Was pondering this... states obligation to non residents

[T_Max]

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.

I see what you are saying, but I have to compare to someone owning a house, because residency either requires you do that or rent and pay someone else’s residential taxes.

Coastal elites may be the wrong term, but either way, outside money will outcompete the guy working at the Co-Op all day.

What you don’t want is a bunch of residents who lose hunting access due to outside money because they still get to vote. And when they no longer have access to the resource, why would they vote to allow hunting so that out of state money can enjoy their former hobby. I’m not talking about next year, or even 10 years. But as that gets eroded away you start to worry about your grandkids and their kids ability to enjoy a sport that requires tremendous wealth to participate in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CurtisWalker]

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.

Definitely a lot of variables as those properties can still be classed ag-1 with a residence and there’s still a big tax break.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sligh1]

This is a great topic!!! It’s complex & no question it has reasoning & passion on both sides!!!
I can absolutely view this more for other states as much or more than iowa…. It helps me think through this better when I talk about a state I travel to so I can hunt as NR. Or a state I may be a NRLO in (say kansas). That’s how I try to speak to this. And I want those states to vastly favor their Residents over me. It’s really not about iowa in a lot of ways. When a resource is limited - it needs to be protected in TIERS. For example, the most extreme Tier would be China buying up US farms. We want to protect it & prioritize American citizens over a foreign country that needs more AG land. So - we enact laws to protect citizens. That’s the most extreme of course.

When residents lose access to NR’s & literally have “crap access” or as the data shows in most states “new hunters quit due to access to quality hunting land” ….. we MUST consider the 14-22 year old hunters!!!!! THAT IS WHEN 90% OF HUNTERS GET STARTED!!!!!!!!!! (I started at 14- we had no $ & no one in my family hunted). If they can’t get going with decent access- they will quit before they can reach 30 years old & have a bit of $ for better higher quality experiences. That’s the age group we are losing. We all were in that group. Some survived those times, many did not. When u don’t have a couple grand for good access - like is REQUIRED in states like Illinois - your new hunters are TOAST!!!! That’s how bad it got there. I was 19 years old traveling there (a luxary trip) - all on a tight budget & peanut butter & jelly sandwiches & staying in a tent. It got to Point where every farmer wanted “$150 a day” or “2500 a year” to hunt. I couldn’t do it. TODAY, as an old geezer…. I can do it. I could lease up tons of acres in Illinois. The guys like me at 19 would lose yet another spot. There’s an extent where the system can handle folks like me - many places have crossed that threshold (by a lot!!!) in last few decades.

Am I against leasing? No. Am I against freedom to do what u want with your farm? NO. Or charging me “$150 day to hunt”? NO (it’s distasteful but I dont want to say someone can’t do it). Am I against buying land? NO. But- we are crossing some thresholds to the point that residents are toast. They start & quit within a short time. This has changed massively in 20-30 years. No state, like Illinois or Kansas or out west in so many cases - can handle another 20-30 years of change like we just saw. We must identify these pressures that are creating this rapid change. We can change this direction. Every 1 of 50 states has changes they need to make for the betterment of their RESIDENTS. Which- by definition- includes every single person reading this. No matter where u live.

 

[Windlooker]

Definitely a lot of variables as those properties can still be classed ag-1 with a residence and there’s still a big tax break.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get it but NRLOs in that situation are paying what RLOs pay zoned in the same manner.

 

[Obsessed]

The way I look at the original question is unless it's federal land, no state has any obligation to non-resident hunters. With the exception being NRLO's, as they pay state taxes.

I think it would suck if states shut down NR hunting, and I don't see that ever happening.

 

[Rous14]

The way I look at the original question is unless it's federal land, no state has any obligation to non-resident hunters. With the exception being NRLO's, as they pay state taxes.

I think it would suck if states shut down NR hunting, and I don't see that ever happening.

Agree 100%. As I’ve been saying huge distinction between a NR and a NRLO imo.

On Skips reply…. agree totally that it’s complex and lots of layers. However he states that “when residents lose access to non-residents they quit”. See I would say that when any hunter or fisherman loses access regardless of the reason there is a threat that we lose them. Non resident isnt relevant imo. If the 14-22 year olds can’t access decent hunting ground it’s a problem. And my perception (and this would be an interesting study) is that in Illinois and Michigan and Ohio and Iowa the access is the same- close to non existent. It’s EXTREMELY difficult to gain access in any of those states and they all have vastly different levels of non resident pressure. I have sent lots of letters in the mail to area landowners by me in IL, have knocked on doors, and it’s essentially futile. So thats why I don’t think residency has anything to do with access EXCEPT when it comes to the amount of public ground that particular state offers which is why I think that is an important part of the equation for states to look at. We simply have more hunters than we have places to put them. Sucks but it’s the reality.

Back to my Lake Michigan property example. By allowing non residents to buy that property has the access to that property become harder and way more expensive? Absolutely. Do I like that? No, not particularly. But there’s only so much of it, so someone is getting squeezed out no matter what. And I hate that. But I guess I just don’t think the answer is to tell a NR that they either can’t own land in MI or that they can’t use it if they buy it. Just don’t see how that’s how we operate in this country and it’s a very slippery slope.