Yeti

Iowa legislative assault on public land and wildlife

Wind Gypsy

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
699
Ssb 3139 pertains to training for emergency medical training.

Hf 2365 would allow people who do not fill their tag during bow season to use it during another season.
2365 sounds like something I’d disagree with but not sure I can muster up the outrage for a nastygram on behalf of it😂

If they backed sale of landowner tags I could get there.
 

Gellar

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
3,493
Location
The Driftless Area
2365 sounds like something I’d disagree with but not sure I can muster up the outrage for a nastygram on behalf of it😂

If they backed sale of landowner tags I could get there.
I’d have to look closer at the budgets.

2365 doesn’t seem bad in text, but how much revenue would it take away from an already strapped department? Hunting licenses, deer licenses in particular, are a major part of the revenue for the department and all of the funds generated from license sales finance the other programs. Many of which do not generate any funds, but they cost a lot of money.

Just doing some quick math, If we take away 5,000 deer licenses at 33.50 because those folks carried their license over that’s $167,500 from the revenue budget.
 

ImBillT

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
3,051
I have zero problem with making a land owner tag transferable IF that tag is only valid on the land owned by the land owner it was issued to. When it goes beyond the boundaries of the land owner then my feelings become much more situationally dependent.
 

BrentD

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
4,449
Location
In the middle
I have zero problem with making a land owner tag transferable IF that tag is only valid on the land owned by the land owner it was issued to. When it goes beyond the boundaries of the land owner then my feelings become much more situationally dependent.
I do. The wildlife is not a commodity to be sold by the landowner. I own land, I should not be profiting off of it.

I use landowner tags, though rarely. But I would prefer that they did not exist at all. Or that they required allowing public access. That would be great. Free landowner tag, but land must be open to the public.
 

Gellar

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
3,493
Location
The Driftless Area
I do not agree with transferable landowner tags.

I believe there actually needs to be a crackdown on landowner tags under the current rules. There are lots of landowner tags being used on land that is not eligible according to the rules as they read in the regulations.
 

ElkFever2

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
3,915
Location
Iowa
I have zero problem with making a land owner tag transferable IF that tag is only valid on the land owned by the land owner it was issued to. When it goes beyond the boundaries of the land owner then my feelings become much more situationally dependent.
SF 2219 is likely dead this session, but I expect it to be back someday.

In IA a LO can be approved for an either-sex LO tag even on small parcels, say 10 acres. If these got approved for transfer/sale, like 2219 proposed, my concern is that it would only be a matter of time before there is grumbling to switch them be county-wide, zone-wide, etc.
 

ImBillT

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
3,051
I do. The wildlife is not a commodity to be sold by the landowner. I own land, I should not be profiting off of it.

I use landowner tags, though rarely. But I would prefer that they did not exist at all. Or that they required allowing public access. That would be great. Free landowner tag, but land must be open to the public.
We’re 180 degrees apart on that.

A landowner shouldn’t be profiting from owning land? First of all, a land owner should be able to profit from owning land just like he does from owning anything else, like a house(which happens to be on land) or a factory(again, on land) or stocks(in a company that is on land). Secondly, if a landowner could not profit from owning land, what would you eat? Where would you get fibers for your clothes? How would you fuel your transportation? Both gasoline and electricity come as result of people owning land and selling oil, gas, coal or wind.

In the case of wildlife, I absolutely consider them different. They do not respect property lines, and whatever one land owner does has an impact on the wildlife that use the adjacent land. Should a land owner have free reign to do whatever he wishes with “his deer”? No! Should wildlife on private property be off limits to a land owner? Also no! I don’t LIKE the commercialization of wildlife or hunting. I don’t LIKE the idea of paying for exclusive access. BUT on the other extreme, not allowing a landowner to benefit financially or otherwise from having wildlife, you do absolutely nothing to encourage a landowner to maintain healthy wildlife habitat, or appreciate wildlife. Wildlife benefits from giving landowners an incentive to tolerate them Not all landowners need that incentive, but some do. If a landowner can’t make some money on wildlife, he MAY(depending on particular circumstances) have to make that money up somewhere or sell. Is he going to have to break more land to farm, or run more cattle? Is he going to have to allow a wind farm in?(I despise those wind farms) Sell to a developer? A landowner benefiting from wildlife has downsides, but it’s not ALL bad.

I live in a state where your license comes with every tag you can have. Finding a place to use those tags however is on you. Some landowners don’t allow hunting. Some landowners charge money to hunt. Some landowners lease their property to outfitters. Some landowners allow hunting free of charge. I’ve killed nine mule deer and seven whitetails in my home state without ever drawing a tag or paying one red cent for access or permission to hunt. What’s the point? I’m right here in a state where it’s legal to charge money for hunting permission and yet there is still opportunity to hunt free of charge. Not only that, I’d rather a guy with a little cotton and a little CRP keep his head above water by leasing some hunting rights than sell out to a developer or a farmer who has to farm it more intensively and sacrifice some habitat.

Let’s just assume that some landowner somewhere doesn’t hunt or allow hunting, but if he could sell hunting opportunity, he would. And let’s assume that the majority of the wildlife on his property does not significantly utilize public land. Would allowing hunting on his property not decrease the pressure on public land?

I know I’ve been redundant, I’ve been interrupted writing it, but wildlife and public land, and public land hunters(which I am to a large extent, and although I hunt private land, I’ve never paid to do so, nor have I ever paid for a landowner tag) benefit when landowners benefit from supporting healthy wildlife habitat and tolerating wildlife using their property.
 
Last edited:

BrentD

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
4,449
Location
In the middle
I'll admit my sentence structure was poor, but obviously, that overused pronoun "it" referred to wildlife, not land. I'm sure you already realized that. ;)

And no, I don't think landowners should be paid or compensated for wildlife. They should be honored to have them (the wildlife) and if they don't feel that way, then just consider it a price of doing business, and they should compensate the public for anything they might do on their land that reduces or harms the public's wildlife.

In short, wildlife on one's property is not a liability but a responsibility of the landowner.
 

ImBillT

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
3,051
I'll admit my sentence structure was poor, but obviously, that overused pronoun "it" referred to wildlife, not land. I'm sure you already realized that. ;)

And no, I don't think landowners should be paid or compensated for wildlife. They should be honored to have them (the wildlife) and if they don't feel that way, then just consider it a price of doing business, and they should compensate the public for anything they might do on their land that reduces or harms the public's wildlife.

In short, wildlife on one's property is not a liability but a responsibility of the landowner.
Actually I assumed that you meant what you said. You’re well educated and what you said made sense as written. Why would assume you meant something other than what you said if it made perfect sense as is? I’ve misspoken as much as I’ve spoken, but yes, I assumed you meant what you said.

IF I WAS A LANDOWNER I would consider having wildlife on my property to be an honor, and AS LONG AS I COULD STAY AFLOAT, I would not consider the cost to be undue burden. However I do not impose my feelings or beliefs on others without good reason, and frankly, if a landowner can plow good wildlife habitat and plant it with something profitable, who am I(or you for that matter) to tell him that he cannot? Allowing a landowner to harvest a BIOLOGICALLY SOUND PORTION of wildlife from the property that he maintains(rather than converting that property to something less beneficial to wildlife) benefits us all. If you cannot see that, then you are being short sighted. If the landowner himself doesn’t care to harvest the animals, but allowing someone else to, even if it is for a fee, is enough incentive for him to maintain that habitat, then why do I care who pulls the trigger?

As someone who has been blessed with the opportunity to hunt on private land, free of charge, by generous landowners in TWO STATES, some of which I did not even know before they gave me permission to hunt, I feel like, if I ever own land, I will be obligated to allow others to hunt on it free of charge.
 
Last edited:

ElkFever2

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
3,915
Location
Iowa
If the landowner himself doesn’t care to harvest the animals, but allowing someone else to, even if it is for a fee, is enough incentive for him to maintain that habitat, then why do I care who pulls the trigger?
Because 2% of Iowa is open to public hunting, and maybe 1\2 that is whitetail habitat. If whitetail buck hunting in the state opens to everyone in the world without having to draw a tag, whoever has the most money gets to hunt on private. IA does not have many millionaires per capita; we’d be overwhelmingly priced out by wealthier hunters from the coasts. The number of local hunters who would get pushed to public is far greater than the 1% of the land can accommodate. TX, NM, and MT have a very different philosophy of wildlife, in that landowner’s ability to profit from game on their property is prioritized over locals having a quality hunting experience.

It all really comes down to local politics. About 200,000 Iowans hunt deer. Maybe a few hundred landowners would appreciate being able to sell their LO tag. Yet, everyone gets one vote at the ballot box. When politicians voted in by the masses try catering to the 1% or 0.1% it gets a lot of people’s attention.
 

huntnpack

Active member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
130
Location
Idowahio
Been hearing about “Manage a deer herd. Shoot an outfitter” bumper stickers on some farm trucks in Southern Iowa in recent years.

Residents are definitely feeling the pressure already without increasing nonresident buck tag opportunity.
 

ImBillT

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
3,051
Because 2% of Iowa is open to public hunting, and maybe 1\2 that is whitetail habitat. If whitetail buck hunting in the state opens to everyone in the world without having to draw a tag, whoever has the most money gets to hunt on private. IA does not have many millionaires per capita; we’d be overwhelmingly priced out by wealthier hunters from the coasts. The number of local hunters who would get pushed to public is far greater than the 1% of the land can accommodate. TX, NM, and MT have a very different philosophy of wildlife, in that landowner’s ability to profit from game on their property is prioritized over locals having a quality hunting experience.

It all really comes down to local politics. About 200,000 Iowans hunt deer. Maybe a few hundred landowners would appreciate being able to sell their LO tag. Yet, everyone gets one vote at the ballot box. When politicians voted in by the masses try catering to the 1% or 0.1% it gets a lot of people’s attention.
Forgive me if I’m missing something.

As far as I can tell, currently, to hunt deer in Iowa you must either own land or hunt on public land. I’m sure there must be some limited level of tag transfer currently because surely there are some large farms and ranches that would be issued more tags than the one or two owners on the deed want to shoot personally. But basically, only landowners are hunting deer on 98% of land, and everyone else is hunting deer on 2%. I’m 100% certain that there are landowners who do not personally want to hunt deer, but would not mind at all if their friend from church, or work, or down the road, or nephew-in-law, or hired hand wanted to hunt deer. To my understanding, that is not currently legal. Those deer aren’t even being hunted, but those hunters are hunting/applying for public. Furthermore, I’m sure that there are wealthy residents(and they don’t have to be millionaires to own 10,20, or 100 acres) who purchased land primarily to obtain deer tags, driving up the price of small parcels. Some poor soul might actually want to farm that land(I’ve been wanting to buy 40-160acres to farm since I got out of college but haven’t put that pile of money together yet). Opening up hunting on the 98% of land that is privately owned to those who do not own it will absolutely decrease pressure on public land. You seem to fear that millionaires from all of the the US are going to flood Iowa to hunt whitetail. I’m 100% confident that some large farms and ranches with more whitetails than they know what to do with WILL be major draws for outfitters and non-residents willing to pay a lot of money to hunt whitetails, BUT it won’t be every parcel in the state. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but whitetails are just about everywhere. Most of those millionaires can shoot multiple whitetails in their home state. Many of the ones who travel to hunt whitetails are hunting in TX, KS, NB, and Alberta. Those people aren’t going to pay your 80yr old neighbor who lives on 20 acres to keep you off it. There were 9500 NR deer applicants in NM in 2021. Out of 360,000,000 people in the US, 9500 of them were willing to drive to NM and pay roughly $400 in fees to hunt deer on MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF LAND. The units with the very least amount of public land still have tens of thousands of acres. Do you expect even 640acres in Iowa to be a draw to a millionaire as if he couldn’t find a whitetail somewhere else? You’re not going to increase pressure on public land by making it easier to hunt on private land just because a tag can be sold. Most of those tags are not going to interest a non-resident, even if the land owner was willing to do all the work to make a non-resident aware of it.

