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

HSB 764 Discussion

I think the IBA, and others, are making a big mistake. Instead of recoginzing the NR influence, and other changes, the party line establlished over the past several years is being maintained.
This approach to deer management cannot continue. The IBA says that NR's will end Iowa deer hunting as we know it, but countless resident landowners give their anysex tags to NR hunters during shotgun seasons. I havn't met a resident farmer who doesn't welcome NR hunters. The Farm Bureau, made up of Iowa farmers/landowners, outnumbers the IBA membership. Who does the IBA have in their back pocket? Ignoring NR landownership will attribute to the declline in the Iowa deer herd, not NR landownership specifically.
 
Back40, the IBA, and most people on this site are NOT against allowing NR hunting in Iowa. What they are against is the push for virtually unlimited access by them. Again, look at other states that have opened the floodgates, and ask the local hunters in those states what they think about it. I don't know if your view would be different if you were an Iowa resident. Certainly, you and I have different perspectives on it. NR's can buy all the land in Iowa they want - heck, that's the free market working. But, we should not ever take away the state's right to look after it's hunting rights for residents first. Sure, it's selfish, but like I mentioned earlier, anyone who has an opinion on this topic is putting their self first. What we have now has worked for the last umpteen years and has worked well. I don't want hunting for my kids and future grandkids to be sold out. Just my 17 cents worth (went up because of gas prices).
 
"Just my 17 cents worth (went up because of gas prices)." That's funny /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who does the IBA have in their back pocket? </div></div>
Now that really is funny.

If the IBA had 1% of what FB hands out to the political process they would be in great shape.Never realized what a powerful, evil force the IBA was.That's scary!! /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif

As for the "giving" of any sex tags and party hunting.I can't think of any loophole I'd rather see closed. <span style="color: #FF0000">IMO </span>
and I think we will close that loophole about the same time Texas outlaws hunting at a feeder.
 
What is the FB's stance on this bill? If they support it, or at best have no opinion, then I think something is up. If they are against it then I gotta think it it maybe a good thing for us.

I'm just highly skeptical. Why this bill and why now. If it is too good to be true, then it probably is.

I really really like the bill on the surface, but what is swimming in the murky depths?

Who sponsored this bill? What are their past voting records on similar matters?

If this has been covered I apologize, I haven't been on the site much in the past few days.

The 'Bonker
 
This bill was sponsored by Rich Arnold (R,District 72)it started out as a stand alone bill, and was incorporated into 764. Many items dealing with DNR but not just wildlife.
DNR & County Conservation Boards are for, nothing from FB and all others are undecided.
There are several good points for DNR & CCB, just know they support the overall legislation.I hate when lots of things are lumped together,unfortunately you don't get to pick and choose, it's all or nothing.

Over the years Rich Arnold has always been a good friend to outdoor groups.I have no idea what his thoughts were.
What info I do have is 2nd or 3rd hand. A CO from his district made a case against a non res claiming residency and it was thrown out by a local magistrate.
 
Randy,

The "back pocket" comment was not said out of disrespect, but from a political standpoint. Every lobby has "hooks" inside the legislature. Your correct, the FB does have a huge membership and a powerful voice, and usually, when a larger group of constituents support an action the lawmakers follow suit, except with this issue, which is why I asked about an assumed "hook".
The FB is comprised of mostly resident landowners/farmers who support new deer legislation, and are the same neighbors who welcome NR's and provide the anysex tags during shotgun seasons. Again, they out number the IBA and can't seem to get their ideas supported, just wondering why.
 
A large number of FB members, are strictly insurance policy holders and have nothing to do with farming.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Again, they out number the IBA and can't seem to get their ideas supported, just wondering why. </div></div>

I have my theory, but not in an open forum. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
 
Let me guess. Certain video producers, backed by the largest companies in the archery industry, who produce the bulk of their videos during archery season, may grease a pocket or two. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif
 
Sorry I ever posted anything.

Back40, you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried.

Most of your posts have contained words like hook, grease, back pocket. I'm just an uneducated country boy(old man) that likes to use the words truth, honesty and passionate about the outdoors and giving back.

And the truth is I'm done with this post.
 
OneCam started this post and stated:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The suite has a strong possibility of winning as no other State in the US will not let a non resident hunt land they own. </div></div>

This statement was not even close to being true. I couldn't find one case that would indicate that they had any chance of winning. Everything I could find was to the contrary, meaning that they would lose. I am not a lawyer but everything I found seemed pretty clear as to the decision of the court. Therefore, I have to ask that when an Administrator starts a thread like this and asks members to be against a bill that many have wanted to see for years that they have their facts straight. I understand that OneCam has to remain neutral to some extent so he doesn't alienate nonresident landowners that are members. At the same time I have a hard time believing that OneCam wasn't aware of the USO case, the Kansas case, and others like them that have set case precedent. I would like to hear from OneCam because at this time I can't help but question his motives and who he is really looking out for. Is he putting Iowa first or a few rich "friends" who like to utilize this "loop hole"? All I want is honest, accurate, and informative threads, posts, and replys from the Administrator and Moderators. I feel every member is entitled to this. Many of us (myself included) use this site to keep up on current legislation and any information that is inaccurate needs to be corrected irregardless of who posts it. When other members post I know that I have to take what they wrote with a grain of salt so to speak and check the accuracy of their comments. I expect more from the Administrator and Moderators on these types of issues.

Below are a few quotes from the Kansas Case that kansasdeerslayer linked.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The order stemmed from a lawsuit filed by George Taulman, a New Mexico resident who owns two ranches in western Kansas. As a nonresident landowner, Taulman is not allowed to obtain a special transferable Hunt-Own-Land deer permit. In addition, because his land is in turkey management Unit 4 and he is a nonresident, he is ineligible for the limited number of turkey permits reserved for the resident-only drawing in that unit.
Taulman argued that as a nonresident landowner, he should have equal access to wildlife on his land as resident landowners do on their land. This would allow him -- and all other nonresident landowners -- to apply for turkey permits in Unit 4, as well as obtain a special transferable Hunt-Own-Land deer permit </div></div>
The court ruled against George Taulman. For those that don't know George is the world's largest outfitter and owns United States Outfitters. The court ruled:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Nonresident landowners not entitled to same hunting rights as resident landowners </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"This case is important for Kansas hunters because it reaffirms the longstanding notion that it is the prerogative of the Kansas Legislature and the Department of Wildlife and Parks [KDWP] to enact laws and regulations that benefit or give preference to resident hunters over nonresident hunters," said KDWP chief legal counsel Chris Tymeson.</div></div>

OneCam also posted:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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 lawsuit. </div></div>

"I know" - How do you know? Are they friends? Business accociates?, Both?, Neither?

What would be their reason for sueing?

For Iowa changing their residency requirements? - Iowa has the right to determine its own residency requirements.

For Iowa not allowing a NR landowner to hunt their land without drawing a tag? - Please see case quotes above.

In Kansas, a NR landowner can't even draw a tag to hunt Turkey in unit 4 according to the case.

So, if they choose to sue, I say fine. When they loose, I say we should counter by lobbing our legislators to designate Allamakee, Clayton, Monona, Harrison and the Southern three tiers of counties as "resident only" due to the growing deer herd being caused by access issues related to nonresidents (leasing, buying and outfitters). I'm sure we could get FB on board as they just want less deer. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Again I support our current regulations and I'm uneasy with "loop hole" residents yet I think we need to consider the risk vs reward. </div></div>

Uneasy? - ?????
Risk? - I don't think they can win according to case precedent. IMO
Reward? - Closes "loop hole".

elkhunter posted:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now that really is funny.

If the IBA had 1% of what FB hands out to the political process they would be in great shape.Never realized what a powerful, evil force the IBA was.That's scary!!

As for the "giving" of any sex tags and party hunting.I can't think of any loophole I'd rather see closed. IMO
and I think we will close that loophole about the same time Texas outlaws hunting at a feeder. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> This bill was sponsored by Rich Arnold (R,District 72)it started out as a stand alone bill, and was incorporated into 764. Many items dealing with DNR but not just wildlife.
DNR & County Conservation Boards are for, nothing from FB and all others are undecided.
There are several good points for DNR & CCB, just know they support the overall legislation.I hate when lots of things are lumped together,unfortunately you don't get to pick and choose, it's all or nothing.

Over the years Rich Arnold has always been a good friend to outdoor groups.I have no idea what his thoughts were.
What info I do have is 2nd or 3rd hand. A CO from his district made a case against a non res claiming residency and it was thrown out by a local magistrate.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A large number of FB members, are strictly insurance policy holders and have nothing to do with farming.

Quote:Again, they out number the IBA and can't seem to get their ideas supported, just wondering why.

I have my theory, but not in an open forum.
</div></div>
These posts are great examples of how a Moderator or Administrator should post. They are honest, accurate and informative all at the same time. No beat'n around the bush, no question where he stands, here are the facts, here is what I think, you decide for yourself.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Sorry I ever posted anything.

Back40, you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried.

Most of your posts have contained words like hook, grease, back pocket. I'm just an uneducated country boy(old man) that likes to use the words truth, honesty and passionate about the outdoors and giving back.

And the truth is I'm done with this post. </div></div>

elkhunter. Don't be sorry that you posted. Most of us really appreciate all that you do for us. Even though we have never met, I can tell that you are a man of true integrity. I want to say <u>THANK YOU</u> for all that you do to protect Iowa's hunting heritage.

Please call your legislators and encourage them to pass HSB 764.

The phone number to reach your Senator is 515/281-3371 & for your Representative is 515/281-3221. To access bills, E-Mail address for legislators, & other info on the Internet go to http://www.legis.state.ia.us
 
Iowaqdm- I hope that your vast legal experience and opinion holds water but there is more to it, I am not sure what is going on but there are too many questions to rock the boat as it does seem like when someone tells me it is a "no-brainer" it should be enough to give me pause. Someone is trying to force a hand and it might not end the way you think. Oh- and the english police is coming out in me, it should be "lose" not "loose". Intelligent lawyers will tell you that nothing is a sure thing, no matter what you think.
 
Sorry pharmer. Didn't catch that spelling error. I corrected it for you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hope that your vast legal experience </div></div>
I think that I indicated in my post that I was not a lawyer. I believe that I indicated that it was my opinion with the IMO. The fact that I'm not a lawyer means that it wasn't a "legal opinion".

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Intelligent lawyers will tell you that nothing is a sure thing, no matter what you think. </div></div>
Don't recall saying it was a sure thing either. Just that I could't find anything that would indicate that they would win based on previous cases "case precedent".

Here is what I posted:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I couldn't find one case that would indicate that they had any chance of winning. Everything I could find was to the contrary, meaning that they would lose. I am not a lawyer but everything I found seemed pretty clear as to the decision of the court. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't think they can win according to case precedent. IMO </div></div>
 
I’ll try to stick with facts and do my best as an administrator /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif ...

It sounds like I need to further explain my reasoning for not supporting a bill that would undoubtedly seem to help decrease the demand from non residents purchasing Iowa recreational land.

First I feel the need to defend my very strong stance to help insure Iowa remains a top notch deer hunting resource. Increasing NR tags and providing NR landowner rights have always been at the top of my list as initiatives to strongly deny. I am a very strong supporter of the IBA, I hope this reflects in that we have an IBA forum, banners and a strong IBA member following. I really appreciate everything that the IBA and especially Randy does for the Iowa bowhunter, he does a great job keeping us informed and makes serious time sacrifices. I think this is fairly evident with a little research of some of my previous posts regarding Iowa deer hunting’s political issues.

Back to HR764 - I want to insure everyone that I have no hidden agenda’s regarding the failure of this bill. I have been informed from multiple sources that a lawsuit will be initiated if this bill does pass - and this scares the hell out of me because I have 3 young boys that I would like to see afforded the same great quality of hunting as we have had.

I did indicate that suit has a strong possibility of winning as no other State will not let a non resident hunt land they own. Please indicate if I’m wrong by pointing out another State that does not provide NR landowners with some type of hunting/tag allocation preference?

This is an assumption but the lawsuit would be discrimination based and if you do some research on discrimination based lawsuits you will unfortunately find precedence needed to be alarmed.

Since I had this additional information I thought it would be best to share and help to communicate that HR764 sounds great but may not be the best long term solution ... with that said if we think the Reward of closing the loophole out weighs the Risk of possibly losing a Federal lawsuit that would be extremely detrimental to Iowa’s deer hunting future then I say support HR764.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I did indicate that suit has a strong possibility of winning as no other State will not let a non resident hunt land they own. <u>Please indicate if I’m wrong by pointing out another State that does not provide NR landowners with some type of hunting/tag allocation preference?</u>
</div></div>

I can't say that the other States don't choose to give some type of hunting/tag allocation preference but <u>I cannot find where the courts have ruled that they have to.</u>

If you know of such a case please link.

Kansas Case:

COURT RULING REAFFIRMS RESIDENT/NONRESIDENT DISTINCTIONS
Nonresident landowners not entitled to same hunting rights as resident landowners

U.S. Senior District Judge Wesley E. Brown, Wichita, has issued a summary judgment order in favor of defendant Mike Hayden, in his official capacity as secretary of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. Summary judgment is a legal term which means that a court -- in this case the judge applying facts presented by both plaintiff and defendant -- has made a legal determination without a full trial.

The order stemmed from a lawsuit filed by George Taulman, a New Mexico resident who owns two ranches in western Kansas. As a nonresident landowner, Taulman is <u>not allowed</u> to obtain a special transferable Hunt-Own-Land deer permit. In addition, because his land is in turkey management Unit 4 and he is a nonresident, he is <u>ineligible</u> for the limited number of turkey permits reserved for the resident-only drawing in that unit.
Taulman argued that as a nonresident landowner, he should have equal access to wildlife on his land as resident landowners do on their land. This would allow him -- and all other nonresident landowners -- to apply for turkey permits in Unit 4, as well as obtain a special transferable Hunt-Own-Land deer permit -- which allows the taking of mule deer or white-tailed deer in any season with equipment legal for that season -- and then transfer that deer permit to a lineal or collateral relative.

Taulman argued that Kansas laws and regulations regarding nonresident landowners and hunting violated the "Privileges and Immunities Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

After analyzing all the facts and legal citations presented by both parties, however, the court found that previous rulings on this clause have determined that "not every state law which <u>discriminates</u> against nonresidents runs afoul of the Privileges and Immunities Clause." Specifically, <u>such discrimination</u> would have to threaten the "basic . . . maintenance or well-being of the Union." One example cited was a case in which a state law threatened a nonresident's commercial livelihood. Kansas law in this case in no way threatens the livelihood of Taulman, the court ruled.
"This case is important for Kansas hunters because it reaffirms the longstanding notion that it is the prerogative of the Kansas Legislature and the Department of Wildlife and Parks [KDWP] to enact laws and regulations that benefit or give preference to resident hunters over nonresident hunters," said KDWP chief legal counsel Chris Tymeson.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is an assumption but the lawsuit would be discrimination based and <u>if you do some research on discrimination based lawsuits you will unfortunately find precedence needed to be alarmed. </u> </div></div>

Please link to any nonresident hunter or nonresident landowner discrimination cases relating to hunting privilages which would set or could possibly set precedence.
 
Just this year, A nr landowner switched his primary residency, to iowa, Got yanked out of his tree by the game warden and issued tickets for illegally obtaining hunting licenses and therefore hunting without a license, took it to court at the local level and won. 30 days was not practical nor enforceable, be careful when you say NEVER. i am told the state has lost a few times at the local level because they do not want to fight this fight. scary times
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am a very strong supporter of the IBA, I hope this reflects in that we have an IBA forum, banners and a strong IBA member following </div></div>

BIG thanks to IW administrators, moderators and members for all the support of IBA. Getting the message out would be much tougher without that support.

IW and IBA are a great combination, helping to keep our state an awesome place to live and hunt.
 
Posted this is a different form with no response...

Sorry everyone, just did some reading and I have questions. Over the last couple of years I have had three different conversations with the Iowa DNR on this subject, with three different answers. Here’s the main question, whether 30 days or 180…If/When I move to Iowa and have to travel outside of Iowa for work within the first 30 days, would this law be broken?? What if I have to travel once a month ??Can I ever get a resident licenses? I know this might seem like a weird question, but I have had that question answered “Yes, that is correct”. I also have heard “just get an Iowa driver license and wait 30 days”. But the way I read the law is if/when I move to Iowa I would need to PHYSICALLY reside there for 30 days. Does this bill charge it to 180??? Unless I’m missing something (sure hope I am) a lot of new Iowa traveling residents are in a bad situation with this change. Half of a year within the state lines isn’t doable for new traveling sales person, truckers, etc...I can see being a resident for 30 or 180 days before being able to get a resident license, but physically within the state lines for 180 days is highly unlikely, having to travel...
Am I close, wrong, correct???
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Outdoor Family</div><div class="ubbcode-body">when I move to Iowa I would need to PHYSICALLY reside there for 30 days. </div></div>

Physically residing in Iowa can encompass lots of things:
Getting a drivers license.
Registering a vehicle.
Registering to vote.
Buying a house that is your PRIMARY address.
Having your primary mailing address in Iowa.
File Iowa income tax (without filing in any other state is better).

You don't have to do all of the above to be a resident, but the more you do, the more you can prove you truly are a resident. If you have no residence in another, even better.

There are no guidelines for how many nights/days you physically stay at your address that I am aware of. As you noted, this would make residency difficult for those who have to travel outside of the state on business.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are no guidelines for how many nights/days you physically stay at your address that I am aware of. As you noted, this would make residency difficult for those who have to travel outside of the state on business.
</div></div>

Which is why (IMO) 30 days or 180 days is a moot point.

In order to prosecute I believe (based on local cases I have seen) they will look for something that proves residency in another state. (buying a resident tag, homestead tax, registered to vote, etc. in another state besides Iowa)

I am personally not aware of anyone being successfully prosecuted for not being "physically" in the state of Iowa.

The 30 days (or 180) would be used if one bought a license and then a week later got a DL and registered to vote, etc.

Personally I think 764 will be of little use in correcting current problems...so why stir up something we may be sorry for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom