Christine I am sure it was for the zone he was in but the problem is it was a land owners tag which is only good for his land in that zone.
In Iowa they can get 3 buck tags if they own enough land. The 2 regular tags for residents plus a land owners tag.
Only two bucks can be shot by residents though, even with a landowners tag. But, I was referring to NRs. A non resident landowner can't get a landowners tag in Iowa. Apparently a NR can get a landowner tag in KS, as Spook is a KY resident.
Seems like a big old mess over an old story. If he tagged the buck what does it matter if he shot it here (X) land he has permission to hunt __________________________________________________________(X) or here the land he owns. Same state and he has the licenses and a tag. Seems like a way to make more money. But I guess laws are laws and some may not make to much sense to me.
Do they typically sell out of NR tags? I'm assuming so. If so, then he gained advantage by shooting that deer on a property he could not of AND could not of got a tag easily to shoot that deer. So he gained major advantage in that case. OTOH, if NR tags are plentiful then I see it is a technicality and it's not that big a deal with a small fine nessesary.
Most units have more applicants than tags. Some don't and like Tom said, left overs can be bought over the counter.
It does not sound like he told the land owner that he shot the buck on his property. I dont know all the facts but what if he had leased the land when he had a tag in the past but did not pay for the lease because all he had was a land owner tag?
If you lease land for hunting wouldn't that make you a tenant? If so that what he did was legal. If thats what this is about then there is a big grey area here.... It depends on how "operated " is interupted.
Some of the best units sell out right away but if you do some research you can buy left over tags of a neighboring zone with the intentions of never hunting the specific zone you bought the tag for.
Leased and landowners are very different IMO. And I think legally it is very different. You could have 25 people leased to hunt a property but only 1 landowner.
Nonresident Tenant Deer Permits: •Tenant Hunt-Own-Land Deer Permit (available over the counter) $17.50 all tenants – Available to individuals who qualify as a tenant, including family members living with the landowner or tenant. Permit valid for any white-tailed or mule deer only on land owned or operated by landowner or tenant during muzzleloader-only, archery, and firearm seasons using equipment legal for that season. So as long as your mail is delivered there? lol!
Actually Dan, as a landowner in Iowa I can kill three bucks. I can get two statewide anysex tags and also a landowner tag. We have to choose some different combinations of seasons, but can do it. I usually get a paid bow tag, a landowner bow tag and a paid muzzleloader tag. All three are anysex and doe tags are unlimited unless they sell out by county. Nonresident landowners are not allowed preference on tags.
Well then, I apologize to Tom. I was under the impression it was only 2 as a resident landowner after talking to other Iowa residents.
I see where you're going, but I don't see the logic. If there were tags for that unit, he would have had one. (Maybe he did according to Christine) He had a landowner tag and according to his friend, he shot and tagged a deer with that tag on a neighboring property that he leased. Which would be........wait for it.....wait for it...........illegal. For the record, I have met Spook a few times and had some good conversations with him. From what I have seen, he's a good dude. I hope he does get cleared of these charges.
I'm going to try to not read into this anymore than what the facts say. I say he's guilty. Whether or not it was an honest mistake is in the air for me. If this is the deer I am thinking of then I may lean towards the side of he knew exactly what was going on...
I'm sure it was "LZ", who ratted him out and is pursuing this. Maybe trying to claim that buck as his property? Or he's just pissed that he didn't get to kill it. I saw the footage, and an amazing deer it was!
I get it was illegal. But I feel there is a difference between him having the wrong tag he could of easily got. (Small infraction where he should get some but not a great deal of punishment.) vs. wrong tag and he could NOT of gotten the tag where he shot the deer. Being he had not chance to shoot that deer in that situation. MY question is........... why would he lease a property he could not shoot a deer on?
Probably for a number of reasons. Spook is very well off, so he was probably leasing it so no one else could get on it, then hunt it when he had the correct tag. He probably would have drawn the following year. Or, he was leasing it in order to secure it and hopefully buy it in the future, which he did, because it joined the land he owned.
