I feel that the arguement of a non-resident landowner being able to hunt their own land because of game management is a perfectly valid point, and I can't say I disagree. Even though the main management too is usually taking a doe, which are gaurenteed (I believe anyways.. I apologize if I'm wrong), which makes it a weaker point. But I think the biggest reason why Iowa has handle NR landowners the way they have, is to protect residents. If Iowa changed it's NRLO to have guarenteed tags, there would be an influx ofNR purchasing land because they would be gaurenteed tags "every year". Land prices are already high enough to eliminate a vast majority of resident hunters to purchase, so why make a change to make it worse.Luckily Iowahas very united hunting organizations, like theIBA, whichhas fought hard to keep it this way to protect their own resident hunting opportunties. I wished other states (like KS)could manage their herd and listen to their majority of residents like Iowa does.

How many people are going to spend the money to buy land in Iowa, being gaurenteed a tag every 2-3 years, when they can go next door, buy land, and hunt big bucks in Kansas or Illinois every year?...Anyways, I think the point is seen. I'm not condoning anyone at all for their opinions because I can see both sides and there are plenty of valid points.