They continue to impress me

[Howboutthemdawgs]

It bothers me a lot . I’ve been in Iowa for 20 years roughly. The tags are very limited already . This December gun hunt allowed us to buy like 1 buck tag and a couple doe tags . We’d be picky and only shoot a bully buck or a real big one. Harvest a few does .

It’s fun, deer camp at a cabin . Beer, steaks after the hunt. A great time . It was harmless, and now they shut it down .

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think party hunting is an archery, muzzy thing. But this is a gun season that has a tradition of group hunts. It’s in their DNA, and they like the camaraderie of friends, relatives and neighbors getting together (resident or nonresident).

I gather you are a nonresident landowner, how will this affect you?

 

[Turkish]

If your group has 8 guys and say 12 tags you can all hunt until the tags are filled .

You can tag another persons deer. In Iowa this is very common during gun season . You can’t do it during Archery or Muzzy .

It’s very odd, because the DNR used to defend it as a way to help the overall deer harvest .

Well, more importantly is that it’s a way for a non-res to hunt without drawing a tag, right??

 

[bwoods11]

I gather you are a nonresident landowner, how will this affect you?

Yes, it will make it more difficult to manage the farm during the gun season. Plus no chance at a buck with the “party” hunt option.

It takes 2-5 years to draw a regular tag .

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Yes, it will make it more difficult to manage the farm during the gun season. Plus no chance at a buck with the “party” hunt option.

It takes 2-5 years to draw a regular tag .

Sorry for the million questions but this is interesting to me, so did you legally have a buck tag every year because of the part aspect but now you will be 2-5 years between a chance at a buck? And if so does the thought of selling cross your mind now?

 

[Brian662]

Yes, it will make it more difficult to manage the farm during the gun season. Plus no chance at a buck with the “party” hunt option.

It takes 2-5 years to draw a regular tag .

I think it's horrible they did this and it's completely unfair to NR landowners, IMO. As already talked about in this thread they are plenty represented when it comes to the taxation side but now they can hunt every 3-5 years? I've also seen some podcasts that state the 5 year (or more) is most likely in some zones. Crazy and BS to me.

 

[T-Max]

They really ought to let NR’s vote too if we are being honest. Since they pay taxes and all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

They really ought to let NR’s vote too if we are being honest. Since they pay taxes and all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m sure you are being facetious but think about it from a nonresident hunters standpoint. I’m a nonresident landowner and I bought understanding the rules as they were and operating that the state won’t pull the rug out from under me whenever they choose to. If they e were to say you can’t kill a buck but every 5 years with your bow on your own land I would a)sell if I could get my money out or b) become a poacher. There was no representation for the landowner who just got his nuts cut out from beneath him. Now with that said the Iowa party hunting rule seemed a bit “shady” from my 30,000’ view but that was the rules when all these people dumped millions into properties across the state. Scary that can happen.

 

[bwoods11]

They really ought to let NR’s vote too if we are being honest. Since they pay taxes and all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well at least have public forums on this ? It’s not just going to affect me as a nonresident landowner, there’s hundreds of farmers and/or Iowa landowners that have hunters (resident and nonresident) come back every year and hunt .

I’ve been in the pole sheds when they get together at the end of the day. It’s a deer camp, drinks, food, cutting up deer.

I bet the DNR will get an earful this year ! Rightfully so, they botched it and it’s a public relations nightmare .

 

[bwoods11]

Sorry for the million questions but this is interesting to me, so did you legally have a buck tag every year because of the part aspect but now you will be 2-5 years between a chance at a buck? And if so does the thought of selling cross your mind now?

Yes it does. South Dakota, Kansas ? I’m always looking !!

 

[Brian662]

The guy I bought my first chunk in SW WI from has in-laws in NE Iowa and he told me he always knew he could be in the game for a giant in Iowa over there with the party hunting. He would help them prepare plots, hang stands, etc.

It brought families together and was tradition for many people like @bwoods11 says. What a shame.

 

[Brian662]

Yes it does. South Dakota, Kansas ? I’m always looking !!

The good news, even though your potential buyers will likely be lowered due to the new regs, is land prices are high. The bad news, they are high everywhere.

 

[T-Max]

I’m sure you are being facetious but think about it from a nonresident hunters standpoint. I’m a nonresident landowner and I bought understanding the rules as they were and operating that the state won’t pull the rug out from under me whenever they choose to. If they e were to say you can’t kill a buck but every 5 years with your bow on your own land I would a)sell if I could get my money out or b) become a poacher. There was no representation for the landowner who just got his nuts cut out from beneath him. Now with that said the Iowa party hunting rule seemed a bit “shady” from my 30,000’ view but that was the rules when all these people dumped millions into properties across the state. Scary that can happen.

I’m with ya more than you might think. But this type of thing happens with investments all the time. Not saying it’s good, but it happens. We make a decision based on the rules as they are, but rules are always subject to change.

That being said, I am reading on another forum (as I am sure several on here are as well) that this rule was misinterpreted from the go. It was never intended for NR. I have absolutely no idea if that is the case, but if it is they have an obligation to enforce the rule as written.

