Was pondering this... states obligation to non residents

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Throw this out there for discussion.

Not specific to Iowa.

What is a state's obligation (if any) to non resident hunters.

Iowa deer, Colorado elk, New Mexico mulies, etc, etc. Take your pick.

Obviously there is a revenue source there. There is an economic impact.

Just one example. There's is no doubt in my mind if Iowa raised NR tags to 2, 3, 4k they would still sell out. Do they have any obligation to NR to keep things "reasonable" ?

Colorado seems to have an abundance of elk but quality seems to have gone down. Should they lock it up more for residents and just charge more for less tags to still make the same amount? Do they owe a fella traveling from Ohio anything at all?

Interesting things to ponder.

 

[tall@wide]

It's all about revenue. Figuring out other sources of revenue instead of adding more NR hunters is key.

 

[T_Max]

I would find a way to tie it to Federal public access. Not the number of overall tags, but the percentage of NR tags. It makes sense that if 25% of your elk herd lives on land that is owned by literally everyone in the US, they should have access to that resource. Contrast that with somewhere like Iowa or Kansas where that is virtually non-existent. It wouldn’t have to be straight across (like 25% land = 25% of your tags) but some consistent ratio.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

I would find a way to tie it to Federal public access. Not the number of overall tags, but the percentage of NR tags. It makes sense that if 25% of your elk herd lives on land that is owned by literally everyone in the US, they should have access to that resource. Contrast that with somewhere like Iowa or Kansas where that is virtually non-existent. It wouldn’t have to be straight across (like 25% land = 25% of your tags) but some consistent ratio.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a great point re federal lands.

 

[Windlooker]

I’ve been on both sides of this argument as a NRLO and now as soon to be Iowa resident as my wife and me are building a house near Indianola.

From a common sense approach residents should have preference and if herd quality diminishes I’d reduce NR access and increase tag prices for residents. Iowa has room to move there with cheap tags and $2 lot tags.

NRLOs are a different animal. For years I argued to give us a tag based on investment in the state. Today as a RLO I’m going to say one must move to Iowa for the resident benefit.

The one factor that has pushed me there is a realization of the crazy money people have and will invest in Iowa land if NRLOs are given preference. I knew there was cash out there but not until retiring from LE and helping my wife with her business did I realize how much. Iowa will be overrun and residents stifled. Todays 4 and 5 year wait to archery hunt also promotes nrlo purchase to avoid the wait IF NRLOs received preference.

 

[CottonwoodCanyon]

^that's spot on about being overrun if NRLO tags become a thing. Unfortunatley there's a lot more extreme wealth in Chicago, St. Louis, KC, Minneapolis, etc etc than even in Des Moines. Even residents with above average income in Iowa will be priced out overnight. We can't let that happen.

Back to the thread. I think there has to be an extreme emphasis on residents first, and then a balance struck between NR access potential, resource availability (herd #s), and revenue generation. That's a fine line but I think Iowa does one of the best jobs in the nation of this.

I like the point about federal lands % being taken into account, and also agree that NR Iowa deer tags could be sold at double what they are currently. Nonprofits will auction off governors tags that usually go between $30-50k each...

 

[Rous14]

NR’s and NRLO are different imo. I genuinely understand both sides of that debate and struggle with what is right. Living in Michigan we have a similar type of rare resource in our Great Lakes and much of that waterfront property is owned by “rich out of staters”. Do I like that necessarily? I don’t know, are they out of staters or fellow Americans? I struggle w that. Hard for me to get my head around telling someone that they can invest their hard earned money in to lakefront property, pay the taxes to help care for that resource, but then sorry you can only use it once every 4 or 5 years or can only fish on the lake every 4 or 5 years.
Not sure.
I do think NR’s get lumped together with NRLO’s by most on here though and in my experience there is a HUGE difference in the two generally in terms of the impact they have on the resource.

