|
Post by drs on Dec 15, 2005 8:24:39 GMT -5
This is a simple "Yes" or "No" question. With so much variation in Hunting Fees like Licenses and Tags, it might be a prudent & fair idea to have caps placed on various hunting licenses & Tags. For example a Deer Tag would cost $100 for Non-Resident Hunters, and $30 for Resident Hunters in ALL 50 States. An Elk License would cost a Non-Resident $200 and $50 for Resident Hunters where Elk Hunting is available. These are just two examples as othe species of game animals need to be priced also. PLEASE no arguments or fighting concerning this idea or poll. <THANKS>
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 15, 2005 9:37:53 GMT -5
well.. there is no cap on their expenses of running a DNR.
Just a thought - Maybe a cap PLUS a cost of living adjustment??
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 15, 2005 9:55:04 GMT -5
well.. there is no cap on their expenses of running a DNR. Just a thought - Maybe a cap PLUS a cost of living adjustment?? Good point, Woody! I failed to also mention that ALL the money collected from sales of hunting licenses/tags or permits could ONLY be used for Wildlife projects, Expenses, wages, & programs such as habitat care and land purchases. The figures I gave above is just "Ball Park" figures which might need adjusting according to the situation. However I personally feel that a "Cap" on Licenses Fees is going to be necessary if the sport of hunting, as we know it, is going to survive. Maybe or maybe not, this idea of a cap on fees might stop the number of Hunters giving up the sport. Hunting equipment, fuel, lodging, Licenses & Tags, along with Leasing Fees are really taking a toll on the average hunter's "hunting money" and something has to be done soon. I personally believe this might regain those Hunters that have given up due to expense of hunting.
|
|
|
Post by duster on Dec 15, 2005 11:37:41 GMT -5
There are so many variables to take in consideration it would be hard to answer that question. Season bag limits is one that comes to mind as they vary from state to state.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 15, 2005 11:47:34 GMT -5
There are so many variables to take in consideration it would be hard to answer that question. Season bag limits is one that comes to mind as they vary from state to state. These "variables" would need to be looked and "tweaked", but anything worth doing, in the area of improvement, is NOT going to be easy. I feel, by looking at what various States charge, some are really price gouging Hunters. Anyway, thanks for reading my post and answering the poll.
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Dec 15, 2005 13:17:45 GMT -5
Too many individual state rules & bag limits to cap fees across the board.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 15, 2005 14:23:11 GMT -5
Too many individual state rules & bag limits to cap fees across the board. There would be the need for uniformity; how this could be achieved is where the problem arises. However all things worth while are not always easy. Some sort of price controls are needed here. <Thanks very much for your imput>
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Dec 15, 2005 14:33:46 GMT -5
Sounds kinda "commie" to me ... As much as I detest what "pay to play" had done to hunting in some states I don't think a cap for all is the answer . I voted no .
|
|
|
Post by joen on Dec 15, 2005 16:11:41 GMT -5
I dont want someone a thousand miles away haveing any say on how my D.N.R. is operated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2005 17:42:44 GMT -5
What good would it do to buy a $200 elk tag in Indiana? Pretty good trying to cap a price for something you don't even offer?
|
|
|
Post by duff on Dec 15, 2005 20:08:26 GMT -5
We ask that our government, that we fund, do so much for us. Yet when they bill us it seems excessive. If we want the best service unfortunatelly we all have to pay for it. Weird how that works.