And it doesn’t make me happy that some guys on here are invested in something that may diminish in value because of it. I fancy everyone on here as a good dude (or gal if they are). Sucks. I was only attempting to point out the fact that there are different definitions for RLO and NRLO because there are different rules for them. It has been my stance and still is that the laws should favor the resident if there is an opportunity to. That doesn’t mean there won’t be casualties at some point nor will it necessarily be palatable.

I am with you guys also that there should have at the very least been an announcement or an attempt to clean it up in the legislature before such an abrupt change. If it is gonna change I think you should be given at least some time to react.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I’m with ya more than you might think. But this type of thing happens with investments all the time. Not saying it’s good, but it happens. We make a decision based on the rules as they are, but rules are always subject to change.

That being said, I am reading on another forum (as I am sure several on here are as well) that this rule was misinterpreted from the go. It was never intended for NR. I have absolutely no idea if that is the case, but if it is they have an obligation to enforce the rule as written.

And it doesn’t make me happy that some guys on here are invested in something that may diminish in value because of it. I fancy everyone on here as a good dude (or gal if they are). Sucks. I was only attempting to point out the fact that there are different definitions for RLO and NRLO because there are different rules for them. It has been my stance and still is that the laws should favor the resident if there is an opportunity to. That doesn’t mean there won’t be casualties at some point nor will it necessarily be palatable.

I am with you guys also that there should have at the very least been an announcement or an attempt to clean it up in the legislature before such an abrupt change. If it is gonna change I think you should be given at least some time to react.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m reading over there too. Once again it seems weirdly “anti-private property rights” to be able to do that when they knew good and well people wouldn’t have invested in their state if they knew this was an option. That’s why I say this could be resolved with a landowner buck tag(s). Honestly the regular nonresident hunter is just at the mercy of rule changes but they arent millions invested.

And cleaning up the law…how bout we go all in on that rule and deport every illegal working on an Iowa pig farm? Is there a gray area in the law that says you don’t need to be in this country legally? Or actually prosecute the crimes in whatever liberal college towns are in Iowa. I think the party hunting rule is a bad rule personally, but it was the rule and it was a massive rule that determined if a nonresident bought land or not most likely. It’s not like going from bait to no bait, it’s literally hunt or don’t hunt your own land.

 

[bwoods11]

I’m with ya more than you might think. But this type of thing happens with investments all the time. Not saying it’s good, but it happens. We make a decision based on the rules as they are, but rules are always subject to change.

That being said, I am reading on another forum (as I am sure several on here are as well) that this rule was misinterpreted from the go. It was never intended for NR. I have absolutely no idea if that is the case, but if it is they have an obligation to enforce the rule as written.

And it doesn’t make me happy that some guys on here are invested in something that may diminish in value because of it. I fancy everyone on here as a good dude (or gal if they are). Sucks. I was only attempting to point out the fact that there are different definitions for RLO and NRLO because there are different rules for them. It has been my stance and still is that the laws should favor the resident if there is an opportunity to. That doesn’t mean there won’t be casualties at some point nor will it necessarily be palatable.

I am with you guys also that there should have at the very least been an announcement or an attempt to clean it up in the legislature before such an abrupt change. If it is gonna change I think you should be given at least some time to react.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s BS about the rule. I have talked to CO, the DNR, Podcasts with the Iowa DNR explaining the rule . They clearly stated that a Nonresident can hunt with a Resident and share tags during the gun seasons . It’s been that way for 40-50 years.

It’s a programmed response. I talked with a top DNR guy today and he seemed nervous about it and didn’t have much for answers.

 

[Turkish]

A loophole is never something to stake 6-7 figures of $ on.

 

[omicron1792]

The fawns that are born I believe are primarily falling prey to coyotes and bobcats. We have quite a few twin fawns in July, but almost no twins by camera survey time in Sept. But according to at least one of our state biologists, there may be an underlying problem that may be affecting the fetus or fertility of the doe. They have a theory, but have yet to do research. First I have heard of that was a couple months ago.

I also want to add that we have almost no rabbits, cotton rats, quail, turksys, or any other smaller prey species that coyotes or bobcats can depend on. We have a lot of bobcats.

You need to get to hunting some predators

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

A loophole is never something to stake 6-7 figures of $ on.

Pretty sure prior to 12 hours ago, no one knew it was a loophole

 

[bwoods11]

A loophole is never something to stake 6-7 figures of $ on.

It won’t crash the market. Land has gone up by insane number . I bought in 02 so not worried it was 1100/acre back then . I have excellent farm land on mine . Cash rent is not determined by hunting regs .

A guy buying all timber n 2024 in Iowa might want to assess that . Agree. Who knows ?

 

[SwampCat]

You need to get to hunting some predators

I do, but when you only own 350 acres, there is only so much controlling you can do. I feel like I make a difference. My fawn recruitment numbers are better than the statewide average - every little bit helps.

 

[Brian662]

How many NR doe tags are they going to sell at $300 a pop when that's the only deer you can tag? Talk about pricing people out of hunting and limiting access? Better lower the NR doe tag to $20 if you want populations in check.

This regulation change is BS.


Ultimately if they did away with party hunting you could easily wash it away saying they felt it was being abused. But to strictly target NR party hunting is laughable and I agree with Windlooker on the other site, there is no way this is just cleaning up a clerical error.