Meeting Public Comments

Names and comments are public records. Remaining information is considered a confidential record.

Comments Submitted:

02-12-2021

Tom Toycen [ ]

This bill does not put Iowans first. It allows a nonresident to use methods of take that Iowans can not use during the same time frame. Please do not add any more seasons or methods of take to Iowa's well established deer hunting seasons.

02-12-2021

Matthew Lane []

Regarding HF60. I am 100% adamantly against this outfitter welfare bill! I wish the State would write a law guaranteeing me customers! It is not right to give someone who decides to hire an outfitter the ability to jump in line over others waiting in the draw. This bill as written will pretty much let any business call themselves an "outfitter". Like that won't be abused.I strongly support the existing nonresident tag structure even though it means some friends and family can't hunt here as much as I'd like them too. This bill will also make it harder for them to draw a tag. Encouraging more "outfitting" is not good for Resident hunters no matter where or how they hunt. It will make gaining access to private land harder and more expensive for the average Iowa Hunter.

02-12-2021

Greg Marshall []

Terrible idea to funnel tags to outfitters. Demand is high enough for tags with access to land difficult enough as it is. Look at what happened to pike County Illinois for what would happen to Iowa.

02-13-2021

Dave Alatalo []

As a lifelong Iowan and longtime land owner, I would like to state my opposition to this bill. It is not necessary to provide additional, or guaranteed, licenses to outfitters in Iowa and to do so is to create a special circumstance that favors outfitters. Good, reputable outfitters have no trouble attracting clients each year.

02-14-2021

Scott Eischeid []

HSB 157: I oppose this bill in its entirety. As a landowner, farmer, and manager of 1500 acres in SW Iowa, I like to hunt deer and coyotes with dogs as a pastime to get my kids in the outdoors. This bill will mostly eradicate my ability to take my kids coyote hunting with dogs. My 6 year old son has 2 dogs of his own. When we hunt with dogs, we hunt on land we have permission. But there are times when our dogs follow a coyote on land we dont have permission on, and with this bill I could be fined for doing so. When we run coyotes with dogs we wait until after gun season 1 & 2 are over so we dont affect deer hunters. We propose to adjust this bill to wait to run coyotes with dogs until after bow and gun 1 and 2 are over, or even after all deer seasons are over so we dont affect someone deer hunting. I can see that this has been orchestrated by deer hunters, and I am offended as this seems to be a way to bring more outfitters into the area for out of state hunters. With this happening, I lose more places to deer hunt on also. There needs to be middle ground on this law, as it is only benefiting deer hunters. Keep in mind that deer from other properties come on my land and destroy corn and bean crops for about $5,000 to $10,000 annually and that is a loss for me that I dont get compensated for. With this suggested compromise, it allows benefit to both parties both deer and coyote hunters. I have around 1520 people I allow to hunt deer through the different seasons free of charge, because it provides them a place to hunt as they dont own ground. If this bill is passed as it stands now, I will have no option but to not allow any deer hunting on my land. Please keep in mind that there are a lot of coyote hunters in my area that allow people to hunt deer on their ground they own also free of charge and their feelings are the same as mine. They will also not allow deer hunters on their ground if this bill is passed. If the deer hunters want to take some of my hunting rights away, then I have no choice but to take ground away from 1520 deer hunters.

02-15-2021

Bobby Harris []

Would property held in LLC from another state qualify as business entity.Can a portion of these tags go to NRLOs. Something needs to be done to allow nonresident landowners more options to hunt there own land. Thanks

02-16-2021

Andrew Mitts [Andrew Mitts]

This bill as I read it will mean that now a few hundred NR hunters just have to out pay the next guy. Are we looking at $10k guided hunts in iowa now? If I had to guess, I can see the outcome of this being that outfitters will outbid or lease out as much ground as possible to raise the bar on what they can charge clients. More and higher leases means less access for residents...plain and simple. I encourage you to see other states as a use case for this type of change; you don't want to support this bill

03-06-2021

Patrick Walsh []

I think this proposal is fine. However I also think tags should be added to the NR lot if 500 are coming out of that number. Or providing a paid tag to NRLOs would serve the same purpose as those applicants would come out of the NR pool. I have family who had to move and struggle to hunt property in the state they maintain. Come on, they pay their fair share and invest in the state. Thanks.

03-12-2021

Andrew May []

I strongly oppose HF 806 that would allocate a certain amount of nonresident tags to outfitters. This would do nothing to improve/maintain the hunting quality in the state of Iowa and makes an already difficult tag to obtain even harder for the nonresident. Nonresidents are putting in a substantial amount of money every year just to get a chance to hunt there down the road and this makes an already difficult tag to obtain even more difficult. Not to mention, it favors the wealthy who can drop $40005000 for an outfitted hunt. That prices the average workingman right out of this. I dont like the how this seems to be the direction that hunting is going. I understand this bill is meant to benefit the businesses of outfitting, but in reality outfitters do nothing in terms of increasing opportunity for the average guy or increasing quality of the deer herd in an area. Please oppose this bill when it comes time to vote.