Understood but from a resource and/or hunting standpoint why is a local more valuable that a nonresident? A lot of locals around me arent worth pissing on if they were on fire. I don’t think the fact you lay your head somewhere makes you a better steward of a resource
You gotta get better neighbors. Here is your official invitation to move to Iowa!
I’m making the assumption that there should be inherent benefits to where a person chooses to make their home. I’m making this assumption regardless of a persons character. There are laws to deal with scumbags.
As to the resource, I honestly can’t speak to that, as I haven’t seen or read about such impact (positive or negative). And while I see your point that you should likely have better habitat and resource managers, there will likely be more hunters, so likely something else will need to give (#of tags, tighter restrictions on non-resident non-land owners, etc)
And, personally (selfishly, perhaps), I am growing to hold the opinion of Lee Lakowski, that I’d rather have a neighbor that does a legal deer drive that lasts for only 2 weeks—and will kill an occasional 3yo (like happened yesterday with my neighbor)—compared to the hunting pressure of all neighbors targeting the same monster from Oct through Jan 10.
Bottomline for me and the state I choose to live and hunt, the habitat and resource is so fragile, (less than 7% timber, little public ground) that I don’t want to risk the possible impact on the resource and hunting that opening the floodgates to nonresident land owners might cause.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk