|
Post by firstwd on Feb 21, 2016 19:45:20 GMT -5
IIRC, this is done in some other states as well.
Personally, I think it is a good idea. No, I'm not a landowner, and yes I have a lifetime license. I also think we lifetime license holders should have to pay a $3.75 fee per year for a registration sticker, kind of like we all do each year on our vehicles.
I also am completely convinced that every person should have to possess a hunting or fishing license to use state forests, reservoirs, parks, and state recreation areas. That in itself should double Indiana's P-R money.
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Feb 21, 2016 19:51:45 GMT -5
Only folks that should be Voteing are Land Owners with huntable land.... All other are a mute point .... IMO Very easy to vote Yes if your not a land owner! talk about Kings and serfs... That's like saying only politicians should vote.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Feb 21, 2016 19:58:49 GMT -5
LoL..... Apples and oranges
|
|
|
Post by mallarddrake3516 on Feb 21, 2016 19:59:34 GMT -5
No more fees for land owners
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Feb 21, 2016 20:00:49 GMT -5
Hmmm so renters of non farm land don't pay enough fees?
|
|
|
Post by HillBillyJeff on Feb 21, 2016 20:02:46 GMT -5
I'm a landowner, but since I hunt elsewhere I have always bought a hunting license every year. Hunting Fishing combo actually.
The only benefit I use is not having to get deer or turkey tag. This benefit I would like to keep. The other doesn't apply to me.
|
|
|
Post by cedarthicket on Feb 21, 2016 20:08:07 GMT -5
Just a few quick (and not necessarily complete) comments to consider:
I suspect the private landowners of Indiana do the following:
1. Provide most of the wildlife habitat for the "State’s" wildlife. 2. Provide most of the food for the "State’s" wildlife. 3. A great number allow a significant percentage of the non-land-holding hunters to hunt on their property. 4. A significant number also already purchase licenses to be able to legally hunt on property they neither own nor lease. 5. Private landowners appreciate the long-standing tradition (backed by statute) that they are exempt from purchasing hunting licenses as long as they hunt on their own property and follow legal requirements regarding seasons, bag limits, equipment, etc. 6. They also purchase the necessary licenses or stamps to hunt birds (e.g., migratory waterfowl) for which federal hunting rules apply even on their own private lands.
Considering all of this and more, I believe the State of Indiana should give the private landowners a big pat on the back -- not a slap in the face (or wallet) – and get any additional funding needed from other sources. By the way, the percentage of deer and other game taken by lifetime license holders will steadily decrease as they age and no longer hunt.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Feb 21, 2016 20:09:56 GMT -5
So just raise the non landowner license 50 $ then,That will work too!! Then the PR money can go to Mississippi or some other State .. that is willing to sell a license This is not a DNR Suggested license. Just looking for the best way to get the Most money to the DNR
|
|
|
Post by gop1962 on Feb 21, 2016 20:11:36 GMT -5
So just raise the non landowner license 50 $ then,That will work too!! Then the PR money can go to Mississippi or some other State .. that is willing to sell a license This is not a DNR Suggested license. Just looking for the best way to get the Most money to the DNR
|
|
|
Post by gop1962 on Feb 21, 2016 20:12:27 GMT -5
We are all aware that the Federal Government distributes funds through the Pittman–Robertson Act of 11% excise tax on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment. The money is kept separate and is given to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to the States. The Secretary determines how much to give to each state based on a formula that takes into account both the area of the state and its number of licensed hunters. These States must fulfill certain requirements to use the money apportioned to them. None of the money from their hunting license sales may be used by anyone other than the State’s fish and game department. Which brings us to this – In the state of Indiana the only hunters that are exempt from buying a hunting license are the landowners and their immediate live in family members hunting their own land, leasees that farm that ground and members of the military home on leave. It has been suggested that if the exempt landowners and farming leasees would purchase a minimal priced hunting license to hunt their own ground that the IDNR could acquire more of the P-R funds. The minimal price would have to be $3.75 to satisfy the operating cost ($2.75) and the profit required by the P-R of $1 to acquire the P-R monies. The number of hunting landowners and farming leasees are unknown, but estimates say the number could be considerable. There is no doubt that the IDNR is hurting badly for operating funds and could certainly use a boost in the P-R funds. So the question of the day is – In order for the IDNR to get more of the P-R funds for operate with, do you believe that the state should require or have a voluntary basis of a $3.75 hunting license for exempt landowners and farming leasees to hunt their own land? This poll asks that very question. We would like as much participation as possible. The question is stated there is - Would you be in favor of a $3.75 hunting license for the present license exempt landowners and farming leasees?
