|
Post by swilk on Feb 25, 2011 9:07:22 GMT -5
Swilk just tell us where they will be hunting this fall and we will send some Cos out and see what happens. I bet your buddys won't like the outcome Is that really what you got out of all of this? Read it again from beginning to end and let me know if you change your mind. Hint - I think that including lessees in the law makes for gray areas that could be exploited and I would prefer that language be removed from the law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2011 12:04:07 GMT -5
I believe the intent is not hunting leases but farming leases. Example would be a farmer I hunt with that leases 8000 acres for farming. Surely he should be allowed to hunt those lands free?
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Feb 25, 2011 13:34:56 GMT -5
Yes he should.
Ok ... a compromise in my perfect world would at least be a language that leaves fewer "holes". I actually like your idea of farm tax documents.
On the flip side I would like for the language of actual owners to be wide open. I think a person who owns ground should be able to hunt it no matter if they "farm" it or not.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 25, 2011 13:52:37 GMT -5
Yes he should. Ok ... a compromise in my perfect world would at least be a language that leaves fewer "holes". I actually like your idea of farm tax documents. On the flip side I would like for the language of actual owners to be wide open. I think a person who owns ground should be able to hunt it no matter if they "farm" it or not. I Disagree.. I don't want to subsidize someone else's purchase of recreational property and their hobby on it. Go back and reread how some groups were going together, buying recreational property and then them and ALL of their families were hunting FOC. That is EXACTLY why the DNR changed the wording of statute.
|
|
|
Post by tickman1961 on Feb 25, 2011 14:22:04 GMT -5
I believe the intent is not hunting leases but farming leases. Example would be a farmer I hunt with that leases 8000 acres for farming. Surely he should be allowed to hunt those lands free? Any farmer who leases to grow crops would be allowed to hunt the property per the way the regulation is written. My parents have a "tree farm" managed by a lumber company, I do not live on the property, therefore I buy hunting/fishing combo license, a spring turkey license and multiple deer license to hunt my parents property.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Feb 25, 2011 14:46:37 GMT -5
Yes he should. Ok ... a compromise in my perfect world would at least be a language that leaves fewer "holes". I actually like your idea of farm tax documents. On the flip side I would like for the language of actual owners to be wide open. I think a person who owns ground should be able to hunt it no matter if they "farm" it or not. I Disagree.. I don't want to subsidize someone else's purchase of recreational property and their hobby on it. Go back and reread how some groups were going together, buying recreational property and then them and ALL of their families were hunting FOC. That is EXACTLY why the DNR changed the wording of statute. I see your point and will agree to disagree. I dont think that use of the property should have anything to do with it. If they (and their family) own it they own it.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 25, 2011 14:59:06 GMT -5
I Disagree.. I don't want to subsidize someone else's purchase of recreational property and their hobby on it. Go back and reread how some groups were going together, buying recreational property and then them and ALL of their families were hunting FOC. That is EXACTLY why the DNR changed the wording of statute. I see your point and will agree to disagree. I dont think that use of the property should have anything to do with it. If they (and their family) own it they own it. Use of that property that was bought for the recreational use of hunting is quite relevent when others have to pay the purchaser's share of supporting our IDNR. I have absolutly no problem with people buying their own ground to further their hunting hobby. I just have a problem subsidizing that hobby. If they can afford ground to hunt on they can afford hunting licenses.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Feb 25, 2011 15:02:25 GMT -5
Kinda agree with swilk. If you go out and buy 150 acre's of "scrub" land. Why shouldn't I be allowed to hunt that property without a license??? I'm sure there are certain individual's that bend the law's to suit their need's, but as a whole I can't see this being a big issue. Most guy's I know personally that own land or farm either hunt their land exclusivily, have a lifetime license or purchase a license.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Feb 25, 2011 15:02:57 GMT -5
Woody - We see things differently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2011 15:07:25 GMT -5
[ Use of that property that was bought for the recreational use of hunting is quite relevent when others have to pay the purchaser's share of supporting our IDNR. I have absolutly no problem with people buying their own ground to further their hunting hobby. I just have a problem subsidizing that hobby. If they can afford ground to hunt on they can afford hunting licenses. By the same token, lots of guys are subsidizing the DNR for all those guys that got LT licenses at discount rates. At least, the guys that have bought land are at least supporting the wildlife on it, and some others get benefit from it in that way. Nobody gets benefit from those that bought LT licenses wxcept the individual that bought one.
|
|
|
Post by tomthreetoes on Feb 25, 2011 15:12:57 GMT -5
Woody - We see things differently. + one
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 25, 2011 15:59:36 GMT -5
Going back and re-reading my posts (that was a chore) I can see that I have not been clear on my posts or my standing.
Here it is again in a clearer form:
1) If Joe Blow buys a piece of ground for hunting I have no problem with him and his immediate family (that lives in his home) hunting FOC.
2) If Joe Blow and 7 of his buddies go together and buys a piece of ground with Joe being the owner of record only Joe and his immediate family gets to hunt FOC. Everyone else and their families must purchase licenses.
Now we can agree to disagree all we want but that is EXACTLY the way it is today. Like I said the DNR could see the handwriting on the wall on the "Joe Blows and buddies" doing just that buying recreational hunting ground and they and their families all get to hunt free. That is the number one reason that they changed the exemption back in 2008.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Feb 25, 2011 16:04:39 GMT -5
Gotcha. I agree with your example's.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 25, 2011 16:06:58 GMT -5
[ Use of that property that was bought for the recreational use of hunting is quite relevent when others have to pay the purchaser's share of supporting our IDNR. I have absolutly no problem with people buying their own ground to further their hunting hobby. I just have a problem subsidizing that hobby. If they can afford ground to hunt on they can afford hunting licenses. By the same token, lots of guys are subsidizing the DNR for all those guys that got LT licenses at discount rates. At least, the guys that have bought land are at least supporting the wildlife on it, and some others get benefit from it in that way. Nobody gets benefit from those that bought LT licenses wxcept the individual that bought one. I don't see the relevancy, but... There was no "discount". We all paid full asking price whenever we bought them.Evidently the DNR had run the numbers and saw it as a good deal for everyone, including themselves. Unfortunately the DNR was then politically pushed into a corner on where those millions of dollars could be invested and it ended up going to some Indiana state bonds that paid 1%. That didn't even keep up with inflation. Not our fault that the money we paid them was invested unwisely.
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Feb 25, 2011 16:21:38 GMT -5
By the same token, lots of guys are subsidizing the DNR for all those guys that got LT licenses at discount rates. At least, the guys that have bought land are at least supporting the wildlife on it, and some others get benefit from it in that way. Nobody gets benefit from those that bought LT licenses wxcept the individual that bought one. I don't see the relevancy, but... There was no "discount". We all paid full asking price whenever we bought them.Evidently the DNR had run the numbers and saw it as a good deal for everyone, including themselves. Unfortunately the DNR was then politically pushed into a corner on where those millions of dollars could be invested and it ended up going to some Indiana state bonds that paid 1%. That didn't even keep up with inflation. Not our fault that the money we paid them was invested unwisely. That is exactly the way it happened. The politicians just couldn't grab, but they tried. They couldn't stand to see that kind of money just laying there. Greedy people those politicians. Govenor Bayh wouldn't allow the DNR to raise license fees cause he wanted to be known as a fiscal conservative governor that never raised taxes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2011 16:48:47 GMT -5
I'm OK with the LT license deal, but it is now being paid for by those that didn't get in on the 'good deal', similar to the land purchase.
You guys really have it good, in Ky., even tenents living on the land can hunt for free, which allows thousands of illegal migrant workers to hunt for free.
All landowners, except NR landowners can hunt for free in Ky. I petitioned the Commission a few years ago to allow NR's to have the same benefit, but was denied.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Feb 25, 2011 17:18:59 GMT -5
Going back and re-reading my posts (that was a chore) I can see that I have not been clear on my posts or my standing. Here it is again in a clearer form: 1) If Joe Blow buys a piece of ground for hunting I have no problem with him and his immediate family (that lives in his home) hunting FOC. 2) If Joe Blow and 7 of his buddies go together and buys a piece of ground with Joe being the owner of record only Joe and his immediate family gets to hunt FOC. Everyone else and their families must purchase licenses. Now we can agree to disagree all we want but that is EXACTLY the way it is today. Like I said the DNR could see the handwriting on the wall on the "Joe Blows and buddies" doing just that buying recreational hunting ground and they and their families all get to hunt free. That is the number one reason that they changed the exemption back in 2008. I see. I view whomever is on the deed and/or the county assessors office as the owner. Nobody else.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 25, 2011 19:11:01 GMT -5
When you stop and really think it over, what's the rationale for even allowing the owner to hunt that land without a license?
The animals are the property of the people of the state.
I understand the once-upon-a-time reasoning, that the poor struggling farmer and his kids could hunt and help put dinner on their table. Does that scenario actually hold up in this day and age?
The more common reality now is that that farm is a business partly funded by crop price supports and various public money through tax benefits, CRP payments, the services of the county agricultural agents, etc.
Some of those things make good sense, and like most government programs some of them are outdated and provide little of their intended service for the tax money they collect.
Should we taxpayers also be required to support the hunting of the owners on acres that we can't gain permission to hunt?
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Feb 25, 2011 19:39:32 GMT -5
The farmer owns the land, and most likely feeds the deer, so he deserves a free crack at them. IMHO
|
|
|
Post by windingwinds on Feb 25, 2011 20:53:08 GMT -5
hmmm as a tax paying landowner I enjoyed hunting last fall on my landowner tag. What exactly do you think the DNR would have done with that extra million dollars we would've generated? Hmmm let's see, continue to plow that eyesore of a biketrail that goes by my house? They could've also raised that much money by raising the out of state tag prices, we are way behind compared to other states tag prices for non-residents. However, I enjoyed hunting so much I am buying tags next year so I can hunt my sister's place also next year with my sons. Possibly sign up for a state park hunt. I probably wouldn't have gone if it hadn't been "free" as I was between jobs at that point. Charging landowners would only increase depridation permits and decrease total number of landowners hunting. My point of view, fwiw.
|
|