Laugh all you want Jnr. But those are the types of details that need to be worked out. If 20% of the land is owned by NR's and that land is grandfathered, how is sold land handled? If a NR buys the property do the privileges transfer or are they lost? Of course, if a R buys the land it is not an issue. If a R buys the land does the reduction of NR landownership, from the original 20%, permanently reduce the NRLO percentage or open the door for other NRLO's to buy and obtain hunting privileges. These types of scenarios are why the proposal for Illinois won't happen re NRLO's.
ironwood
Active Member
I can't think of a single instance where a grandfatherd privledge is transferable. Nothing disrespecful intended but I thought is sounded fun too.
ironwood
Active Member
It is pretty clear that the state would not be what it was, is, without the controls that have been in place. I will always argue that controlling the hunting recreational environment to benefit the resident to the max is goal ONE! It is a quality of life issue, not a privilege issue. I feel this way but my personal gains would benefit the most by thinking otherwise. It is simply the right thing to do and the right agenda to support.
NR tags are overpriced and I will support that agreement any day.
Funny we don't all think alike!
Not funny at all Ironman. What is the intent of the new bill, to maintain 20% NRLOwnership or simply grandfather existing NRLO land; letting it wane away if sold to a resident? If Illinois caps the NRLO ownership at say 20% how does the state maintain that number if some NRLO ground is sold to residents? Is the total simply reduced with no land back filling that number; with possibly no NRLO existing over time if all is sold to residents, or can additional NRLO ground replace the lost acres. If so, how does the state choose which NRLO is in and who is out? Can't quite figure the comedy you allege. Simply details that must be considered with a new bill.
Last edited:
Liv4Rut
Active Member
It almost seems like they should not grandfather each farm as a nr farm but more the number of nrlo's. If there were 300 nrlo's then those 300 are in a separate drawing. In the future if there was 400 nrlo then you would have a 75% chance of drawing in that pool. It still could lead to increased land ownership though. Each individual farm seems crazy though as you could sell them for high $$ as there would be limited farms to choose from if they were only a nr farm.
Swintonator
Member
Did I miss something? Where in the original post or after was it mentioned that non resident land ownership would be limited? The way I'd understand this is that non residents can buy and lease all the ground they want. They cannot however be guaranteed a buck license every year which should result in fewer NR's making the investment. In Iowa 3 of my neighbors (hunting ground) are out of state and all of them gripe and complain about not getting tags... but they bought the land knowing that! Illinois is simply "grandfathering" in the existing land owners to be fair to them since they made the investment anticipating getting tags every year. Anyone buying that ground or buying new ground will (and should) fall under the new rule system as they are fully aware of what the tag situation is.
If I bought land in PA; could I be Grandfathered in to hunt Sundays since it's legal in my home state of Iowa?
Last edited:
I guess I'm looking at this thing from a capping and ability to manage NR owned land standpoint. I still believe not giving the NRLO the proper ability to manage their properties is detrimental in the long run. If I were Illinois I would cap NR owned land at a specified percentage, with the tag privileges transferable if sold to another NR, again for the purpose of management. I'm beginning to believe states like Iowa, and Illinois if they change their laws, should simply prohibit NR rec land purchase if they don't have the ability to hunt and manage those acreages. It would stop these countless debates over access and resource management.
hoosierhunter
Active Member
Jdubs
I have to completely disagree. No way a state should control who purchases land. If we want that we might as well be a communist nation like Russia.
ironwood
Active Member
Thank you Swintonator. And thanks for the name calling, insult intended and taken JDubs.
ironwood
Active Member
Nobody can cap the percentage of ground owned by a NR. Totally not connected to the natural resource issues. I find it really wild that anybody would even think it possible. Now the natural resource owned by the state and residence of that state is a completely different issue.
and I say again NRs are getting screwed on the price of tags in my opinion.