|
|
Post by Hoosier Hunter on Sept 7, 2005 18:06:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Sept 8, 2005 6:11:54 GMT -5
I was a bit more interested in why there's a "shooting preserve" license right next to it . Exactly when did the Legislature approve that one ?
|
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Sept 8, 2005 7:37:51 GMT -5
Kevin,
I might be wrong but I think the shooting Preserve license would be for someone who is from out of state and comes here to hunt quail or something on a shooting preserve.
I got no idea what a limited addition license is and we have asked that question to a C.O. and he is looking in to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Sept 8, 2005 8:42:08 GMT -5
Keith - for once you are correct. LOL. The shooting preserve license is for use at the licensed shooting preserves (birds). It was created years ago when the shooting preserves got started.
Jack
|
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Sept 8, 2005 10:17:47 GMT -5
Gundude must be sick...2 hours and no comeback.
Jack
|
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Sept 8, 2005 12:37:11 GMT -5
That hurts Jack... Are you implying that I like to make smart arse comments?  Well you were half right about the sick part anyway. I have been down for about 10 days now and I even went to see a doctor for the first time in about 20 years. MAN was he happy with me! ::)m I gotta make some serious changes in order to keep foggin the mirror every morning! I didn't realize I was getting old. As far as the License thing goes, it was a shot in the dark! Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by joen on Sept 8, 2005 18:12:21 GMT -5
I called about the $50 limited edition licence and they said the the D.N.R. no longer sells them. I t would not surprise me if the Indiana D.N.R. tried to find a way to get more money out of us lifetime licence holders.
|
|
|
|
Post by reynoldss on Sept 9, 2005 14:11:24 GMT -5
I am not happy with the state's decision to do away with the life-time license. However, the least they could have done was offered a "hunt-all" license including small game, turkeys, and deer...including bonus tags at a reduced price. It is making me a little nervous that decisions are made on what hunters can do for the state. I do not understand where the revenue from the sales of hunting licenses goes, and perhaps the state has a good reason for raising the license. If you know this answer, please enlighten me. I am just concerned that decisions are being made based soley on $$$$$ and the result of these decisions will drive hunters out. If hunters quit because they feel they can not afford a license, then that will be less revenue for the state in the purchasing of clothing, ammunition, etc... More hunter may feel the need to process their own deer, which could hurt some of the area butcher shops. All I hear from "those that claim to know" is that Indiana hunters are not shooting enough does, and if we don't get with the program then sharpshooters will have to be brought in. Will sharpshooters have to pay $24 for every doe they shoot or will the state have to pay them? I applaud the state's decision to allow bonus tags in early archery season and think this is a move in the right direction. However, I don't see a lot of guys spending $96 just to shoot 4 does, and another $200 to butcher them...that is if you are lucky. So, 4 deer could cost a hunter $300. ON average, how much meat do you get from a 120 lbs. deer? I am new to this site and quite possibly maybe one of a few that feel the state needs to be careful with the license increases that have hit hunters as of late. To be honest, I am a life-time license holder and it affects me very little, but I am still concerned for those that aren't lifers and for those that do not own their own property to hunt on.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Sept 10, 2005 11:16:42 GMT -5
Leasing , commercialization of hunting , and reduced habitat will kill hunting far sooner than increased license costs will , license costs can go down as well as up .
I understand the department's decision to discontinue the LL , it was a money pit for them . They could reinstate it later if conditions favored it for them , but don't get your hopes up . Hunting is actually one of the cheapest and safest hobbies there is when compared to sports such as golf or bowling . Let's hope it stays that way .
|
|
|
|
Post by reynoldss on Sept 10, 2005 13:17:27 GMT -5
Maybe so, but I still say people's heads are in the sand if they think more does will get shot with the increase in license cost. I have no problem with increase costs, that is if the supply is not there, but that is not the case. I guess it could be considered one of the cheapest hobbies as long as you are comparing it with golf and antique car collecting....All I'm saying is...you cant tell hunters to shoot more does and then raise the price. What are your thoughts on hiring sharp-shooters??? Will this cost the state or will it be done on a volunteer basis? If they are hired then why not try making doe tags cheaper up front? Once the management goal is reached, raise them at that time. I'm sorry, but I think the suggestion of a sliding scale of $24 for the first doe and then less and less with each consecutive harvest is in bad taste. Talk about squeezing the grape for everything it is worth. Again, I would be more in favor of this sliding scale if the management goal had been reached before it were implemented.
What about a "hunt all" type license sold annually. Would that break the State's finacial back???
|
|
