the problem with the nr residencty issue is the state cannot monitor the comings and goings of every person in the state. With technology the way it is today, plenty of people travel out of state on a reguar basis to work, where do you draw the line. So person pays Iowa resident income tax, state accepts it, but you havent earned the right to hunt? take my neighbor, a truck driver, he drives 4-5 days a week, out of state and comes home on saturday and sunday, in state 8 days a month, resident? or Non resident? so many variables, physically reside means 180 days in the state and no vacations?
Guys:
As far as I know Iowa is the only state in the union that does not allow a non-resident landowner to hunt deer on his or her own land. 19% of the private land is owned by non-residents.
When this bill came together as HS 2184, it was shot down. Then as politicians so often do, they tag it to a very good bill and hope that it gets through. Such is the case with the residency verbiage attached to HSB 764.
This bill has caused a large group of wealthy "loophole" residents to come together with a plan. This plan is simple. If they cannot hunt their own land, a class action lawsuit will be proposed.
If HSB 764 becomes law I predict that the incredible QUALITY Iowa whitetail resource that we ALL love could become a thing of the past. As OneCam said Passage of HSB 764 will wake a sleeping dog. This bill/law will not make them go away. This group of tax paying, voting residents referred to above will not allow their investments in Iowa and their passion for pursuing the whitetail to be dismissed. They will fight with all their resources to hunt the land that they pay taxes on. If a class action suit on the federal level against the state of Iowa is their last resort I believe it will occur. Many of the recent cases have shown that deer belong to the state. But never has a state said that as a land owner you cannot hunt them without going into a drawing. This case will be uncharted waters and I think a discriminatory angle will be approached. If a judge rules in their favor it could open the flood gates to non-residents wanting to buy and hunt their own land. Land prices would skyrocket, and every 40 acres with a tree would be up for grabs. Iowa would become a Western extension of Illinois . No one wants this to happen. Be careful what you wish for, this looks like a good start to shut down this loophole in the law. But I can promise you that it will only be for a short time and then the flood waters will drown us. I've said it once and I will say it again, it is not a question of if a non-resident land owner will get a tag, but When! We need to really examine the long range effect of this bill.
I believe there is a better way. I just don't know what it is.
Hobart
As far as I know Iowa is the only state in the union that does not allow a non-resident landowner to hunt deer on his or her own land. 19% of the private land is owned by non-residents.
When this bill came together as HS 2184, it was shot down. Then as politicians so often do, they tag it to a very good bill and hope that it gets through. Such is the case with the residency verbiage attached to HSB 764.
This bill has caused a large group of wealthy "loophole" residents to come together with a plan. This plan is simple. If they cannot hunt their own land, a class action lawsuit will be proposed.
If HSB 764 becomes law I predict that the incredible QUALITY Iowa whitetail resource that we ALL love could become a thing of the past. As OneCam said Passage of HSB 764 will wake a sleeping dog. This bill/law will not make them go away. This group of tax paying, voting residents referred to above will not allow their investments in Iowa and their passion for pursuing the whitetail to be dismissed. They will fight with all their resources to hunt the land that they pay taxes on. If a class action suit on the federal level against the state of Iowa is their last resort I believe it will occur. Many of the recent cases have shown that deer belong to the state. But never has a state said that as a land owner you cannot hunt them without going into a drawing. This case will be uncharted waters and I think a discriminatory angle will be approached. If a judge rules in their favor it could open the flood gates to non-residents wanting to buy and hunt their own land. Land prices would skyrocket, and every 40 acres with a tree would be up for grabs. Iowa would become a Western extension of Illinois . No one wants this to happen. Be careful what you wish for, this looks like a good start to shut down this loophole in the law. But I can promise you that it will only be for a short time and then the flood waters will drown us. I've said it once and I will say it again, it is not a question of if a non-resident land owner will get a tag, but When! We need to really examine the long range effect of this bill.
I believe there is a better way. I just don't know what it is.
Hobart
"we currently have a hand full of hunters that own land in Iowa that have made sacrifices such as paying Iowa taxes and purchasing a temporary residence to call Iowa there home state yet they may live most of the time in another state. These same individuals are very well off, they have already made a tremendous investment in Iowa and I know that if they can no longer be considered an Iowa resident they will file a Federal law suite."
Why can't they be an Iowa resident? They just have to live in Iowa 180 days. This legislation wouldn't hurt guys like krh mentioned but would hurt guys that are trying to skirt the law to gain resident hunting privilages.
I can hear it now...Well your honor I am a resident, I realize my business is located in another State and my wife and kids live in a $300,000-$1,000,000+ home in another State. I realize that my Iowa residence in (you insert Southern Iowa town) is valued at less than $15,000. Yes your honor I realize my kid/kids go to school in another State where my second home happens to be. I realize that I only come to Iowa 30 days before Oct. 1 and switch my residence back to the State my wife and kids reside in after the last day of deer season, which is just a coincidence I might add your honor. I realize that I do the same thing every year by coincidence. I realize that I pay 99% of my income taxes in another state but...um...well...um...I...am not lying your honor. I swear under OATH that my home in Iowa is my primary residence.
Ok your honor, so I am really a nonresident but I want resident benefits when it comes to hunting Iowa's deer. Your honor I feel am being discriminated against by the State of Iowa because they wont let me shoot one of IOWA'S deer when it wanders across the land that I bought to hunt on even though I knew that I would have to draw a tag to hunt on it.
I agree that the fear of a law suit is a poor reason not to do the right thing. If these big money boys want to spend hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in legal fees to try to hunt deer in Iowa every year than I would be more than happy to see my tax dollars pay a team of lawyers to take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which has already decided that the game animals that reside in a State belong to that State. Iowa has the RIGHT to decide it's own residency laws. Iowa has the right to decide it's hunting regulations including restrictions on nonresident hunting access weather they are landowners or not. Heck, I bet a good team of lawyers representing Iowa's residents could drag this case out for at least 5-10 years if they tried. This prolonged legal battle would cost the plantiff's not just millions of dollars but tens of millions of dollars when the lost income potential of their legal bills is figured in. I have a hard time believing that there is any legal basis where a State has to give a nonresident landowner hunting privileges. If there is any legal basis for this OneCam/Hobart PLEASE LINK IT. I'm not saying that most/all the other States have choosen to give NR landowners some type of access, (because I personally don't know) but a State choosing to give access is quite different than being required by law. I think that these same individuals with all this money would have already taken this issue to court if they had any legal basis. I would guess that investing millions on the hope that you will win seems like a pretty dumb investment. Especially when the best possible outcome is they may get one buck tag a year. They would be much better suited to take their money, sell their land in Iowa and buy in a State like Illinois where they have unlimited tags for nonresidents. I feel safe saying this because United States Outfitters in a class action suit claiming discrimination couldn't get the U.S Supreme Court to rule that nonresidents should be guaranteed access to hunt on Public Land owned by the Federal Government (US forest land, BLM land, ect). That has set a pretty strong precident that the State solely controls the wildlife and it's management irregardless of who owns the land. Think about it. A citizen of the USA that resides in another State is not given guarenteed rights to hunt on land that they payed to acuire and maintain through taxes. The State has the right to decide who gets to hunt "THEIR" game animals (when, where, and how) period. If a Federal court ruled that a State has to allow a nonresident landowner the opportunity to hunt a big game animals it would be opening Pandora's box. If it is decided in Federal Court that a State has to allow a nonresident landowner a big game tag annually then I'm gonna buy 40 acres in Alaska. Sure would beat paying some outfitter $10,000 - $15,000 for a 10 day moose or brown bear hunt when I would be guaranteed a tag each year for a minimal NR tag fee and a one time land investment.
"I know that if they can no longer be considered an Iowa resident they will file a Federal law suite."
Who are they OneCam/Hobart? You obviously know them. They obviously told you guys so you would post this and try to presuade us that we can't beat them and their money. I would bet that some of them are in the hunting industry, outfitting industry, and the real estate industry specializing in recreational land. Who ever they are they better realize the hunting fraternity is a very small tight-knit family and those involved will be linked to any and all of their business associates. Those threatening the suit better be prepared for the financal and professional ramifications of being named on that class action suit that go well beyond the legal costs.
I agree with Ironwood. "I say let it go to court then when Case law and Legisative law all have one voice it will be settle once and for all. I'd put money on the out come."
Why can't they be an Iowa resident? They just have to live in Iowa 180 days. This legislation wouldn't hurt guys like krh mentioned but would hurt guys that are trying to skirt the law to gain resident hunting privilages.
I can hear it now...Well your honor I am a resident, I realize my business is located in another State and my wife and kids live in a $300,000-$1,000,000+ home in another State. I realize that my Iowa residence in (you insert Southern Iowa town) is valued at less than $15,000. Yes your honor I realize my kid/kids go to school in another State where my second home happens to be. I realize that I only come to Iowa 30 days before Oct. 1 and switch my residence back to the State my wife and kids reside in after the last day of deer season, which is just a coincidence I might add your honor. I realize that I do the same thing every year by coincidence. I realize that I pay 99% of my income taxes in another state but...um...well...um...I...am not lying your honor. I swear under OATH that my home in Iowa is my primary residence.
