Iowa SF255 NR tags going to outfitters.

[Nick87]

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.

 

[Nick87]

The wildlife may benefit if the landowner doesn't have to sell his ground to a developer

That's twice this week I've read this same statement on this forum. No deer lease is ever going to prevent somebody from developing a piece of property.

 

[Joseph Peterson]

That's twice this week I've read this same statement on this forum. No deer lease is ever going to prevent somebody from developing a piece of property.

I have seen it.

 

[Nick87]

I have seen it.

Where?

 

[Pucky Freak]

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.

1. When clients are guaranteed to an outfitter, the outfitter has limited incentive to provide a quality service. The majority of their clients have no desire to hire a guide, but do so because they are forced to if they want to hunt the state. Fascist economics have a poor track record in history.
2. Unguided NR’s spend money in whatever communities they travel through and hunt near. They don’t magically appear from California, slay a deer, then promptly disappear. Outfitter tags force the economic benefit to a set geographic area - the state chooses where tourist dollars go. 95% of local businesses risk losing revenue when set-asides are implemented.
3. Iowa has very few outfitters because the market demand is tiny. The VAST majority of NR deer hunters are more than able to walk 100 yards, set up a blind, and sit, which is all that is required to hunt deer in IA. A select few want the red carpet treatment, which is why a handful of outfitters exist.
4. Siphoning tags from the NR quota to outfitters means fewer family and friends of Iowans come to visit and hunt deer. Not all public benefit is quantitative.
5. Accelerating the trend of making hunting a rich man’s activity pulls the wheels off grassroots support for habitat and conservation. The developer wins in the end anyways.
6. Iowa has arguably the best WT deer hunting in the US. Great plan to keep it that way: don’t tinker with the hunting laws and regs.

 

[Joseph Peterson]

Where?

New Mexico and Montana.Ranches saved by the additional revenue from hunting.

 

[Nick87]

New Mexico and Montana.Ranches saved by the additional revenue from hunting.

Must of been pretty big ranches?

 

[madtom]

New Mexico and Montana.Ranches saved by the additional revenue from hunting.

They should get better at ranching.

Which lodge do you work for?

 

[Joseph Peterson]

They should get better at ranching.

Which lodge do you work for?

I don't. I found good hunting for free while living in South Texas where there is virtually no public ground and almost every inch of private ground is leased. I now live in Idaho which is 66% public ground and people complain about not having a place to hunt.

 

[Joseph Peterson]

Must of been pretty big ranches?

Yes, many thousands of acres and have elk, deer and upland birds.

 

[Nick87]

almost every inch of private ground is leased.

Sounds awesome, but hey thank God it's leased or all of South Texas would probably one giant shopping center.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Sounds awesome, but hey thank God it's leased or all of South Texas would probably one giant shopping center.

 

[Big Fin]

The Public Trust of Wildlife for any state is not beholden to provide jobs, improve property values, or any other ancillary outcome unless it benefits the Trust Corpus, and thus the Beneficiaries.

Tangential benefits may derive from Trustee actions, but those benefits are not to be the reason or basis for an action of the Trustee(s). Many ancillary reasons are often stated/claiimed, but that is not what is to drive the decisions of a Trustee.

 

[Joseph Peterson]

The Public Trust of Wildlife for any state is not beholden to provide jobs, improve property values, or any other ancillary outcome unless it benefits the Trust Corpus, and thus the Beneficiaries.

Tangential benefits may derive from Trustee actions, but those benefits are not to be the reason or basis for an action of the Trustee(s). Many ancillary reasons are often stated/claiimed, but that is not what is to drive the decisions of a Trustee.

Does the wildlife and any use or benefit belong only to those who buy hunting licenses or the citizenry as a whole? Your position always seems to have the sole beneficiaries to be active resident hunters and not those who may own the wildlife but do not hunt. You advocate managing for a small portion of those to whom the resource belongs.. This is a slippery slope opening wildlife management to individuals and groups who hold values contrary to ours. Anti hunters are increasingly managing our wildlife and I hate it but aren't they also owners of the wildlife in the states they reside in?

 

[Pucky Freak]

Does the wildlife and any use or benefit belong only to those who buy hunting licenses or the citizenry as a whole?

All residents.

Your position always seems to have the sole beneficiaries to be active resident hunters and not those who may own the wildlife but do not hunt. You advocate managing for a small portion of those to whom the resource belongs..

Iowa DNR manages nongame species too. All Iowa residents have ample opportunity to enjoy wildlife in our state through wildlife watching, hiking, boating, camping, foraging, photography, and for those who so chose, hunting, fishing, and trapping. Probably 85% of our state is covered with a 1 mile x 1 mile grid of county roads, so wildlife are highly accessible for viewing by all.

This is a slippery slope opening wildlife management to individuals and groups who hold values contrary to ours. Anti hunters are increasingly managing our wildlife and I hate it but aren't they also owners of the wildlife in the states they reside in?

Wildlife management by anti-hunters in Iowa is all but nonexistent. Public trust wildlife in our state does face continual threats from the political right: erosion of public land access and use, selling our wildlife to nonresidents, preventing conservation groups from facilitating land transfers from private hands to public, through willing seller/willing buyer agreements.

You cited NM as an example of hunting marketization saving ranches/wildlife. While placing a higher value on undulates there does give them and other wildlife utilizing their habitat a reason to exist in the future, the net benefit of allowing landowners to sell a public trust resource excludes all resident beneficiaries from the equation. Theoretically it is a win for wildlife, and a loss for public trust.

In practice, non-hunters have an incentive to perpetuate modest-cost hunting opportunities and hunting access to residents and nonresidents, as this perpetuates the groundswell of support for large-scale habitat and wildlife conservation. 1 dude with 10 million in the bank is 1 vote for conservation, and he has no incentive to maintain and grow the public trust - he can buy access for himself whenever he wants it. 100 families with 100k in the bank each have much more incentive to prioritize public trust because without it they can’t personally benefit from it.

 

[trackerbacker]

All residents.

Iowa DNR manages nongame species too. All Iowa residents have ample opportunity to enjoy wildlife in our state through wildlife watching, hiking, boating, camping, foraging, photography, and for those who so chose, hunting, fishing, and trapping. Probably 85% of our state is covered with a 1 mile x 1 mile grid of county roads, so wildlife are highly accessible for viewing by all.

Wildlife management by anti-hunters in Iowa is all but nonexistent. Public trust wildlife in our state does face continual threats from the political right: erosion of public land access and use, selling our wildlife to nonresidents, preventing conservation groups from facilitating land transfers from private hands to public, through willing seller/willing buyer agreements.

You cited NM as an example of hunting marketization saving ranches/wildlife. While placing a higher value on undulates there does give them and other wildlife utilizing their habitat a reason to exist in the future, the net benefit of allowing landowners to sell a public trust resource excludes all resident beneficiaries from the equation. Theoretically it is a win for wildlife, and a loss for public trust.

In practice, non-hunters have an incentive to perpetuate modest-cost hunting opportunities and hunting access to residents and nonresidents, as this perpetuates the groundswell of support for large-scale habitat and wildlife conservation. 1 dude with 10 million in the bank is 1 vote for conservation, and he has no incentive to maintain and grow the public trust - he can buy access for himself whenever he wants it. 100 families with 100k in the bank each have much more incentive to prioritize public trust because without it they can’t personally benefit from it.

Perhaps view it this way

Total NR tags set at 6000? (Right, can't recall)

I don't care how those 6000 get dished out, points, random, fcfs, who has the least vowels in their name..

It's still, 6000 tags for deer that the dnr has deemed ok.

So, 6000 will die (or by dnr standards, is an acceptable amount of tags issued).

6000 people will come. Again, in theory.

I don't care if those 6000 people coming to kill 6000 deer stop at 1 Casey's, a Casey's a kwik trip and a kum n go.

Hell, I don't care if they stop at a QuikTrip....

The issue for me is the government is saying welcome to iowa-caseys only please.

 

[Joseph Peterson]

All residents.

Iowa DNR manages nongame species too. All Iowa residents have ample opportunity to enjoy wildlife in our state through wildlife watching, hiking, boating, camping, foraging, photography, and for those who so chose, hunting, fishing, and trapping. Probably 85% of our state is covered with a 1 mile x 1 mile grid of county roads, so wildlife are highly accessible for viewing by all.

Wildlife management by anti-hunters in Iowa is all but nonexistent. Public trust wildlife in our state does face continual threats from the political right: erosion of public land access and use, selling our wildlife to nonresidents, preventing conservation groups from facilitating land transfers from private hands to public, through willing seller/willing buyer agreements.

You cited NM as an example of hunting marketization saving ranches/wildlife. While placing a higher value on undulates there does give them and other wildlife utilizing their habitat a reason to exist in the future, the net benefit of allowing landowners to sell a public trust resource excludes all resident beneficiaries from the equation. Theoretically it is a win for wildlife, and a loss for public trust.

In practice, non-hunters have an incentive to perpetuate modest-cost hunting opportunities and hunting access to residents and nonresidents, as this perpetuates the groundswell of support for large-scale habitat and wildlife conservation. 1 dude with 10 million in the bank is 1 vote for conservation, and he has no incentive to maintain and grow the public trust - he can buy access for himself whenever he wants it. 100 families with 100k in the bank each have much more incentive to prioritize public trust because without it they can’t personally benefit from it.

I am not familiar with Iowa. I grew up in Central Minnesota where I was often asked which of my grandpa's sons I was a child of when I was asking for permission to hunt or trap. They just looked at me and before I opened my mouth they knew what family to which I belonged. All those fellows are now dead and all the land and farms I hunted on are now developed. All of them. Northern Minnesota has hundreds of thousands of acres of public and corporate land open to all so in that aspect it differs from Iowa. Those days of easy access on private land are gone so get used to it.

The ranch I know in New Mexico is many thousands of acres and never allowed any hunting because of poor public behavior. The landowner voucher system actually open it up because now there was an economic incentive. The rancher was busting his butt with cattle, cutting firewood for sale, milking a couple cows to sell milk, working off the ranch and not quite keeping up with the payments. The ability to lease the place and make use of the voucher system allowed he and family to stay on the land and not sell it off to some rich guy. The vouchers allowed him to keep the ranch open for hunting rather than being completely closed. Granted there is a price to pay to hunt there, but one CAN hunt there and he has incentive to manage habitat for the benefit of elk.

Idaho has a limeted landowner tag program where the owner can get a tag or two via a drawing with other landowners. He is not allowed to sell those tags though. Idaho has a very strict licensing process and requirements for outfitters. It used to apply to all recreational activities where money changed hands- horseback rides, rafting, backcountry skiing, hunting and fishing. This changed a few years ago when a group of landowners through the legislative process removed those licensing requirements on private land. The system was so restricted before that the landowners were missing income opportunities on their own private land.

I have a couple hundred acres here myself that I allow hunting and recreation on to all who ask. I am also selling a portion to help the finances. I have looked into developing the whole place as the land values have increased dramatically and could make a nice retirement nest egg.

This is a tough topic but my sympathies are strongly with the landowner hosting the public wildlife often to his detriment. He should be given the best chance of gain since he feeds,waters and provides homes for the publics trespassing wildlife. That statement will certainly stir things up.

 

[BuzzH]

This is a tough topic but my sympathies are strongly with the landowner hosting the public wildlife often to his detriment. He should be given the best chance of gain since he feeds,waters and provides homes for the publics trespassing wildlife. That statement will certainly stir things up.

What ever happened to wildlife being a condition of land ownership?

Had a conversation a week ago with a WY game and fish employee who made the statement that landowners want to be compensated for everything wildlife, from field mice to ferrets to elk to grizzly bears.

It's out of control.

 

[idahohuntr]

Does the wildlife and any use or benefit belong only to those who buy hunting licenses or the citizenry as a whole? Your position always seems to have the sole beneficiaries to be active resident hunters and not those who may own the wildlife but do not hunt. You advocate managing for a small portion of those to whom the resource belongs.. This is a slippery slope opening wildlife management to individuals and groups who hold values contrary to ours. Anti hunters are increasingly managing our wildlife and I hate it but aren't they also owners of the wildlife in the states they reside in?

This is exactly the message being pushed by commissioners in WA state...the beneficiary includes 95% of residents who dont hunt...so let's stop worrying so much about harvest and focus on the non consumptive users. It's a valid point, anti hunters and non hunters are indeed beneficiaries.

I think the best pushback from hunters to messages like this are:
1. Hunting is supported by non hunters, provides enormous funding for all beneficiaries, and is a healthy outdoor activity with strong cultural and heritage ties.
2. Wildlife management should not discriminate against the minority (i.e., hunters). Balance of views and consumptive/non-consumptive values should be sought. Protecting minority interests/rights should be a politically savvy message in a state like WA...maybe even CO.

 

[Nick87]

He should be given the best chance of gain since he feeds,waters and provides homes for the publics trespassing wildlife.

Give me a F'ing break, I'm sure before said landowner bought it it was just a barren wasteland devoid of all things living from bugs to deer. Until he started feeding, watering, and housing WILDlife.