 

[MarkF]

NR’s and NRLO are different imo. I genuinely understand both sides of that debate and struggle with what is right. Living in Michigan we have a similar type of rare resource in our Great Lakes and much of that waterfront property is owned by “rich out of staters”. Do I like that necessarily? I don’t know, are they out of staters or fellow Americans? I struggle w that. Hard for me to get my head around telling someone that they can invest their hard earned money in to lakefront property, pay the taxes to help care for that resource, but then sorry you can only use it once every 4 or 5 years or can only fish on the lake every 4 or 5 years.
Not sure.
I do think NR’s get lumped together with NRLO’s by most on here though and in my experience there is a HUGE difference in the two generally in terms of the impact they have on the resource.

If they purchased their lakefront property knowing they could only fish it every 4-5 years then they shouldn’t expect anything different.

 

[Rous14]

If they purchased their lakefront property knowing they could only fish it every 4-5 years then they shouldn’t expect anything different.

Have heard this as one of the more common defenses many times on here but again I’m just not sure that that means it’s right. I try to think in terms of what is right and what is wrong regardless of whether it may have negative impacts on me personally or not. Same with the small businesses I run. If I lose money by making something right then so be it. Just seems like a weak defense of something to say to someone well you knew up front. Ok. But is it right or not? Extreme example is back in the 60’s everyone knew that if an African American went to the south they were going to be treated like crap. Well they knew up front that was the case so that makes it ok? Or a NR in whatever state is told up front, hey you need the police or the fire department just so you know up front we’re going to make sure all the resident needs are taken care of first and then we’ll get to ya. Same when they need health care. Nah, that’s not American imo.

Obviously most on here think it is the right thing to do (preventing NRLO’s to hunt their own land I mean) and I don’t blame you one bit for wanting to protect such an incredible resource. I struggle with where that line is. Do NRLO’s only get to fish in public access waters every 4-5 years? Do they only get to small game hunt every 4-5? If not (and I truly don’t know the regs) why is that different than deer? If I’m a founder of this country or president of the US how do I tell a taxpaying private landowner that they can’t do the same exact thing their neighbor is doing on their land? Again i struggle w that.Tough one.

 

[newfarmer]

Have heard this as one of the more common defenses many times on here but again I’m just not sure that that means it’s right. I try to think in terms of what is right and what is wrong regardless of whether it may have negative impacts on me personally or not. Same with the small businesses I run. If I lose money by making something right then so be it. Just seems like a weak defense of something to say to someone well you knew up front. Ok. But is it right or not? Extreme example is back in the 60’s everyone knew that if an African American went to the south they were going to be treated like crap. Well they knew up front that was the case so that makes it ok? Or a NR in whatever state is told up front, hey you need the police or the fire department just so you know up front we’re going to make sure all the resident needs are taken care of first and then we’ll get to ya. Same when they need health care. Nah, that’s not American imo.

Obviously most on here think it is the right thing to do (preventing NRLO’s to hunt their own land I mean) and I don’t blame you one bit for wanting to protect such an incredible resource. I struggle with where that line is. Do NRLO’s only get to fish in public access waters every 4-5 years? Do they only get to small game hunt every 4-5? If not (and I truly don’t know the regs) why is that different than deer? If I’m a founder of this country or president of the US how do I tell a taxpaying private landowner that they can’t do the same exact thing their neighbor is doing on their land? Again i struggle w that.Tough one.

The problem is- access. If NRLO get tags, EVERYONE will buy pieces and parcel them out. You will soon be flooded with people. That’s the thing. That’s where a lot of us are fighting to protect while having nothing against people. This argument goes thousands of times over and over thousands of different topics.
I can understand “is it right”. But fishing in my opinion is not even a close comparison due to catch and release, slot limits, etc. you shoot an extra 10 deer in a square mile because it’s been parceled down, you are going to have a lot bigger problem on your hands.

