that link is about as anti-public anything as you can get. He is the Senator who has pushed the permits for the Supreme Beef CAFO at the head of Bloody Run Creek.
There will be some interesting pieces of information coming out this session from pro-public land advocates to shut down the argument from Farm Bureau that the DNR and County Conservation Boards are acquiring all the farmland and the farmers are not able to compete with them.
Ben Nicholson
Well-known member
I'm a state board member for BHA, what can we do to help push for getting IWILL funded?
Gellar
Well-known member
Advocacy and education are big. There are a lot of new faces in Des Moines since 2010 and most of them only know what they’ve been told whether it’s right wrong or indifferent. I will send you some talking points that you can use if you’d wish and as they introduce bulls I will try and update the forum on what kind of natural resources bills are working through the system.
Ben Nicholson
Well-known member
Yes send me that info. I'd like to put together something to hand out at our booth at the deer classic.
trackerbacker
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2023
- Messages
- 470
Shoot me over some boilerplate info, though some of my contacts won't necessarily be for tax increase (nor am i), but ill read up on it and push it out afterward
Gellar
Well-known member
No body wants to raise taxes to raise taxes but if we want to have nice things we have to be able to fund them. If IWLL is funded like it was proposed when voted on it will be a huge win for conservation. I’ll get the estimated numbers tomorrow. If it’s a sales tax it would not be subject to how much the legislators want to give to it like REaP currently is. And everyone has a stake in it, not just license holders or large property owners or what not.
trackerbacker
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2023
- Messages
- 470
No no....
Yeah no...
No yea. So blanket statement, as I don't disagree, but usually first instinct. I haven't ever heard of IWILL, hence I'd like to check it out/learn more...
I'm a conservationist, not a preservationist as well, so I've got reading up to do is all.
Ben Nicholson
Well-known member
You mean the increase that the voters in the state voted (overwhelmingly) in favor of years ago?
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
In all reality it is a tax shift rather than an increase. Lawmakers have stated their goal to completely eliminate our state income tax. State taxes on retirement income have already been eliminated.
Conservatives typically favor flat taxes and sales taxes over income, corporate, business, and investment taxes because everyone pays a share. Raise sales taxes too high and it can hurt local economies because consumers can shift their buying to other states. However, a 1% increase is unlikely to cause this. Current surrounding states sales taxes: NE 6.94, SD 6.4, MN 7.49, WI 5.43, IL 8.81, MO 8.29.
At the end of the day after the tax shifts if the overall size and imprint of state government shrinks, it should be palatable to conservative-leaning residents.
Home - Iowa's Water & Land Legacy
The majority of IWILL funds will go to private land improvements to improve water quality. Cleaner water provides an economic boost, so the IWILL tax is as much an investment as it is an expense.
Iowa ranks 28th in drinking water quality, 24th in pollution, and our rivers and streams are badly polluted. That is embarrassing - we can do a lot better.
Last edited:
Gellar
Well-known member
@trackerbacker Here is another link to the Iowa Water and Land Legacy website that has several handouts with information on it. https://www.iowaswaterandlandlegacy.org/resources/ I haven't been able to find the breakdown of how the fund will be used, but I will continue to look for it. The breakdown is crucial, it was voted on in 2010. Most people who are currently opposed to IWLL are not in favor of it because they see how much money it is going to generate and they would like to get their piece of the pie. IWLL very well could have gotten signed last year but the major nonstarter on both sides was acquiring public land by County Conservation Boards and the Iowa DNR with one side being in favor of the ability to purchase land at appraised value from willing sellers and the other side did not want any more land purchased whatsoever.
