|
|
Post by Decatur on Oct 6, 2009 21:29:33 GMT -5
I would expect the salary of the extra person or two that would be required to oversee the project would eat up all of the revenue generated from the increased license fee. Interesting point. |
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Oct 6, 2009 21:40:45 GMT -5
I would expect the salary of the extra person or two that would be required to oversee the project would eat up all of the revenue generated from the increased license fee. Interesting point. Since I prompted Woody to start this poll I'm going to jump in here. The initial proposal is for the $1 to go directly to the Spportsmen's Benevolance Fund which sends the money to Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry. There won't any salary of any extra person. I would like to see other ideas and/or justifications for not pursuing this. www.fhfh.org/Jack |
|
|
|
Post by greyghosthntr on Oct 6, 2009 21:56:38 GMT -5
Absolutely not, that is why I purchased a lifetime license.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter1948 on Oct 6, 2009 22:10:11 GMT -5
license are to much I have limited income and the cost of buying two or more license is not right when lifetime holders get them all for free.They should have not sold lifetime license if they were not going to make them available forever I would vote yes on a dollar or more voluntary contribution when a deer is checked and be glad to contribute. The lifetime license is what it is, a lifetime license, and if fees are attached, it no longer is a lifetime license. I would also like to point out that lifetime license holders do not get their tags/licenses for free, they paid a considerable amount up front. |
|
|
|
Post by johnc911 on Oct 6, 2009 22:28:18 GMT -5
Absolutely $1 is not going to brake anyone. I vote Yes
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Reeves on Oct 6, 2009 22:50:52 GMT -5
As a lifetime license holder, I'd be against a mandatory fee.
What's next, $5, $10, or more, just what did I buy it for?
I'd be much more likely to donate a few dollars to a private not for profit group than funnel it through the government.
I'm not real happy about the money they already extort from me.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Oct 6, 2009 23:20:20 GMT -5
Absolutely...... Include an extra $1 on the deer tags.........AND give me an option on my regular small game license to donate a dollar to the SBF so the small game hunters can have an easy avenue to make a contribution. Most people would gladly give a few bucks if the process is easy.
Does the SBF have a Paypal account or other way to take donations?
|
|
|
|
Post by mullis56 on Oct 6, 2009 23:43:44 GMT -5
As a lifetime license holder, I'd be against a mandatory fee. What's next, $5, $10, or more, just what did I buy it for? I'd be much more likely to donate a few dollars to a private not for profit group than funnel it through the government. I'm not real happy about the money they already extort from me. I agree with this post and being a LL holder, I say NO to a mandatory fee, they got my fee when I didn't have the money to spare I was a broke college kid and I worked extra over Christmas break instead of spending time with friends and family to have the money to go wait in line to get a LL before they doubled in cost at the turn of the year. I personally feel/know I can donate or spend my money more wisely then the government can, I don't think I single dollar is going to make or break anyone, but at the same time I'm confident we can choose to spend our money more wisely ourselves, plus the deal when I purchased my LL it was it I didn't need to spend another dime on something. Even knowing that the $1 is going directly to the fund to Feed the Needy and pay processors to feed the needy, I still think they need to come up a different source of the money then re-nigging against LL holders. Doing this just makes us love the government even more, IMO. Folks don't read into this wrong, we give to Goodwill, Amvets, Salvation Army, Church, etc....in fact Monday night Amvet's called and we have already done our fall cleaning and given stuff to family and Goodwill and my wife and I decided we'd go buy what Amvet's says that they need since we don't have anything to give them. So my wife asked them what they were really in need this time of year (they said jackets/coats and small kitchen applicances) my wife purchased our set dollar amount in several small applicates at Dollar Tree or Deals tonight on the way home so we can give them next week when they come around. My point is that we give, but I don't want to be forced to give when I already gave what I was supposed to for life. |
|
|
|
Post by TagTeamHunter on Oct 6, 2009 23:50:55 GMT -5
I voted no. Don't want to set a precedence for extra non-hunting related fees. Worthy cause but needs other funding methods.
|
|
|
|
Post by indyidiot83 on Oct 7, 2009 5:51:51 GMT -5
I voted Yes... As a new hunter 1 dollar is not gonna break me but I do think you should have the option either you wish to donate or not..
|
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Oct 7, 2009 6:09:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stevo61 on Oct 7, 2009 7:25:31 GMT -5
Yes i would.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoosiernavy29 on Oct 7, 2009 7:27:21 GMT -5
Now Deertracks, OBR has nothing to do with donatin deer to help feed the needy, take a doe instead.
Guys, I am a coordinator up in East Central Indiana for FHFH, this is my 2nd year and its pretty amazing what only a few deer can end up doing. We ended up with 22 deer donated last year for 2 counties, and were able to feed 4422 meals out of that, This year we are running well, ended up getting a grant and hopefully a couple more will drop through the funnel to were we can process all the deer donated and then after the season will be able to go and purchase either a cow and several hogs to grind up and donate the same way.
I would pay the extra 1 or 2 if it was used for this very reason. We all know of hard hit areas throughout the state and with the high bonus county numbers throughout its fairly easy for us hunters to take a few extra and just drop them off, also just think of the extra time in the woods which we all enjoy.
Take Care
Eric
|
|
|
|
Post by hotshot on Oct 7, 2009 7:53:52 GMT -5
2 cents: take it or shove it...
The people who need to meat are being given a great service by hunters. Why not allow me to take a deer to a local collection meat locker, and cover 50 % of the cost, while the benevolent fund and HFHF cover the remaining costs... then I take my 1/2 of the cost and am allowed a tax refund on the state level by showing my receipt.
The tax refund can come from a combination of moneis from farming loss prevention funds, welfare, and even money that goes to support prisons(have the prisoners cut up what is needed. wrap and freeze- they learn a skill, and the cost goes down for every hoosier).
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremiahjohnson on Oct 7, 2009 8:35:37 GMT -5
My family contributes money and deer to FHFH every year.
Excellent organization and gives the proper message hunters should be sending.
|
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Oct 7, 2009 8:39:57 GMT -5
Now Deertracks, OBR has nothing to do with donatin deer to help feed the needy, take a doe instead. Guys, I am a coordinator up in East Central Indiana for FHFH, this is my 2nd year and its pretty amazing what only a few deer can end up doing. We ended up with 22 deer donated last year for 2 counties, and were able to feed 4422 meals out of that, This year we are running well, ended up getting a grant and hopefully a couple more will drop through the funnel to were we can process all the deer donated and then after the season will be able to go and purchase either a cow and several hogs to grind up and donate the same way. I would pay the extra 1 or 2 if it was used for this very reason. We all know of hard hit areas throughout the state and with the high bonus county numbers throughout its fairly easy for us hunters to take a few extra and just drop them off, also just think of the extra time in the woods which we all enjoy. Take Care Eric Can't take another doe when I am tagged-out on the farm that I hunt......  |
|
|
|
Post by crappieday on Oct 7, 2009 8:47:30 GMT -5
Seems like a poll designed to create division among hunters to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Oct 7, 2009 8:49:42 GMT -5
Seems like a poll designed to create division among hunters to me. You obviously don't know Woody!  |
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Oct 7, 2009 8:59:56 GMT -5
I'm a LL holder and voted "NO".
I donate food nearly every time there's a local drive by any organization (even the church-sponsored ones), and occasionally chip in to the pot with a little cash.
We also have other charitable causes that we donate to more substantially on an annual basis, and we help friends and family with their needs when they arise (or at least we did before I retired....and before GM reneged on its obligations to continue our dental and vision care and started charging us a monthly fee for our "free" healthcare).
I still donate cash and food to the causes I decide I want to support.
Having the government collect the money to do our good deeds for us has never worked very well long-term. If we had accurate teaching in the government schools, more of us would be aware of that, but the government hasn't handled that job particularly well, either.
I'd rather the government didn't help me decide where my charitable donations went.
I understand that there are a lot of very sincere, well-intentioned people who strongly support the program. There have almost always been sincere, good-hearted people honestly supporting every proposal for governmental involvement in charity. Can't think of any that turned out well over the long haul.
I already have the ability to help the hungry much more than a dollar per deer harvested. So do you. Why invite the future problems with misused or misplaced funds, funds eaten up by the bookkeeping costs, fees raised after they once become mandatory, etc.?
Yes, mandatory participation would create a bigger pile of money. That larger pile would attract more predators and scavengers than are now interested, and would end up supporting them, just like every other government program has done.
If we want the hunters to keep whatever good publicity comes from the program, then it should remain something we do voluntarily. If it becomes mandatory, then it's just another case of the government taxing one group (us) to move money to the support of another group, like the many other help-the-poor programs we already have and support whether we want to or not.
People have good hearts, and want to help. Sometimes they let their good hearts override their heads and in their enthusiasm think it would be great if everyone helped. And sometimes that leads to the conclusion that we should FORCE everyone to help, just a little, to achieve a worthy goal....sneaky, ain't it? That's how we got many of our other taxes.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Oct 7, 2009 9:01:40 GMT -5
Ok...say the mandatory proposal was aimed only at over-the-counter licenses. The Lifetimers can always purchase the Sportsmens pins if they so desire. Anyone want to change their vote either way? What if the program was entirely voluntary?
Jack
|
|