 

[MarkF]

Have heard this as one of the more common defenses many times on here but again I’m just not sure that that means it’s right. I try to think in terms of what is right and what is wrong regardless of whether it may have negative impacts on me personally or not. Same with the small businesses I run. If I lose money by making something right then so be it. Just seems like a weak defense of something to say to someone well you knew up front. Ok. But is it right or not? Extreme example is back in the 60’s everyone knew that if an African American went to the south they were going to be treated like crap. Well they knew up front that was the case so that makes it ok? Or a NR in whatever state is told up front, hey you need the police or the fire department just so you know up front we’re going to make sure all the resident needs are taken care of first and then we’ll get to ya. Same when they need health care. Nah, that’s not American imo.

Obviously most on here think it is the right thing to do (preventing NRLO’s to hunt their own land I mean) and I don’t blame you one bit for wanting to protect such an incredible resource. I struggle with where that line is. Do NRLO’s only get to fish in public access waters every 4-5 years? Do they only get to small game hunt every 4-5? If not (and I truly don’t know the regs) why is that different than deer? If I’m a founder of this country or president of the US how do I tell a taxpaying private landowner that they can’t do the same exact thing their neighbor is doing on their land? Again i struggle w that.Tough one.

I’m a NRLO, and in my opinion it would be wrong to think the rules should change for me. I also enjoy every aspect of owning my farms and get to enjoy pretty much every outdoor activity on it except getting a buck tag every year. I hope this never changes, I bought farms in Iowa because of how special it is, last thing I would want is for anything to change that. Just curious, what was your reason for buying in Iowa if you could buy in any other state and get a tag every year?

 

[Hardwood11]

A state does not owe anything to Non Residents. But the residents of the state must be ready and willing to accept a counter measure (if they cut off NR from hunting or fishing).

Some guys would love their own state to do it, but would be super pissed if they were cut off from Elk, Bear, Deer, Pheasants, Turkey, fishing etc…in another state.

I hope we never have to go down that road !

 

[Rous14]

A state does not owe anything to Non Residents. But the residents of the state must be ready and willing to accept a counter measure (if they cut off NR from hunting or fishing).

Some guys would love their own state to do it, but would be super pissed if they were cut off from Elk, Bear, Deer, Pheasants, Turkey, fishing etc…in another state.

I hope we never have to go down that road !

I guess for me there is a distinction though between a state not owing anything to a NR which I agree with in general vs a NRLO who is paying state taxes. We can disagree that’s cool, but for me that’s a big distinction and I feel like you are lumping them in the same category. If they are going to tax me and collect revenue that they need to provide me and my neighbors with various essentials/quality of life stuff, roads, infrastructure, decent schools, etc….then I do feel like the state owes that taxpayer something in return for their money.

 

[Rous14]

I’m a NRLO, and in my opinion it would be wrong to think the rules should change for me. I also enjoy every aspect of owning my farms and get to enjoy pretty much every outdoor activity on it except getting a buck tag every year. I hope this never changes, I bought farms in Iowa because of how special it is, last thing I would want is for anything to change that. Just curious, what was your reason for buying in Iowa if you could buy in any other state and get a tag every year?

Unless you thought the rule(s) was wrong. My personal views on say abortion for example are that it should be banned. Just because I move to a state that doesn’t share that view doesn’t mean I should just accept it and not expect it to change or advocate for its change. Laws and rules/regulations get changed and tweaked all the time in this country in the pursuit of improvement. I mean the post Skip just made in another thread has a hole list of things that he’s working hard on to change bc he thinks some of them are dumb and that they can be improved including in other states in the Midwest. Nothing wrong with that, I think he should be applauded for it even though I probably don’t align 100% w him on all of it (just 98% ).
And I am not a landowner in Iowa. Too far of a drive from where I live or I probably would. Agree that it’s special as far as deer hunting goes. Its a whole other can of worms but i think the assumption that if the amount of nrlo’s in Iowa increased that deer hunting would suffer as a result is wrong. I actually think it would get better. However, the access part of the equation that newfarmer talks about in his post is definitely legit. Hence why I struggle internally with both sides of this debate. As I said, it’s a tough one for me. I can see valid arguments on both sides.

