They continue to impress me

[Howboutthemdawgs]

After deep diving in this for a few days (no idea why as I don’t have a horse in the race) I think eliminating party hunting is long overdue. But I think it needs to be eliminated for both residents and non residents. It’s an antiquated, unfair method that is ripe with abuse. Plus hunting on someone else’s tag isn’t allowed anywhere that I know of. My buddy drew a coveted archery elk tag in Utah this year. He can’t give it to me after day 5 if he gets tired of trying. It’s really a bad rule.
With that said, NR LANDOWNERS need access to buck tags. That should be a no brainer to eliminate 90% of the issues and potential revenue loss. I’ve even seen where states like New Mexico allocate tags based on size of the property (and other factors like elk use). They could do something like, 1 tag for 50-200 acres. 2 tags for 200-400 acres, etc.

 

[bwoods11]

Sounds like some big resident land owners, probably farmers, have the ear of the top state officials. No party hunting and 3-5 years to draw a tag? You have effectively eliminated deer hunting for non resident landowners.

Sounds like the resident big land owners are tired of non rez's shooting "their" deer. This could lead to some real unintended consequences. This may be also to drive land prices down on non-rez properties.

I don't know what it is like in Iowa, but deer hunting brings in a ton of revenue to small communities in Wisconsin. During gun hunting, the bars/restaurants are full. Gas stations, grocery stores, liquor stores, hardware stores, and sport shops are all busy. If the state would lose and estimated $700k in license fees, they will lose many times that in tourism $$ and taxes.

Pretty sure that non-resident land owners would have standing and could show they are harmed parties. Raising non rez fees is one thing, but nearly eliminating hunting privilege's is a huge issue. Likely a lawsuit is going to be filed.

I would guess it will be challenged!

 

[Jerry-B-WI]

After deep diving in this for a few days (no idea why as I don’t have a horse in the race) I think eliminating party hunting is long overdue. But I think it needs to be eliminated for both residents and non residents. It’s an antiquated, unfair method that is ripe with abuse. Plus hunting on someone else’s tag isn’t allowed anywhere that I know of. My buddy drew a coveted archery elk tag in Utah this year. He can’t give it to me after day 5 if he gets tired of trying. It’s really a bad rule.
With that said, NR LANDOWNERS need access to buck tags. That should be a no brainer to eliminate 90% of the issues and potential revenue loss. I’ve even seen where states like New Mexico allocate tags based on size of the property (and other factors like elk use). They could do something like, 1 tag for 50-200 acres. 2 tags for 200-400 acres, etc.

Wisconsin allows what they call "group hunting". You can shoot a deer for another hunter as long as you're within sight or voice contact. Cell phones and radios are not allowed. And you're right it does get abused.

 

[hillrunner]

Sounds like some big resident land owners, probably farmers, have the ear of the top state officials. No party hunting and 3-5 years to draw a tag? You have effectively eliminated deer hunting for non resident landowners.

Sounds like the resident big land owners are tired of non rez's shooting "their" deer. This could lead to some real unintended consequences. This may be also to drive land prices down on non-rez properties.

I don't know what it is like in Iowa, but deer hunting brings in a ton of revenue to small communities in Wisconsin. During gun hunting, the bars/restaurants are full. Gas stations, grocery stores, liquor stores, hardware stores, and sport shops are all busy. If the state would lose and estimated $700k in license fees, they will lose many times that in tourism $$ and taxes.

Pretty sure that non-resident land owners would have standing and could show they are harmed parties. Raising non rez fees is one thing, but nearly eliminating hunting privilege's is a huge issue. Likely a lawsuit is going to be filed.

I have no inside information but I doubt this had anything to do with local landowners trying to protect deer. Deer hunters don't have that kind of pull with the governor.
Iowa is run by big ag and i think that's where you will find the culprits. My guess would be farm bureau is likely one of the main drivers. They have voiced concern over the years about hunters squeezing out the cattle farmers by pushing the price of rough ground too high. I think this is an attempt to soften the market for pasture ground.
I could be way off base but I just can't see anyone getting any traction with the governor complaining about deer tags without it being tied to ag.

 

[Mortenson]

I thought the farm bureau and the farmers wanted the deer all dead. That's usually what people on the hunting sites say. This would seem to contradict that thought.

 

[bwoods11]

I thought the farm bureau and the farmers wanted the deer all dead. That's usually what people on the hunting sites say. This would seem to contradict that thought.

This one is tough to follow. Normally the Farm Bureau is anti-deer ! They do not like that young farmers can’t buy land on the cheap —like Hillrunner mentioned.

Where can they ? Maybe North Dakota is still somewhat reasonable ?

I’m sure land values will drop in some counties with tougher draw zones .

 

[BenAllgood]

Can the party hunting Iowa rule be used to do under the table outfitting? Iowa big buck hunting is a hot commodity.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Can the party hunting Iowa rule be used to do under the table outfitting? Iowa big buck hunting is a hot commodity.

It’s been rumored on the Iowa site that it can

 

[Tree Spud]

I have no inside information but I doubt this had anything to do with local landowners trying to protect deer. Deer hunters don't have that kind of pull with the governor.
Iowa is run by big ag and i think that's where you will find the culprits. My guess would be farm bureau is likely one of the main drivers. They have voiced concern over the years about hunters squeezing out the cattle farmers by pushing the price of rough ground too high. I think this is an attempt to soften the market for pasture ground.
I could be way off base but I just can't see anyone getting any traction with the governor complaining about deer tags without it being tied to ag.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough but that was my point. Reducing deer hunting opportunities for non rez land owners thus reducing the value of the land.

What surprises me is the lack of influence/impact of the insurance industry on deer hunting in Iowa. In Wis they have a real influence on the DNR to push killing as many deer as possible by any means possible..

 

[b116757]

Sounds like some big resident land owners, probably farmers, have the ear of the top state officials. No party hunting and 3-5 years to draw a tag? You have effectively eliminated deer hunting for non resident landowners.

Sounds like the resident big land owners are tired of non rez's shooting "their" deer. This could lead to some real unintended consequences. This may be also to drive land prices down on non-rez properties.

I don't know what it is like in Iowa, but deer hunting brings in a ton of revenue to small communities in Wisconsin. During gun hunting, the bars/restaurants are full. Gas stations, grocery stores, liquor stores, hardware stores, and sport shops are all busy. If the state would lose and estimated $700k in license fees, they will lose many times that in tourism $$ and taxes.

Pretty sure that non-resident land owners would have standing and could show they are harmed parties. Raising non rez fees is one thing, but nearly eliminating hunting privilege's is a huge issue. Likely a lawsuit is going to be filed.

I strongly disagree I’m sure many of the larger farmers likely make a sizable income from hunting leases to out of state hunters so this will directly affect one of their income streams. I’m not sure what their end goal is exactly with this change but I doubt it’s coming from large resident farmer land owners who will likely loose money from this change.

 

[Tree Spud]

I strongly disagree I’m sure many of the larger farmers likely make a sizable income from hunting leases to out of state hunters so this will directly affect one of their income streams. I’m not sure what their end goal is exactly with this change but I doubt it’s coming from large resident farmer land owners who will likely loose money from this change.

^^^^^ See above .... depress non rez owner's land values to by limiting hunting hunting opportunities for non rez property owners. Non rez land owners are often accused of driving up land prices and are certainly chasing AG land to create an LLC.

 

[Mortenson]

So purposely drive down land prices and reduce your tax base?

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

So purposely drive down land prices and reduce your tax base?

This is tough one. Cui Bono-who benefits. Everything in politics is for the benefit of some group. There is no obvious winner here.

 

[Tree Spud]

So purposely drive down land prices and reduce your tax base?

What they are doing doesn't make sense. As HB said ^^^^ someone is benefitting. The question is who?

 

[Mortenson]

Haven't cattle guys made bank the past few years? I fail to see how any relatively well established cattle operation in Iowa couldn't compete with NR buyers. I agree that this is weird. I haven't read thru the IW thread. Do those guys have it sniffed out yet?

 

[T-Max]

Those guys are getting intense…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bwoods11]

Iowa is a strange state as you have a lot of locals that welcome you, but there are others that are highly protective of deer tags & really don’t want any Non Residents in their territory!

It’s to the point lately that I feel like I do not truly own my land due to the restrictions . I’m gonna take a step back, set up Plan B and look at options in the next couple years .

I could sell and buy in South Dakota. It would be a step backwards for deer I’m sure, but I can hunt every year and it could be a future retirement spot . I’m guessing I could double or triple my acres.

Kansas is an option too, but would be a much farther drive !

 

[hillrunner]

Iowa is a strange state as you have a lot of locals that welcome you, but there are others that are highly protective of deer tags & really don’t want any Non Residents in their territory!

It’s to the point lately that I feel like I do not truly own my land due to the restrictions . I’m gonna take a step back, set up Plan B and look at options in the next couple years .

I could sell and buy in South Dakota. It would be a step backwards for deer I’m sure, but I can hunt every year and it could be a future retirement spot . I’m guessing I could double or triple my acres.

Kansas is an option too, but would be a much farther drive !

How far west in south Dakota? The south Dakota land in my neck of the woods (se) is cheaper for farm ground but higher for rough ground.

 

[bwoods11]

How far west in south Dakota? The south Dakota land in my neck of the woods (se) is cheaper for farm ground but higher for rough ground.

I was thinking Missouri River corridor. Timbered daws with mix of farm land —whitetail & muleys .

 

[hillrunner]

I was thinking Missouri River corridor. Timbered daws with mix of farm land —whitetail & muleys .

Great fishing too!