I’d rather have planning and zoning at a county level than the state level.
Oh, the irony!
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
brocksw
Well-known member
Yes. Just a little.
Which groups have advocated for a reduction in NR tags/opportunity in a consistent or meaningful way that is not for the betterment of the resource, hunting experience, or out of fairness to their own residents?
BrentD
Well-known member
You have not been reading the threads apparently. Try again.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Like I said, I can argue both ways. In Chicago, you can't tell where Cook county ends and Dupage county begins. It was a line drawn a long time ago and over 150yrs the city of Chicago and metro area outgrew boundaries of the county. But in some places you have to follow one set of rules on one side of the street and another set on the other side. For a business, this is a PITA, and unfortunately, most "regulations" are local. At this point in time, a state may still be too big to do some things, but the county is too small and creates inefficiency. Maybe the answer to everything is "It depends..."
that’s certainly one way to put a spin on it.
Gellar
Well-known member
In Iowa yes, sometimes, but there are caveats and depends on what money is used to purchase the land. If REAP funds are used to purchase land there is money set aside to pay the taxes. But often the tax money lost by the county is negligible when land is bought by or donated to a public entity because most of the land that the land the DNR or the county conservation board is interested in is already in a tax free program or has very lowly tax classification.
The fund that is used for purchasing public land may also limit its uses by the public. For instance if some federal funds are used by the state it may prohibit atv use.
as a county employee in Iowa I can see what you are saying but all 99 counties are vastly different in their policies and goals. My county is much different than Polk or story or Johnson. How I run my department is different than any of the other 98 counties. When the county board of supervisors is working properly party politics should not matter because it is easy to see what is in the best interest for your constituents. Also, since this is a public lands forum, in Iowa every county is required to have a county conservation board. It is up to the county what their board does but most manage public land in the amount of 500-3500 acres. This doesn’t seem like much, but in many counties in Iowa that’s the only public land or lake that is open to hunting and/or fishing.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,537
brocksw
Well-known member
Surely, you could share the threads that make your argument.
BrentD
Well-known member
Yes, all counties are different, mostly be virtue of being separate entities. The equivalent of genetic drift more than selection, me thinks. They could be a whole lot more similar with little loss of effectiveness. Sure, Polk is not Hardin, but that is easily dealt with and frankly a lot of counties areas could benefit from being part of a larger, more fiscally secure entity. Maybe 4 counties, 9 at most. But none would be reasonable too.
Maybe some of those land-poor counties could see some enhancements to their public lands that way. Maybe.
BrentD
Well-known member
I could but I will not because I know you are feigning ignorance just to divert attention.
Higher than what? What specific scenarios are you comparing?
I get frustrated sometimes too when it’s difficult to articulate a thought. But please be respectful or don’t bother responding- there is no need to be rude.
Last edited:
brocksw
Well-known member
Not at all. I am sincerely curious about this perception that “certain groups” are out to get NR opportunity for no good reason, and that somehow justifies a “take my ball and go home” attitude on issues that affect both R and NR. Both now and in the future. Might I add, that particular issue has potentially significant impacts. Like the loss of millions of acres of public lands in multiple states, maybe even your state.
No doubt, and I think you would agree, that cutting the number of acres of public lands in Utah in half is going to have negative consequences to the average public hunter. Both Resident and Non resident, and once privatized they will never return. Tag allocations can be adjusted, but sold off public lands…well, I think it’s a safe bet that you and I will likely never step foot on them again.
But if you can provide no examples of these groups doing what you say, that’s okay.
Last edited:
Gellar
Well-known member
I sit on a few committees that are made up of multiple county officials. One has 16 counties one has 5 counties. Getting things done in the committee with the larger numbers is not easy. That committee includes counties with 15-20x the population than my county we all do a wonderful job, but the residents of my county would never tolerate some of the things that linn or Polk county do. If I suggested to my county supervisors the conservation board should operate a riding stable and a skate park like the Polk county conservation does I’d be laughed out of the room and brought to the county owned hospital for a mental evaluation. But we wouldnt have a hospital in our county if the board of supervisors didn’t take it underneath them. That is an example of doing something the parties did not agree with, but they knew it was for the best of the county residents. If they’d asked the state to step in and run the hospital, they would have boarded the windows faster than you and I could say go!
Our dnr is such a joke, not because of the employees on the local level or even in Des Moines, but the policies set by our governor that tie their hands. County conservations can actually get things done. Our county manages 8 areas that are owned by the state, but they don’t have the staff to do it.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I think one could agree with state ownership of wildlife merely for the argument of a sweet spot. Feds are too big, counties are too small. Really though it’s moot at this point till a Supreme Court says otherwise.
Never hunted another state, and probably never will, but have backpacked in other states. Swam in their lakes. Nice to not to have to ask permission on American Public Lands. There’s more to PLT than hunting - a world of experiences and value.
Never hunted another state, and probably never will, but have backpacked in other states. Swam in their lakes. Nice to not to have to ask permission on American Public Lands. There’s more to PLT than hunting - a world of experiences and value.
Nick87
Well-known member
Just check the price of smokes.
BrentD
Well-known member
I do not think you have to assume that all of what comprise today's counties would have to be identical to all other areas of the state.
I agree with you about the DNR 110%. I often wonder how any them can even work up the courage to come to work every day. You get what you vote for. In this case, a lame duck DNR and beyond horrible natural resource management at all levels. The Governor is proud.
This is a fair point. You can also make a compelling argument that state ownership is the sweet spot for public land as well.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,537
What about maintenance? Fires? Litigation?
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Some things are a feature, not a bug. Got sure, corruption and incompetence is more apparent the lower level in government you go.
Selling off land is a strange way of “managing”.
There are of ways for states to make money off of public lands.
I can think of a big one right off the top of my head- seeing as this is a hunting forum, I bet you could even guess what it is!
Similar threads