YES – Mandatory (landowner) YES – Mandatory (non-landowner) YES –Voluntary (landowner) YES –Voluntary (non-landowner) NO – (landowner) NO – (non-landowner) NO OPINION Thanks for your help.. Woody Williams Supporting information….HARVEST BY LICENSE STATUS Licensed resident hunters (Lifetime, Resident, and Youth license holders) accounted for 83% of the total deer harvest, while licensed nonresidents represented 3.5% of the total harvest (Table 4). Hunters who purchased regular annual deer hunting licenses (resident plus non-resident) took only 55% of the total deer harvest; other individuals using discounted licenses or exemptions (i.e., Lifetime license holders, Youth license holders, landowners/tenants, and active-duty military personnel) took 45% of the total harvest. Landowners and lessees who hunted on their own land without a license and military personnel on official leave status ac-counted for around 14% of the total deer harvest. Of the deer harvested by license-exempt hunters, nearly 99% were taken by landowners/tenants, while only 1% was taken by military personnel on leave. Table 4. Harvest distribution of deer by license type during 2014 hunting season. License Status Deer Harvested Percent of Harvest Resident 61,278 51.0 % Lifetime 27,484 22.9 % Land Owner 16,109 13.4 % Youth 10,848 9.0 % Nonresident 4,147 3.5 % Military 208 0.2 % Total 120,073 100.0 %
|
|
|
Post by gop1962 on Feb 21, 2016 20:16:48 GMT -5
No, no, no. I pay property tax and as a landowner do not think I should subsidize the DNR funding shortfall. I spend thousands of $'s on conservation habitat and to ask me to spend more $ is outrageous
|
|
nater
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by nater on Feb 21, 2016 20:18:46 GMT -5
Lifetime license holders are counted every year as if they had purchased a annual tag to get those pr funds Fishing license buyers help get Dingell , Johnson money Like hunters get PR money Are you sure about this? I thought one of the primary reasons Indiana ended the LTL program is because they don't get annual Pittman-Robertson credit for LTL holders after the initial purchase? === The way the federal PR apportionment works, as I understand it, is that all that money gets pooled at the federal level then the pot is divided up proportionally to each state based on a formula that includes the state's land base, population, and the # of licenses sold. Each state thus qualifies for a certain piece of the pie, but has to actually spend a certain amount of money on qualified tasks (habitat management, land acquisition, etc--the state has to put up a 25% match) in order to get the full amount they qualify for. The state also has to obligate/spend the money they get within 2 years, or they have to give the unspent funds back. So in essence, Indiana could qualify for more money if the state's population increases and if the number of hunting license holders increases (the land base ain't changing unless we annex a neighbor). We can make sure we get the full amount we're entitled to if the DNR has a strong enough budget to fulfill their 25% match requirement.
|
|
|
Post by gop1962 on Feb 21, 2016 20:24:23 GMT -5
We are all aware that the Federal Government distributes funds through the Pittman–Robertson Act of 11% excise tax on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment. The money is kept separate and is given to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to the States. The Secretary determines how much to give to each state based on a formula that takes into account both the area of the state and its number of licensed hunters. These States must fulfill certain requirements to use the money apportioned to them. None of the money from their hunting license sales may be used by anyone other than the State’s fish and game department. Which brings us to this – In the state of Indiana the only hunters that are exempt from buying a hunting license are the landowners and their immediate live in family members hunting their own land, leasees that farm that ground and members of the military home on leave. It has been suggested that if the exempt landowners and farming leasees would purchase a minimal priced hunting license to hunt their own ground that the IDNR could acquire more of the P-R funds. The minimal price would have to be $3.75 to satisfy the operating cost ($2.75) and the profit required by the P-R of $1 to acquire the P-R monies. The number of hunting landowners and farming leasees are unknown, but estimates say the number could be considerable. There is no doubt that the IDNR is hurting badly for operating funds and could certainly use a boost in the P-R funds. So the question of the day is – In order for the IDNR to get more of the P-R funds for operate with, do you believe that the state should require or have a voluntary basis of a $3.75 hunting license for exempt landowners and farming leasees to hunt their own land? This poll asks that very question. We would like as much participation as possible. The question is stated there is - Would you be in favor of a $3.75 hunting license for the present license exempt landowners and farming leasees?
YES – Mandatory (landowner) YES – Mandatory (non-landowner) YES –Voluntary (landowner) YES –Voluntary (non-landowner) NO – (landowner) NO – (non-landowner) NO OPINION Thanks for your help.. Woody Williams Supporting information….HARVEST BY LICENSE STATUS Licensed resident hunters (Lifetime, Resident, and Youth license holders) accounted for 83% of the total deer harvest, while licensed nonresidents represented 3.5% of the total harvest (Table 4). Hunters who purchased regular annual deer hunting licenses (resident plus non-resident) took only 55% of the total deer harvest; other individuals using discounted licenses or exemptions (i.e., Lifetime license holders, Youth license holders, landowners/tenants, and active-duty military personnel) took 45% of the total harvest. Landowners and lessees who hunted on their own land without a license and military personnel on official leave status ac-counted for around 14% of the total deer harvest. Of the deer harvested by license-exempt hunters, nearly 99% were taken by landowners/tenants, while only 1% was taken by military personnel on leave. Table 4. Harvest distribution of deer by license type during 2014 hunting season. License Status Deer Harvested Percent of Harvest Resident 61,278 51.0 % Lifetime 27,484 22.9 % Land Owner 16,109 13.4 % Youth 10,848 9.0 % Nonresident 4,147 3.5 % Military 208 0.2 % Total 120,073 100.0 %
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Feb 21, 2016 20:25:47 GMT -5
$3.75 people... It's not like the proposition is for money that could lead to anything substantial Over 100 years that would be $375... Many people waste that much on soda pop everyday
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Feb 21, 2016 20:45:38 GMT -5
I'd be willing to bet that there are many more landowners (with huntable land) that purchase a hunting license (notice I didn't say deer license) than there are that don't.
I find it hard to believe that the license only costs the state $2.75 per license. Does the license selling establishment have to buy the printer and special paper for the license, or is that furnished by the State? Do the places that sell licenses get a kickback from the state for every one sold?
For the record, I have huntable land, but I've had the lifetime license before I purchased the land. Heck, I don't only hunt on my place, so I'd have to get one anyway.
|
|
nater
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by nater on Feb 21, 2016 20:48:16 GMT -5
Another note on PR - the amount of money available at the federal level right now is unprecedented due to all of the gun/ammo sales that have occurred in recent years.
In 2015, the total pot of money (federally) was $808 million. That's a 55% increase from the $522 million that was apportioned in 2013.
I have no idea if Indiana meets in annual match requirements--I would love it if someone could shed light on that. If we don't, adding more license holders won't help much (the increased income would be limited to the fees themselves, not the 3-1 match on qualified expenditures).
The last stats I saw from the Hoosier Environmental Council said this:
DNR has over 200 staff vacancies – a 15% vacancy rate – and does not have sufficient funding to maintain and repair its buildings and facilities on state properties such as state parks and recreation areas, and has fewer field personnel who provide important habitat protection and land management advice to private landowners.
PR-match notwithstanding, our natural resource agency is not in a good place. But that is a topic for a different thread.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Feb 21, 2016 20:48:24 GMT -5
POSITIVE
|
|
|
Post by hunterman on Feb 21, 2016 20:51:55 GMT -5
As a landowner I pay thousands and thousands in taxes, if they want money for something I personally think they should lobby for a portion I already pay. Besides I don't think there has ever been a year I didn't buy a hunting license anyway. Guess it's more about the idea and hassle of another tax more than $3.
|
|
nater
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by nater on Feb 21, 2016 20:53:20 GMT -5
I live in MN now--I know MN requires LTL holders to submit a yearly no-cost validation of their license in order to be considered a valid hunter. That way they capture the number of LTL holders that are actually hunting in a given year. Does Indiana require anything like that currently? Or is the only way they know that the license was used is if a deer/turkey etc. is registered by that individual? I would think you could do the same thing for landowners hunting under their landowner exemption--require them to annually validate (for free--not for $3.75) prior to hunting. That way the state would at least have a handle on the number of landowners hunting even if it doesn't count for PR purposes.
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Feb 21, 2016 21:29:49 GMT -5
Why should they be exempt? The state owns the deer not the landowner We feed those state owned deer. When the state reimburses that cost....and the taxes for the woods those state owned deer live in, we'll talk.
|
|