|
Post by swilk on Feb 22, 2016 12:12:55 GMT -5
Curious what makes you believe that? Is it because that is what is said or what is written or what is mandated? Has that ever mattered in govt?
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Feb 22, 2016 12:26:46 GMT -5
Interesting results so far. As everyone expected? So how many landowner votes so far? And How many non land owner votes?
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Feb 22, 2016 12:45:55 GMT -5
Interesting results so far. As everyone expected? as I expected yes
|
|
|
Post by dadfsr on Feb 22, 2016 13:03:02 GMT -5
No! That's like saying if you don't have a job and pay taxes you shouldn't be allowed to vote. I am not a huntable land owner but agree on their side. If you do not own land that is huntable you do not have a dog in this fight. If anything at all the landowners need tax breaks for what they provide for the wildlife. they provide it for their own recreational benefit or financial gain thoughI wish you would tell the deer, turkey and other wildlife that continue to roam my property AND all the surrounding properties that what I'm spending is supposed make them stay ONLY on my land!!! I am helping EVERYONE by taking care of what I have....there is no, and never will be as long as I am alive, a high fence surrounding my property! I have also taken out a LOT of trash in the creek that comes from upstream-apparently not everyone up stream believes in taking care of their neighbors I've said it many times-I'm land rich and money poor! I did not "buy" my land but the deed for it goes back to the Homestead days that my generation has now been entrusted to...now someone wants us to pay even more tax???
|
|
|
Post by greenhunter on Feb 22, 2016 13:34:28 GMT -5
As a Land Owner, I already pay thousands of dollars a year in property taxes. The INDNR needs to manage their budget and priorities better. I do not feel I should pay anymore in fees or taxes to fund what I see as a bloated government agency. The Land Owners are not a bottomless pit of funds. We take care of the land year round, not just during the hunting season(s). I strongly oppose a Land Owner license fee!
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Feb 22, 2016 13:50:57 GMT -5
That would also be the same with a turkey checkin... Does anyone know how many times a lifetime Hunting lic. Is counted for during a hunting season? One Time for PR Money I would argue that politicians bend/break rules on a regular basis. How many time's has Federal gov't. stole money out of the social security administration fund's and used for other purposes??? NO Guarantee that any additional money would be used to benefit wildlife. How much of your hunting license money stays with the IDNR? LOL, it depends on the governor. That money is stolen from wildlife every year.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Feb 22, 2016 13:53:38 GMT -5
Hasent any one but me read the History of Deer in Indiana The Pitman/Robertson Act was created by sportsmen to fund the Government "DNR " to protect us from ourselves We with Market hunting Compleatly wiped out the Deer None ,Zero not a one This program and the DNR is still doing that today Protecting us from us !!Without them and PR we would be right back at Zero again I have used Our Bios. Our CO,s and received several thousand in WHIP a PR funded program Ijust don't think it is understood how important these dollars are to us Just looking for a way to get more and my self would be ore than happy to do it
|
|
|
Post by chubwub on Feb 22, 2016 14:05:44 GMT -5
Wouldn't funds collected in this manner be protected a lot more from abuse by politicians trying to take it and use it for something else besides conservation efforts? I can just see the property taxes being abused since there really is nothing in place that says that portion taken out of property taxes MUST be used for wildlife.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Feb 22, 2016 15:02:05 GMT -5
One would think that money collected from hunting license sales would stay within the DNR. But that is not the case and I have no reason to think that any money collected IMO under any act is off limit's to government corruption and greed.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Feb 22, 2016 15:24:31 GMT -5
Landowners that want to support the DNR are more likely to see money raised get used by them if they formed a Landowners Group and made a donation to their local DNR Chapters....I believe that then is 100% kept within the DNR and no state government hands reach for it.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Feb 22, 2016 15:30:38 GMT -5
I am all about conservation and spend several $1,000's each year on our farm for wildlife. I AM AGAINST ANY FURTHUR TAXATION. (And a fee is a fancy name for TAX.) Landowner's pay way to much in taxes as it is IMO. But to be fair I will go out of my way to spend an extra $50 this year.
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Feb 22, 2016 15:35:57 GMT -5
As a Land Owner, I already pay thousands of dollars a year in property taxes. The INDNR needs to manage their budget and priorities better. I do not feel I should pay anymore in fees or taxes to fund what I see as a bloated government agency. The Land Owners are not a bottomless pit of funds. We take care of the land year round, not just during the hunting season(s). I strongly oppose a Land Owner license fee! Beautiful thing is, it's not a tax or a fee, nor do you have to pay. It's your opportunity to hunt game that belongs to the state. I'm a land owner as well. I know that my license $$ goes to conservation and I'm proud of it. We all pay to many taxes, that's no headliner! But like I said this isn't a tax. Unless I'm wrong?
|
|
|
Post by treetop on Feb 22, 2016 15:36:27 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. Very well said as a landowner that's just the beginning of what we do and for the record I still buy a combo deer tag but dont need it
|
|
|
Post by treetop on Feb 22, 2016 15:40:49 GMT -5
Indiana Received 18,000,000 PR money last year ,,,for the DNR With this 3.75 fee they would have possibly received 3or 4 million more At 50,000 a year that would be 80 Bioligist and CO jobs that's how big a deal it is !! It is a big deal but why should one group fund it why not just raise the cost of tags what kind of money would that raise yes I am a landowner but I still buy deer tags
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Feb 22, 2016 15:46:32 GMT -5
As a Land Owner, I already pay thousands of dollars a year in property taxes. The INDNR needs to manage their budget and priorities better. I do not feel I should pay anymore in fees or taxes to fund what I see as a bloated government agency. The Land Owners are not a bottomless pit of funds. We take care of the land year round, not just during the hunting season(s). I strongly oppose a Land Owner license fee! Beautiful thing is, it's not a tax or a fee, nor do you have to pay. It's your opportunity to hunt game that belongs to the state. I'm a land owner as well. I know that my license $$ goes to conservation and I'm proud of it. We all pay to many taxes, that's no headliner! But like I said this isn't a tax. Unless I'm wrong? Agreed, it is not a tax. As for the why start charging landowners...I may very soon here be one myself, however the fact that I hunt other spots I will still utilize my lifetime license (if I didn't have I'd be buying a license no doubt still). To me it makes more sense to raise the normal licenses than to start a new "license".....although I get the concept or idea behind it. ONLY way I'd support a landowner fee of say $3 or $4 or whatever you want it to be is that it is written into law that it shall NEVER change or go up. So say $3/year now, it will be $3/year in 6 years, 10 years, 60 years, 100years....otherwise I say boost regular tag fees if you are needing more revenue from licenses. Or another spot to bump it would be in Non-resident tags. We are substantially cheaper than some of our neighboring states and offer very competitive hunting even on our public spots by comparison. Boost them $10-$20 a pop and that'd make a difference as well.
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Feb 22, 2016 16:46:38 GMT -5
Instead of why now, why not ask, why haven't they always been charged the same as everyone else? The way I see it the game belongs to the state, not the landowners. I could justify it, if the animals are causing damage or harm.
I do agree however there are other ways to rejuvenate the funds, but nonetheless I do believe anyone that hunts should have to purchase a license to do so, with some restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Feb 22, 2016 16:51:41 GMT -5
Since hunting and fishing license money goes towards wildlife and state properties, would you support requiring every person who uses state properties to possess a hunting or fishing license? Leave the gate and user fees where they are already in place, but add the requirement to possess a hunting or fishing license.
|
|
|
Post by singlestacksig on Feb 22, 2016 17:02:27 GMT -5
If the state wanted to increase numbers of licensed hunters just for the PR funds they could 1. require licenses for high fence hunters. 2. require a hunting license for anyone who is non exempt & taking deer with a reduction tag. 2. Require a license for non exempt hunters taking groundhogs & coyote on public lands. 3. require a small game license to take coyote on private lands ( non exempt persons) 4. make all fishing licenses be combo fishing / groundhog hunting licenses with no fee increase.
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Feb 22, 2016 17:07:22 GMT -5
I don't think I understand the question. But anyone that use state property for the use of hunting and fishing is already required to have a license to do so.
But the day may come that to enter any DNR property may cause a fee, and I'd be ok with that as well.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Feb 22, 2016 17:38:20 GMT -5
If the state wanted to increase numbers of licensed hunters just for the PR funds they could 1. require licenses for high fence hunters. 2. require a hunting license for anyone who is non exempt & taking deer with a reduction tag. 2. Require a license for non exempt hunters taking groundhogs & coyote on public lands. 3. require a small game license to take coyote on private lands ( non exempt persons) 4. make all fishing licenses be combo fishing / groundhog hunting licenses with no fee increase. Coyote have a season and require a license now.
|
|