|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 11, 2006 11:09:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 12, 2006 20:45:30 GMT -5
Concerning the .....
May Natural Resources Commission MeetingThe NRC Agenda for the May 16 meeting is now available at: www.in.gov/nrc/minutes/current_agenda/ Please note agenda item # 7. The public comment period would start for this new rule package after the rules are given preliminary adoption by the NRC and the notice of intent is published (sometime after July 1). A public hearing would be conducted by the NRC later this year. Below is a summary of the rule package: 1. Adds a definition of "immediate family" for clarification of the intent of the new administrative rule in 312 IAC 9-2-14 that was given final adoption in March for the clarification of hunting, fishing and trapping license exemptions for land owned by corporations. The intent is just for the farmer or landowner that lives on that land and his spouse and children to be exempt from the license requirement. 2. Clarifies the license types that can be used to take an extra deer under this section, including the youth license and lifetime license, and removes Madison from the list of urban deer zones. With the special deer hunts taking place in Clifty Falls State Park and increased number of antlerless deer that can be taken in Jefferson County, there is no longer a need for Madison to be listed as an urban deer zone. 3. Extends the season for taking rabbits statewide, except for the DNR properties listed, from January 31 to February 15. These two additional weeks would provide additional hunting opportunities and not be likely to affect rabbit populations due to the extremely high reproductive potential of eastern cottontail rabbits. Also lists the DNR properties, in alphabetical order, where rabbit hunting can take place starting on October 1. All fish and wildlife areas and reservoirs are listed except for Goose Pond. 4. Extends the season for taking gray squirrels and fox squirrels to January 31 statewide. The current season for taking squirrels north of U.S. 40 is December 31, so this extension would make the season the same statewide and provide additional hunting opportunities. 5. Removes Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge from the locations where special spring and fall seasons can take place, allows spring turkey hunting statewide except for Henry county, and adds a special youth turkey hunting season. The youth turkey season would take place the weekend before the start of the spring season and allow youth hunters less than 16 years of age, who are accompanied by an adult, to take a bearded (male) wild turkey. If a turkey is taken during this special youth season, the youth hunter would not be able to take an additional turkey in the spring season in the same year. 6. Updates the scientific names of several species of turtles, snakes and frogs for consistency with the Center for North American Herpetology. 7. Adds a provision to the game breeder license to require an eight (8) foot perimeter fence for white-tailed deer, clarify the inventory requirements for species possessed under a game breeder license, and state the expiration date of the license, date for renewing a license, and the date for submitting the annual report. The eight (8) foot fence requirement is currently in regulations for cervids administered by the Board of Animal Health (345 IAC 2-7-3) and is required for all existing game breeders possessing white-tailed deer. The license already has an expiration date of December 31, and the annual report form is already due February 15 of each year. These changes are needed to make it clear for law enforcement purposes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 12, 2006 20:59:11 GMT -5
AGENDA ITEM #6..
Consideration of Request to Lower the Fee for the Second and any Additional Resident Bonus Antlerless Deer License to $15 and Lower the Fee for the Second and any Additional Nonresident Bonus Antlerless Deer License to $24.
An amendment to the license fees and sales statute reduces the minimum license fee to take an extra deer and will go into effect July 1, 2006.
Related Materials:
SOURCE: IC 14-22-12-1; (06)HE1138.1.4. --> SECTION 4. IC 14-22-12-1 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]:
IC 14-22-12
Chapter 12. License Fees and Sales
IC 14-22-12-1
Types of licenses; fees
Sec. 1. (a) The department may issue the following licenses and, except as provided in section 1.5 of this chapter and subject to subsection (b), shall charge the following minimum license fees to hunt, trap, or fish in Indiana:
(18) A resident license to take an extra deer by a means, in a location, and under conditions established by rule adopted by the department under IC 4-22-2, thirteen five dollars and seventy-five cents ($13.75). ($5).
(19) A nonresident license to take an extra deer by a means, in a location, and under conditions established by rule adopted by the department under IC 4-22-2, one hundred twenty ten dollars and seventy-five cents ($120.75). ($10).
(b) The commission may set license fees to hunt, trap, or fish above the minimum fees established under subsection (a).
|
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on May 16, 2006 22:15:41 GMT -5
The proposed rule package was preliminary approved today. The next step, I believe, is public comment and hearings. You should all comment on the rules whether you like them or not because the other guys will.
By the way the Youth Turkey season did get passed.
Those who own land and hunt it but don't live on it may want to check out the change in the "family" definition. If you don't live on it your "family" will most likely need a license to hunt it.
Jack
P.S. The IDHA has suggested 2 - 8' foot fences might be more appropriate in light of recent research indicating transference of CWD may have something to do with an animals tongue. Cervid nose-to-nose contact could be eliminated by a double fence. The current rule has only one eight fence in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on May 17, 2006 5:31:59 GMT -5
An 8 foot fence is a joke to a healthy whitetail , two 8 foot fences would do little to stop escapes either , all they'd have to do is jump the first and then head for a corner and jump the second .  |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 17, 2006 7:44:22 GMT -5
The proposed rule package was preliminary approved today. The next step, I believe, is public comment and hearings. You should all comment on the rules whether you like them or not because the other guys will. By the way the Youth Turkey season did get passed. Those who own land and hunt it but don't live on it may want to check out the change in the "family" definition. If you don't live on it your "family" will most likely need a license to hunt it. Jack P.S. The IDHA has suggested 2 - 8' foot fences might be more appropriate in light of recent research indicating transference of CWD may have something to do with an animals tongue. Cervid nose-to-nose contact could be eliminated by a double fence. The current rule has only one eight fence in it.