I will be the first to admit I don't like paying taxes and I do feel many agencies are grossly ineffecient. We can thank that to lawyers and political correctness IMO.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 16, 2005 8:00:05 GMT -5
I'd like to thank everyone who voted thus far in the poll I submitted here. I see that almost 85% of you voted "NO" while only two (me being one) voted "YES". One of the advantages of having a college degree in both Biology & Business/Marketing, is that it allows me to take a look at both sides of the issue. We Hunters are being told that there are too many Deer in many states and the herd needs to be reduced to help with the overall health of the Deer herd. Now whether or not we are just told this; it is hard for the average person to determine if there is actually an over population of Deer or if the state(s) are just trying to sell more Deer Tags. If indeed there are too many Deer then my Biology Degree tells me that "things" need to be "balance" to provide for future hunting opportunities. On the other hand, and from a "Business" economic standpoint, it makes very little sense that if the Deer population needs to be controlled, for the overall good of the species, then the prices of Hunting Licenses or Tags should be reduced. For example, if there is an over supply of a certain product like corn, the price goes down (Law of Supply & Demand). The same should apply to the sport of Hunting, but in recent years the "Demand" part has fallen due mainly to costs. Just about everything associated with Hunting ie: Equipment, ammo, Licenses, fuel, time, and leased land, have all gone up in cost, to the average Hunter. Therefore, from my point, I really think some sort of price controls need to be in place if the sport of hunting is to survive. ALL 50 States waste way too much money on useless projects, money that could be used to improve hunting opportunities and at the same time help fund the various DNR's. It's no big supprise that money is constantly being taken away from the DNR for other projects. If somehow a law could be passed where that money collected by the DNR's could be ONLY used for DNR's use; I think things would be more in balance price/costs wise and a more reasonable price for a Hunting License or Tag could be possible.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 16, 2005 13:13:01 GMT -5
Results from another Hunting Forum. Same Question:
Would you like to see a "Cap" on Hunting Fees & Licenses in ALL 50 States? YES 5 votes (100%) NO 0 votes (0%) 5 people have voted so far
|
|
|
Post by duff on Dec 16, 2005 16:45:43 GMT -5
I don't keep up to speed on the break down of how the fees from license are being used but you seem to have some idea as to where it is being used. Maybe a percentage breakdown, such as 75% of every dollar spent on license was used for within DNR, 25% went to fund Or do you have specific cases where the license fees were used in other projects? I really don't know where license dollars go to, I just assumed they are going back to the DNR in some sort. If you have any evidence to say otherwise I'd love to see it. Thanks, Duff
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Dec 16, 2005 18:03:29 GMT -5
If somehow a law could be passed where that money collected by the DNR's could be ONLY used for DNR's use; I think things would be more in balance price/costs wise and a more reasonable price for a Hunting License or Tag could be possible. This is where you and I agree . Considering their mission , the budget of the IDNR should be held separate from the rest of the state budget . The natural resources and recreational activities that our state provides are important and should be protected for the future of all Hoosiers .
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 17, 2005 7:02:38 GMT -5
I don't keep up to speed on the break down of how the fees from license are being used but you seem to have some idea as to where it is being used. Maybe a percentage breakdown, such as 75% of every dollar spent on license was used for within DNR, 25% went to fund Or do you have specific cases where the license fees were used in other projects? I really don't know where license dollars go to, I just assumed they are going back to the DNR in some sort. If you have any evidence to say otherwise I'd love to see it. Thanks, Duff Hi Duff, I understand that the money, collected from sales of Licenses & Tags, goes into a "General Fund", at least it does here in Indiana. Don't know about other States, but whenever money goes into the General Fund, it can be used for any projects, other than what is needed by a State's DNR. <Thanks much for your Vote on this issue>
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 17, 2005 7:07:01 GMT -5
[quote author=kevin1 board=campfire thread=11346530 This is where you and I agree .
Considering their mission , the budget of the IDNR should be held separate from the rest of the state budget . The natural resources and recreational activities that our state provides are important and should be protected for the future of all Hoosiers . [/quote]
Thanks Kevin, I to also believe the money collected from Licenses should be held in a seperate account, only to be used for DNR projects/expenses. This should be the case in all 50 States, and if this were the case I think we would find that our Hunting Licenses would be less expensive. <Thanks, For Your Vote>
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Dec 17, 2005 7:32:33 GMT -5
I voted "no".....because the question don't make since.
EACH state regutates their own wildlife issues, there is NO WAY to govern all hunting regulations in the entire COUNTRY under one umbrella.
States DNR's are all funded differently, according to how their politicians have it set up.
I wouldnt want it ANY OTHER WAY !!!!!
