|
|
Post by duff on Dec 13, 2005 11:58:04 GMT -5
Since when is trying to make yourself better such a bad thing? I can not imagine hunters being so envous of landowners who improve thier land/habitat for wildlife that they would claim it is because they are greedy and want all the deer for themselves. Do they put up fences? Do they own 2 square miles and only let 3 people hunt, do they spend their own money or find other ways to improve the habitat. If everyone can't afford to buy land and then make it into better habitat then NO ONE should be able to. Make everyone equally poor, set limits on habitat improvement so they can't hoard the deer. Sounds like the jelousy and greed might run the opposite direction. It really blows me away. I do not own any huntable land, hope to one of these days. I will do my best to make this suitable habitat for maximum wildlife/hunting potential. How is this not a good thing?  ?? I wish some hunters would buy up land close to where I hunt, I am not worried about them hoarding the deer I am sure Iwould benifit from their hard work/efforts. Deer don't understand deeds and property lines!!!! I know 2/3 of Indiana would greatly benifit from habitat improvement. This would also help in water quality issues, non game improvements, soil erosion, ect... Giving land owners free tags is a small price for habitat improvement not to mention crop depridation (include trees as well as conventional crops). Those tags are hardly free then. Sorry for this post but I had to get that off my chest. |
|
|
|
Post by LawrenceCoBowhunter on Dec 13, 2005 12:39:23 GMT -5
I agree with you 100% Duff.I just think that some people people can't think on our level when it comes to this issue.You mention habitat improvement or food plots you are automaticaly evil, an antler worshiper,greedy or what other tag they want to give you.I have seen nothing but pluses from improving the habitat.Some folks I know can't get out of the stone age way of thinking and no matter how much I try to explain to them they still can't get it,they just want to kill every deer that comes by them,then they are crying next year because they aren't seeing nothing.I am very lucky to have the ground I hunt today and get to do the things I have always wanted to do to try to improve it.Right now we are making plans to dig another pond and to plant a few acres in pines and to do some selective timber harvesting.About the only problem i have now is keeping the tresspassers out.I feel like everyone is entitled to their oppinons as I am,I just keep doing what I think is right even though someone else doesn't agree with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Dec 13, 2005 21:53:20 GMT -5
I have been in to the food plot ting for about 12-14 years now, it made a definate improvement. Been in to the habitat improvement thig for about 4 years now and it has made things twice as good as they were. Selective cut logging, warm season grass establishment, egde rehabilitation, tree row planting. I'm really just getting started.
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on Dec 14, 2005 14:17:33 GMT -5
You greedy pig!!! How dare you try to improve your land just so you can hoard all of the deer from your neighbors. Don't you know that is unfair to everyone else who doesn't improve habitat  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by dwhunting on Dec 14, 2005 16:23:38 GMT -5
Greedy!!! Not hardly!! We have been improving our area since 2001. TSI was conducted. Which wasn't easy. No selective harvesting yet. Planted about 5,000 trees last fall, which wasn't easy either. Cleared and planted about 2 1/2 acres of food plot this fall. Wasn't easy! We also supply feed during late winter and early spring. I have seen the most bucks during hunting hours than I ever have. We have taken 6 does off the 250 acre property and need to take more. This landowner thing costs money along with a lot of hard work. If I work hard for what I want then I should be able to enjoy the benefits. Greedy??
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on Dec 14, 2005 16:31:54 GMT -5
I typed that in a sarcastic way. I agree with you. It is your land, if you choose to improve the land to make it a better hunting spot then great. I would think the exempt status is just a small reward for your hard work and dedication to Indiana's wildlife and environment overall. Not just deer.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Dec 14, 2005 17:21:31 GMT -5
Just Cause I weigh 325 lb doesnt mean you can call me a pig, LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Dec 14, 2005 17:53:24 GMT -5
I bought 100 acres in 1990. It was about 20 acres of woods and 80 acres open crop land.
Since then, have put the whole thing in CRP permanent wildlife habitat, planted over 12,000 trees, dug a fish pond, planted numerous food plots, etc. This project has been a lot of fun, my friends and family enjoy it, and frankly I don't care what others think if it rubs them the wrong way.
