Any Support for Fewer Laws, More Liberty?

[sopwith21]

I started hunting in IN when I was 9 with my father, and all the regulations were distributed on a little blue paper card.

Hunting in our family has now stopped with my generation. Now it takes a new magazine-size volume every year to keep up with all the regulations and laws that interfere with Indiana hunters. My children won't hunt because now they must pay for and then pass some ridiculous "test" (much of which teaches them poor and unsafe habits) and they refuse to beg government for permission to hunt for their own food on land they already own.

You may support or oppose all this legalese and maze of regulations... that is not my question or my issue.

My question is this -

Is there ANYONE, ANYWHERE within the DNR who is making a sincere effort to simply reduce the overall number of regulations that currently burden Indiana hunters?

Agree or disagree as you like. I am not asking for a justification of legislative burdens, so please don't go there.

I am asking if there is any real movement from anywhere within the DNR to simply leave people alone and begin a serious reduction of the regulatory burden on Indiana hunters.

[Russ Koon]

Good luck with that.

Members of any profession that regulates anything will likely be the last ones to join us in advancing freedom from their regulation.

It may be self-centered job preservation in some cases, but I think overall it's more a matter of good people who have bought into the necessity of the regulations they are charged with enforcing, and who just aren't inclined to question them, and aren't legally empowered to choose which ones to enforce.

Whether it's your CO, your local cop, their next-level bosses, or the "brass" at the top of that regulatory pyramid, they all eventually shrug and say something to the effect of "that's just the way it is and has always been" when questioned about unneeded reg's.

It's "the system", in the terms of our unwashed anarchist brethren. And so far, all systems man has come up with seem to breed regulations until they are overturned. After all, what else are the regulators to do to justify their existence?

Many of us would appreciate a policy such as has been proposed several times over the years for our legislators, that they must repeal two laws for each new one passed, until further notice, but that policy has never gained much traction among the professional regulators and probably never will.

If it helps any, I would point out that your children can usually hunt their own land without licenses, so are free already of most of the regulatory nuisances you describe.

[raporter]

Two good posts.

[rabbit]

I would just be happy to have the big rule book again! The DNR's web sight is a joke when it comes to finding things!

[swilk]

And being free from purchasing a license they are also free from needing hunters ed.

Other than that I get and mostly agree with what you are saying.

[huntingman]

If you don't pay for licenses, then were are the preserves and public land gonna come from? what about hunters who don't have land? I have plenty of land to hunt on, but i'm saying, What if you didn't have anywhere to hunt just because someone didn't wanna pay 50 bucks a year? And if you own land you don't need a license, people who care enough will ask about the regs and read the whole book. for the people who read the whole thing, it makes things a whole lot less complicated.

[sopwith21]

Shame on whoever censored this from the Conservation Officer's forum. It was an honest, direct question specifically for someone with personal knowledge of the governmental department in question (who else would know what the current climate within the DNR is???). I didn't expect any good news, but I did expect someone to be man enough to answer.

I guess I expected too much.

[sopwith21]

Oct 30, 2011 10:19:55 GMT -5 Russ Koon said:

If it helps any, I would point out that your children can usually hunt their own land without licenses, so are free already of most of the regulatory nuisances you describe.

State parks and properties are my children's own land. They're yours, too. We've forgotten that.

Otherwise, I am forced to agree with everything in your post. Sad as it is, you seem to be 100% right.

[sopwith21]

Oct 30, 2011 21:59:08 GMT -5 huntingman said:

If you don't pay for licenses, then were are the preserves and public land gonna come from?

Take your pick:

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines
Dog License Tax
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest expense
Local Income Tax
IN State Income Tax
Marriage License Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone state and local tax
Traffic Fines
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax

Other than that, I have no idea.

[sopwith21]

Oct 30, 2011 21:59:08 GMT -5 huntingman said:

read the whole book. for the people who read the whole thing, it makes things a whole lot less complicated.

So if we had a telephone book of hunting regulations, it would be even easier to understand so long as you read every page of the entire volume?

Sorry. You lost me on that one. Black is not white. Up is not down. And forcing people to read massive amounts of government regulatory red tape does not simplify a matter, it complicates it.

The year I began hunting (1975) there were 19.1 million hunters in America. That number is now less than 12 million, despite the fact that the nation's population has increased by more than 100 million people. My children are among the millions who wanted to hunt, but have left the sport because of government red tape. I am on the verge of it myself. I haven't hunted in two years now.

And we wonder why.

