Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Been quiet

JNRBRONC

JNRBRONC

Well-Known Member
It's been a little quiet around here lately. Figured this might help.:D


Supreme Court: Owning land in Iowa doesn't guarantee right to hunt

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — The Iowa Supreme Court has upheld Iowa's hunting laws ruling that just because someone owns land in Iowa it doesn't mean they have a right to hunt on it.


The court finds that Iowa's laws that provide hunting advantages to permanent residents do not violate the constitutional rights of nonresident landowners.


Three men who own land in Iowa but have permanent homes in other states challenged Iowa's hunting laws as unconstitutional claiming they discriminate against nonresident landowners.


The court says Iowa lawmakers have developed an extensive statutory scheme that results in the conclusion "that landownership in Iowa is not accompanied by the right to hunt on one's own land."


The men objected to Iowa laws that make more licenses available to permanent residents at a lower price.
 
This is NOT taking a side in this debate BUT - how can anyone say they "can't hunt their own land"??? I mean, you can buy yearly gun tags, small game hunt, turkey hunt, etc, etc. I am seriously not voicing a side in the NR debate but I can't understand how this argument came to be with the fact that you CAN hunt your own land every year in many fashions. May not be the season you like or weapon you want or whatever but you can do this already.
 
Sligh1 said:
This is NOT taking a side in this debate BUT - how can anyone say they "can't hunt their own land"??? I mean, you can buy yearly gun tags, small game hunt, turkey hunt, etc, etc. I am seriously not voicing a side in the NR debate but I can't understand how this argument came to be with the fact that you CAN hunt your own land every year in many fashions. May not be the season you like or weapon you want or whatever but you can do this already.
Click to expand...

This decision is specifically a NR ruling. And yes they do have the right to hunt it, when they have a tag to do so. The way I take it is just because you own land doesn't mean you will have access (the right) to hunt it EVERY year like residents do on their own land. The three non-residents are trying justify their hunting rights based on the land they own. The court is saying just because you own the land doesn't make you a resident and thus you are not entitled to hunt it as a resident would.
Yes they have a right to hunt their land WHEN they have a legal license, but that license will not be issued every year like a resident so thus the "landowner" card will not give them the right to hunt their land on a yearly basis.

Does that make sense? I may have made that even more messy than it should be...
 
Crazy the lengths these guys went trough to try and be residents just for yearly deer tags. I love hunting but what they were doing just seems crazy to me.

As to what Lyon was saying this is straight from the decision regarding the constitutional issue.

The district court also rejected the constitutional challenge. The
district court concluded Iowa landowners do not have a fundamental
property right to hunt and that the legislature had statutorily modified
whatever common-law right landowners may have had to hunt on their
land. In particular, it noted the legislature placed ownership of wildlife
in the state and created a complex statutory scheme to regulate hunting.

I would say it goes even farther then just a NR decision. It reaffirms the fact that land ownership does not come with the explicit right to hunt that land since the land owner does not own the wildlife on that land. The state reserves the right to decide who can hunt what and when on all lands in the state.
 
business-people-standing_~x18641287.jpg

Good job DNR lawyers!!!!!

stock-photo-20365016-diverse-group-of-people-standing-and-cheering-at-the-game.jpg


Lots of Iowa residents happy about that ruling!!!
 
Last edited:
This is a scary ruling. Not because of anything to do with hunting, but everything else. Can this be considered precedence for the govt not allowing other activities on their land? Why would it just stop at hunting? Why not extend to farming, mining, leasing, etc........
 
This is a scary ruling. Not because of anything to do with hunting, but everything else. Can this be considered precedence for the govt not allowing other activities on their land? Why would it just stop at hunting? Why not extend to farming, mining, leasing, etc........
Click to expand...

Although on the surface everyone here seems to like this ruling it scares me to death! A court telling you what you can and can't do on your land. When they come and tell "residents" they don't have the right to hunt their land then what? Where does it end. What if the court decides everything you do on "your" land is NOt a right? Amazes me they can DEMAND you pay them taxes though.
 
matman said:
Although on the surface everyone here seems to like this ruling it scares me to death! A court telling you what you can and can't do on your land. When they come and tell "residents" they don't have the right to hunt their land then what? Where does it end. What if the court decides everything you do on "your" land is NOt a right? Amazes me they can DEMAND you pay them taxes though.
Click to expand...

There are restrictions on what I can do with my farm. I have to get permits and approval to put up a CAFO, windfarm or any "industrial" activity, all of which are legal activities, just regulated. There are rules, regulations and laws covering about everything. Doesn't necessarily matter if I like them, still have to be followed.
 
hoosierhunter said:
Can this be considered precedence for the govt not allowing other activities on their land? Why would it just stop at hunting? Why not extend to farming, mining, leasing, etc........
Click to expand...
Govt already does that, I can't grow tobacco on my farm and it is a legal crop. Many other examples as well.
 
Owning land does not give ownership of the wildlife. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. We all have to followDnr regulations regardless of land ownership
 
Mixed reactions. Each state can and eventually some will simply not allow NR hunters and anglers
 
These individuals are super passionate and do pour a lot of money into their farms. They are good neighbors to have for the individuals who hunt and own properties in this area. I have never met them but have heard that they are great guys, however, sooner or later you have to ask yourself if the fight is worth it when you have the resources to own elsewhere. Thats not an easy decision to make and I personally hope that they stay because they manage big deer. Its a complex issue that nobody will ever fully agree upon. I see and understand both sides.
 
As far as the constitutional issue nothing new here at all and nothing to get excited about. These types of decisions have been handed down from all levels of our court system. If any other decision but this had been made then we would need to worry. We would be back on our way to all animals belonging to the king.
 
JNRBRONC said:
There are rules, regulations and laws covering about everything. Doesn't necessarily matter if I like them, still have to be followed.
Click to expand...
To encourage and celebrate one rule, regulation or law that is in your favor you are asking for more to follow that wont be so well liked. My freedom loving side of me says no to this law that benefits me. JMO
 
JNRBRONC said:
There are restrictions on what I can do with my farm. I have to get permits and approval to put up a CAFO, windfarm or any "industrial" activity, all of which are legal activities, just regulated. There are rules, regulations and laws covering about everything. Doesn't necessarily matter if I like them, still have to be followed.
Click to expand...

Agreed BUT maybe it is time to say, NO MORE!. Example here in New Jersey there is a law that says if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you wake up and see them, you need to leave WITHOUT confrontation if you have a way to do so.Hard to believe but true. Now is that a rule or law you would abide by? Yeah even my lawyer told me just make sure you kill,em!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom