Iowa SF255 NR tags going to outfitters.

[Pucky Freak]

We have that here. 40 acres or more. Any immediate family member that shares the same dwelling is also eligible. Tag is only for that particular parcel.

Their tags are free?

 

[Dave N]

Their tags are free?

Yes.

 

[Nick87]

Their tags are free?

Yup once they sign up into the program tags are free from what I understand. Still have to purchase license and habitat stamp iirc.

 

[madtom]

large landowners or tenants with qualifying farm units

Thanks. That’s all I saw, but thought maybe there was info elsewhere. I wouldn’t advocate for that bill, but I’d be dumb to not benefit from it if it passes.

 

[nontyp]

Iowa Legislature - BillBook

Information pertaining to the Iowa Legislature as well as the Executive and Judicial branch in as much as they relate to the legislative branch

www.legis.iowa.gov

FREE deer and turkey tags for nonresident adult children of large landowners.

To me it looks like the biggest impact from this is issuing a bunch of new NR tags that don’t count towards the NR quota.

 

[Pucky Freak]

To me it looks like the biggest impact from this is issuing a bunch of new NR tags that don’t count towards the NR quota.

Well ya, you get an influx of 10,000 new NR's overnight that kill 5000 more bucks that were otherwise available for everyone else to hunt.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Here's what I wrote the subcommittee on the extra NR tags:

No-cost landowner/tenant deer and turkey tags are incentives for farmers/landowners to create and maintain wildlife habitat on their property. Wildlife habitat on private land benefits all Iowans. If there is insufficient animal habitat, the DNR does not certify the property as qualifying for the tags. Their spouse/children living in the same household are directly involved/impacted by the family's land management practices.

Adult children living elsewhere in Iowa are not necessarily contributing to the habitat on their parents' property, so giving them free tags does not benefit all Iowans. Adult resident children can purchase over-the-counter deer and turkey tags and hunt their parents' property, as they do currently, which maintains the revenue stream to fund the DNR.

Nonresident adult children are not beneficiaries of Iowa's public trust natural resources of deer and turkeys. Our natural resources are managed by elected trustees (you) for the benefit of your constituents. Doling out freebies to non-constituents is a dereliction of trustee responsibility.

I understand that parents of nonresident adult children would like their children to be able to travel home and deer and turkey hunt with them on their family property. The current tag allocation system for nonresidents is limited quota, so nonresident adult children cannot obtain all the tags they would like due to high demand, and the tag prices are very high (approx. $1000 for an either-sex deer license).

I am in favor of changing the law to allow nonresident adult children to come home to hunt deer and turkeys on their parents' farm every year. However, allocating a portion of Iowa's public resource to non-beneficiaries should be offset by an equal or greater benefit to ALL Iowans. This could be accomplished by charging a large fee to nonresident adult children to obtain their landowner/tenant tag, ex. $500, and then using that revenue to fund parks, habitat improvement, wildlife management, clean water initiatives, etc.

 

[Gellar]

So…this Bill affects me personally. First off, I’m not in favor of it as written if i was more elegant with my words it would echo what @Pucky Freak says. But I understand the sentiment of some people who want this bill to go through. Last January at the DNR meetings my father in law went with me. He suggested this bill during the public comment period. He has a son who lives in Illinois. The son, my BIL, has hunted his whole life but doesn’t take it serious like most of us do. If he wanted to he could afford to buy an out of state tag, but like I said, he doesn’t live, eat and breathe hunting. He’s in it for the comraderie. My father in laws dying wish would be to hunt with his sons. By no means is he trying monetize this. He just wants to hunt with his kids.

 

[huntnpack]

So…this Bill affects me personally. First off, I’m not in favor of it as written if i was more elegant with my words it would echo what @Pucky Freak says. But I understand the sentiment of some people who want this bill to go through. Last January at the DNR meetings my father in law went with me. He suggested this bill during the public comment period. He has a son who lives in Illinois. The son, my BIL, has hunted his whole life but doesn’t take it serious like most of us do. If he wanted to he could afford to buy an out of state tag, but like I said, he doesn’t live, eat and breathe hunting. He’s in it for the comraderie. My father in laws dying wish would be to hunt with his sons. By no means is he trying monetize this. He just wants to hunt with his kids.

I have extended family who’ve had the same sentiment as FIL. They’ve mostly found ways to maintain the tradition at this point, but if this bill would have been around a decade or two ago I doubt they would have made a similar investment. In my eyes that probably would have been a net loss for informed ownership and management of Iowa land and habitat (and probably less sharing of their aquired resources/opportunities.)

The fresh tracks weekly video was great BTW. Thanks all.

 

[madtom]

Being able to come home and hunt on private family land is one thing. I have no idea why they think it should be free. I’d happily pay something less than the current full NR price, but more than resident price.

 

[Gellar]

I don’t know what the right price is but I agree there should be a fee. I also think there should be stipulations on size of property and length of ownership.

 

[nontyp]

Being able to come home and hunt on private family land is one thing. I have no idea why they think it should be free. I’d happily pay something less than the current full NR price, but more than resident price.

The only kicker is that the bill reads that those tags don’t count towards the NR tag pool. This is just a sneaky way of adding more NR tags. Im a former resident and would likely benefit but im strongly opposed to this. IA NR shotgun tags are already easy to get. I hunt in Iowa every year. Especially with the party hunting rules already in place, I can fill my resident dad, brothers, etc. buck tag if I wanted to while only holding a doe tag.

 

[Pucky Freak]

The only kicker is that the bill reads that those tags don’t count towards the NR tag pool. This is just a sneaky way of adding more NR tags. Im a former resident and would likely benefit but im strongly opposed to this. IA NR shotgun tags are already easy to get. I hunt in Iowa every year. Especially with the party hunting rules already in place, I can fill my resident dad, brothers, etc. buck tag if I wanted to while only holding a doe tag.

I’m guessing this is how most NR hunters do it now. I know several people who use this strategy or something similar. Hunters who wait the 3-5 years for an either-sex tag are often bow hunters.

 

[NECALI]

Just a few notes from reading this bill:

It is partisan. (Republican)

An outfitter must be registered as a business in Iowa prior to July 2022 to be eligible for the reserved tags.

A nonresident hunter is only eligible for 1 reserved license. (Doesn’t clarify if this per season, per calendar year, or lifetime)

Not more than 35% of the reserved licenses can be archery.

Anyone who is caught falsifying information for these tags is subject to a $35 fine.

I see this as a way for the state to issue more than 6000 nonresident licenses in the future.

If I was a nonresident hunter who has been applying for points to hunt in Iowa, I would be adamantly opposed to this bill.

This is just the beginning of the session, hold on!

A $35.00 fine if you get caught falsifying info. Big woop!

 

[Wh1tebison17]

Howdy everyone, I’m an Iowa resident. Who do I need to talk to about getting rid of this bill?

 

[nontyp]

Howdy everyone, I’m an Iowa resident. Who do I need to talk to about getting rid of this bill?

Iowa Legislature - Find Your Legislator

Information pertaining to the Iowa Legislature as well as the Executive and Judicial branch in as much as they relate to the legislative branch

www.legis.iowa.gov

go here, figure out who your representatives are and let them know that you oppose x bill/bills and why you oppose them.

 

[Wh1tebison17]

Iowa Legislature - Find Your Legislator

Information pertaining to the Iowa Legislature as well as the Executive and Judicial branch in as much as they relate to the legislative branch

www.legis.iowa.gov

go here, figure out who your representatives are and let them know that you oppose x bill/bills and why you oppose them.

Thank you!!

 

[Gellar]

After a bill is introduced it is assigned to a committee. Most of these bulls are in the natural resource committee. A subcommittee made made up of three members looks the bill over, takes public opinion, changes it if need be and recommends passage to full committee or to kill it. If it’s not passed out of subcommittee by a certain day, the bill is dead. After it is in the full committee the same process is repeated by the entire committee. If the bill passes the whole committee it is then in front of the whole senate or the whole house for debate, public comment and vote. The bill must be passed in both house and senate to go in front of the governor.

This bill, as all of them are right now, are in subcommittee. The members of that subcommittee are listed. Write to the three subcommittee members and give your statement as to what should happen to the bill before it makes it any further. If the bill makes it to the full committee then write to all the members of the committee.

 

[Joseph Peterson]

These proposals always confound me. Do the Trustees (Commissioners and Legislators) understand this is a Public Trust resource that is not to be allocated disproportionately to the benefit of any Stakeholders or any class of Beneficiaries, unless they can prove that doing so is in the best interest of the Trust Corpus (wildlife) and the best interest of all Beneficiaries (citizens of the state)?

That's a rhetorical question that is answered by the blatant abuse and disregard many Trustees demonstrate. Not just in Iowa, but in many states.

I struggle to see how outfitter set-asides benefit the Trust Beneficiaries or the Trust Corpus. I say that in all states with such programs. Sooner or later, I think the Beneficiaries are going to be forced to sue their Trustees, as the Trustees in most of these instances have complete disregard for their role as Trustees and their duty to the Beneficiaries. Given this disregard, our system of laws leave litigation as the final recourse, something hunters are hesitant to pursue.

I hope you can kill this. It does nothing beneficial for deer or resident deer hunters. Rather, it will increase the impacts of leasing and enhance the ability for a small handful to use this new financial subsidy to lease more land at lower risk, which is to the detriment of resident hunters.

The wildlife may benefit if the landowner doesn't have to sell his ground to a developer. The farmer and his family may benefit by having someone to oversee his land during his busy time of year. The wildlife may benefit because now there is an economic reason to keeping ground in something other than a tiled and drained corn field. The money associated with outfitters goes mostly to the community who may not hunt and not in his pocket. If indeed the public has been given the wildlife in trust for their benefit, some of these setaside programs spread that benefit to the community outside of just the direct killing a deer. If the big money you fear were to just line the pockets of the outfitters you might have a valid point but it doesn't. The vast majority of it goes to the community, habitats, the landowner who hosts the public resource on his private land and the people who are hired to provide the service.

 

[Gellar]

The wildlife may benefit if the landowner doesn't have to sell his ground to a developer. The farmer and his family may benefit by having someone to oversee his land during his busy time of year. The wildlife may benefit because now there is an economic reason to keeping ground in something other than a tiled and drained corn field. The money associated with outfitters goes mostly to the community who may not hunt and not in his pocket. If indeed the public has been given the wildlife in trust for their benefit, some of these setaside programs spread that benefit to the community outside of just the direct killing a deer. If the big money you fear were to just line the pockets of the outfitters you might have a valid point but it doesn't. The vast majority of it goes to the community, habitats, the landowner who hosts the public resource on his private land and the people who are hired to provide the service.

An argument could be made that outfitters, in the long run actually have a negative affect on the community. We can look to the Colorado ski thread on this forum as an extreme example of how outfitters, resorts, guides can be more negative than positive. We can also look at communities that are more like Iowa as an example. West central Illinois was once the Mecca of whitetail deer hunting. The state changed their nonresident deer licenses from a quota to none. The number of outfitters increased, with many of them only living in the area during hunting season and out of state the rest of the time. Yes, businesses would thrive for 1 or 2 weeks a year during the peak of the season, but the rest of the year they were still struggling. Families were tore apart because of the family farm and the decision to lease to an outfitter or to hunt on it as a family. 20 years after the heyday of the west central whitetail boom most of those lodges that were built for out of state hunters sit vacant, the businesses are still struggling, and the deer herd isn’t a fraction of what it once was.