Wish I could buy up one of those two square mile areas you refer to, do the same thing and keep it all to myself. Sounds like good old fashioned capitolism to me. I'll pass on the comunist, chicken in every pot program, thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on Dec 14, 2005 18:05:28 GMT -5
So far we have heard all the pros of the issue. Where are the cons of habitat improvement/food plots? I know I have read a few statements on how landowners are getting a free ride. I wish I could just get the 100 acres but in my dreams it would at least be half a section, more then that and I would have to really be on top of things |
|
|
|
Post by duff on Dec 14, 2005 18:08:00 GMT -5
Just Cause I weigh 325 lb doesnt mean you can call me a pig, LOL!!! At 270 I would just be calling the kettle black ;D |
|
|
|
Post by dwhunting on Dec 14, 2005 18:15:04 GMT -5
Cons!!! I don't believe there are cons. You are improving the land making it better for all that live on it. To enjoy a better life. Whether it be plants or animals. Why else would the government assist with these programs??
|
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Dec 14, 2005 18:33:19 GMT -5
If I keep a better yard than anyone else on my block, then I shouldnt have to pay neighborhood association dues.
I always felt the *intent* behind the landowner exempt privilage was to apply to the RESIDENT landowner (and his kids living with him).
It's great that folks are buying up land and perserving and providing better habitat for wildlife. But as "hunters" we all need to be putting a little into the hat (some more than others). A minimum priced landowner stamp would allow the state to apply for and receive more federal matching P-R funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by swindianapaul on Dec 14, 2005 19:19:03 GMT -5
I'd argue that as a landowner I was already paying a little extra given that I am paying property taxes on a larger parcel of land. Prior to purchasing my LL, I still purchased tags/licenses even though I qualified for the landowner exemption as I also hunted off my property. While I want the hunting tradition to continue to future generations, I do not think anyone should be punished for owning enough property to qualify for the exemption...we're already penalized by the Assessor and Department of Local Govt. Finance.
As for Habitat Improvement, I am all for it and do as much as I can every year. And yes, occassionally I get a negative comment from someone about it. However, in my mind it is my choice to make, the same person griping would probably gripe if I bought a bigger truck or my kid got better grades than theirs anyway.
I'm not out to cheat anyone out of anything, rather I am going to follow the regulations as they apply to me and last I saw Habitat Improvement is allowed under the regulations. Just as a landowner can hunt without purchasing a license provided they meet the required minimum acreage.
Sorry folks, I saw how well collectivization worked for the Soviets, but rather than sit and @!*% moan about the lot in life you've been dealt or how unfair it is (hold on, what cheese would you like with your whine) or why the rock you designed it better than someone else's talk to your elected folks and get the rule changed. Or better yet shut up (some of us more than others) versus stirring the pot.
|
|
|
|
Post by dlawrence on Dec 14, 2005 19:34:50 GMT -5
I help out with the farm I hunt on. I wish all the surrounding farms would help with wildlife habitat.
The way I figure it, the deer would have to cross where I hunt to get from one farm to the next. Worrying about what the guy next door is doing is not worth the bother. Besides, if his palce is that good, why not hunt on the edge of your property? Chances ar one will come by. I love to deer hunt, but it's not near the top of my list of important things in life. Let the other guy rant and rave, they go about your business. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwhunting on Dec 14, 2005 19:54:08 GMT -5
Very well put!
|
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Dec 14, 2005 23:45:32 GMT -5
Some people can't let it go, they have to find something that they can't do or don't agree with or don't qualify for to gripe about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 15, 2005 7:17:40 GMT -5
If I keep a better yard than anyone else on my block, then I shouldnt have to pay neighborhood association dues. I always felt the *intent* behind the landowner exempt privilage was to apply to the RESIDENT landowner (and his kids living with him). It's great that folks are buying up land and perserving and providing better habitat for wildlife. But as "hunters" we all need to be putting a little into the hat (some more than others). A minimum priced landowner stamp would allow the state to apply for and receive more federal matching P-R funds. Don't you think landowners pay for their "tag" through property taxes? It is purely ridiculous that you expect someone to pay to hunt their own land. Incredible the way some peoples minds work! Then again maybe they don't. |
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Dec 15, 2005 7:27:54 GMT -5
But as "hunters" we all need to be putting a little into the hat (some**non-landowners** more than others**landowners**). A minimum priced landowner stamp would allow the state to apply for and receive more federal matching P-R funds.
Without purchasing some **FORM** of hunting licesnse (license, tag, stamp) the state can not count the exempt landowner as a "hunter"........this results in the state receiving less matching money (more than likely in the MILLIONS) from the Pittman-Robertson federal excise tax fund.
Landowners pay into this fund (Pittman-Robertson) when they purchase guns, ammo and other hunting equipment....it's not "ridiculous" to want that money to come back to Indiana....is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 15, 2005 7:35:55 GMT -5
They count them as a hunter when they check in a deer. And if that's all your REALLY worried about give them FREE tags, just so they can be counted.
|
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Dec 15, 2005 9:45:25 GMT -5
farmers pay for their tags several times over, 1 acre of lost corn = about $300 or more plus the fuel expense and seed/fertilizer expense of planting that lost acre times total of all acres lost to deer = BIG MONEY plus taxes....
|
|
;D
