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

Been quiet

Team pewp said:
No crickets here. I see his point but if you tell a land owner "its your lands so i guess you get to do what ever the hell you want because it is your land" that creates a very slippery slope too! Not just in regards to wildlife but anything........I hate to sound like a liberal but the bottom line is the landowners do NOT own the wildlife and if the SC would have ruled in favor of these three NR, it would create a "rich get richer" and "poor get poorer" scenario. Land access would get even more difficult because more NR that have avoided buying in Iowa because of that law would now flock here. Prices of land would go even higher. Deer hunting is already becoming a rich man's sport. IMO our NR hunting regs are the only buffer from preventing the "flood gates" from opening.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more!! I am likely biased because I am one of the poor that would get poorer.

I personally do not care how much passion for land management these individuals have. The better way to state that... I appreciate it, but by absolutely no means should that and the fact that they have money to buy land entitle them to being held within the same regard as a Resident.

I work for a conservation organization and can promise you, the quality impact my work accomplishes on private land acres is exponentially larger than these 3 nrlo's combined. What does that entitle me to?

I am not whining. I chose this profession for many, many reasons - knowing damn well that it would LIKELY never afford me the opportunity to purchase a hunting farm, and that is fine. But, land access has become tuff as of late. Like many, I have got the boot from farms due to NR purchase, leasing, etc.

Bottom line is we cannot create a scenario in Iowa where the average resident no longer can find a good place to hunt. Had this ruling gone the other way, it may well have been the beginning of the end and the DNR, who is TRYING to manage this deer herd the right way, may well have eventually lost it's greatest management tool... the RESIDENT hunters of Iowa.
 
Team pewp said:
No crickets here. I see his point but if you tell a land owner "its your lands so i guess you get to do what ever the hell you want because it is your land" that creates a very slippery slope too! Not just in regards to wildlife but anything........I hate to sound like a liberal but the bottom line is the landowners do NOT own the wildlife and if the SC would have ruled in favor of these three NR, it would create a "rich get richer" and "poor get poorer" scenario. Land access would get even more difficult because more NR that have avoided buying in Iowa because of that law would now flock here. Prices of land would go even higher. Deer hunting is already becoming a rich man's sport. IMO our NR hunting regs are the only buffer from preventing the "flood gates" from opening.
Click to expand...

I hear ya....I just don't like the wording of the ruling. New courts and attorneys use old cases to make their case. Who would ever thought Obamacare could pass, you think that if they can't take away your guns, they might not think about limiting your opportunity to hunt.

Who would have thought we'd have a president that may have been born in Africa and was raised a Muslim
 
Hardwood11 said:
I hear ya....I just don't like the wording of the ruling. New courts and attorneys use old cases to make their case. Who would ever thought Obamacare could pass, you think that if they can't take away your guns, they might not think about limiting your opportunity to hunt.

Who would have thought we'd have a president that may have been born in Africa and was raised a Muslim
Click to expand...


??????? Not sure how you want it to be worded. And speaking of wording, your 2nd sentence was brutal to read. Just saying!
Also, Im not sure what Obamacare, gun rights and where our President is allegedly born and raised has to do with NR hunting rights in Iowa. I dont see the slippery slope on this one like I do the other way. Its not a conspiracy or a way to take away our hunting rights like you are implying. It is simply protecting Iowa resident hunters and the wildlife that we all own(even us that do not own land). A scary thought is saying '"if you own land, you can shoot any damn thing you want and landowners cannot be regulated." Is that how you would like it worded, Hardwood? I understand the idea of not wanting to be told what you can or cant do on your own property but the bottom line is we need to have a way to police people, even on their own property. I cant cook meth on my own property, just like you cant kill a bald eagle on your property, just like NR landowners cant have to follow the same rules as NR who do not own land. I don't see why that concept is so hard for you to grasp? All I saw on this lawsuit was three rich guys who think they should get preferential treatment just because they have the $ to buy land in another state. Giving preferential treatment to people who have the $ to buy it, now that is a scary thought!
 
The actual case that involved these guys is alot different than how it was portrayed by the news article. This was a dispute of there resident status for the year of 2010 this case has been on appeal since then. All three have been able to hunt as residents until last Friday. There appeal to the Supreme Court was on constitutional bases of the prior decision . This ruling won't affect them from being here the required amount of time to meet the resident status for 2014. This ruling also acts as a blueprint to the amount of time required to qualify for resident status. I would be willing to bet some if not all three of these guys will be hunting as residents in iowa in 2014. Another interesting side not of this has been some research into some prominent video people and why there residents is valid.
 
I wonder how a resident, rich getting richer, land owner would feel if you were singled out and told you were unable to hunt this year because of how you are managing their deer or any other reason the DNR could come up with? They evidently have this right. Are you willing to accept this?
 
Team pewp said:
??????? Not sure how you want it to be worded. And speaking of wording, your 2nd sentence was brutal to read. Just saying!
Also, Im not sure what Obamacare, gun rights and where our President is allegedly born and raised has to do with NR hunting rights in Iowa. I dont see the slippery slope on this one like I do the other way. Its not a conspiracy or a way to take away our hunting rights like you are implying. It is simply protecting Iowa resident hunters and the wildlife that we all own(even us that do not own land). A scary thought is saying '"if you own land, you can shoot any damn thing you want and landowners cannot be regulated." Is that how you would like it worded, Hardwood? I understand the idea of not wanting to be told what you can or cant do on your own property but the bottom line is we need to have a way to police people, even on their own property. I cant cook meth on my own property, just like you cant kill a bald eagle on your property, just like NR landowners cant have to follow the same rules as NR who do not own land. I don't see why that concept is so hard for you to grasp? All I saw on this lawsuit was three rich guys who think they should get preferential treatment just because they have the $ to buy land in another state. Giving preferential treatment to people who have the $ to buy it, now that is a scary thought!
Click to expand...

