They continue to impress me

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Iowa that is

Penalties for trespassing to hunt in Iowa increasing

(Nodaway) -- The fines for trespassing to hunt are increasing and expanding following action at the Iowa Statehouse this past session.

www.kmaland.com

 

[Tree Spud]

I Like!

 

[Telemark]

I think wildlife violation penalties are so far behind the times that every new law needs to include an inflation clause. There are so many states where the fine for poaching is equal to or less than the cost of hiring an outfitter. And of course, enforcement is generally pathetic.

I have come to the conclusion that most infractions should be based on income. This causes all poachers to feel the sting relatively equally.

Here's an example off the top of my head:

If the first violation is 1% of annual income, it's enough to feel it, but not be crippled by it. This would not include a ban on hunting. The second serious offense would be around 5% of annual income, plus restitution, plus a hunting ban for a few years, with a potential for jail time if the offense was especially egregious(not exceeding 6 months). Subsequent violations would result in a few years in jail, but no revocation of hunting rights.

I haven't thought this through very well, so it's more of a thought experiment. But I am really tired of poachers skating with barely a slap on the wrist.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

They are absolutely not a deterrent compared to what it costs to protect game on private property

 

[H20fwler]

Iowa that is

Penalties for trespassing to hunt in Iowa increasing

(Nodaway) -- The fines for trespassing to hunt are increasing and expanding following action at the Iowa Statehouse this past session.

www.kmaland.com

I wish Ohio would go after trespassing harder.
Iowa does the NR hunting right too, Ohio needs to do the same.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I wish Ohio would go after trespassing harder.
Iowa does the NR hunting right too, Ohio needs to do the same.

Agreed. How can these other states not emulate Iowa. They are killing it in almost every metric

 

[Bill]

MO. $236 non resident deer license. Fine for hunting without one "IF" you get caught as a non resident $385. go two years without being caught and your ahead of the game.
crazy if you ask me.

 

[Telemark]

MO. $236 non resident deer license. Fine for hunting without one "IF" you get caught as a non resident $385. go two years without being caught and your ahead of the game.
crazy if you ask me.

This the kind of crap I'm talking about. It almost encourages poaching. If a poacher gets caught half the time, they're in the black. I have never been checked for a tag while hunting, ever, anywhere. I have been checked for a fishing license several times in Ontario and once in Norway. The laws and the enforcement make no sense to me.

I understand that hunting laws can be convoluted, and I'm not interested in putting the screws to someone who makes an honest mistake. But habitual poachers should be punished severely for abusing public resources.

 

[Hoytvectrix]

Agreed. How can these other states not emulate Iowa. They are killing it in almost every metric

Not to derail the conversation, but the only thing I would be nervous about other states copying from Iowa is the lack of non-resident tags for landowners. Admittedly, I'm sure you could add it to the list for what makes Iowa such a great state for deer hunting, but selfishly I wouldn't own land in Missouri if I had to draw points every year to hunt it.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Not to derail the conversation, but the only thing I would be nervous about other states copying from Iowa is the lack of non-resident tags for landowners. Admittedly, I'm sure you could add it to the list for what makes Iowa such a great state for deer hunting, but selfishly I wouldn't own land in Missouri if I had to draw points every year to hunt it.

100% agree. I thought the same thing yesterday about Kentucky. That is a part Iowa gets wrong. If you own, say 80 acres or more, you should get a tag like a resident. Not 5 cause you have it in a bunch of family members names, but 1.

 

[T-Max]

I would have to respectfully disagree with you guys on that one. Kansas has that law. I am the only one of my friends who still hunts as a result simply because my Grandpa had the ability to buy land back in the day. There is no access anywhere. Most of the land that comes for sale is snatched up by non-residents for the very reasons you mention. Should the residents not have any advantage by being residents? 100% honest here, if they voted tomorrow to outlaw deer hunting in Kansas, I’d do it. If me or my family/friends can’t have a reasonable expectation of a decent hunt because that privilege is reserved for him with the most money? I’m out. And that’s about where we are at.

