|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 16, 2010 8:52:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Jan 16, 2010 12:02:33 GMT -5
Nope, DNR doesn't need to get another losing program in place.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jan 16, 2010 12:06:45 GMT -5
I wish they would, but it won't happen. They've learned their lesson.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Jan 16, 2010 17:27:49 GMT -5
Someone tell me how they lose money with the lifetime license.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jan 16, 2010 17:46:13 GMT -5
Because if a guy hunts small game, all three deer season, second archery license, a doe permit, spring and fall turkey, he'll have paid for his lifetime license in 7-8 years, every year after that, he's hunting for free. Not to mention he is excempt from license increases and also, people who buy the lifetime license because they know they are moving out of state, therefore avoiding the non-resident license fees.
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Jan 16, 2010 18:32:14 GMT -5
JS - if you go to the link page, there is a fiscal impact statement that explains the financials... and having read it, they acknowledge that their calcs are probably low due to the deer licenses estimates...
Another example of the legislators sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong, as this issue was looked at long and hard when they dropped it to begin with...
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Jan 16, 2010 20:00:55 GMT -5
1.1% interest rate, what a joke. Someone in the state house needs to take a short course in intelligent investing. In the years that the lifetime license was available, only 48K+ were sold, must have been "Bubba" saying, "was think'in 'bout gitten' me one of them."
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Jan 16, 2010 20:16:26 GMT -5
Not positive on this one, but I seem to remember hearing somewhere that in the matter of federal apportioned funds to the states under Pittman-Robertson (which is partially based on the number of licensed hunters in the state) lifetime licenses sold are only considered for a period of ten years. That would mean we have missed out on a ton of federal money also.
Hopefully, someone more well informed than me will come along and either verify or dispute this.
I won't be popular for saying this, but if lifetime license holders are truly that concerned about the dire financial straights our DFW finds itself in, throwing away that license and buying tags every year would go a long way toward rectifying the situation.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jan 16, 2010 22:24:12 GMT -5
I do remember hearing that we lost a lot of P&R funds due to the lifetime license.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Jan 18, 2010 7:55:15 GMT -5
So looking at the fiscal impact data it looks like it could be a loss of $100, 000 per year for 30 years. The big thing is this would probably help to manage the deer herd since people might be more inclined to shoot an extra doe since they have already paid for the tag.
|
|
|
Post by omegahunter on Jan 19, 2010 13:07:45 GMT -5
P/R funds is what prompted dropping the free fishing license for seniors in favor of the "nominal" fee to add another license sale for the year. In light of this action, I would be willing to pay a like "nominal" fee each year as a renewal to my lifetime license if that would up the license count to increase our P/R funding from the Feds. How about passing that along to our representatives? I would really like to get my daughter a lifetime license and you all know that there is no guarantee that she would use it at all, very long, or as long as she is able. My fiscal $.02.
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Jan 19, 2010 18:30:15 GMT -5
P/R funds is what prompted dropping the free fishing license for seniors in favor of the "nominal" fee to add another license sale for the year. In light of this action, I would be willing to pay a like "nominal" fee each year as a renewal to my lifetime license if that would up the license count to increase our P/R funding from the Feds. How about passing that along to our representatives? I would really like to get my daughter a lifetime license and you all know that there is no guarantee that she would use it at all, very long, or as long as she is able. My fiscal $.02. That's a bang-up idea omegahunter.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jan 19, 2010 18:37:41 GMT -5
As long as they made the renewal fee nominal, kept it that way(ya right!), and it only applied to new license purchases. The current LL holders should be exempt. The downside is the fee wouldn't remain nominal forever, they'd eventually keep raising it to fund this or that. Whatever became of the sportsman's license idea that was getting tossed around?
|
|
|
Post by omegahunter on Jan 20, 2010 8:05:20 GMT -5
I don't think they could require those who currently hold the lifetimes to pay a renewal fee, but it could be a condition of future ones. I don't think the fee would increase any more than the senior's fishing license because of the purpose of the fee to increase the P/R funding. I am going to email my representatives with this proposal and I think that we all should. Here is where to find your reps: www.in.gov/apps/sos/legislator/search/
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 20, 2010 8:34:56 GMT -5
Nope, DNR doesn't need to get another losing program in place.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 20, 2010 9:06:06 GMT -5
As I understand it..
Indiana gets credit for ALL Lifetime License numbers except that number is reduced yearly by attrition. IOW - that reduction is for Lifetime License holders that either quit hunting or die.
|
|
|
Post by omegahunter on Jan 20, 2010 10:33:30 GMT -5
DNR responded to a friend's email about getting the LHL back and they told him one reason they did not do it was because of a reduction in federal revenue because those people would not be purchasing licenses anymore. Sounds like conflicting information. Is the DNR spokesperson all wet?
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jan 20, 2010 11:21:06 GMT -5
According to the study, six states decided not to offer lifetime licenses after studying the issue. Among the reasons they gave was the cost of implementing the program, the difficulty of enforcing residency requirements, and the possibility of the state using license fee revenue for other purposes.
The study found that a few states, such as Michigan and Utah, had offered lifetime licenses, but stopped doing so. These states said they ended their programs because they did not sell the desired number of licenses.
As noted above, Indiana ended its program this year. We spoke with Greg McCollam, of Indiana’s Division of Fish and Wildlife, about the reasons Indiana stopped selling lifetime licenses.
Indiana’s Experience with Lifetime Licenses
According to McCollam, the state ended the program, which it began in 1983, because it was losing an estimated $ 3. 6 million in annual license fees. For example, the comprehensive hunting and fishing license replaced not only annual hunting and fishing licenses, but all other yearly licenses, stamps and species-specific permits. Holders of these licenses not only avoided the annual fees in place when they bought the lifetime license, but all subsequent fee increases. According to figures McCollam provided, Indiana had 17,000 lifetime comprehensive holders, each of whom avoided a total of $ 114 in annual fees. He said about half the deer hunters in the state were either lifetime license holders or were exempt from annual license fees.
Also In general, the sale of lifetime licenses typically causes fewer annual license sales, which could lead to a loss in federal revenue from these programs. The U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service therefore considers lifetime licenses in its calculations, based on license holders’ statistical life expectancy.From: www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0659.htmIt looks like just getting LL holders to get a free card each year would eliminate any worry of losing P-R funds.
|
|
|
Post by schall53 on Jan 20, 2010 12:44:55 GMT -5
That would work for one license. How does the PR work? Does it count by the person or do they get credit for each license sold, like deer shotgun, deer archery, small game, turkey, etc. If I didn't have my lifetime license I would have bought 7 different licenses this year.
|
|
|
Post by omegahunter on Jan 20, 2010 13:08:11 GMT -5
Credited for each license sold. If it were a comprehensive F & H, charge renewal for fishing, basic hunting, deer & turkey. Maybe $4 each to cover costs... renewals would cost less than combined F & H alone and generate 4 license credits for this hunter/fisher. BTW, that $3 million was over a 30 year period if I am not mistaken.
|
|