wow a freind has a problem

[Homunculi]

an old friend has a problem i did not even think about he owns property in kentucky but is a resident of ohio ...
he told me he has to buy a out of state lic to hunt his own property... ouch!!!!! he is the land owner ... WTF
i thought if you own the land you have hunting rights ... am i wrong ? or am i right ...

he said i am wrong ...

i do not know how the laws work between residents that own property in another state but my personal feeling are if you own it you can hunt it ...
no matter if you rent it out or not .... ..

whats your thoughts ?

[kellory]

Golem, I believe it has to do with that word "resident" where you reside, where you live. I have the same problem when I want to hunt family land in Indiana. There, I am a non-resident. There is a list of legal definitions for hunting in your rule book, It is most likely listed there. I would like to see an interstate hunting licience, that would allow for muliple states to be hunted in a single season. I can't be using resources in more than one state at a time, now can I?

[JPH]

Not only does land ownership not grant resident status to a landowner who lives out of state but In Iowa, non-resident landowners have to enter a lottery in order to draw a tag. So even if they are willing to shell out the nearly $400 they may (and often do not) draw a tag.

I live in Iowa but own land in Missouri. I have to pay $225 a tag but at least it is over the counter.

[pgchambers]

I am not sure about how WI handles this, but the area I grew up in and still hunt is a pretty big draw for out-of-state hunters. A lot of land there has been bought up by out-of-staters who only use it for hunting. Congratulations to them for having enough money to buy land for purely recreational purposes, but showing up one week a year does not make them residents. I realize not all out-of-state land owners fit this bill, but I still would have no problem with WI treating them as non-residents. As far as "if you own it you can hunt it". Even resident land owners have to pay for a license to hunt their own property. It would just be less because they live here.

[JPH]

I don't have a problem with paying for a non-res license in Missouri, even though I pay the same taxes and work the land for habitat year-round. I do feel like the situation is slightly unjust though, when I have to pay $675 for a year of hunting (spring turkey, archery deer, and rifle deer) but resident landowners get the same tags for free and the maximum fine for a poacher is $400.

The Iowa situation is totally unfair to non-res landowners who often cannot kill a buck on their land at any price.

[shaman]

an old friend has a problem i did not even think about he owns property in kentucky but is a resident of ohio ...
he told me he has to buy a out of state lic to hunt his own property... ouch!!!!! he is the land owner ... WTF
i thought if you own the land you have hunting rights ... am i wrong ? or am i right ...

he said i am wrong ...

i do not know how the laws work between residents that own property in another state but my personal feeling are if you own it you can hunt it ...
no matter if you rent it out or not .... ..

whats your thoughts ?

I am a landowner in KY. My residency is in Ohio. I have to buy a non-resident license to hunt in KY. It's expensive, but it's worth it.

It specifically states this in a little sidebar in the general information section of the 2011-2012 hunting rules. Your buddy is quite wrong, and if he gets caught, the penalties will be stiff.

[Deebz]

Wow JPH... Strictly by the numbers, a person would be a fool to buy licenses every year. Obviously ethics play a role in that decision. You'd think someone in the state would realize that and up the fine for poaching. A person who is maybe likely to poach would be more likely to do so if they could save money even if they did get caught!

That sucks that you still have to go into a lottery to draw tags even if you are a landowner. I don't see a problem with paying the fees for non-res hunters if you own land. That makes up for the state taxes and other other sources of income for the conservation/wildlife programs that residents pay throughout the course of the year. I do think that a person who owns land (there should be a minimun amount, say 10 acres or whatever) should be gauranteed at least 1 buck tag at the normal cost for a non-res hunter... I suppose their system works for them though. I do hear a lot about Iowa and their giants...

I have a cousin who lives in Florida. He really wanted to come up and try to hunt a big mature Illinois buck, until he saw what it would cost for the non-res license and tag. I'm still planning on paying him a visit to shoot some florida hogs though...

[JPH]

I suppose their system works for them though. I do hear a lot about Iowa and their giants...

Take the hype with a grain of salt. Yes, Iowa has some fantastic deer hunting but it is a large state. Much of Iowa holds average deer hunting at best. If you could look at the areas where they are producing the hunting shows, it is actually a narrow band of counties that runs down the Mississippi river and then across the two southernmost tiers of counties, with a few scattered exceptions here and there.

The reason non-resident landowners have to draw to hunt their own land is not because it works, it is because they have no political voice within the state. It is the same everywhere I've looked at it. Non-resident landowners are an easy target for the states. They have to pay their property taxes and they have to pay the high fees and they cannot say boo about it. The legislators get to look good in front of their local constituents who are upset about "encroachment" by outsiders and the money keeps rolling in.

I guess Iowa's system works in my favor, because I am a resident here, but I still think it is wrong. The free landowner tags in Iowa are obviously restricted to the parcel they were issued for. I see no reason a property tax paying landowner from another state should not be able to at least purchase the same type of tag.

[pgchambers]

Seems like a more complicated issue than I thought, JPH. Imagine that? Giving a higher license price to non-resident land owners is one thing, but having to draw a tag to even hunt your own land just shouldn't happen - IMO.

[kellory]

PGCHAMBERS, it this part you are wrong for me. " As far as "if you own it you can hunt it". Even resident land owners have to pay for a license to hunt their own property. It would just be less because they live here." Land owner write thier own tags with no fees, my son must buy a hunting permit, but no deer tag. My father, who used to own the property, now gets shafted, and must buy hunting permit and deer tag to hunt what used to belong to him. And the size of the property plays no role in the fees. I have 9 acreas that I can hunt, for any game fee free,(I don't know at this point if waterfowl is included or not, but as there is no water , I will not worry about that) I must follow all bag limits.