Make a stand for public land - Iowa 2025

[Bonasababy]

Today is the 29th day of the 110 day session for the Iowa legislative session. It has been oddly quiet. I have a feeling there is going to be a flurry of activity as February goes forth. Two important dates in the near future are February 14 and March 7. February 14 is the final day for legislators to request bills and March 7 is the first funnel. Any bill not passed by a sub commitee and assigned to a specific committee are dead for this session after March 7. We have not seen any attacks on public land, by which I mean the ability of DNR, County Conservation or Cities to purchase at fair market value or receive land as a gift from landowners. It is not a matter of if, but when. There are many bills that have been introduced and in committee currently that would affect hunters, fishermen and outdoorsmen both negatively and positively. We have seen attacks on the Forest Reserve Bill and it looks like something is going to change. If you do not know what the Forest Reserve is it is a program that allows landowners to pay no or reduced taxes on acres that meet the minimum requirements of the program and are not being used for agriculture purposes. ATVS for retreiving game on public hunting areas, Land owner tags for NR landowners, increased depredeation tags and several other bills that could negatively affect the hunting experience are still alive and have passed onto committees.

Bills like your forest reserve program are often under attack by interests like the farm bureau. They just can't stand seeing a few acres here and there not cleared plowed up and put into crops. In states with a forest industry of any kind though their political influence defeats that, they like it. But still have to watch--we saw a dead of the night change in our program made by the legislature that allowed a much cheaper out for paper companies who had taken advantage of that tax law. They IMMEDIATELY pivoted to start leasing and selling off their lands to the highest bidder. Formerly it had all been open to public handing. Hundreds of thousands of acres of access gone from what we used to have.

 

[BrentD]

Bills like your forest reserve program are often under attack by interests like the farm bureau. They just can't stand seeing a few acres here and there not cleared plowed up and put into crops. In states with a forest industry of any kind though their political influence defeats that, they like it. But still have to watch--we saw a dead of the night change in our program made by the legislature that allowed a much cheaper out for paper companies who had taken advantage of that tax law. They IMMEDIATELY pivoted to start leasing and selling off their lands to the highest bidder. Formerly it had all been open to public handing. Hundreds of thousands of acres of access gone from what we used to have.

Where is this?

 

[Bonasababy]

Where is this?

MN

 

[BrentD]

MN

I'm not sure. I see all of this land for sale. But I do see a lot of minnesota tax forfeiture land that is huntable. I thought that was land that what's abandoned by timber companies not sold.

 

[Gellar]

Bills like your forest reserve program are often under attack by interests like the farm bureau. They just can't stand seeing a few acres here and there not cleared plowed up and put into crops. In states with a forest industry of any kind though their political influence defeats that, they like it. But still have to watch--we saw a dead of the night change in our program made by the legislature that allowed a much cheaper out for paper companies who had taken advantage of that tax law. They IMMEDIATELY pivoted to start leasing and selling off their lands to the highest bidder. Formerly it had all been open to public handing. Hundreds of thousands of acres of access gone from what we used to have.

The hypocrisy of Farm Bureau is laughable at best. Fighting to eliminate the Forest reserve program may very well come back and bite the Farm Bureau a couple of ways as many of Iowa's farmers are using this program both in compliance with the rules and against the rules. Iowa's Forest Reserve Bill was passed in 1906 to give landowners an option to “reduce or eliminate property taxes to induce landowners to hold their poorer lands in timber not only as a source of farm income but also for erosion control, watershed protection and game cover.”

The problem with the Forest Reserve program is that the County Assessor is charged with inspecting parcels to make sure they meet the minimum qualifications for the program, which are at least 2 forested acres and at least 200 growing trees per acre. The landowner cannot use the land for economic gain other than timber (i.e. no pastureing livestock, no leased hunting, etc.) If the Farm Bureau pushes this they will find out that many farmers are using Forest Reserve acres in disregard to the rules and may be subject to payment of back taxes. Most county assessors do not have the time or staff nor do they want to inspect these parcels to make sure they qualify. Forest Reserve land is not open to the public in Iowa.

 

[BrentD]

We use the forest reserve program to cut the taxes on about twenty four of our twenty seven acres. I don't recall it ever being inspected. In certainly 99% of the time, this could be done by aerial photography with already existing photographs and taking only seconds to do, if not completely automated. It would be a shame to see this program lost. I believe Minnesota has some kind of tree conservation program as well for private landowners. But I don't recall the details, only that it's something I need to look into. I do recall that it requires a management plan and some kind of inspection by a qualified forester.

 

[Gellar]

We use the forest reserve program to cut the taxes on about twenty four of our twenty seven acres. I don't recall it ever being inspected. In certainly 99% of the time, this could be done by aerial photography with already existing photographs and taking only seconds to do, if not completely automated. It would be a shame to see this program lost. I believe Minnesota has some kind of tree conservation program as well for private landowners. But I don't recall the details, only that it's something I need to look into. I do recall that it requires a management plan and some kind of inspection by a qualified forester.

Losing the forest reserve program would be a shame. It currently is a tool like the conservation easements Randy has been talking about for families to keep the family farm, it is also an option for landowners to justify preserving critical forest ecosystems, while allowing them to sustainably harvest timber and use the acres for recreation. but I do believe some changes need to be made to guard against fraudulent use of the program. Aerial inspection would only be good to ensure that the minimum amount of trees are present. It would be difficult at best but mostly impossible to see if someone is running livestock or leasing their forest reserve acres for hunting. Both of which would be a violation of the program.

 

[Pucky Freak]

@Gellar thank you for the info and updates.

I keep checking every 2 days on legislative updates, and the last 2 weeks have seen almost no activity on controversial natural resource bills. It has been many years since there has been a lull like this.

There is one new bill to add more NR any deer licenses, but I actually like this one. Immediate family members of residents landowners can purchase a NR license to party hunt only on family land, only w/ the IA family member present, and only during regular 2 gun seasons. Cost is 50% of NR any-deer tag, and does not count towards the NR quota.

I like the (apparent) intent of the bill where family can come home to hunt their family land w/ family, w/ a substantial revenue stream generated to offset the cost on the natural resource.

On the downside, I could see this as a wedge to expand NR hunting at the expense of R hunters w/ bills in future years. Most hunting-related bills introduced in IA are stalking horses.

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

 

[Gellar]

I keep checking every 2 days on legislative updates, and the last 2 weeks have seen almost no activity on controversial natural resource bills. It has been many years since there has been a lull like this.

I try to be optimistic but I have a feeling this is by design and we are about to see a shit storm of bad bills introduced with little to know time for response. As far as anti public land bills have gone in the past the hearings have been met with greatest response from people who support public land to the point of standing room only in the hearings and it has probably been very embarrassing for the legislators who introduce these bills.

There is one new bill to add more NR any deer licenses, but I actually like this one. Immediate family members of residents landowners can purchase a NR license to party hunt only on family land, only w/ the IA family member present, and only during regular 2 gun seasons. Cost is 50% of NR any-deer tag, and does not count towards the NR quota.

I like the (apparent) intent of the bill where family can come home to hunt their family land w/ family, w/ a substantial revenue stream generated to offset the cost on the natural resource.

On the downside, I could see this as a wedge to expand NR hunting at the expense of R hunters w/ bills in future years. Most hunting-related bills introduced in IA are stalking horses.

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

A version of this bill was introduced last year. If memory serves me correctly it would have basically allowed the NR to purchase a license at resident cost. I think this years version is a good compromise. And as a I stated last year it affects me personally as I know my Brother in law is an out of state hunter who would benefit from this.

 

[Bonasababy]

I'm not sure. I see all of this land for sale. But I do see a lot of minnesota tax forfeiture land that is huntable. I thought that was land that what's abandoned by timber companies not sold.

No tax forfeit land is land that the landowner didnt pay taxes on. Depending on the county it reverted back to being managed by county land departments--and was open to hunting. Whole nother topic but a case that went all the way to the SCUS made some changes in that recently but for the most part that will be changes going forward, most of those lands should stay open to hunting.

Potlatch, Boise Cascade, and a few others (mostly paper companies) had HUGE tracts of lands that they owned which were enrolled in our tree growth tax program--and literally hundreds of thousands of acres were either sold or leased once the skids were greased for them to get out without paying as much in back taxes or penalties. Some of those lands were even converted to ag--and worse--potatoes for McDonalds fries--grown over sands best managed for timber that are HIGHLY prone to aquifer wide water quality impacts (nitrates, blue baby syndrome are a real thing).

 

[BrentD]

No tax forfeit land is land that the landowner didnt pay taxes on. Depending on the county it reverted back to being managed by county land departments--and was open to hunting. Whole nother topic but a case that went all the way to the SCUS made some changes in that recently but for the most part that will be changes going forward, most of those lands should stay open to hunting.

Potlatch, Boise Cascade, and a few others (mostly paper companies) had HUGE tracts of lands that they owned which were enrolled in our tree growth tax program--and literally hundreds of thousands of acres were either sold or leased once the skids were greased for them to get out without paying as much in back taxes or penalties. Some of those lands were even converted to ag--and worse--potatoes for McDonalds fries--grown over sands best managed for timber that are HIGHLY prone to aquifer wide water quality impacts (nitrates, blue baby syndrome are a real thing).

Landowner did not pay, yes. I believe the landowners were timber companies, many years ago. Many thousands of acres in NE MN.