[firstwd]

And yet without regulation, you would have never had the opportunity to start hunting, because there wouldn't have been any animals to hunt.

[Woody Williams]

Conservation Officer Morrison is not restricted to just the Ask a CO forum. He is a full fledged member here and he can participate in any forum that he so chooses.

Personally I have seen the DNR do some things the last 4 or 5 years that is seriously recruiting the youth of today.

1) A special youth deer season/weekend that will now allow the taking of either sex deer. Next year the youth will be able to take the county limit of antlerless deer that weekend.

2) A special youth turkey season/weekend.

3) A special youth waterfowl season/weekend

4) Allowing low recoil and kid friendly Pistol Cartridge Rifles to be used for deer hunting.

5) Allowing crossbow use by anyone so that the youngster or woman that can not pull a hunting weight bow back can still hunt the archery season.

6) Instituting an "apprentice license" in that no one (kids or adults) has to take Hunter Education for three years when they start hunting.

As far as "they refuse to beg government for permission to hunt for their own food on land they already own"- They do not have to. If they own the land they do not need a hunting, fishing or trappping license and do not have to take Hunter Education. They, like anyone else, do still have to abide by all Indiana gane laws..

[Deleted]

Gents, you have to be realistic. The laws we have are needed, mainly because one law often requires two more to remove the gray area, that a segment of the population always want to exploit.

As for requiring a license, IMO everybody should pay something, and landowners should get a reduced rate. Feds match all licneses sold dollar for dollar in return funds. It takes a lot of money to run a big truck, everyone wants more these days, I don't mind paying for what I love to do.

[hornharvester]

I moved the post here. You really werent asking our CO a question, you were unloading on him for the current regulations which he doesnt write, only enforces. h.h.

[voodoofire1]

sopwith21, I totally understand your frustration, but don't hold your breath on less regulation, Our DNR is kinda like a non working spouse in a wealthy divorce, evidently needing to be kept in the style they have been accustomed to, even with the economy, less hunters, sportsman and less cash flowing in, they still want to be kept in the high style they enjoyed a while back, so unless you can show them a way to make more money with less regulation, your wasting your time... the wants of a few, outweight the needs of the many.

[Russ Koon]

I think there are still many areas ripe for improvement in freeing us from needless regulations, but I would point out that we have had one major improvement in the last several years, the ability to carry our defensive weapons while bowhunting and while accompanying a youth hunter. We had to forego our second amendment right to personal protection while doing these activities until the change in regulations during Kyle Hupfer's term of leadership, and that right has now been restored to those of us with personal carry permits.

We now also have that right restored to us while visiting our state parks and most other DNR properties where we couldn't until recently.

And the DNR is considering right now a move to join several other states in changing the rules on possession limits to eliminate much of the silliness that used to apply with a strict interpretation of the law as written.

So the effort does exist in the DNR, at some level, to correct the more egregious examples of bad or excessive regulation.

I think we should let them know we appreciate those efforts when they occur.

They surely hear enough from us when they mess up in our eyes, I bet they'd appreciate an "Attaboy!" or two when one is deserved as well.

The nature of any governmental agency is to grow and the few changes I denote will not change that. But when people within the agency buck the general nature of it to grow and increase regulation, to bring us some relief from a few of them, it should be recognized and appreciated.

[Woody Williams]

Nov 3, 2011 9:30:40 GMT -5 Russ Koon said:

I think there are still many areas ripe for improvement in freeing us from needless regulations, but I would point out that we have had one major improvement in the last several years, the ability to carry our defensive weapons while bowhunting and while accompanying a youth hunter. We had to forego our second amendment right to personal protection while doing these activities until the change in regulations during Kyle Hupfer's term of leadership, and that right has now been restored to those of us with personal carry permits.

We now also have that right restored to us while visiting our state parks and most other DNR properties where we couldn't until recently.

And the DNR is considering right now a move to join several other states in changing the rules on possessionlimits to eliminate much of the silliness that used to apply with a strict interpretation of the law as written.

So the effort does exist in the DNR, at some level, to correct the more egregious examples of bad or excessive regulation.

I think we should let them know we appreciate those efforts when they occur.

They surely hear enough from us when they mess up in our eyes, I bet they'd appreciate an "Attaboy!" or two when one is deserved as well.

Well said Russ...as usual.

[36fan]

With unrestricted hunting and no regulations you would have with the same deer herd Indiana had prior to when deer reintroduction began in 1934 - 0.

How nothing to hunt be for "leaving people alone" and "a serious reduction of the regulatory burden on Indiana hunters"?