|
Post by deerman1 on Jul 31, 2010 22:49:15 GMT -5
NO RULE CHANGE WILL REDUCE THE DOE POPULATION IF LAND OWNERS CONTINUE TO " LEASE" AND OR "DENY" HUNTERS THE PRIVELEDGE TO HUNT ON THEIR PROPERTY, I THINK MORE TIME SHOULD BE SPENT ON GIVING THE LAND OWNERS " TAX BREAKS" OR OTHER " INCENTIVES" TO " NOT LEASE OR DENY" HUNTERS RIGHTS TO HUNT THEIR PROPERTY....UNTIL THIS ISSUE IS RESOLVED WIDE SPREAD ISSUES WITH DEER POPULATION WILL CONTINUE TO BE A CONCERN...AT THE CURRENT TIME THE PROPOSALS ARE DESTROYING THE POPULATIONS IN MANY COUNTYS!! If you are fumeing now read the Outof state thread !!Its pittiful at best.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Aug 1, 2010 0:23:24 GMT -5
Maybe the DNR, the legislature and the stakeholders need to talk to this guy from Ohio...
I was very pleased with the season. Hunters continued to put heavy pressure on the antlerless deer," said David M. Graham, chief of the Division of Wildlife. "In spite of a record harvest, work remains to lower the deer population, particularly in eastern Ohio." Graham adds, the solution is not longer seasons or larger bag limits, but access to growing deer herds. It is not realistic to rely on a limited number of hunters to hunt and harvest more deer. The Division of Wildlife along with local and state landowner organizations needs to work with landowners to find places for people to hunt. This will continue to be a priority for the Division of Wildlife and its partners in 2009.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Aug 1, 2010 0:29:59 GMT -5
I'm all for that jjas! As long as it's not 50 guys on 40 acres that is!
|
|
|
Post by rwtaxidermy on Aug 1, 2010 1:06:20 GMT -5
I'm all for that jjas! As long as it's not 50 guys on 40 acres that is! I agree with above said, a limit should be set on the amount of hunters per acres of huntable land.. I and 1 other guy hunt a 300acre tract of land that only contains about 30acres of woodland, the 30acres is divided up into 6 woodlots...just right for 2 people.
|
|
|
Post by thecommissioner on Aug 1, 2010 2:01:32 GMT -5
NO RULE CHANGE WILL REDUCE THE DOE POPULATION IF LAND OWNERS CONTINUE TO " LEASE" AND OR "DENY" HUNTERS THE PRIVELEDGE TO HUNT ON THEIR PROPERTY, I THINK MORE TIME SHOULD BE SPENT ON GIVING THE LAND OWNERS " TAX BREAKS" OR OTHER " INCENTIVES" TO " NOT LEASE OR DENY" HUNTERS RIGHTS TO HUNT THEIR PROPERTY....UNTIL THIS ISSUE IS RESOLVED WIDE SPREAD ISSUES WITH DEER POPULATION WILL CONTINUE TO BE A CONCERN...AT THE CURRENT TIME THE PROPOSALS ARE DESTROYING THE POPULATIONS IN MANY COUNTYS!! Are you saying that hunters have "rights" when it comes to private property?
|
|
|
Post by rwtaxidermy on Aug 1, 2010 2:52:52 GMT -5
No i am not saying that...permission would have been a better choice of words!