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 17, 2005 8:29:29 GMT -5
I voted "no".....because the question don't make since. EACH state regutates their own wildlife issues, there is NO WAY to govern all hunting regulations in the entire COUNTRY under one umbrella. States DNR's are all funded differently, according to how their politicians have it set up. I wouldnt want it ANY OTHER WAY !!!!! Thanks, much for your Vote.Really though, The idea of "caping" price/costs needs to be looked at and perhaps modified a bit, but I think it is going to be necessary to do something if Hunting is to survive. Even if it means bringing in the actions of the Congress, otherwise all our hunting areas will soon be gone replaced by Wal-Mart stores and Housing Subdivisions.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 25, 2005 7:55:30 GMT -5
This is from another Hunting Forum, where I asked the same question. the members on that forum tend to be a little more "Open-minded".From: Rapid_Fire_7 Dec-24 12:08 am To: DAVID3258 Poll (9 of 12) 2126.9 in reply to 2126.8 David, I share and appreciate your concerns.
And who knows, all great things start with just one small idea, so keep your dreams alive. We can all make a difference. We may or not prevail, but a good cause is always worth the effort.
I found the below article which may be of interest to you. The guy has an uphill battle, but if he accomplishes nothing else he'll at least get his message out there...
>>Rapid<< * * * Proposals should awaken outdoors debate
Denver Post By Charlie Meyers Staff Writer 12/21/2005
Michael Graves is mad as heck and isn't going to take it any more.
The Bailey resident has much in common with thousands of outdoorsmen frustrated by the commercialization of wildlife and what he perceives as official indifference to the plight of the ordinary man. The distinction is, he plans to do something about it.
Very soon, perhaps as early as today, Graves and his consort, Scott Isgar of Colorado Springs, will receive Title Board certification for two proposed amendments to Colorado's constitution that, if approved, would forever change the way the state's outdoor business is conducted.
The measures might work for the greater good, but, then again, maybe not.
At first blush, it seems unlikely that either will be approved by the electorate, perhaps not even receive the essential 68,000 signatures needed to make the November ballot. What seems more definite is that they represent an acute dissatisfaction, even anger, at the way Colorado's game and fish affairs are conducted. Someone in the wildlife hierarchy should be paying attention to the message behind the initiatives.
"The single thing that upsets me most is how the Division of Wildlife has turned into a commercial operation and no longer cares how we stand as the average hunter," Graves said. "The program is broken. Money drives everything. If we don't do something, the Average Joe hunter will pay for it."
To that end, Graves and Isgar propose to topple the hierarchy with a constitutional amendment that would require the Division of Wildlife director to be elected every six years beginning in 2008 and the nine voting members of the Wildlife Commission to be elected every four years beginning in 2010.
The second proposal demands that all resident license fee increases pass muster with the voters. Both invite considerable discussion.
Considering the current furor over such hot-button items as license preference for landowners and a prevalence of political influence in overall wildlife management, electing these officials might seem like a tempting idea.
Trouble is, this process opens the door to even more chicanery, most particularly in the election itself. If the horrors of recent wrangling over licenses teach anything, it's that commercial interests will go to great lengths to promote their agenda; the great mass of sportsmen drift off to sleep.
Count on this: Should commission spots come up for vote, organizations such as the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, Colorado Farm Bureau, Colorado Outfitters Association and, most likely, certain anti-hunting groups will spend tons of money to get their people elected.
You know the campaign drill. A constant barrage of commercials, complete with all the obfuscations and half-truths that win the day. Most of all, money talks; the side that spends the most often wins the election.
If you think the current wildlife commission lineup with three active commercial voices is a problem, imagine what might happen if that discourse grows to a majority.
The second initiative, a reaction to the fee bill approved by the legislature last year, represents another angry clamor for clout in a system they view as increasingly flawed. But this ballot proposal itself contains a fatal fault in that it almost certainly would preclude any future license fee increase, strangling a wildlife agency whose demands and expenses surely will grow.
Underlying all of this are the problems inherent in transferring wildlife management to an uninformed public, to non-outdoorsmen, even to anti-hunters.
Graves made a similar attempt with these same initiatives a year ago, but withdrew when time ran short. Now he's ahead of the curve, with five months to hustle up signatures.
Whether or not the effort succeeds, it's sure to prompt a public dialogue that should have been heard years ago.
|
|