|
Post by duff on Dec 21, 2005 11:52:19 GMT -5
Based on Indiana's current tag fees I would think $200 would still be a bargin for a person who still buys tags and hunts deer turkey, fishes(add trout stamp), waterfowl, .....
Maybe different options Indiana Sportsman license-$175-200 Deer hunters license(good for all deer tags during the season)-$100-150
Or limit the deer tags to 3 like PA does and I could see $125 for the Sportsman license.
If the state decides to rearage the tag system as well as the price for bonus tags I could see $125-150 still being a bargin for the serious hunters.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Dec 21, 2005 13:51:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Dec 21, 2005 13:59:10 GMT -5
Yep, you would need a $15 Federal Stamp, $6.75 State Stamp, Resident license and I can't remember if you need to purchase the Game Bird Stamp or not ($6.75). I know I bought one but can't remember if I needed it for waterfowl or just got it in case I wanted to shoot a pheasant or two.
|
|
|
Post by jrbhunter on Dec 21, 2005 14:02:18 GMT -5
It's a state BIRD stamp... federal WATERFOWL stamp.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Dec 21, 2005 14:17:54 GMT -5
To hunt waterfowl you need your small game, state migratory bird stamp , federal stamp and your HIP # (free).
You don't need the habitat stamp to hunt ducks geese.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Dec 21, 2005 14:34:41 GMT -5
I want to find a government agency who doesn't claim to be underfunded and under staffed!!!
Ain't going to happen because government is in the buisness of spending our money, not running a profitable growing buisness.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Dec 22, 2005 6:58:37 GMT -5
Just think:
Maybe they should offer a different stamp for each "type" of species of waterfowl!
Just kidding!
|
|
|
Post by chicobrownbear on Dec 22, 2005 8:59:08 GMT -5
Woody, great poll. I've been turning this one over in my head for some time. I would gladly front a bigger chunk of change for the simple convenience of not having to buy anything else but stamps. They cut the lifetime lisence about the time I saved up enough to buy the dang thing.
|
|
|
Post by randyb on Dec 22, 2005 10:02:10 GMT -5
Georgia has this plan and my brother in law loves it.
|
|
|
Post by pbr on Dec 25, 2005 14:16:03 GMT -5
Good poll and idea.
Hopefully the IDNR will sit up and take notice.
They are going to HAVE to come up with some new and inovative ways to increase the number of hunters and revenues.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 26, 2005 11:02:14 GMT -5
As of 12-26-2005 at 10:00 the poll shows an AVERAGE of...
$117
....for a Yearly Sportsman's License.
.
|
|
|
Post by mullis56 on Dec 29, 2005 19:33:34 GMT -5
Being a LL holder, I think this is a bad idea. They eliminated the LL as they were losing money.....don't come up with a solution that brings in less money for public hunting ground....we need more public land for weekend warriors to go to in lieu of trespassing on private land.....we need MORE quality land so they don't feel like they need to trespass so why not FORCE hunters to pay for what they need MORE places for people who don't have their own land or private place to hunt, bringing in more revenue from licenses will allow the hunting to get better for everyone.....just my $0.50 worth. More money, better and more hunting for everyone. More public land the less I have to run people off of my private land and the better opportunity for them to harvest quality game with more places to go.....this is what is called a WIN/WIN. Pay for what you get! Raise the costs every year until we have the quality of hunting where we need it!!!
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 30, 2005 8:05:26 GMT -5
Being a LL holder, I think this is a bad idea. They eliminated the LL as they were losing money.....don't come up with a solution that brings in less money for public hunting ground....we need more public land for weekend warriors to go to in lieu of trespassing on private land.....we need MORE quality land so they don't feel like they need to trespass so why not FORCE hunters to pay for what they need MORE places for people who don't have their own land or private place to hunt, bringing in more revenue from licenses will allow the hunting to get better for everyone.....just my $0.50 worth. More money, better and more hunting for everyone. More public land the less I have to run people off of my private land and the better opportunity for them to harvest quality game with more places to go.....this is what is called a WIN/WIN. Pay for what you get! Raise the costs every year until we have the quality of hunting where we need it!!! Hi "Mullis56", Your post was EXCELLENT! and I agree with your idea of more quality public hunting areas & how to go about getting it. Personally, when the State started offering for sell Lifetime Hunting Licenses, I thought it was a bad idea from the "Get-go". I figured they would, in the long term loose revenue from these licenses. About the only thing they (IDNR) can do is to modify (Through an emergence executive order by the Govornor) is to allow those holders to keep the Small Game portion of their licenses as is, but those holders will have to start buying Deer or Turkey Licenses like non-holders, also requiring landowners to buy a Deer Tag or General Hunting License. I can almost see the next post will disagree with this idea, but remember it is for the good of the resource & the IDNR. Also charging a users fee for State shooting range use, something on the order of $25 per year would bring in some much needed money. Maybe when the State's DNR is operating in the "Black" instead of the "Red" this will stabolize any future price increases.
|
|
|
Post by joen on Dec 30, 2005 8:34:44 GMT -5
I think they should start a user fee for all public ground. A daily fee of 2 or 3 dollars per hunter would generate alot of money
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Dec 30, 2005 8:50:53 GMT -5
You're right , DRS , I disagree . While I agree that the DNR needs more revenue , asking hunters to once again bend over while bird watchers , horseback riders , et al use the same resource for free is a crock . They don't pay one dime unless it's a cheap gate fee while most of us spend upwards of hundreds per year for the same access . Hunters have contributed more to funding our resource system than any other group with the possible exception of fishermen , and most hunters fish too . Landowners already pay for their rights through their taxes , it isn't fair to make them pay twice . Start taxing the rest of the outdoor users first .
When I filled out the form for my LL and paid my fee I entered into a contract with a willing partner(IDNR) which clearly stated that the rights granted would be for my lifetime , not at the whim of the Legislature . There are many other potential revenue streams that they could exploit without ever having to even think of reneging on our contractual agreement .
|
|
|
Post by joen on Dec 30, 2005 9:01:20 GMT -5
Very good point Keven.I agree 110%. I rarely hunt on D.N.R. property so why should I pay after I have already paid the LL fee. A 10 dollar tax on every state income tax form would be more resonable.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 30, 2005 9:04:00 GMT -5
You're right , DRS , I disagree . While I agree that the DNR needs more revenue , asking hunters to once again bend over while bird watchers , horseback riders , et al use the same resource for free is a crock . They don't pay one dime unless it's a cheap gate fee while most of us spend upwards of hundreds per year for the same access . Hunters have contributed more to funding our resource system than any other group with the possible exception of fishermen , and most hunters fish too . Landowners already pay for their rights through their taxes , it isn't fair to make them pay twice . Start taxing the rest of the outdoor users first . When I filled out the form for my LL and paid my fee I entered into a contract with a willing partner(IDNR) which clearly stated that the rights granted would be for my lifetime , not at the whim of the Legislature . There are many other potential revenue streams that they could exploit without ever having to even think of reneging on our contractual agreement . Keven, I understand your disagreement, and I agree that "Birdwatchers" and others using public land should pay some sort of user fee. We hunters do pay more than our far share when it comes to funding the IDNR. However, I actually do believe that the State made a bad mistake when they started issuing "LL" as this might have been good for a few years but after that money was gone, what was the State planning to do? I know those of you who think they will be "ROOKED" if something should happen that the State modifies the LL's to where you must purchase a Deer or Turkey Tag, but also landowners must do the same. You still will get to keep your Small & Upland Game portion of your L.L. Remember the Goverment can give and later take away, just like taxes, nothing is for certain.
|
|
|
Post by jstalljon on Dec 30, 2005 9:08:28 GMT -5
I comletely agree with Kevin. I have only had my LL for 3 years now. Purchased after the large price increase, but still a GREAT deal in the long run. I'm sure many, like me, also purchased there's around this time, or even more this past year realizing the IDNR was going to phase them out. Can you imagine the ramifications if the IDNR was now to say...."sorry guys, your LL is now only good for small game, itwill only take 60 years to pay it off!!".... unaccpetable! Many other states have LL at a much smaller cost than Indiana, and it seems to work for them. Sounds like a missapropriation of funds in ole' IN to me!!!
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 30, 2005 9:14:29 GMT -5
I comletely agree with Kevin. I have only had my LL for 3 years now. Purchased after the large price increase, but still a GREAT deal in the long run. I'm sure many, like me, also purchased there's around this time, or even more this past year realizing the IDNR was going to phase them out. Can you imagine the ramifications if the IDNR was now to say...."sorry guys, your LL is now only good for small game, itwill only take 60 years to pay it off!!".... unaccpetable! Many other states have LL at a much smaller cost than Indiana, and it seems to work for them. Sounds like a missapropriation of funds in ole' IN to me!!! I know this sounds like a raw deal. but the State will look into many areas where they can generate more funds and most likely they have already looked into modifing the L.L.'s. I personally do not want to buy a Deer Tag to hunt on my own property but if the State law requires it then I will. If this modification does happen and all LL Holders must now start buying Deer & Turkey Tags, for the good of the IDNR's operation; about the only way you could do is hire a Lawyer @ $100 per Hour to argue your case. But remember you can't fight city hall. Also the extra money will help insure better hunting on public lands for those who hunt them.
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Dec 30, 2005 12:56:39 GMT -5
That lawyer would actually run closer to $200-300 per hour , and they'd need a good one since they'd be facing a monumental class action lawsuit for breach of contract .
They made their bed when they made the offer , let them look elsewhere for revenue . A contract is a legal enforcement of a bargain struck , and we didn't set the terms , they did . Hunters and fishermen have disproportionately borne the burden of financing the outdoors and still do to this day . I had to do a lot of soul searching when I bought that license knowing that I was technically removing myself from the revenue stream , but when they made rumblings of phasing it out I would have been a fool not to buy one .
Has anyone priced the cost of camping at a KOA lately ? It makes the pittance charged at our parks a very good bargain by comparison . Why should everybody else get a free ride ? Just 1 dollar added to the gate fee of the parks generates millions of added dollars statewide , and it's high time that everybody else ponied up for their share of the resources that they're using .
|
|