|
|
|
Post by jkratz on Aug 1, 2010 9:22:31 GMT -5
I agree that this is the issue is most states. I have to admit I was thoroughly impressed with Kansas and there Walk in Hunting program that actually pays farmers to allow access to their land. There was still a ton of game on the ground and no shortage of places to hunt.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Aug 1, 2010 11:56:24 GMT -5
I'm all for that jjas! As long as it's not 50 guys on 40 acres that is! That wasn't where I was going with it but I do agree. Landowners obviously should have the ultimate say if hunters have access and how many hunters will be allowed on their property. My whole point is you can't stop the problems of overpopulation if you can't get hunter access to those problem areas. Ohio appears to be getting that, Indiana doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Aug 1, 2010 12:16:19 GMT -5
I'm all for that jjas! As long as it's not 50 guys on 40 acres that is! My whole point is you can't stop the problems of overpopulation if you can't get hunter access to those problem areas. !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2010 18:35:36 GMT -5
NO RULE CHANGE WILL REDUCE THE DOE POPULATION IF LAND OWNERS CONTINUE TO " LEASE" AND OR "DENY" HUNTERS THE PRIVELEDGE TO HUNT ON THEIR PROPERTY, I THINK MORE TIME SHOULD BE SPENT ON GIVING THE LAND OWNERS " TAX BREAKS" OR OTHER " INCENTIVES" TO " NOT LEASE OR DENY" HUNTERS PERMISSION TO HUNT THEIR PROPERTY....UNTIL THIS ISSUE IS RESOLVED WIDE SPREAD ISSUES WITH DEER POPULATION WILL CONTINUE TO BE A CONCERN...AT THE CURRENT TIME THE PROPOSALS ARE DESTROYING THE POPULATIONS IN MANY COUNTYS!! Are you ENTITLED to hunt where ever you want by some wonderful Democratic policy or should you go out and find a place to hunt like the rest of us do. Why not hunt with deerman1, he seems to agree with you that no one should only allow who they want on THEIR land. Go ahead, try and force farmers and landowners and those that hate hunting to allow you to hunt, shame on them to deny the privilged. Hunting will not last long when you start demanding access to someone's private property.
|
|
|
Post by woodmaster on Aug 1, 2010 19:02:23 GMT -5
If I owned property I wouldn't want the government telling me who I can and can't let hunt. I don't care how much of a "tax break" or "incentive" they gave me.
I doubt if the government could or want to match the lease prices that the landowners are getting from hunters/outfitters.
|
|
|
Post by Ahawkeye on Aug 2, 2010 5:13:55 GMT -5
My whole point is you can't stop the problems of overpopulation if you can't get hunter access to those problem areas. ! here too!
|
|
|
Post by omegabl on Aug 2, 2010 7:59:21 GMT -5
If I owned property I wouldn't want the government telling me who I can and can't let hunt. I don't care how much of a "tax break" or "incentive" they gave me. I doubt if the government could or want to match the lease prices that the landowners are getting from hunters/outfitters. I understand what you are saying, if I owned a large tract of land I would not want that either, on the other hand, I would have the population under control on my ground. The HUGE issue I have is that many of the farmers that complain and want (and get) deprivation tags in the summer to slaughter animals that belong to the citizens of Indiana, Do NOT provide access to hunters. I am not saying this is the norm, but I know of two farmers that get tags, and they do not let hunters other than family hunt. These are the "areas" I think need to be addressed. The State has already Extended the season to all summer long, as long as the farmer has a stalk of corn knocked down or the top of a bean plant eaten off. I think that if a farmer does have "true deer crop damage" it is the farmers responsibility to get enough hunting pressure during the normal seasons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2010 8:11:11 GMT -5
Explain what the difference is in these two senarios:
1. A NR leaser vs. a R leaser?
2. A leaser "locking up" a tract of land vs. a non-leaser "locking up" a tract of land?
3. The color of money that a NR has vs. a residents?
4. How a NR has more of a chance to lease land vs. a resident doing the same?
5. A tract of land managed for hunting by a NR leaser vs. a tract of land managed for hunting by a resident hunter, leaser or not?
6. Incentives offered to Residents for shooting more does vs. incentives offered to NR to shoot more does?
7. The dollar amount you spend "in state" on deer hunting vs. what a outfitter/leaser/land locker might spend. Don't post the amount....just what number you think is larger?
8. The specific amount of money you, as a resident, spend directly to the DNR on licenses and tags vs. what a NR spends.
9. How the rule changes effect you as a resident more than they effect a NR who spends 6 times the amount that the resident spends (or more if they have a LTL).
10. The deer manager vs. a common weekend deer hunter. Who does a better job benifiting the resource including non target species?
That's 10, get those answered and there will be some more spin offs. Get them all correct and there will be a prize offered.
|
|
|
Post by thecommissioner on Aug 2, 2010 9:37:30 GMT -5
If I owned property I wouldn't want the government telling me who I can and can't let hunt. I don't care how much of a "tax break" or "incentive" they gave me. I doubt if the government could or want to match the lease prices that the landowners are getting from hunters/outfitters. I understand what you are saying, if I owned a large tract of land I would not want that either, on the other hand, I would have the population under control on my ground. The HUGE issue I have is that many of the farmers that complain and want (and get) deprivation tags in the summer to slaughter animals that belong to the citizens of Indiana, Do NOT provide access to hunters. I am not saying this is the norm, but I know of two farmers that get tags, and they do not let hunters other than family hunt. These are the "areas" I think need to be addressed. The State has already Extended the season to all summer long, as long as the farmer has a stalk of corn knocked down or the top of a bean plant eaten off. I think that if a farmer does have "true deer crop damage" it is the farmers responsibility to get enough hunting pressure during the normal seasons. Maybe the answer is to charge the landowner for the depredation tags? If the cost of tags is higher than the perceived cost of allowing licensed hunters, who pay for their own tags, to take the deer instead it might open up some land. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Aug 2, 2010 11:29:13 GMT -5
ARE YOU NUT'S. Personally i own my own land. And if i didn't i would lease. Leasing is a great idea and a great source of income for farmers. Espically in these tough times. I'll even bet that if a guy is going to shell out some cash to lease a farm for deer hunting he'll manage the property a hell of alot better than the IDNR. There is nothing wrong with leasing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2010 17:15:07 GMT -5
[] Maybe the answer is to charge the landowner for the depredation tags? If the cost of tags is higher than the perceived cost of allowing licensed hunters, who pay for their own tags, to take the deer instead it might open up some land. Just a thought. Bad idea.......with most of the land we hunt privately owned (95%) then a better idea would be to give the farmers what they need. If they need help with crop damages, then let them have it. Anyone that farms has crop damage. Most of them don't use dep tags, really the number is very small considering the number of deer in the herd.
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Aug 2, 2010 17:27:19 GMT -5
IMHO Outlaw or do away with Dep tags ! Simple fix . Have any farmer that has a deer problem that wants or is now issued Dep tags paired up with a or some hunters that are maybe now on a current list that the DNR is pushing . The farmer gets deer shot "in season" and the hunters that are struggling to find places to hunt get a place to go the pairing could be done by distance a nd by the DNR . Dates could be set up to meet the landowners and the hunters could become familiar with the land and the deer problem and land rules . Now wasn't that painless since the hunter list already exists!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2010 17:37:24 GMT -5
Yeah, a hunter list already exsists, but this being America instead of the Soviet Union or China you can't force a farmer or landowner to allow access to hunters or anyone else they don't want on THEIR land. My guess is that the DNR would never ask for a rule or law requiring anything close to what your asking. You don't want NR's having input, then provide input that is workable.....this isn't.
Still waiting on someone to answer the 10 questions correctly!
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Aug 2, 2010 17:56:42 GMT -5
Yeah, a hunter list already exists, but this being America instead of the Soviet Union or China you can't force a farmer or landowner to allow access to hunters or anyone else they don't want on THEIR land. My guess is that the DNR would never ask for a rule or law requiring anything close to what your asking. You don't want NR's having input, then provide input that is workable.....this isn't. Still waiting on someone to answer the 10 questions correctly! You are right but the DNR does not have to let them have DEP tags either it is a two way street and they do not have to participate but they will have to hunt in legal hunting season or have someone do it for them or stop crying that the deer are wrecking their crops . See it still is America and they do have a choice .And it is not the DNR or the GOVs job to rescue someone that will not help themselves or let the willing help them. That is freedom right there It is very workable . And it does not include Outfitters or money changeing hands so you are not for it so imediatly its not workable to you .Even NRs could participate after the Res hunters got first dibs . Now that is the way it should be!! And the farmers will make money by lketting hunters hoot deer that cost them money NOW WHATS YOUR comeback??
|
|