|
Post by duff on Dec 15, 2005 10:06:53 GMT -5
Not to mention the habitat they provide that is huntable or suitable to wildlife. As opposed to subdivisions, parking lots, and other urban sprawl side effects.
|
|
|
Post by pbr on Dec 15, 2005 11:17:52 GMT -5
Sorry if I ruffled some feathers on this subject.
I own 120 acres and also do some habitat improvement for the widllife and not just for huntable animals.
I also pay taxes on it like anyone else does in this state. However I pay more taxes on my home than I do on my hunting property. I don't believe paying taxes should get me a free ride in either case.
I also don't believe that me doing some habitat improvement that is for my own and the widllife that use my property's benefit should get me any benefit from the government that is not available to all hunters in the state.
Of course not all hunting property owners improve their habitat, do they? Some just go hunt it.
I have a lifetime license that was bought after I purchased the ground. I bought it for two reasons. I hunt other properties that I do not own and I forsaw a day when the IDNR could possibly close out the landowner license.
My opinion is, instead of just cutting out all landowners licenses I would hope that the IDNR would make all landowners and their families buy a token license that would trigger P-R paybacks. That is not too much to ask.
Now if that stroked you guys the wrong way again, I am sorry, but that is how I feel. I don't want the government giving me anything just because I did this or that. You all feel differently and that is OK too.
Lets' all agree to disagree, OK?
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Dec 15, 2005 13:01:37 GMT -5
I don't think it's anyone's business if you do habitat impovements on your property, even if they own on both sides of you. They have the option of doing so. I also don't think it is anyones business that doesn't own property at all if you do it either. And if the Government is going to set aside money to help people do so why not use it. I put 20 acres of feild borders on my place in the CP-33 quail habitat program this year, if the money wasn't used it would have went to the state general fund so why not use it. I came from game bird habitat stamps. I also put an aditional 13 acres in the W.H.I.P. progam. I have another 27 acres that will go into some kind of Gov. program this year. If people don't like it I'm sorry, they will just have to get over it. People don't realize that wildlife habitat is dwindling, less and less every year. Hunting places are getting harder to find, I'm going to do whatever I can to make my place the best it can be for future generations in my family.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Dec 15, 2005 15:35:05 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. No they don't I guess you dont't understand how the P-R money is devided back out to the states. It a REQUIREMENT of the program that you can only count license buying hunters. The more license buying hunters a state has, the more of the pot (P-R fund) that state gets.
|
|
|
Post by parkerbow on Dec 16, 2005 19:38:19 GMT -5
It is like everything else in life, there are givers and there are takers. I own just 33 acres and in the last 3 years I have opened up 4 Quarter acre areas for food plots, built a wildlife pond and select cut timber, I now have a great little haven for my turkey and deer hunting. It just makes all the hard work worth while when I harvest a big tom or a deer on my small property. I just feel like I am giving something back to the wildlife and not just taking from it.
|
|
|
Post by cday on Dec 17, 2005 7:11:15 GMT -5
First of clearing and planting food plots I would consider as habitat improvements. Yes you are providing food but where is the cover that nice green cleared food plot provides, there is none. Habitat is defined as both food and cover. Food plotting is just a degree of farming wanting a area to produce more than what is the actual carrying capacity. Now clearing and allowing regeneration of natrual forage this is habitat improvement which provides both quality food and cover. Even timbering of mature forest is habitat improvement because it allows regrowth which too provides food and cover.
Second why should landowners get to take wildlife that every residence of Indiana owns for free. So what they own there own land but they do not own the wildlife that roam it. Fact is alot of the wildlife that roams there place also roams the neighboring land which might be public land where everyone there hunting has to pay to hunt the same species. Heck we down here Arkansas have to pay property taxes and all, but we are still required to purchase a hunting license to hunt our own land and even have to have a fishing license to fish our privately owned and stocked ponds. But then again our licenses are sure alot cheaper than yours because everyone participating has to anti up. What about the guys leasin property to hunt alot of them do habitat improvemants and management on that land but they still have to purchase licenses and tags to hunt that land. What makes the landowner any different then these guys.
The rewards or benifits of improving habitat are already given to those that put forth the effort. So why should they get rewarded to hunt free? I mean it is a given the better habitat the better your odds at harvesting a big buck.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Dec 17, 2005 7:43:41 GMT -5
If a fella is *that* dedicated to wildlife to the degree that he would set aside land, make improvments and dedicate it to the wildlife........Then I just don't understand why that fella would have heartache about spending 6 or 7 dollars to purchase a "landowner" stamp.
If that 6 or 7 dollars per landowner meant that the DNR would have the revenue that the 6 or 7 dollars adds up to ....PLUS AN ADDITIONAL SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS comming in from the federal pittman- robertson fund (because 20,000 landowners bought 6 or 7 dollar stamps)....and that money was put to good use like securing more public land
WHERES THE BEEF?
ALSO.....
Most of the folks who make those improvments are getting a benefit from it. In other words your investing into your hobby.....not just making a donation to wildlife.
Further.....
If the federal government told the state they could no longer "count" lifetime license holders as "hunters" for pittman-robertson purposes....I would strongly support a simular idea for lifetime license holders.
It's not really about having to have a "license" ....the issue is that EVERY hunter needs to be counted for this federal program. EVERY hunter pays into this fund, weather you own land or not.....the state cant get that money back unless you purchase some sort of hunting license.
|
|
|
Post by dlawrence on Dec 17, 2005 8:24:15 GMT -5
If a guy owns the land, he should be able to take deer without extra cost to the government. What's the difference between taking a deer off your own property, and taking a walnut tree off your property for wood projects. How about the walnuts you pick up off the ground to eat? How about charging a fee to collect ginseng or mushrooms? I'm just thankful there are people who let me hunt on their property.
|
|
|
Post by sovrapposto on Dec 17, 2005 21:18:15 GMT -5
Hello Gents, I'm new to this forum and have been reading this subject since it first started because I own 93 acres of Indiana land in fields, timber and water, 58 acres of which are in the Indiana Classified Forest program. As a land owner, I'm able to get tax breaks and I can participate in many cost share programs with government agencies. I think it is only fair that I pay for a hunting and fishing license because as one poster said, the landowner does not own the wildlife, the residents of Indiana do. Maybe the state can charge the landowner a reduced fee and give the landowner who can afford it the option of paying the regular amount. I know I would be willing to pay what every other Indiana resident pays.
|
|
|
Post by dlawrence on Dec 18, 2005 8:16:40 GMT -5
The landowners who improve habitat are helping produce more deer for all of us. Why shouldn't they get some perks from all their time and money invested. They could be dividing their plce up into lots for subdivisions.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Dec 18, 2005 8:41:10 GMT -5
The non-landowning deer hunter that gets active with legislative and other issues with deer hunting is also helping to produce more (&better) deer.....should they be exempt from the license requirement and NOT get counted in the reports the state sends to the federal government too!
Why do you beleive that landowners should pay into the pittman-robertson tax everytime they buy a gun, ammo or other hunting gear....and the state NOT get that tax money back?
If Indiana don't get that additional money, it WILL go to another state.
|
|