I don't think it is premature for us to send an email to the NRC. I sent mine sometime back and they thanked me for it.
So guys and gals if you have comment, pro or con, on any of these proposals be sure to send it in. If we don't give input then we have no sqauwk coming if they pass something we don't like.
Email to the NRC is at...
www.in.gov/nrc/contact/
Jack,
As I read the landowner thing if it is a FAMILY owned corporation that owns the farm and one of them "actively farms the ground" then they still do not have to buy licenses or tags. It is the non-family corporations, such as "hunt clubs" that will have to buy licenses and tags.
As I understand it, this proposal is directed at them, not the family farmer.
A good number fo people have brought up the double fencing with one being close enough to the other so that the deer can get a good run at the second one. |
|
|
|
Post by chicobrownbear on May 17, 2006 7:59:03 GMT -5
An 8 foot fence is a joke to a healthy whitetail , two 8 foot fences would do little to stop escapes either , all they'd have to do is jump the first and then head for a corner and jump the second . I've seen them clear the fence with room to spare at JPG. |
|
|
|
Post by drs on May 17, 2006 8:01:10 GMT -5
Jack,
I also would like to thank you, and many of us here in the southern half of the State greatly appreciate you keeping us informed. Most of us are unable to attend these hearings and meeting up in Indianapolis; so it is certainly nice to have someone to keep us up-to-date. I also wrote the NRC, mainly concerning the Pratice of "Land Leasing" our hunting lands out to the highest bidder, in this state. I pointed out the great concerns many huters here have about the uncertain future of Sport Hunting in Indiana, unless somthing is done to regulate or stop this leasing pratice, which is cheating out a great many hunters out of their places to hunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 17, 2006 8:19:33 GMT -5
Jack,
Here is how I see the "family corporation" being allowed to hunt without purchasing a license or tag, even if they dont live on the ground...
The proposed changes are summarized as follows:
1. Adds a definition of "immediate family" for clarification of the intent of the new administrative rule in 312 IAC 9-2-14 that was given final adoption in March for the clarification of hunting, fishing and trapping license exemptions for land owned by corporations. The intent is just for the farmer or landowner that lives on that land and his/her spouse and children to be exempt from the license requirement.
312 IAC 9-2-14 "(b) For farmland owned or leased by:
(1) a corporation;
(2) a limited liability company;
(3) a partnership; or
(4) another person other than an individual or individuals;
the license exemption applies only to an individual who resides on the farmland, - OR - for corporations owned solely by members of one family, at least one member of that immediate family must actively farm that land."
WW - If it is a one family corporation they do not have to live on the ground as long as they are actively farming it.
This whole thing is directed at people who buy ground to hunt on, period. If a one family corporation buys ground and farms it they do not have to live on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on May 17, 2006 19:59:02 GMT -5
The proposal for the 2 - 8' fences implied that they would be close enogh together so the deer could not get enough of a running start to jump the second fence.
Be sure to make your comments to the NRC. The more voices they hear the more likely they are to listen to your concerns and suggestions.
Jack
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 17, 2006 20:19:48 GMT -5
The proposal for the 2 - 8' fences implied that they would be close enogh together so the deer could not get enough of a running start to jump the second fence. Be sure to make your comments to the NRC. The more voices they hear the more likely they are to listen to your concerns and suggestions. Jack I'll definetely do that. Do you agree with my reading of the "one family farm"? Someone said that they even changed this proposal to make it even more stringent. True? |
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on May 17, 2006 22:01:35 GMT -5
The changes I think you are referring to were made by the Attorney General's office and the IDNR attorney agreed to help "clarify" the proposal. I'm staying out of this fight as I never really believed in the landowner exemption anyway.
Jack
|
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on May 17, 2006 22:32:30 GMT -5
An 8 foot fence is a joke to a healthy whitetail , two 8 foot fences would do little to stop escapes either , all they'd have to do is jump the first and then head for a corner and jump the second . I've seen them clear the fence with room to spare at JPG. Anyone familiar with the jumping ability of whitetail deer know that they do not "get a running start" at a vertical obstacle, but rather, take the mule's approach. That is, walk up to, then make a almost completely vertical jump to clear the obstacle. (Assuming they are not being pressured into an escape mode) I understand the reasoning behind the double fence approach, but feel that much care should be taken in the spacing and design of such barriers, so as not to do more harm than good intentions may justify. I don't care to witness deer entrapped and dead in poorly designed barricades. P.S. A sad day indeed when we're discussing the neccessity of fencing our wild game for their own protection |
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on May 25, 2006 5:30:05 GMT -5
I never really believed in the landowner exemption anyway. Jack AMEN! |
|
|
|
Post by pbr on Jul 6, 2006 6:45:45 GMT -5
Anyone heard any more about ths?
As I understand it the May meeting passed everything and now it is supposed to get get public input?
When and how does that happen?
|
|