 

[T_Max]

I guess for me there is a distinction though between a state not owing anything to a NR which I agree with in general vs a NRLO who is paying state taxes. We can disagree that’s cool, but for me that’s a big distinction and I feel like you are lumping them in the same category. If they are going to tax me and collect revenue that they need to provide me and my neighbors with various essentials/quality of life stuff, roads, infrastructure, decent schools, etc….then I do feel like the state owes that taxpayer something in return for their money.

I’m not sure how Iowa is, but in Kansas a NRLO (assuming ag land/rec ground) pays pennies to the dollar in taxes compared to someone who owns a residence. $1M in ag ground might cost you a few hundred bucks in taxes where a $100k residence might be $2,500. I would hate to be that resident paying those taxes with no access to ground while the coastal elites gobbled up my hunting opportunity and paid next to nothing annually while doing it. That’s what would happen if the gates are opened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Windlooker]

As I said earlier I’ve been on both sides of the issue. Some nrlo farms do have homes or finished camps on them. I’ve seen darn nice ones. They are paying significant tax. A lot of variables in play here.

 

[Rous14]

I’m not sure how Iowa is, but in Kansas a NRLO (assuming ag land/rec ground) pays pennies to the dollar in taxes compared to someone who owns a residence. $1M in ag ground might cost you a few hundred bucks in taxes where a $100k residence might be $2,500. I would hate to be that resident paying those taxes with no access to ground while the coastal elites gobbled up my hunting opportunity and paid next to nothing annually while doing it. That’s what would happen if the gates are opened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So I know a bunch of nrlo’s in Illinois and I can assure you none of them are “coastal elites”. Not saying you couldn’t possibly have some of that but that’s not typical. These are mostly blue collar, hard working, small to medium sized business owners or managers that are ate up with big white tails and managing the land. Just like my perception of pretty much everyone on this site.

Ive always believed that regardless of the Midwest state you want to pick but especially IL or IA, PURELY from a quality of hunting standpoint (I realize there are other factors like newfarmer pointed out with access) give me a piece of property in a square mile that’s owned exclusively by non residents. You want these folks as your neighbor if you like killing big deer.

And I’m no tax expert but I’d suspect that a nrlo pays at bare minimum the same amount of tax as a resident assuming the properties are identical (in your case you are comparing a residence to ag land so of course they’d be different in that scenario).
I pay around $10k annually in nrlo taxes in Illinois. Can’t imagine paying that and being told I can only fish or trap or hunt squirrels or pheasants or pick morels or shoot coyotes or turkeys once every 5 years on my own land (assuming my neighbor next to me gets to do these same things every year). Just seems like the most un American thing I can think of.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Discussion got into the NRLO discussion... thsts all good. Wasnt really my intent.

What say yall if Iowa, or colorado, or whoever charged say $2,500 for a NR tag? In Iowa they'd still sell out while Increasing that pool of money by 4x.

 

[Rous14]

Discussion got into the NRLO discussion... thsts all good. Wasnt really my intent.

What say yall if Iowa, or colorado, or whoever charged say $2,500 for a NR tag? In Iowa they'd still sell out while Increasing that pool of money by 4x.

Heard some guys on the Huntr podcast recently talking about the access issue that every hunter/state faces. Maybe IA should charge $2500 or more and use the money to acquire more private ground to make public?
Feels like there aren’t many answers to the access issue. Increasing the amount of available halfway decent public land would be one way to help.

 

[MarkF]

Discussion got into the NRLO discussion... thsts all good. Wasnt really my intent.

What say yall if Iowa, or colorado, or whoever charged say $2,500 for a NR tag? In Iowa they'd still sell out while Increasing that pool of money by 4x.

I’d be all for that, helps a revenue problem and would most likely decrease the amount of time to draw a tag. Selfishly I also believe it would bring some really good farms to the market and I’m looking for something to buy.