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

perfect storm - nr landowner lawsuits

Let's ask bulldogger. Dogger are you an archer, rifle hunter, or don't you hunt deer? Just curious.
 
Bottom line on what tags he can get is that he has no benefits over any other nonresident regardless of whether they own land in the state or not.

Pretty much the same as Iowa. At least in Iowa a landowner can get a deer tag to hunt deer with a gun every couple years, sounds like up there you would never get a gun tag.

Simple solution as always is move there and live on the land.
 
Monsterbuck said:
Bottom line on what tags he can get is that he has no benefits over any other nonresident regardless of whether they own land in the state or not.

Pretty much the same as Iowa. At least in Iowa a landowner can get a deer tag to hunt deer with a gun every couple years, sounds like up there you would never get a gun tag.

Simple solution as always is move there and live on the land.
Click to expand...
Botton line is he can still buy tags and not be in a lottery.
 
Jdubs said:
Let's ask bulldogger. Dogger are you an archer, rifle hunter, or don't you hunt deer? Just curious.
Click to expand...
Archery is my preference but I would like to rifle hunt also. I grew up on this land and still operate it as a working farm. For the last 10 years I have lived in Iowa which is my residence.
If I could get a rifle tag for my own land every 3-4 years I would be happy, but keep in mind I bought the land and operation as a business not as a recreational property.
 
iowaqdm said:
henry 5146,

I believe your information is wrong. Already been hashed out in court. And for the record Iowa is not the most oppressive State. Lots of states give no preference to NR landowners.
Here is a little law decision to read from the
Tulane Law Review.
NOTE: Constitutional Law--Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article IV, ection 2--Nonresidents are not Guaranteed Equal Access to a State's Recreational Resources

June, 1979

53 Tul. L. Rev. 1524

Author

Thomas Keasler Foutz
Excerpt

Appellants, a Montana-licensed hunting guide and four nonresident hunters, brought suit for declaratory and injunctive relief from a Montana elk-hunting licensing scheme that imposed substantially higher fees on nonresidents than on residents. 1 Defendant was the Montana Fish and Game Commission. 2 The complaint asserted that the licensing scheme violated both the privileges and immunities clause of article IV of the United States Constitution, 3 and the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. 4 A divided district court 5 denied relief, concluding that the state had the power to manage and conserve game animals and to that end could make such laws and regulations necessary to protect and preserve them. 6 The Supreme Court affirmed and held that access by nonresidents to recreational hunting in Montana did not fall within the category of rights protected by the privileges and immunities clause of article IV, and that because Montana's efforts to allocate access to hunting were rationally related to a substantial regulatory interest of the state, the licensing scheme did not violate the equal protection clause. Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commission, 436 U.S. 371 (1978).


Let the big money boys waste their time and money taking this to court. :thrwrck:
Click to expand...
So what other states besides Iowa and South Dakota discriminate against non resdent landowners
 
  • Deleted by N/A
Show…
  • Deleted by N/A
Show…
It is not discrimination when you don't get preference for being a NR landowner over any other NR (who doesn't own land) that wants to hunt Iowa. The wildlife is owned by the State of Iowa not those that own the land. (So by being owned by the State of Iowa means that the RESIDENTS OF IOWA own the wildlife not the landowners-NOT sure why you guys can't figure this out!!!!!!!) So being a landowner doesn't give you any rights to the wildlife living on or inhabiting the land you own. And I don't care how much you pay in property taxes or income taxes in Iowa if your not a RESIDENT of IOWA. When you become a RESIDENT of IOWA than you can have a say! (Again-because the Residents own the wildlife.) It's really not that hard to figure out. The legal system has already determined this on several different occasions. As far as the other States that don't give any preference to NR landowners. I can't remember the exact States but there was around 30 that didn't give NR landowners any preference the last time I saw the list. I believe that list was posted on here before so maybe someone could post it again.
 
If residents of Iowa own the deer and landowners don't why do resident
landowners only pay $2.00 for a deer tag.
 
When the DNR adds 4000 more licenses this year this discussion will be mute..... The deer are owned by the residents of Iowa not just the deerhunters of Iowa and they are paying higher auto insurance and not reaping the benefits of the extra millions of dollars......follow the money!!
 
Actually, you're reading this wrong. It clearly states the action was brought because by a guide and nonresident client/hunters because they felt it was improper for the state of MT to charge higher license fees to nonres hunters, versus residents.

So, irrelevant to the discussions here. Has nothing to do w/ nonresident landowners being able to hunt their own land. Most NRLO's have no issue with paying nonresident fees for a tag. Its the fact that they're thrown in the same pool with non-landowner, non-taxpaying, nonresidents for deer and turkey tag drawings ----- just to hunt their OWN properties! Its ridiculous and, absolutely, the most oppressive nonresident hunter/landowner legislation in the U.S.


iowaqdm said:
henry 5146,

I believe your information is wrong. Already been hashed out in court. And for the record Iowa is not the most oppressive State. Lots of states give no preference to NR landowners.
Here is a little law decision to read from the
Tulane Law Review.
NOTE: Constitutional Law--Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article IV, ection 2--Nonresidents are not Guaranteed Equal Access to a State's Recreational Resources

June, 1979

53 Tul. L. Rev. 1524

Author

Thomas Keasler Foutz
Excerpt

Appellants, a Montana-licensed hunting guide and four nonresident hunters, brought suit for declaratory and injunctive relief from a Montana elk-hunting licensing scheme that imposed substantially higher fees on nonresidents than on residents. 1 Defendant was the Montana Fish and Game Commission. 2 The complaint asserted that the licensing scheme violated both the privileges and immunities clause of article IV of the United States Constitution, 3 and the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. 4 A divided district court 5 denied relief, concluding that the state had the power to manage and conserve game animals and to that end could make such laws and regulations necessary to protect and preserve them. 6 The Supreme Court affirmed and held that access by nonresidents to recreational hunting in Montana did not fall within the category of rights protected by the privileges and immunities clause of article IV, and that because Montana's efforts to allocate access to hunting were rationally related to a substantial regulatory interest of the state, the licensing scheme did not violate the equal protection clause. Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commission, 436 U.S. 371 (1978).


Let the big money boys waste their time and money taking this to court. :thrwrck:
Click to expand...
 
Non-typ. said:
If residents of Iowa own the deer and landowners don't why do resident
landowners only pay $2.00 for a deer tag.
Click to expand...
If the residents of Iowa own the deer; why can't i as a resident landowner hunt deer with a rifle on my own land? Residents that don't even own land in southern Iowa can hunt with a rifle, and even have a special season. Now as to your question about reduced rate landowner tags. Since Iowa has very little public ground to hunt; we need to rely on the private ground to enjoy our sport. For this the resident landowner is compensated. If you want to enjoy this privilege; move to Iowa and buy land. I think you'll soon find out you'll need to purchase alot of land in the right location just for a chance to kill a trophy buck. Not to mention the adjustment in personal income, relocating your family, etc. I don't care why you have decided to live outside our state. Just be reminded that since you are not a resident of this fine state; you shouldn't have the power to change laws within our state. If you don't like the hunting regulation of Iowa; hunt elsewhere. It's really that simple!
 
I already own land that I pay taxes on . Dont want any special priviledges just the ones that any landowner would expect.
Click to expand...


Why did you buy land in Iowa if we treat NR landowners so unfairly?
 
Last edited:
New member here. I have been reading these forums for 2 years. I love them but never registered to post. This subject finally got me involved. I dont have problem with NRLO's if they spend their income in this state just like all the rest of us residents. If a guy wants to come here live six months out of the year, spend a half years income here then he deserves the same rights. If you come here for a week with all the supplies you need to survive for a hunt and maybe spend 1000 bucks while here then LO or not you should not get the same privledges as me. If you ask me, I say get rid of all the governers tags and make the people who can afford to pay, pay. I have yet to see gary lavox out and about spending his money in southeast iowa, yet he hunts for free because he says "hunting bucks in Iowa is awesome". JMO.
 
I would really like to see this list of 30 states that doesn't allow non resident landowners to buy tags to hunt their land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom