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

perfect storm - nr landowner lawsuits

H

henry5146

New Member
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A couple of people suggested I create a separate thread to make sure everyone was fully aware of what is most likely coming down the pipe. quite frankly its terrifying no matter how you look at it.
[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]As most of you know this year is going to be a pivotal year in the history of deer hunting in the state of Iowa. Many things are conspiring this very minute, some good and some not so good. Many rumors are floating around, much of it is nonsense. There are a couple posters on here that are somewhat knowledgeable. Here is my take on the whole situation and how this perfect storm of events has taken shape and about to make landfall.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The State of Iowa is broke. There is not enough money to fund the major projects in the state. The IDNR is broke and is pissed because it sends tons of money back to non-residents in the hunting draw every year and they are unable to buy any additional land for the average joe to use. The IBA fights the powers that be every year to keep as many non-residents out of the state as they can. There is a new administration in office and they are going to do whatever it takes to improve the cash flow of the state. Unfortunately, that means more non-residents tags will be given out next year. Count on it. With more people looking for a place to hunt, the outfitting business will look a little more promising for some folks and more land will be grabbed up. Go out and get some land NOW. Buy or lease it because the next paragraph will scare you.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Iowa is by far the most oppressive state in the union for a non-resident landowner. I'm talking about privately owned land. There is a group of guys in the state that are business owners and are not encumbered by time clocks, pay stubs or any other limiting factor. They chose Iowa as their one and only residence and pay income tax, property tax, vote here the whole nine yards. They have committed no fraud. At least the ones I know have not. I see some guys on here mentioning felonies, they were denied their licenses, violators, blah blah blah. None of which is true. They actually have their 2011-2012 resident licenses in hand. The IDNR should have left them alone. There is one Conservation Officer in Monroe county who has a hard-on for these guys. He arrested a dude 3 years ago and lost in court. That fueled the fire. This CO, the IBA and some legislators pushed hard to pass the new residency law which is a complete joke. It was supposed to give the DNR more teeth but all it did was infringe on the rights and privileges of a certain group of people. So in their infinite wisdom, they pull up 40 plus names and turn them into the IDNR. Coincidentally the same CO placed 19 of those names on there himself. Four of those guys went in for their appeal last week( coincidentally, 2 of those guys are the CO's next door neighbors). However, they didn't go alone. They hired one of the sharpest legal minds around and you know what that guy found out? It is unconstitutional to deny a landowner (resident or Non-resident) the privilege to hunt their own land. Thats right. Unconstitutional. Some of you may not think this is incorrect. Call the IBA lobbyist and see what he found out. Better yet give Dick Thorton a call, he is so excited about this turn of events, he is dancing a jig right now. Yeah I know the State owns the deer, but that is not the fight. It's equal protection. There is one more guy who has an appeal next month and his attorney has the same information. They should have left those guys alone. The door is now open for someone to file a lawsuit against the state if a non-resident landowner is denied a tag. Go out and get some land NOW! Let me very clear, i have no land in iowa other than my house. I believe was general Yamamoto in world war 2 that was quoted as saying "We have awoken a sleeping giant" Maybe that was the movie Midway, If i am incorrect on that , forgive me , you get my drift.
[/FONT]

​
 
Sounds real scary and all, but.. WAIT A MIUNTE!!! The IDNR is not telling ANY non-resident landowner they cant hunt on their farms. They can go buy a general hunting license and hunt small game if they want to hunt their ground any time. They dont have to let a landowner have every tag to hunt any animal they want at any time.

If all landowners could get a tag for any legal animal then guys who owned land where desert rams live could kill one every year. Or what about guys who own land where shiras moose live,they sure as heck cant get a tag just because they are a landowner. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. Just becasue these rich cry babies cant hunt a buck every year on their land doesnt mean they cant still hunt doe/small game etc.
These guys are NOT being denied the rite to hunt there land. They just cant kill a buck every year. If They could only get a general license every 3rd yr it would be a different story
 
Last edited:
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:
 
It's probably the same group of guys I have heard of many times in the past. Regardless, they have gone through all the hoops to be a resident, yet they don't live in Iowa. I hope they do get denied their resident landowner tags as nonresidents. The day is coming when it will all change for the worse as a resident but at the end of the day, all those guys are still crooks to me.
 
it says non residents which makes sense or non resident landowners and is their a difference, just asking , i do not know . not a lawyer , i do know this has not come up yet in these appeals
 
109th CONGRESS
1st Session​



H. R. 731​

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


February 9, 2005 ​

Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. OTTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources


A BILL ​

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE.
(a) In General- It is the policy of Congress that is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and non-residents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting or fishing.
(b) Construction of Congressional Silence- Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the `commerce clause') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State or Indian tribe.
SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce;
(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the United States; or
(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede, or alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian Tribe as recognized by any other means, including but not limited to agreements with the United States, Executive Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.
SEC. 4. STATE DEFINED.
For purposes of this Act, the term `State' includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
END
 
Last edited:
ElkHunter said:
109th CONGRESS
1st Session​



H. R. 731​

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


February 9, 2005 ​

Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. OTTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources


A BILL ​

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE.
(a) In General- It is the policy of Congress that is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and non-residents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting or fishing.
(b) Construction of Congressional Silence- Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the `commerce clause') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State or Indian tribe.
SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce;
(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the United States; or
(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede, or alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian Tribe as recognized by any other means, including but not limited to agreements with the United States, Executive Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.
SEC. 4. STATE DEFINED.
For purposes of this Act, the term `State' includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
END
Click to expand...



Well this pretty well sums everything up for this thread. :way:
 
BTW, since you mentioned Thornton......anyone have the latest FOI letter? If someone does, post it up so we can see what they're planning again....:grin:
 
some one pm'd last night saying that one issue is retroactivity- if a guy is considered a resident for the purposes of hunting and fishing and the state turns around and changes that law, its is illegal?
 
Seems every year this nr issue comes up. I'm not hearing anything from the FOI ,or any other organization about this matter yet. Seems to me there are alot of paranoid residents. Could be because we have a new governor, and i'll admit that scares me also. It's still a little early to scream fire.
 
Liv4Rut said:
It's probably the same group of guys I have heard of many times in the past. Regardless, they have gone through all the hoops to be a resident, yet they don't live in Iowa. I hope they do get denied their resident landowner tags as nonresidents. The day is coming when it will all change for the worse as a resident but at the end of the day, all those guys are still crooks to me.
Click to expand...


This sums it up pretty well. Many of these rich whiners still dont LIVE here! And yes, that in fact constitues commiting a felony. That is the number one determining factor of the residency issue. And that is the number one rule that is being violated time and again by a lot more of these guys than most of you can imagine.

The only locals interested in helping these nonresidents have a financial gain and care nothing about the many resident hunters that will lose out. They also share the same selfish mentality.

Again, this is not about the folks that actually moved here and live here. They have made the commitment. What we are fighting now, are the many that only "live" here on paper.
 
It depends on the season. The archery deer tags are unlimited in South Dakota but there is no way I can buy a NR any deer rifle tag in my county. By the time the state has two lotteries for residents there are no buck tags available to NR in my county. There are no preference points like Colorado so you can't even build for the future.
Even the small game license for NR that you need to pheasant hunt is no different for land owners. I end up buying 3 different licenses to pheasant hunt on my own land which will total $330.

I run a row crop farm and cow calf operation. We operate on 3500 acres of which i own 1200.
 
I see,that is interesting they stick u for the pheasants but let you bow hunt the deer.As you know Iowa is pretty much the opposite. I can understand why it should cost me more for a tag----------- its the lottery and not getting a preference as a land owner that is unfair
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom