|
Post by throbak on Mar 6, 2016 19:18:02 GMT -5
Wildlife is owned by the state. Landowners get a pass on lisences because we foot the bill to feed the states wildlife, and shelter them. Now, if the state wants to reimburse me on the crop losses, damage etc caused by the states wildlife, we can talk about me paying to hunt my own land. My .02 Dave Tell me what you would like to see done to you property that you would like to have help with Money Wise I bet I can find a program that will help fund it You want help crop damage The very best program out there is CP38 Probably 200 or so per acre Sign on bonus and Nearly 80% cost share to feed the deer on your most heavily depridated crop area its there
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Mar 6, 2016 19:22:34 GMT -5
Not really interested in gooberment money. Just makes taxes go up more. Its not free
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Mar 6, 2016 20:10:50 GMT -5
Not really interested in gooberment money. Just makes taxes go up more. Its not free Actually it doesn't they just give it to someone who will spend it !!That's just how it works I just showed you a way ! To get reembersed so does that mean your ok with it now ? Lol
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Mar 6, 2016 20:11:06 GMT -5
I believe that being a landowner doesn't automatically qualify you for a landowner "license". I believe that you have to farm the ground in some way, and it might have to be a minimum number of acres, but I'm not sure.
I forget the particulars, but I will go throw a question in the "ask a conservation officer" forum and see what the answer is, then report back here.
O.K. I didn't post a question there, I did some reading there. Here is what Morrison posted about being a landowner and hunting:
IC 14-22-11-1 "Farmland"; license requirements and conditions; public use airport manager reporting requirements Sec. 1. (a) As used in this section, "farmland" means agricultural land that is: (1) devoted or best adaptable for the production of crops, fruits, timber, and the raising of livestock; or (2) assessed as agricultural land for property tax purposes. (b) An individual may not take or chase, with or without dogs, a wild animal without having a license, except as follows: (1) An individual who is a resident or nonresident of Indiana while participating in a field trial that has been sanctioned by the director is not required to possess a license while participating in the trial. (2) Subject to subsection (d), an owner of farmland located in Indiana who is a resident or nonresident of Indiana and the spouse and children living with the owner may hunt, fish, and trap without a license on the land that the owner owns. (3) A lessee of farmland who farms that land and is a resident of Indiana and the spouse and children living with the lessee may hunt, fish, and trap without a license on the leased land.
Below is the definition of 'Farmland' as it applies to hunting license requirements.
IC 14-22-11-1
"farmland" means agricultural land that is: (1) devoted or best adaptable for the production of crops, fruits, timber, and the raising of livestock; or (2) assessed as agricultural land for property tax purposes.
So, I would assume that if it was assessed as agricultural land that would be the safest determining factor.
Mine was assessed that way, then that assessment was taken off. I had to go to the county and get it changed back. I had it easy, I have an aquaculture license and uee some of the property for growing fish to sell, so my "hearing" took all of about 2 minutes. The rest of the time was answering questions by the board on what I grew, etc., etc.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 6, 2016 20:22:40 GMT -5
Like almost everything else DNR related, it's a gray area. The regs say that being "adaptable" to raising crops or timber is enough. There is no acreage minimum.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 6, 2016 20:28:09 GMT -5
Like almost everything else DNR related, it's a gray area. The regs say that being "adaptable" to raising crops or timber is enough. There is no acreage minimum. It has to be that way or everyone will try to out/over think the rules...... Or cry the rules don't work for them.. lol
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Mar 6, 2016 20:28:12 GMT -5
Not really interested in gooberment money. Just makes taxes go up more. Its not free Actually it doesn't they just give it to someone who will spend it !!That's just how it works I just showed you a way ! To get reembersed so does that mean your ok with it now ? Lol I never wanted reimbursement. Just stating one of the reasons I don't want another tax levied on me aka fee to hunt my own land.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 6, 2016 20:56:41 GMT -5
I don't know of any deer habitat that doesn't have some trees on it..
So we would be "timber farming"....
|
|
|
Post by thecommissioner on Mar 6, 2016 21:13:05 GMT -5
If anyone ever asks me about hunting on my acreage I tell them, "See that pond over there? That's where I raise fish. And see all the trees? That's my firewood crop."
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 6, 2016 21:25:11 GMT -5
If anyone ever asks me about hunting on my acreage I tell them, "See that pond over there? That's where I raise fish. And see all the trees? That's my firewood crop." Paul, you're a lead farmer. Lol!
|
|
|
Post by gwhunter on Mar 8, 2016 21:19:16 GMT -5
Sounds good guys. Thanks for the clarification! Yes Woody, I think we could all be 'Timber Farming'.
|
|
|
Post by Land Between the Lakes on May 9, 2016 17:18:01 GMT -5
A couple thoughts going through my head: Still think a mushroom hunting permit on state ground needs to happen. Tons of untapped money there imo and other states implemented them. We have too much hunting ground locked up in private land and leases, and we just lost a bunch of state ground so this is part of the revenue problem imo. Not enough public places to hunt, people ain't going to buy licences. People act like all the state does is take, and complain of feeding the state's deer but they sure do give some nice cushy money breaks to land owners for classfied forests and a few other programs,so technically if you are in that program, you did get paid for feeding the deer. $3.75 is dirt cheap but I'm pretty sure it won't be $3.75. I was once chastised for moaning about the duck stamp increase so I'm throwing it back on you fellas, you spent all that money on land, gear, food plots, stands and cameras and suddenly a $3.75 stamp is too much when you hunt for free? I was told to rethink my priorities. ...so maybe you need to rethink your priorities. What's your opinion on a license or habitat stamp required for Birders? I would think most birders would be happy to buy one in order to give back to the resource.
|
|
|
Post by chubwub on May 25, 2016 15:35:51 GMT -5
A couple thoughts going through my head: Still think a mushroom hunting permit on state ground needs to happen. Tons of untapped money there imo and other states implemented them. We have too much hunting ground locked up in private land and leases, and we just lost a bunch of state ground so this is part of the revenue problem imo. Not enough public places to hunt, people ain't going to buy licences. People act like all the state does is take, and complain of feeding the state's deer but they sure do give some nice cushy money breaks to land owners for classfied forests and a few other programs,so technically if you are in that program, you did get paid for feeding the deer. $3.75 is dirt cheap but I'm pretty sure it won't be $3.75. I was once chastised for moaning about the duck stamp increase so I'm throwing it back on you fellas, you spent all that money on land, gear, food plots, stands and cameras and suddenly a $3.75 stamp is too much when you hunt for free? I was told to rethink my priorities. ...so maybe you need to rethink your priorities. What's your opinion on a license or habitat stamp required for Birders? I would think most birders would be happy to buy one in order to give back to the resource. It's been suggested before and they threw a fit about it. The best one can do is encourage them to buy stamps imo, and the real hardcore ones already do that. Although I can kind of understand the objection to having to pay simply to go look at something on public land.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on May 25, 2016 15:44:40 GMT -5
What's your opinion on a license or habitat stamp required for Birders? I would think most birders would be happy to buy one in order to give back to the resource. It's been suggested before and they threw a fit about it. The best one can do is encourage them to buy stamps imo, and the real hardcore ones already do that. Although I can kind of understand the objection to having to pay simply to go look at something on public land. A lot of public land has an entrance fee. If the entrance fee for the remaining land was possession of a hunting or fishing license outdoorsmen would benefit greatly from Federal money to be used for those lands.
|
|