Ok Team Pewp---You are critical of my post (wording) are you an English teacher? You could at least use a paragraph if you are going to be the site English professor.

Whatever, I see you caught a trout, was that in Iowa or did you happen to leave your state and get a NR license allowing you to harvest a fish or animal. If you did, do you feel guilty?
 
Last edited:
Hardwood11 said:
How about this---
Each landowner has the right to bear arms and hunt on his property as long as he follows the current game laws with the state borders:way:
Click to expand...

Do you mean within those state borders in which that property resides? I ask only because the way you worded it sounds like I have to follow the game laws in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Nebraska and South Dakota.

Also, you open the possibility of felons being able to own firearms so long as they are land owners.
 
iabwhntr said:
Do you mean within those state borders in which that property resides? I ask only because the way you worded it sounds like I have to follow the game laws in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Nebraska and South Dakota.

Also, you open the possibility of felons being able to own firearms so long as they are land owners.
Click to expand...


Yes that is what I meant, and if you are a felon, you probably cannot get a license?
 
Hardwood11 said:
How about this---
Each landowner has the right to bear arms and hunt on his property as long as he follows the current game laws with the state borders:way:
Click to expand...

Not bad...only the current game laws prohibit NR's from getting an anysex tag every year.
 
bkcrrtnps said:
Really? Don't buy land in Iowa if you don't like laws, pretty simple. You can buy ground in other states and manage just the same as Iowa.....
Click to expand...

Agree totally. I know of one of the guys and from what I have heard he is a sharp guy that could move here and make money. Maybe not as much as he does in his current location but he could do pretty well by Iowa standards.

Just another example of wealthy people trying to sway laws into their favor.

Kudos to the DNR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Daver said:
Not bad...only the current game laws prohibit NR's from getting an anysex tag every year.
Click to expand...

Daver--Yep, exactly, I didn't support the lawsuit. Game laws are game laws, we have to follow them. That should have been stressed in the ruling!!
 
hans1 said:
The actual case that involved these guys is alot different than how it was portrayed by the news article. This was a dispute of there resident status for the year of 2010 this case has been on appeal since then. All three have been able to hunt as residents until last Friday. There appeal to the Supreme Court was on constitutional bases of the prior decision . This ruling won't affect them from being here the required amount of time to meet the resident status for 2014. This ruling also acts as a blueprint to the amount of time required to qualify for resident status. I would be willing to bet some if not all three of these guys will be hunting as residents in iowa in 2014. Another interesting side not of this has been some research into some prominent video people and why there residents is valid.
Click to expand...

Hans1--What is the required amount of time to meet resident status?
 
Thinkin Rut said:
I wonder how a resident, rich getting richer, land owner would feel if you were singled out and told you were unable to hunt this year because of how you are managing their deer or any other reason the DNR could come up with? They evidently have this right. Are you willing to accept this?
Click to expand...

This is an invalid argument. The issue is not one of wildlife management. This is an issue of legal residency. If you don't live here, these are the rules/laws that govern how you are allowed to hunt DEER. Period.

Now I'm going to muddy the waters a little bit. Lets say this isn't about deer but about sports. What if those three individuals had children who are college athletes. This is an NCAA rule: The basic rule is that any transfer from any collegiate institution to a Division I school must spend one academic year in residence before he or she is eligible for competition. That means you don't get residency treatment until you've been here for awhile.

Is this acceptable? Or should those kids be allowed to play collegiate sports because they or their parents own land here in Iowa?

These are the same issue. What about taxes? Do those individuals claim Iowa residency on their federal taxes?
 
Thinkin Rut said:
I wonder how a resident, rich getting richer, land owner would feel if you were singled out and told you were unable to hunt this year because of how you are managing their deer or any other reason the DNR could come up with? They evidently have this right. Are you willing to accept this?
Click to expand...


Yes, i am willing to accept it. Is it perfect? No, but since we are all sharing the same resource it needs to be regulated somehow. If deer #s(or any animal you like to hunt)got low enough, they could close the season if they deem it necessary. I don't see them singling out one particular land owner, just like they are not singling out one particular NR landowner is this case.
You act like it is totally unreasonable to expect NR landowners to follow the same rules and regs as NR non landowners. Why should they get special treatment just because they own land in another state?

So my question for you is, if the DNR cannot say whether you can hunt your own land or not, then how do they regulate you? I guess since they constitutionally cannot tell you that you cant hunt your land then why even bother buying tags? Shoot as many bucks as you want! Too bad Mr. DNR officer, This is my land and you cant tell me what to do! This is my land and I will hunt over a pile of deer feed and a mineral block if I so choose!......You get what I'm saying? Would you rather have Govt regulation or anarchy? I hate govt regulation as much as the next guy but in this case it is absolutely necessary to protect our public resource. I don't disagree that it is a touchy subject when talking about a public resource that resides on private ground.
 
Last edited:
Hardwood11 said:
Yes that is what I meant, and if you are a felon, you probably cannot get a license?
Click to expand...

So long as you haven't violated any DNR laws, a felon is allowed to purchase a hunting license. That is for ARCHERY ONLY. Iowa considers a muzzy a firearm.
 
Team pewp said:
So my question for you is, if the DNR cannot say whether you can hunt your own land or not, then how do they regulate you? I guess since they constitutionally cannot tell you that you cant hunt your land then why even bother buying tags?
Click to expand...
Six pack Joe, you have too many deer on your property. February 1, we will be sending in ten sharp shooters to correct our herd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom