|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 21, 2016 18:05:41 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 18:12:17 GMT -5
Why should they be exempt? The state owns the deer not the landowner
|
|
|
Post by hunterman on Feb 21, 2016 18:19:47 GMT -5
Woody, correct me if I'm wrong but in addition to landowner and kids I believe people who rent property are exempt. For example if I rent and farm 300 acres from a guy I can use landowner tags on the deer I kill. I have and several guys I know have done that for years and years without issue.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 21, 2016 18:21:26 GMT -5
Woody, correct me if I'm wrong but in addition to landowner and kids I believe people who rent property are exempt. For example if I rent and farm 300 acres from a guy I can use landowner tags on the deer I kill. I have and several guys I know have done that for years and years without issue. Yes, The leasee does have to actively farm the property. The leasees are rolled into the "landowner" numbers as far as harvest numbers.. They fill their tags with a landowner exemption tag. www.eregulations.com/indiana/hunting/license-exemptions/I'll change the post to reflect that...
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Feb 21, 2016 18:37:00 GMT -5
My question is: Why does money have to change hands for the state to receive the government funds? Couldn't the state just register hunters annually for free?
|
|
|
Post by justicehunter on Feb 21, 2016 19:08:18 GMT -5
There is so much money being wasted by the government through handouts to other countries and deadbeats here at home. I could never in good conscious vote for another tax on a landowner to take game on his or her own land.
|
|
|
Post by justicehunter on Feb 21, 2016 19:18:32 GMT -5
There is so much money being wasted by the government through handouts to other countries and deadbeats here at home. I could never in good conscious vote for another tax on a landowner to take game on his or her own land. And don't wildlife belong to all people? And not "THE STATE GOVERNMENT"? Or are we back to the Kings and Serfs thing again. Don't get me wrong We Need the seasons and regulations to keep animal populations sustained and not over hunted or fished but we have got to stop acting like Bobbleheads every time a new fee aka TAX is proposed.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Feb 21, 2016 19:19:32 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!
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 21, 2016 19:24:15 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! That is why there is two seperate answers (landowners and non-landowners) for yes and no mandatory and voluntary..
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Feb 21, 2016 19:26:04 GMT -5
The money is collected from a tax on Firearms ,ammo etc. Then given back to the states dependent on licenses sold in that state If you don't buy a license and show a 1 dollar profit you don't get the PR money
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 21, 2016 19:26:36 GMT -5
My question is: Why does money have to change hands for the state to receive the government funds? Couldn't the state just register hunters annually for free? I "think" there has to be a $1 profit for the state before the Feds will count it as a licensed Hunter...
|
|
|
Post by singlestacksig on Feb 21, 2016 19:33:53 GMT -5
IT is not a $ issue, it is a rights issue.. This state is very clear that landowners are exempt from license requirements.. It is the "states deer" so landowners have to follow bag limits.. but they are exempt from license requirements..
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Feb 21, 2016 19:34:09 GMT -5
Nice first post Justicehunter SMH you a landowner ?? I wouldn't call it a tax myself , we would be more or less donating 3.75 To be able to get a tax (Pittman,Robertson) back in our state all other hunting holders help we as landowners don't But There are A lot of programs we landowners utilize paid for with PR money that the other license buyers fund for us
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Feb 21, 2016 19:34:39 GMT -5
Woody, before I vote, do you know how the lifetime license owners are counted towards the P-R fund dispersal?
You are talking about a guy that only hunts his own ground. If he hunts on another property, he has to buy a license. Also, if he/she hunts anything other than deer, don't they have to buy a license?
|
|
wja
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by wja on Feb 21, 2016 19:35:25 GMT -5
Well, I don't hunt at all.... I might someday, But right now, short of an apocalypse, I can life without hunting. So right now I really don't care. I'm an angler. I have a thought though. As a landowner. I think most landowners probably hunt... they take their limit and also might share their land with fellow hunters- who purchase hunting licenses.... What if land owner's suddenly decided they weren't going to share any longer.... wonder how that'd affect those funds.... What's next? Are they going to make private pond owners pay a fee to fish their own pond? All I'm saying is, I guess.... watch what you vote for, it might bite you in the butt if it rubs landowner's the wrong way. What do you think? Is it worth the chance?
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Feb 21, 2016 19:35:30 GMT -5
Nice first post Justicehunter SMH you a landowner ?? I wouldn't call it a tax myself , we would be more or less donating 3.75 To be able to get a tax (Pittman,Robertson) back in our state all other hunting license holders help !! we as landowners don't But There are A lot of programs we landowners utilize ,paid for with PR money that the other license buyers fund for us
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Feb 21, 2016 19:39:42 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
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Feb 21, 2016 19:40:11 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! That is why there is two seperate answers (landowners and non-landowners) for yes and no mandatory and voluntary.. May want change that to land owner with huntable land....lot folks own land that's not huntable! That was my point....
|
|
|
Post by wjakel on Feb 21, 2016 19:41:34 GMT -5
NO......No more fees/taxes etc on those that already bust their butt to work and pay for their property and then pay huge property taxes.......which are also starting to spiral out of control. Property taxes in and of themselves should permanently guarantee us the the right to hunt on our property. What rights will we have left as they continually whittle all of them slowly away? Where,when does it stop? Of course $3.75 sounds like a paltry sum right now.....but in 10 yrs its increased to $25.00....then in 20 yrs its increased to $50.00....or 35 years $100.00 a year. This is a ridiculous proposition and it needs to be stopped NOW. As another poster stated,there are funds our govts are throwing/giving away left and right that could be applied to this if really need be. NO more taxes,NO more fees!
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Feb 21, 2016 19:41:45 GMT -5
Anyone know how it done in other states where folks are exempt??
|
|