PS - I’d still do all the habitat work because I just love the outdoors that much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I would have to respectfully disagree with you guys on that one. Kansas has that law. I am the only one of my friends who still hunts as a result simply because my Grandpa had the ability to buy land back in the day. There is no access anywhere. Most of the land that comes for sale is snatched up by non-residents for the very reasons you mention. Should the residents not have any advantage by being residents? 100% honest here, if they voted tomorrow to outlaw deer hunting in Kansas, I’d do it. If me or my family/friends can’t have a reasonable expectation of a decent hunt because that privilege is reserved for him with the most money? I’m out. And that’s about where we are at.

PS - I’d still do all the habitat work because I just love the outdoors that much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i think landowners of a certain, arbitrary (it’s not perfect), acreage should be looked at the same as residents for certain purposes. Personally I probably contribute more towards the tax base of my county than a large portion of people there yet I don’t use a fraction of the resources those residents do. I still have to buy a nonresident license just like the guy who comes up and hunts public land for the weekend. Fair? I don’t think so but it is what it is. I look at nonresident landowners as a bonus to an area. They have disproportionate skin in the game and generally treat the land and the resources with the value relative to their investment. Would a guy rather have a bunch of outfitters as neighbors or out of staters with a one year lease on farmer Johnson’s 200 acres? I damn sure wouldn’t. Give me a nonresident neighbor 9.5/10 times.

 

[T-Max]

I’m thinking more for the common guy. Not a landowner. Part of the reason we are losing hunters is because they have no place to go. Would I rather have a NRLO or outfitter next door is kind of a non-issue if you can’t afford access. I personally would rather it was my buddy Jimmy or Brad, or my old neighbor Steve. But it’s 2 guys from Missouri, a guy from NJ and an outfitter. All of whom our state reps seem to prefer at this point.

Edit: Ag parcels in Kansas contribute Pennie’s on the dollar as far as taxes so they don’t really consider that here, but your point is valid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I’m thinking more for the common guy. Not a landowner. Part of the reason we are losing hunters is because they have no place to go. Would I rather have a NRLO or outfitter next door is kind of a non-issue if you can’t afford access. I personally would rather it was my buddy Jimmy or Brad, or my old neighbor Steve. But it’s 2 guys from Missouri, a guy from NJ and an outfitter. All of whom our state reps seem to prefer at this point.

Edit: Ag parcels in Kansas contribute Pennie’s on the dollar as far as taxes so they don’t really consider that here, but your point is valid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get it but the loss of hunting opportunities is directly tied to loss of land due to development and fragmentation. Nonresidents are a symptom of a larger problem that isn’t getting fixed ever, only exacerbated. So while it’s nice to reminisce about the olden days, it’s now come down to who values it more financially unfortunately. It sucks but it’s reality.
I’m curious what the state reps are doing to incentivize the out of state landowners and the outfitter over the local guy?
Ag land may in your neck of the woods, I’m not well versed in taxes. My county reappraised ours this past year. The land combined with houses and shops hurt. My cash rent payment doesn’t cover it anymore.

 

[letemgrow]

I get it but the loss of hunting opportunities is directly tied to loss of land due to development and fragmentation.

For my area, the farms haven't been fragmented at all. It's just OOS or "city folk" with money that have gobbled up land that came up for sale. The lease prices are through the roof, and those are all OOS hunters in my experience.

A 400 acre farm may have had 7-10 guys that hunted it for multiple species in the past, and now there are 2-3 that hunt the same 400 for deer and maybe turkey only.

It doesn't take long for regular joes without the $$$ to feel the squeeze on finding a place to hunt.

What's the answer to all this?? It's not an easy one for any side.....

 

[Brian662]

Not to derail the conversation, but the only thing I would be nervous about other states copying from Iowa is the lack of non-resident tags for landowners. Admittedly, I'm sure you could add it to the list for what makes Iowa such a great state for deer hunting, but selfishly I wouldn't own land in Missouri if I had to draw points every year to hunt it.

Same. It's the reason I bought in SW WI instead of NE Iowa. Over the counter, two tag state versus lottery every 3 or 4 years for one tag.

 

[T-Max]

I get it but the loss of hunting opportunities is directly tied to loss of land due to development and fragmentation. Nonresidents are a symptom of a larger problem that isn’t getting fixed ever, only exacerbated. So while it’s nice to reminisce about the olden days, it’s now come down to who values it more financially unfortunately. It sucks but it’s reality.
I’m curious what the state reps are doing to incentivize the out of state landowners and the outfitter over the local guy?
Ag land may in your neck of the woods, I’m not well versed in taxes. My county reappraised ours this past year. The land combined with houses and shops hurt. My cash rent payment doesn’t cover it anymore.

I don’t reminisce too much. It doesn’t do anyone any good. But I can say if we were like Iowa, the issue would be less impactful. Unfortunately our state allocates a higher percentage of tags to NR every year with no end in sight. It was originally supposed to be capped at 10% I think. Last year it was over 20% and the rule never changed. Combine that with reps trying to gut the departments budget and you can see where their priorities are. I’m not anti-NR, but there is a point at which we are managing a resource for “not us.” That doesn’t make any sense… At that point my use for the resource no longer exists. I’m almost there and I actually have a place to hunt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bill]

It doesn't take long for regular joes without the $$$ to feel the squeeze on finding a place to hunt.

What's the answer to all this?? It's not an easy one for any side.....

And honestly we’re part of the problem. Managing for bigger better deer doesn’t come with “sure anyone can hunt my place” like the old days.

Don’t know what the answer is other then go back to the old days of shoot any buck and go home. And if we did that most of us would stop pouring blood, $ and sweat into this game. I sure would if I’m being honest.

 

[rocksnstumps]

Ag land may in your neck of the woods, I’m not well versed in taxes. My county reappraised ours this past year. The land combined with houses and shops hurt. My cash rent payment doesn’t cover it anymore.

Houses and buildings are of course ripe pickings for the tax man but in ag heavy states the actual taxes on ag zoned land is usually darn low. That's why some of the guys with big $$ around here (aka large land holdings at $1,000,000 and up) are letting others run a maple sap collection operation on their land in the spring. Completely different time of year than deer season and instead of taxed as recreational wooded gets bumped to ag designation. Resulting in 1/16th the taxes and very little restrictions on their other activities.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

For my area, the farms haven't been fragmented at all. It's just OOS or "city folk" with money that have gobbled up land that came up for sale. The lease prices are through the roof, and those are all OOS hunters in my experience.

A 400 acre farm may have had 7-10 guys that hunted it for multiple species in the past, and now there are 2-3 that hunt the same 400 for deer and maybe turkey only.

It doesn't take long for regular joes without the $$$ to feel the squeeze on finding a place to hunt.

What's the answer to all this?? It's not an easy one for any side.....

I find it hard to believe that fragmentation isn’t affecting your area? So properties have not gotten broken up by you? If so that’s awesome.

The idea that proximity entitles someone to the land and resources in an area doesn’t make sense to me. If the local has made connections that are stronger than out of town money or if they paid for the rights themselves, great. But, if they hadn’t and a guy from seven states away valued the opportunity enough to part with their money, they shouldn’t be looked at in a negative light. Not their fault the made the sacrifice to make their dream a reality. Additionally if a guy from a different state owns and pays taxes on a substantial amount of land, I think it’s justifiable that the landowner should receive the same hunting rights as a resident but that’s just an opinion.
The local that gets upset when out of towners buy up their area that gets me. If anything the local should have more opportunities to buy local land. If some guy from where my farms are wants to buy a vacation house in my subdivision I say bring it on!