Iowa legislative assault on public land and wildlife

[ImBillT]

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.

And now it all makes sense.

Do whatever you want with non-residents. Non-residents are a positive thing for a state, but it’s not a bad idea to cap them at reasonable level whether that’s through a draw or whatever else.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Minnesota could sure learn a thing or 40 from Iowa's hunting regs.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Common deer hunting arrangements in IA include:
-Landowner hunts their own property, and/or family and friends are allowed to hunt there.
-Resident leases
-Farmers and neighbors drive adjacent properties to thin deer to reduce crop damage

Less common hunting arrangements include:
-Nonresident leases because either-sex tags are not OTC.
-Nonresident landowner hunting because NRLO’s are ineligible for landowner tags
-Hunt clubs because it’s cheaper/easier to lease or just ask for permission

Let’s say LO tags become transferable tomorrow. My concern is a bunch of online ads pop up with trail cam pics of bucks along with a price tag. It’s not commodification of wildlife per say, but it seems uncomfortably close. Resident hunters don’t benefit from this because we have OTC tags to hunt those properties. But any NR can instantly get an IA buck tag, whereas currently they must draw one.

If you are a LO of even a modest property in IA, you’re doing well. The value of land here is very high. If you want to make money off your ground, you can farm it (crops, livestock, timber, etc.), lease it for hunting, or both. Many landowners opt not to lease their ground for hunting, even though they know they can make money off it. Instead, they have relationships with locals and allow access for free. It’s a good balance for sportsperson and landowners.

If we knock down the barriers to nonresident deer hunters in IA, as the “suite” of 2022 legislative bills propose, it could seriously disrupt this balance. Look no further than our neighbor IL to see how ridiculous hunting lease prices have shot up. Look at WI and see how their buck age class was decimated by the proliferation of crossbows. Look at NE to see the pumpkin armies on public land.

A word about deer habitat in IA as well - unlike many places out west, more deer habitat is not always a positive here. There are a lot of roadkill deer, and a lot of crop damage. Most stakeholders do not want to increase deer numbers in most areas. Incentivizing landowners to create and maintain deer habitat is a mixed bag. In many areas it’s actually advantageous to remove deer habitat when deer population management by hunting is infeasible.

 

[Gellar]

FINALLY!! Introduced yesterday SSB 3157 to the Ways and means subcommittee! SSB 3157 is an amendment to the sales tax in Iowa, increasing sales tax. But if you remember in 2010 Iowa voters overwhelmingly voted that the next time the sales tax was increased it must include a percentage of that increase go towards dedicated funding to natural resources, county conservation boards, Iowa DNR, local parks and recreation. Essentially it will replace the REAP program that has been in place since 1989. But the difference with increasing the sales tax is that it will be constant. There was never a specific dollar amount through REAP and it was not guaranteed year in and year out. The fund was often used by peter to pay paul.

Link to SSB 3157: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=SSB3157&ga=89

Link to information regarding IWLL (Iowa's Water and Land Legacy):http://www.iowaswaterandlandlegacy.org/

There has been and there is going to be more attacks on the funding formula that was passed by voters in 2010. When it was passed a funding formula was voted on with percentages of the fund going to different natural resource agencies in Iowa. Much like REAP. But the sticky fingers politicians and farm bureau know how much money this will generate and they want to change the funding formula to pad their pockets and programs they support. This is not what we voted on in 2010. Let your senators and representatives know that you want this bill passed as it was originally intended!

 

[VikingsGuy]

Bill would penalize landowners who sell property for public use • Iowa Capital Dispatch

Landowners who want to sell property to counties or the Iowa DNR would have to accept steep discounts, depending on quality for agriculture.

iowacapitaldispatch.com

It is disappointing to see the GOP's enthusiasm for messing with the free market to push their agendas. Not new, but disappointing nonetheless. There are few options to vote for folks that don't want to use government power as their own toy.

 

[Pucky Freak]

FINALLY!! Introduced yesterday SSB 3157 to the Ways and means subcommittee! SSB 3157 is an amendment to the sales tax in Iowa, increasing sales tax. But if you remember in 2010 Iowa voters overwhelmingly voted that the next time the sales tax was increased it must include a percentage of that increase go towards dedicated funding to natural resources, county conservation boards, Iowa DNR, local parks and recreation. Essentially it will replace the REAP program that has been in place since 1989. But the difference with increasing the sales tax is that it will be constant. There was never a specific dollar amount through REAP and it was not guaranteed year in and year out. The fund was often used by peter to pay paul.

