Truth&Honest
Member
There's some TV hosts that just lost a few tags if we hold this ruling/standard to all....about time.
There's some TV hosts that just lost a few tags if we hold this ruling/standard to all....about time.
bkcrrtnps
Well-Known Member
Isn't that the truth
hoosierhunter
Active Member
Don't short side this.
These guys all paid income tax in Iowa. 2 of the 3 served on Jury's in Iowa. One derives the majority of his income from Iowa! They all hold businesses in Iowa and that means they contributed to your local economies even more than the vast majority!
Yes it was set up for hunting purposes but these boys contributed more to your state than I'd guess 90% of your residents from a tax perspective!
Yes they were playing in a grey area but only in terms of time spent in Iowa. They paid taxes, voted in elections, served judicial duties and started businesses all in Iowa.
That's some extraordinary effort to chase the game they love. They would have saved a boatload of money by just buying govenor tags every year, but instead they tried to do it the right way.
These aren't bad guys and to say otherwise would be a mistake!
Team pewp
Work Sucks!
Never said they were bad guys. But I am also not out of line for saying they did this all just to draw a buck tag every year. It was never about hunting and all about antlers. Hey, if they want to send their tax $ to Iowa in the name of some bone, that is fine by me. I will say it is a little scary to let people vote in elections when they may have very little skin in many issues that effect people who do live here for the majority of the year. I have more of a problem with that, than them getting a buck tag every year.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
As a nonresident I don't support suing the state for this, but what is the required time to be in Iowa. I mean do you literally have to have a video camera with showing you next to a city sign.
Like "Hi it's Dec 21 and I am standing by the Indianola population sign" I mean what is the requirement, and isn't that a little overboard. We have tons of Iowa residents fishing our lakes in MN and we welcome them, they get to take as many fish as we do, for $63.
Like "Hi it's Dec 21 and I am standing by the Indianola population sign" I mean what is the requirement, and isn't that a little overboard. We have tons of Iowa residents fishing our lakes in MN and we welcome them, they get to take as many fish as we do, for $63.
Team pewp
Work Sucks!
It is hard to get past the "money cloud" when the sport we love is becoming a rich mans sport and the people who do have $ want to dictate legislation that would further push it in that direction. As an Iowa resident that is not wealthy and does not own ground, you should be concerned too. IDK, maybe you have family who owns land and you are not concerned about losing land access. I, along with many others have to sweat that out on an annual basis. You never know when you are going to get the call from the landowner saying "I sold the place".
Point being, $ talks, especially with deer hunting and land access. You are very naive if you think otherwise.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
Keep in mind many of these so-called rich landowners, are wealthy because they bought land at a young age, and now have several acres that have increased in value--therefore making them rich.
When their friend was buying a new Ford truck (depreciating asset), they were driving an old Dodge and buying a farm (appreciating asset) and now they are frowned upon because they planned and the other guy didn't.
Sure it takes some money down, start small and work up!
Last edited:
Team pewp
Work Sucks!
I think it is a scenario where someone ratted them out or caught on to what they did. Im sure there are others just like them that are getting away with it. I am curious what the requirement is too.
Comparing fishing to deer hunting is not apples to apples. Two completely different resources that require different management. Lot more room in MN to support out of state fisherman vs. Iowa for deer hunting. There is only so much room in Iowa and so many deer that can be shot before the quality takes big hit and hunter safety is jeopardized. Lord knows it is crowed enough already which leads to trespassing, theft, etc. Iowa didnt become known for quality deer by letting every joe shmoe from every state come in a hunt every year. If MN decided to raise NR fishing fees and put greater restrictions for NR, I would have no issue with that. If that is what it takes to protect the resource and ensure it will be quality for my kids and grand kids to enjoy then so be it.
Also, Im pretty sure a decent amount of people from MN come down to Iowa and fish for a similar fee and no added restrictions. I see MN license plates on Iowa trout streams all of the time. It goes both ways!
Tim Hull
PMA Member
I bit the bullet after getting tired of losing places to hunt and fortunately paid extra on my house for many years and was able to re-finance and buy 50 acres of land. Wish my dad had done the same back when land was 200 an acre. Supply and demand is definitely putting a squeeze on the average guys ability to find land to hunt. No amount of whining is going to change the future of hunting.
Team pewp
Work Sucks!
Not faulting anyone for being successful and smart with their $. I just hate the growing price tag that quality deer hunting has on it. As demand grows the price will inevitably grow with it. Just the way it is and i don't want legislation that would make it worse than it is already.
That being said, i am investing and saving a lot of my $ right now and hope to pull the trigger on 100+ acres in the next few years.
Team pewp
Work Sucks!
Tell me about it. My dad talks about it all of the time. It makes me cry when he tells me the opportunities he passed up to buy land that would be worth 20-30x that today.
CurtisWalker
Well-Known Member
Doing the same here however doesn't look like I'll be getting lang in Iowa unless I find a great deal. I can get 3Xs the amount of land in Minnesota or Nebraska for the same price. I want to stay in Iowa but looking at the odds those states look like the better choice.
Tim Hull
PMA Member
I agree. If we allowed non residents to get any sex tags every year instead of every third year land would even be harder/pricier to purchase/hunt. I can't blame a farmer for leasing his land rather than letting people hunting it for free. If it has value to someone, why not make them pay for it.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
But the price of cabins and lake lots go up if we allow non-residents to get a license every year. If we (MN) could limit the licenses, we would have more affordable lake shore for the resident.:thrwrck:
Last edited:
H
huntemup
Guest
Lol! You kid yourself if you think its not big money pushing hard for opening the floodgates to landowner tags. You absolutely kid yourself.
H
huntemup
Guest
Well.....time spent in Iowa is a very clear requirement. One they knew full well that they were in violation of. They cheated, they knew it, they lost. There is nothing even remotely "right" about it. They went to a ridiculous extreme to play the system, but still did not meet the legal requirements. Its painfully easy to understand. All they have to do is live here.
for me the worst part about all this, is all the money the state wasted chasing 3 people that want to hunt their own land- its not like the state received a dime in penalties, I mean on the list of of priorities, should nt we be chasing the people whoare shooting deer off the road ? the amount of money the game warden spent driving around thinking about some guy sitting in a tree freezing his a$$ off on his own farm is completely irresponsible