Believe it or not, millionaires can already hunt deer in Iowa. They can quite easily purchase 160acres(or 100 times that) lease some farming or grazing rights, and come hunting every year, likely making money in the process. However, the way I understand it, the sweet old lady at church can’t let you hunt deer on her farm. Or maybe the guy down the road doesn’t bother applying for tags because he doesn’t hunt deer, but since you told him you’d be willing to pay him $200 for his tag, he just might fill that application out next year, and there’s a good chance that with some nods and waves when you pass him on the road, some friendly conversations, and maybe a surprisingly small amount of neighborly help, he might not even let you pay him when he hands you the tag.

I’ve killed nine mule deer and seven whitetails on private land in TX. I do not own land, and thus far I’ve never paid one red cent for access or permission. Some of the whitetails were on land owned by the families of my friends, some where on land owned by friends of my family members. All of the mule deer were on places owned by people who were complete strangers up to the point at which I knocked on the door or flagged down the tractor. An older guy at church leases some hunting on his land but he lets one of the younger guys hunt on it free of charge. Three customers of mine have offered me permission to hunt deer on their land free of charge. One has offered to let me hunt pronghorn on his land in NM free of charge(he has never allowed anyone to hunt on his land except family members, and had turned down money from guides and outfitters many times). Believe it or not, there are still kind and generous people in this world.

Additionally, if a small farmer who is just scraping by would really benefit from $300,$500, or $1000 from 2-3 different hunters every year($3k total) who am I to tell him that he should continue to teeter on the edge of bankruptcy because having wildlife on his land is a privilege? Two of the places that I killed whaitetails(free of charge) the land was leased to paying hunters with the stipulation that once the tags were filled, the hunters informed the landowner, so that the landowner’s family and friends could hunt. On both of those two places(7hrs apart and owned by people who never met), the landowners were using the lease money for Christmas presents every year. No neither of them was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, but neither were wealthy enough that $1k-$2k a year wasn’t substantial. Some farms and farmers make a ton of money, and some really don’t, and every penny makes a big difference.

You say millionaire and wealthy but I’m not convinced that’s where it ends up. One of my friends pays $2k/year to hunt a very large piece of land in a prime area. I’d rather hunt deer on public in NM, CO, AZ, UT, MT, ID, or WY, but he prefers to drive 45min down the road and hunt deer, quail, hogs, and turkey on a place that he is intimately familiar with and will never be greeted by anyone unexpected. Good for him and good for the landowner. If the money wasn’t changing hands, I doubt anyone would be hunting that spot. Is $2k a lot of money? Yes. Is he a millionaire or even wealthy? He’s a divorced salesman at a boat and motorcycle dealership. I spend roughly $2k on tags, apps, and fuel to my hunts every year. My wife is a teacher and I make less than she does. We have two kids in daycare(more than our house payment). It doesn’t take a millionaire to pay $2k/yr to hunt deer. I would rather spend my $2k to hunt vast tracts of public land all over the west. My friend would rather hunt 45 minutes down the road and have the place largely to himself.

I am afraid that someday, someone with more money than I could ever pay will pay to keep me off the places that I hunt deer free of charge. Then again, even if you couldn’t sell access, a savvy hunting millionaire could buy that same property from the farmers, hire someone to farm it, hunt it himself and kick me off, and likely make money in the process. Luckily for both of us, there are pieces of private land that no one wants to pay money to hunt deer on, but which you and I would GLADLY hunt deer on free of charge. Unfortunately for you, unless I misunderstand something, it’s not currently legal for you to do that in Iowa. If they allow tag transfer, you just might be paying $0 to hunt deer every year on a small place down the road from where you live. And if you had to pay $200-$300 would it be so terrible?

I’ve killed whitetails on public land in TX as well. Most of our non-draw public land where it is legal to kill deer is on the opposite end of the state and most of it does not allow camping, so I only hunt it opportunistically if I’m visiting my wife’s family during deer season. I’ve never drawn a deer tag in TX in over twenty years applying and as far as I can tell I most likely won’t. My dad drew one when I was a kid. If drawing or owning land was the only way for me to hunt deer, I probably would still never have gone deer hunting. It was only after being invited by some friends in college whose families owned land that I began seeking permission for myself from land owners. Prior to that deer hunting was just a vague idea of something that I longed for when my dad talked about it, or when I looked at his whitetail on the wall. Public land and public land hunting is important and I support it. Private land and private land hunting are equally important. In Iowa(and TX), you might say that private land hunting is more important. Private land is where the majority of hunting in Iowa takes place, and it looks like access to non-landowners could be increased with some changes. None of that means that the current bill is perfect, but the knee-jerk reaction of being anti-private land, and anti-selling of access etc. is not always the best thing for hunting or hunters.
 
Last edited:

Gellar

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
3,493
Location
The Driftless Area
Currently a landowner can only get 4 LOT-tags (1 anysex and 3 anterless) per farm unit. They can be divided between spouse or kids under 18. They can also buy general tags for archery or one of the firearm seasons. Nonresident landowners are not eligible for LOT tags. They have to go through the system like all other nonresidents.

Nonresidents who do not own land can often still find willing landowners to grant them permission to hunt often by just a handshake or possibly through a lease. But they can also choose to hunt on public land.

If a farmer has a deer problem they can get depredation tags. A wildlife biologist assesses the damage from wildlife and determines a plan. Landowners can offer an invitation to friends, family or whoever but they still have to buy a depredation tag through the DNR by showing the voucher from the landowner. I think depredation tags are anterless.
 

ImBillT

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
3,051
Currently a landowner can only get 4 LOT-tags (1 anysex and 3 anterless) per farm unit. They can be divided between spouse or kids under 18. They can also buy general tags for archery or one of the firearm seasons. Nonresident landowners are not eligible for LOT tags. They have to go through the system like all other nonresidents.

Nonresidents who do not own land can often still find willing landowners to grant them permission to hunt often by just a handshake or possibly through a lease. But they can also choose to hunt on public land.

If a farmer has a deer problem they can get depredation tags. A wildlife biologist assesses the damage from wildlife and determines a plan. Landowners can offer an invitation to friends, family or whoever but they still have to buy a depredation tag through the DNR by showing the voucher from the landowner. I think depredation tags are anterless.
You say that non-residents can get tags from a willing land owner. How does this work? I’m still under the impression that the tags can only be distributed to spouse and minor children.

Four per farm unit? There absolutely must be farm units large enough that they could handle ten times that number. It might ease the pressure on the public.

Non-resident landowner can’t get tags. “They have to go through the system”. Is this the public land system? Can residents hunt deer on a non-resident’s land? If not, you could ease pressure on the public land from both residents and non-residents.
 

Gellar

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
3,493
Location
The Driftless Area
You say that non-residents can get tags from a willing land owner. How does this work? I’m still under the impression that the tags can only be distributed to spouse and minor children.

Four per farm unit? There absolutely must be farm units large enough that they could handle ten times that number. It might ease the pressure on the public.

Non-resident landowner can’t get tags. “They have to go through the system”. Is this the public land system? Can residents hunt deer on a non-resident’s land? If not, you could ease pressure on the public land from both residents and non-residents.
Landowner tags are non transfereable. They can only be used by the landowner, their spouse or children under 18 on their private land. Many landowners will give people, nonresidents too, permission to hunt by just knocking on doors or possibly exchanging labor. Those people still need to have a license which if you are a nonresident means going in the draw. There are 9 nonresident units. Some units you would be able to draw a tag almost every year. The units in Eastern Iowa, southeast, and northeast Iowa take the most. Last I knew it was around 5 points for an archery. There are only 7500, I think, any sex tags for nonresidents. Since outfitters would basically have to get 100% new clients every year outfitting is not big in most areas of Iowa. It does happen, but not huge.

I don’t know how they figure a farm unit. But I own 5 acres and my father in law owns 1500, we get the same amount of landowner tags. I understand landowners complaints about that.

Landowner tags are good only on the landowners property. If they hunt public or the neighbors they need to get a general tag. General anysex tags are good statewide for residents. Antlerless tags are only good for the county and each county has a separate quota. Nonresident anysex tags are good for the unit and can be used on either public, private or both. If the county they are hunting in has antlerless tags I believe nonresidents can buy those over the counter.
 

ImBillT

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
3,051
Landowner tags are non transfereable. They can only be used by the landowner, their spouse or children under 18 on their private land. Many landowners will give people, nonresidents too, permission to hunt by just knocking on doors or possibly exchanging labor. Those people still need to have a license which if you are a nonresident means going in the draw. There are 9 nonresident units. Some units you would be able to draw a tag almost every year. The units in Eastern Iowa, southeast, and northeast Iowa take the most. Last I knew it was around 5 points for an archery. There are only 7500, I think, any sex tags for nonresidents. Since outfitters would basically have to get 100% new clients every year outfitting is not big in most areas of Iowa. It does happen, but not huge.

I don’t know how they figure a farm unit. But I own 5 acres and my father in law owns 1500, we get the same amount of landowner tags. I understand landowners complaints about that.

Landowner tags are good only on the landowners property. If they hunt public or the neighbors they need to get a general tag. General anysex tags are good statewide for residents. Antlerless tags are only good for the county and each county has a separate quota. Nonresident anysex tags are good for the unit and can be used on either public, private or both. If the county they are hunting in has antlerless tags I believe nonresidents can buy those over the counter.
Now I’m getting somewhere. That system is a little convoluted, but I can see how allowing tag transfer and sale would actually result in screwing up that screwed up system. I’m not so sure that millionaires nation wide would be buying up landowner tags, BUT I can still see that resulting in more pressure on what land remains open to hunt and could push more people into the draw.

Iowa could probably benefit by changing current deer hunting laws, but the one I’ve been discussing seems like a bad choice considering the situation.
 

Gellar

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
3,493
Location
The Driftless Area
Now I’m getting somewhere. That system is a little convoluted, but I can see how allowing tag transfer and sale would actually result in screwing up that screwed up system. I’m not so sure that millionaires nation wide would be buying up landowner tags, BUT I can still see that resulting in more pressure on what land remains open to hunt and could push more people into the draw.

Iowa could probably benefit by changing current deer hunting laws, but the one I’ve been discussing seems like a bad choice considering the situation.
I’m not sure why you think the system is screwed up? Most residents are happy with the way nonresident tags are distributed. Some residents are not happy with the number of antlerless tags issued with some areas being to high and others to low. Some residents would like to be able to hunt the early muzzleloader season and still get an anterless tag for shotgun season, but I think most are happy with it.
 

ImBillT

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
3,051
I’m not sure why you think the system is screwed up? Most residents are happy with the way nonresident tags are distributed. Some residents are not happy with the number of antlerless tags issued with some areas being to high and others to low. Some residents would like to be able to hunt the early muzzleloader season and still get an anterless tag for shotgun season, but I think most are happy with it.
No problem at all with what you do with nonresident tags. I’m confused about resident tags for private land being issued in a draw and land owner tags being issued equally regardless of how much land is owned or what kind of habitat it is.
 

Gellar

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
3,493
Location
The Driftless Area
No problem at all with what you do with nonresident tags. I’m confused about resident tags for private land being issued in a draw and land owner tags being issued equally regardless of how much land is owned or what kind of habitat it is.
No draw for residents. All otc. A resident can get 1 anysex statewide tag for archery and 1 anysex statewide tag for a gun season. We have 2 muzzleloader and 2 shotgun seasons.

4 or 5 years ago they made it so residents could not hunt one of the shotgun seasons even with a anterless tag if they hunted in the early muzzleloader season. Early muzzleloader is capped at 7500. Before the change the licenses sold out in a few hours. Now they don’t sell out.
 
Top