Ok your honor, so I am really a nonresident but I want resident benefits when it comes to hunting Iowa's deer. Your honor I feel am being discriminated against by the State of Iowa because they wont let me shoot one of IOWA'S deer when it wanders across the land that I bought to hunt on even though I knew that I would have to draw a tag to hunt on it.
I agree that the fear of a law suit is a poor reason not to do the right thing. If these big money boys want to spend hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in legal fees to try to hunt deer in Iowa every year than I would be more than happy to see my tax dollars pay a team of lawyers to take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which has already decided that the game animals that reside in a State belong to that State. Iowa has the RIGHT to decide it's own residency laws. Iowa has the right to decide it's hunting regulations including restrictions on nonresident hunting access weather they are landowners or not. Heck, I bet a good team of lawyers representing Iowa's residents could drag this case out for at least 5-10 years if they tried. This prolonged legal battle would cost the plantiff's not just millions of dollars but tens of millions of dollars when the lost income potential of their legal bills is figured in. I have a hard time believing that there is any legal basis where a State has to give a nonresident landowner hunting privileges. If there is any legal basis for this OneCam/Hobart PLEASE LINK IT. I'm not saying that most/all the other States have choosen to give NR landowners some type of access, (because I personally don't know) but a State choosing to give access is quite different than being required by law. I think that these same individuals with all this money would have already taken this issue to court if they had any legal basis. I would guess that investing millions on the hope that you will win seems like a pretty dumb investment. Especially when the best possible outcome is they may get one buck tag a year. They would be much better suited to take their money, sell their land in Iowa and buy in a State like Illinois where they have unlimited tags for nonresidents. I feel safe saying this because United States Outfitters in a class action suit claiming discrimination couldn't get the U.S Supreme Court to rule that nonresidents should be guaranteed access to hunt on Public Land owned by the Federal Government (US forest land, BLM land, ect). That has set a pretty strong precident that the State solely controls the wildlife and it's management irregardless of who owns the land. Think about it. A citizen of the USA that resides in another State is not given guarenteed rights to hunt on land that they payed to acuire and maintain through taxes. The State has the right to decide who gets to hunt "THEIR" game animals (when, where, and how) period. If a Federal court ruled that a State has to allow a nonresident landowner the opportunity to hunt a big game animals it would be opening Pandora's box. If it is decided in Federal Court that a State has to allow a nonresident landowner a big game tag annually then I'm gonna buy 40 acres in Alaska. Sure would beat paying some outfitter $10,000 - $15,000 for a 10 day moose or brown bear hunt when I would be guaranteed a tag each year for a minimal NR tag fee and a one time land investment.
"I know that if they can no longer be considered an Iowa resident they will file a Federal law suite."
Who are they OneCam/Hobart? You obviously know them. They obviously told you guys so you would post this and try to presuade us that we can't beat them and their money. I would bet that some of them are in the hunting industry, outfitting industry, and the real estate industry specializing in recreational land. Who ever they are they better realize the hunting fraternity is a very small tight-knit family and those involved will be linked to any and all of their business associates. Those threatening the suit better be prepared for the financal and professional ramifications of being named on that class action suit that go well beyond the legal costs.
I agree with Ironwood. "I say let it go to court then when Case law and Legisative law all have one voice it will be settle once and for all. I'd put money on the out come."
that was a well thought out post, however, the thing that worries me the most is that i am told these NR landowners have been winning these cases in the local judicial courts and that is just for 30 days on a one off basis. The problem is that the state will never admit it, but they like the money that comes into the state, and another issue is that the game wardens are getting sick and tired of going after the NR landowner only to see the case get turned around. i would like to know how many pro-hunters are (living) wink wink in the state, you would think that this would be great place for the state to set an example, but no, you know what they do, they give out 50 more governors tags, its very frustrating, I dont have the answers , just few thoughts. but i will tell you, if the state wanted to fight this battle , they would be doing it now and they are not, so what message are they sending the resident. on another note, the price of land right(huntig land) is not that far from illinois othr than pike county at 4-5k per acre, tons of land has traded at 3plus k an acre. land is already insane, and you can thank the investor, i dont always think its the end user paying these prices, good news is that i believe with the current economic conditions, land values are starting to weaken as investors holding multiple farm are feeling the pressure . Someone wrote, Its just a matter of when not if, and i say if they are ever going to give thse people tags, at least make them kill does, and make the minimum land size soemthing large enough to prevent people from buying 40 acres, hey if you want to own land here , it better be something large enough to keep out every tom dick and harry, this way the average joe can still get his slice of heaven.
I followed the USO lawsuit and it sure seems that case should hold some weight in a decision of this nature. It gauranteed States rights in game management. In this issue I believe Iowa has a strong argument as far as game management goes. Anyone who follows the deer issues in our state knows that recreational properties owned by non residents have been detrimental to the DNR's management goals.
Grasshopper
New Member
Hi Guys, Brand new to the site (only my 2nd post) but issues like this make me want to chip my two pennies in. Thanks for the intelligent discussion.
I am an NR from MN and I have also lived in IA and WI (guess my name should have been "Drifter"!). I have hunted all over the Midwest and IA is as good as it gets. Don't have to tell anyone here that, but it is ironic to me that people from states where the deer herd is mismanaged love to come to IA and then try to dictate wildlife management here. Amazing to me, and strikes me as arrogant...
Anyway, as noted before, I think it has been proven fairly strongly that states have the right to manage their game populations, and of course that includes managing hunter numbers. Arizona went through this with outfitters suing for more elk tags for their clients and the state won handily. So there is a precedent there.
As for loophole residents, please check out Wyoming, where there is, I believe, a one-year residency requirement (as well as othe hoops)before a hunting license can be bought. I know two people who have moved there in recent years and had to wait. I think tightening residency requirements makes perfect sense and again, there are other places to look to for examples.
I am obviously an outsider, but I would urge you to not cave to the people who are just relying on their money to talk for them. It is a sad comment on our society (especially the community of hunters, which you'd like to think is better than the average Joes but sometimes are not) that money carries clout and they will keep coming at things from a different angle until they wreck something that is very special and unique. I have written letters to IA legislators in the past when these different bills come up and I urge them to view all pending legislation with these priorities:
1) the whitetail deer resource
2) resident sportsmen
3) everyone else
Anyway, enough of my blathering. Thanks for a great site and keep up the great work!
I am an NR from MN and I have also lived in IA and WI (guess my name should have been "Drifter"!). I have hunted all over the Midwest and IA is as good as it gets. Don't have to tell anyone here that, but it is ironic to me that people from states where the deer herd is mismanaged love to come to IA and then try to dictate wildlife management here. Amazing to me, and strikes me as arrogant...
Anyway, as noted before, I think it has been proven fairly strongly that states have the right to manage their game populations, and of course that includes managing hunter numbers. Arizona went through this with outfitters suing for more elk tags for their clients and the state won handily. So there is a precedent there.
As for loophole residents, please check out Wyoming, where there is, I believe, a one-year residency requirement (as well as othe hoops)before a hunting license can be bought. I know two people who have moved there in recent years and had to wait. I think tightening residency requirements makes perfect sense and again, there are other places to look to for examples.
I am obviously an outsider, but I would urge you to not cave to the people who are just relying on their money to talk for them. It is a sad comment on our society (especially the community of hunters, which you'd like to think is better than the average Joes but sometimes are not) that money carries clout and they will keep coming at things from a different angle until they wreck something that is very special and unique. I have written letters to IA legislators in the past when these different bills come up and I urge them to view all pending legislation with these priorities:
1) the whitetail deer resource
2) resident sportsmen
3) everyone else
Anyway, enough of my blathering. Thanks for a great site and keep up the great work!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is not true. Kansas denied an Arizona man the right to hunt his Kansas ranch. He sued. State of Kansas won. So there is precedent. Kansas does not let NR hunt Pronghorn with firearms and this man took exception to this as he was a wealthy man with a large KS ranch. KS stood up to his bully tactics and put him in his place.
</div></div>
Thanks Kansasdeerslayer!
Does anyone else know of any similair cases?
</div></div>
Thanks Kansasdeerslayer!
Does anyone else know of any similair cases?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does anyone else know of any similair cases? </div></div>
Not off the top of my head. Will have to do some investigation.
Speaking of cases though.....it's apparent we are seeing many more cases of an illness called Odocoileus Insertious Colitis - basically it's a case of a person who has his head so far up a big bucks arse he can't manage to pull it out to see straight.
Not off the top of my head. Will have to do some investigation.
Speaking of cases though.....it's apparent we are seeing many more cases of an illness called Odocoileus Insertious Colitis - basically it's a case of a person who has his head so far up a big bucks arse he can't manage to pull it out to see straight.
Everyone needs to continue calling their legislators and tell them to pass this bill (HSB 764). The nonresidents landowners threatening the suit have no legal standing for the suit because of three main points/legal precedents.
1. Iowa has the right to determine its requirements for residency. (Obvious)
2. Iowa owns the deer reguardless of whos land they are on. (USO Case)
3. Iowa has the right to restrict nonresident hunters even if they are landowners. (USO Case/Kansas Case)
They will loose if they choose to pursue the suit. Now is not the time to sit back and let others do all the work. It will only take you a couple of minutes to make the call to your Represenative and Senator. Do your part to protect our hunting heritage! Don't forget when you got them on the phone to tell them that you want them to pass the Sustainable Funding Bill for the DNR as well (SJR 2002).
1. Iowa has the right to determine its requirements for residency. (Obvious)
2. Iowa owns the deer reguardless of whos land they are on. (USO Case)
3. Iowa has the right to restrict nonresident hunters even if they are landowners. (USO Case/Kansas Case)
They will loose if they choose to pursue the suit. Now is not the time to sit back and let others do all the work. It will only take you a couple of minutes to make the call to your Represenative and Senator. Do your part to protect our hunting heritage! Don't forget when you got them on the phone to tell them that you want them to pass the Sustainable Funding Bill for the DNR as well (SJR 2002).
Kansasdeerslayer
PMA Member
Here's a link to the KS lawsuit I referenced on the other thread. My memory wasn't exactly correct on the details of the case, but it is still basically the same and very relevant to the subject at hand.
KDWP vs. Taulman
KDWP vs. Taulman
sureshot
The Hunt Never Ends....
I hate the fact that there is a "loophole" with the 30 day policy of residency here in Iowa, and I feel that everyone has had some great ideas. My opinion on this matter is simple. I feel we need to increase the days a person must reside in this state to become a resident, and that sitting back in fear of a lawsuit instead of doing the right thing is wrong.
In area that I hunt I know of atleast two non-resident individuals who are "residents" of Iowa every deer season. That's not right! It needs to be fixed.
I personally feel that this bill getting passed could lead to a much slower influx of NR landowners. Let's keep Iowa the leading state in the whitetail deer herd. The more loopholes that are eliminated, the more quality whitetails us RESIDENTS will have a chance to hunt.
Great discussion.
In area that I hunt I know of atleast two non-resident individuals who are "residents" of Iowa every deer season. That's not right! It needs to be fixed.
I personally feel that this bill getting passed could lead to a much slower influx of NR landowners. Let's keep Iowa the leading state in the whitetail deer herd. The more loopholes that are eliminated, the more quality whitetails us RESIDENTS will have a chance to hunt.
Great discussion.
bjkpharmd
New Member
If the bill is defeated or doesn't go anywhere, things stay the same and at least you know what you have for right now. Wealthy loop-hole residents (a few anyway), may not be right but at least things stay the same.
Pass this bill and you may open a can that can't be sealed up again. Threat of a lawsuit shouldn't sway your beliefs but cases are not always decided on precedent. $ talks or at least gets heard in a favorable light. IF the case were decided in favor of NR landowners, in one moment all the work over the years is gone.
I think that is why some posts earlier suggested that this bill wasn't all it seemed and maybe shouldn't be supported. Possible that legislators are looking for something to force the issue and they can't be held accountable for it at the polls. It isn't something that the vast majority of voters even care about in Iowa so who would decide to defend a lawsuit and expend state funds in defense if a suit was filed.
Pass this bill and you may open a can that can't be sealed up again. Threat of a lawsuit shouldn't sway your beliefs but cases are not always decided on precedent. $ talks or at least gets heard in a favorable light. IF the case were decided in favor of NR landowners, in one moment all the work over the years is gone.
I think that is why some posts earlier suggested that this bill wasn't all it seemed and maybe shouldn't be supported. Possible that legislators are looking for something to force the issue and they can't be held accountable for it at the polls. It isn't something that the vast majority of voters even care about in Iowa so who would decide to defend a lawsuit and expend state funds in defense if a suit was filed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pass this bill and you may open a can that can't be sealed up again. </div></div>
This bill actually starts to close that "can". There is no way a suit would go anywhere with U.S. District Court and the U.S. Supreme Court having already set precedents.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think that is why some posts earlier suggested that this bill wasn't all it seemed and maybe shouldn't be supported. </div></div>
Nice guess but incorrect.
Wanna guess again?
This bill actually starts to close that "can". There is no way a suit would go anywhere with U.S. District Court and the U.S. Supreme Court having already set precedents.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think that is why some posts earlier suggested that this bill wasn't all it seemed and maybe shouldn't be supported. </div></div>
Nice guess but incorrect.
Wanna guess again?