Link to SSB 3157: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=SSB3157&ga=89

Link to information regarding IWLL (Iowa's Water and Land Legacy):http://www.iowaswaterandlandlegacy.org/

There has been and there is going to be more attacks on the funding formula that was passed by voters in 2010. When it was passed a funding formula was voted on with percentages of the fund going to different natural resource agencies in Iowa. Much like REAP. But the sticky fingers politicians and farm bureau know how much money this will generate and they want to change the funding formula to pad their pockets and programs they support. This is not what we voted on in 2010. Let your senators and representatives know that you want this bill passed as it was originally intended!

Thanks for posting! I contacted my state senator.

 

[bucdoego]

I have scanned through this thread, reading many of your posts closely. It is an interesting read with many passionate contributors. Thanks to all of you for sharing your thoughts. I learned a lot.

 

[Zim]

Just joined the IBA I've been so impressed with their work on behalf of sportsmen for years. And I live in Indiana. Support current NR tag distribution, and blocking crossgun inclusion in archery seasons. Hope they continue to fight off Ravin profiteers.

 

[Pucky Freak]

I really appreciate everyone who took time to contact legislators and other related parties regarding these bills. As of today basically all the bills eroding public land access and resident hunting opportunity failed to pass the second legislative “funnel”, meaning that the bills are dead…for now. They may still revive through omnibus ways and means bills in the current session, at which point they typically need to be amended out.

 

[iawhitetail3]

And now it all makes sense.

Do whatever you want with non-residents. Non-residents are a positive thing for a state, but it’s not a bad idea to cap them at reasonable level whether that’s through a draw or whatever else.

I wondered why the early muzzy tags no longer sold out. I didn't realize that guys used to be able to buy an antlerless doe tag for shotgun season as well. It is good they did away with that because with the party hunting allowed in Iowa, that guy with the antlerless tag can still shoot a buck during shotgun. I really with they would do away with party hunting completely, or at least make guys use their actual tags.

 

[iawhitetail3]

If you are a LO of even a modest property in IA, you’re doing well. The value of land here is very high. If you want to make money off your ground, you can farm it (crops, livestock, timber, etc.), lease it for hunting, or both. Many landowners opt not to lease their ground for hunting, even though they know they can make money off it. Instead, they have relationships with locals and allow access for free. It’s a good balance for sportsperson and landowners.

Not all LO are created equal. There is a big difference between a guy with a job from Wells Fargo in DM owning 160 acres in southern Iowa and a local in southern Iowa owning 160 acres. There are many, many poor towns in southern Iowa. Sure, if you own the flat/black stuff north of I80, then yeah chances are you are doing well. But there are also not many deer up that way either. With the prices of rec land these days those local LO are better off selling their land to that guy from Wells Fargo because they can't make enough off the land to justify owning it. And this is precisely what has been happening over the past 10 years or so, and has been accelerated in the last 2 years. With rec ground bringing $5,000+/acre, farms are being sold and the access to that land is lost forever. Anyone paying that price is going to be hunting it themselves. The bottom line is hunting access is only going to keep getting worse.

 

[Gellar]

Not all LO are created equal. There is a big difference between a guy with a job from Wells Fargo in DM owning 160 acres in southern Iowa and a local in southern Iowa owning 160 acres. There are many, many poor towns in southern Iowa. Sure, if you own the flat/black stuff north of I80, then yeah chances are you are doing well. But there are also not many deer up that way either. With the prices of rec land these days those local LO are better off selling their land to that guy from Wells Fargo because they can't make enough off the land to justify owning it. And this is precisely what has been happening over the past 10 years or so, and has been accelerated in the last 2 years. With rec ground bringing $5,000+/acre, farms are being sold and the access to that land is lost forever. Anyone paying that price is going to be hunting it themselves. The bottom line is hunting access is only going to keep getting worse.

That is why the INHF, IADnr, County Conservation Boards and other like minded agencies should have a fair shot at getting these properties. When you handicap them by not allowing them to pay market value for property access is going to get worse a lot faster. There are property owners who would like to donate their land to the public for all to enjoy, we've had several properties in our county donated to the IDNR or the County Conservation in the last couple of years, but they would not be able to under the bills that were introduced this year. Luckily they failed.