|
Post by ctfarms on Dec 30, 2005 13:41:53 GMT -5
They need to charge an ATV access fee on state forest...oh, thats right it is illegal to ride on state forest...just venting!
I dont know how KY is doing so well with there DNR funds but maybe Indiana can learn something from them... more venting!
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 30, 2005 15:25:22 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 . Look, lets be realistic about this, okay? The State has their own lawyers, and a class action suit would do no good for either side. All the Governor has to do is sign an emergency executive order, and that's that. The general population would back him as we hunters are a minority here. You don't have to remind me how much we hunters are "Screwed" each year by the powers-that-be. I sincerely hope you don't loose any of your L.L. benifits, but it just might happen. The Government takes & gives all the time! It's nothing new.
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Dec 30, 2005 17:16:48 GMT -5
I wonder how much the state of Indiana brings in on the tax that we sportsmen pay for all of the outdoor equipment (bows, guns, etc) and where that money is going? I'll bet that's a pretty good chunk of change and anticipate it going much higher when Bass Pro and Cabela's make their way into Nw Indiana. Now, if they can't operate in the positive realm with that money, our taxes and our licenses, some serious questions should be asked. I have no problem burdening the costs of yearly licenses as I don't hold a LL, but I still believe we're going to get to a point where we'll have a lot of "outlaws" or hunting will become yet another thing that will be available only to those who can afford it. And as I've said before, that would be a shame.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 30, 2005 18:16:23 GMT -5
Yes, IF the governmnet "gives" you something, they can take it away.
In this case the government didn't "give" me anything. I and 30,000+ other bought it.
No, he can't issue an emergency order that would stand up in a court of law. There is nothing "emergency about it.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 31, 2005 7:56:55 GMT -5
I believe it would have been more prudent if the State of Indiana issued a "Limited" Long-term License that would have to be renewed every 5 years. This would have made more sense than the "Lifetime Hunting License" that got them into trouble with finances or lack there of. Also YES the Government or Governor can infact, if it deems it necessary, reverse a law or a bill for the welfare of the State. In this case the IDNR is in bad financial shape and I am sure they are looking into ways of solving the problem. The Sportsman License, would be a fine Idea if it had a life-span of five years, then that way the State could take in more money rather than loose money as they have on the Lifetime Licenses.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 31, 2005 8:45:55 GMT -5
Hind sight is 20/20..
A yearly "Sportsman's License" will probably be a big seller and could result in hunter taking more does.
Is a know fact that 41% of the deer taken a year are by hunters that do not buy tags. Mostly Lifetime License holders.
The yearly "Sportsman's License" woudl be a short term lifetime license.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 31, 2005 9:39:28 GMT -5
YEP! The State of Indiana lost lots of money (BIG TIME) due to this. Short term Sportmen's License would be a better alternative to the Lifetime Hunting License.
|
|
|
Post by mullis56 on Jan 1, 2006 23:26:28 GMT -5
I agree with some of the other posts....I paid for the LL I hold and shouldn't have to pay anymore for taking advantage of their mistakes, per se.
Also I agree that we shouldn't have anything like this that will generate less money for the state that was the point of my orginal post. I like the idea of a 2-5 fee for hunting state properties or 20 for the year? That would make a sh*t load of money for them! Signing out for now!
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 2, 2006 7:16:19 GMT -5
I agree with some of the other posts....I paid for the LL I hold and shouldn't have to pay anymore for taking advantage of their mistakes, per se. Also I agree that we shouldn't have anything like this that will generate less money for the state that was the point of my orginal post. I like the idea of a 2-5 fee for hunting state properties or 20 for the year? That would make a sh*t load of money for them! Signing out for now! You say, in your post, that you have a Lifetime License but then you state "We shouldn't have anything like the "L.L" because it generates less money. For the good of the IDNR & it's programs regarding all wildlife and public properties, wouldn't you be willing to give up the freebies of obtaing Deer & Turkey Licenses, if it ment more revenue for the IDNR? You would be able to keep the small game/upland part of your L.L. From reading these post most believe, as I do, that the Lifetime License was a big mistake for the State in the long term. Woody's idea of issuing a Indiana Sportsman's Hunting License is an excellent idea.
|
|
|
Post by 10point on Jan 2, 2006 12:59:29 GMT -5
Didn't the state steal money from the lifetime license fund to pay for other things?
|
|
|
Post by duff on Jan 2, 2006 13:12:02 GMT -5
The Bee hunter marsh and goose pond. 8000+ acre wetland complex in Green Co.
A good deal for the use of our license fees. There might be another place that I am not aware of though. If this money went into the Fish and Wildlife fund, it is protected by law for the division of Fish and Wildlife of the DNR.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 2, 2006 13:32:56 GMT -5
Didn't the state steal money from the lifetime license fund to pay for other things? YEP!!! They sure have by-way-of placing some or all the money in the General Fund.
|
|
|
Post by 36fan on Jan 2, 2006 13:36:04 GMT -5
The difference the DNR is NOT a business. It is a government entity that is supported by the exuberant amount of tax dollars that we pay. Hunting/fishing license is just another tax for those that enjoy the outdoors.
I understand licenses have to be issued so that all game is not wiped, and wildlife needs managed. This could be done by enforcing bag limits and more efficently using tax dollars instead of raising prices on hunting licenses or charging to use PUBLIC OWNED lands. Personally, I think the government generates more than enough revenue from me.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 2, 2006 14:03:05 GMT -5
I Agree 110%!!
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Jan 2, 2006 14:36:21 GMT -5
I think 100 bucks is reasonable, since I spend that much on all my other permits. I'd like it, because you could go get 1 tag, then go do whatever was legal at that time. No fuss, no muss, no B.S.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Jan 2, 2006 16:42:02 GMT -5
I Thought I replied on this once.... if I'm on here twice, sorry!
I think 100 bucks is a good figure.... it's about what I spend on various tags anyhow. It would be a lot easier to get all your tags at one stop.
Nice pic, Woody!
|
|
|
Post by bullwinkle on Jan 2, 2006 16:58:01 GMT -5
No one wants to pay anywhere near the cost of those licenses combined. So the fiscal impact would be huge on the negitive side. The only justification from a business perspective is if one believes this license will cause a sportsmen to spend more than he normally does on a yearly basis on tags, licenses and fees. I believe this will not occur and instead the reverse will occur and funding will be greatly hurt. This is why they did away with the LTL. While this idea would be a great deal to some sportsmen how does it help add funding to the Fish and Wildlife Fund which pays for properties and their upkeep , public access, wildlife management and other programs? If sportsmen want to pay less then they need to agree on where they need to cut funding and what they want to live without. Right now the DNR has been asked to submit scenarios on dealing with substantial cuts in revenue and this idea wants to take away more funds.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 2, 2006 17:00:12 GMT -5
I Thought I replied on this once.... if I'm on here twice, sorry! I think 100 bucks is a good figure.... it's about what I spend on various tags anyhow. It would be a lot easier to get all your tags at one stop. Nice pic, Woody! Actually that is my ugly brother. I'm the good looking guy on the left..
|
|
|
Post by bullwinkle on Jan 2, 2006 17:06:10 GMT -5
Didn't the state steal money from the lifetime license fund to pay for other things? Yeah, They bout RV 1 with it. Some of you really need to learn the fact before you type. The State did not steal from this Fund!
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 2, 2006 17:07:19 GMT -5
No one wants to pay anywhere near the cost of those licenses combined. So the fiscal impact would be huge on the negitive side. The only justification from a business perspective is if one believes this license will cause a sportsmen to spend more than he normally does on a yearly basis on tags, licenses and fees. I believe this will not occur and instead the reverse will occur and funding will be greatly hurt. This is why they did away with the LTL. While this idea would be a great deal to some sportsmen how does it help add funding to the Fish and Wildlife Fund which pays for properties and their upkeep , public access, wildlife management and other programs? If sportsmen want to pay less then they need to agree on where they need to cut funding and what they want to live without. Right now the DNR has been asked to submit scenarios on dealing with substantial cuts in revenue and this idea wants to take away more funds. If a bowhunter buys a tag and fills it on a buck the first week, he is probably not going to buy any more tags at all. That would be $24 vs $100 or more..Maybe a couple years trial would tell if the sportsmen would buy this license enough to justify keeping it. If the IDNR REALLY wanted to sell more tags they would compeletely do away with the OBR. The OBR most assuredly is more of a negative impact on revenue than a sportsmen's license. They've got the peopel up there to run the numbers and make an educated guess. My best guess is they would sell 15,000 to 20,000 more tags IF it was back to a two buck one and one system. If it was still two bucks the sportsmen's license debate would be moot.
|
|