FWCC meeting 6/22/13

I attended the meeting representing the IDHA, and was interested in two topics during the meeting.

1. License fee increase; IDNR said they have talked to the Governors office who is not interested in increasing license fees as they see them as a "tax". At least not this early in his term, now that is funny.....no political! IDNR has a budget shortfall of 3+ million and is already 40 people short from needed staff. Law enforcement is also short of their allowed 221 officers and the gas prices and vehicle replacement is killing them. They are driving cars now over 150,000 miles as policy. I know so are we as citizens....

We proposed that IDNR needs to create a landowner license. They said if they could get one it would bring in $22.00 from PR monies for each livcense sold. But the license would need to be created in the legislature, and they wont be warm and fuzzy about another "tax". If we could get a $5.00 all inclusive yearly land owner license and plus the PR monie IDNR would be healthy again. Question is what do you all think? And Non resident land owners are already paying non resident fees at least those who are not reciprocal, this would end the reciprocal agreement.

2. PR monies; IDNR stated that we are now receiving $9 million dollars a year! double previous years prior to our present gun and ammo sales. I asked where that money was going and was told they are buying more land than ever before, all of the land touches F&W properties or stat forrests. All of this is more public hunting land ZERO goes to park land or Resivour properties.

We would like some feed back as it will take a grass roots effort to get legislative action on a landowner license. Remember over 1/2 of the deer taken each year are by non license buying hunters. Again an annual fee of less than $10.00 for all hunting for land owners.

Thanks in advance

I'm totally against making a landowner (I am not a landowner) pay to hunt his/her own land... Why should someone who already pays taxes and insurance on their land should have to pony up money just to hunt on it...

I know its only asking 10 bucks from someone and that is nothing but I am against it based on principle and not cost...

How about asking people who do not hunt or fish to pony up money to visit our state lands instead of placing all the burden on a small percentage of people (who hunt and fish) to pay for it...

I'm surprised they don't have a "gathering/user" license for hunting mushrooms and other wild edibles or whatever lawful reason... This way everyone who uses state lands for whatever lawful reason would be supporting the cause...

I think the landowner license can be seen as harvest fee. Landowners can hunt all the wish but the actual harvesting is another issue, albeit a bit of a stretch.

I likeeeee this idea.........

I hunt my own property(s) for the most part yet still buy a license... I do however question how well those funds are used from time to time

Ok let me add another element.

The North American wildlife models has 7 tenants, three of which are..........


1.Wildlife is owned by the citizens

2.Users pay for the management of wildlife

3.Wildlife is managed by professionals

Question would be, are not landowners a "user"?

Yes Joe they are.

I will buy one.. Most dont Know about the funds available from and the services provided by The DNR for Landowners . I can spend 5 Bucks and get 22 dollars back into the State Thats a No Brainer It wouldnt be a Taxor a licence It would be an invesment for the Future.. Heck Ill buy one for the wife also

Are there any other states that charge landowners?

Where does it make a difference if any state has a landowner license, Indiana needs to lead .........not follow!

ThroBak has it correct get the Federal funds and watch our wildlife prosper.

PR funds are distributed by only two(2) criteria. Hunters and land mass, we will NEVER increase land mass like Texas and Pennsylvania has ................. but we CAN increase hunter numbers. We need an accurate number, that includes all land owners and dependents.......

Was there any other option vs the Land owner License fee ????

Joe,

I have a lifetime license, but I'm in NO way in favor of a landowner license of any sort. Hunting/trapping is one of the ONLY things that does not cost you money (TAXED) when owning property. I am assuming we are primarily talking deer here. The way I see it is, the deer, squirrels, rabbits, and coons eat a he!! of a lot more in corn, beans, and alfalfa than any license fee. So, If I or my son wants wants to legally walk out the back door and go hunting, we shouldn't have to buy any license.

Now, by your 3 of 7 aspects of the North American model you quoted above, when the "citizens" across the fence that only hunt, and don't farm want to pay ME for feeding their deer that they harvest, and the professionals want to come and manage the deer on MY farm the way I see fit........get my point Joe?

Great point Yaz. In the national duck site, as I call it, the Farm Bill is getting a lot of talk and that's where it gets a little twisted from a macro economic standpoint. For instance, our small farm that had a reduced yield of 1/3 last year on corn because of the drought still financially produced the same as a normal year because of the federal subsidy on crop insurance. I personally think that is wrong but the taxpayer paid big for that subsidy.

Agree.

IDNR should manage there moneys like the average citizen has to do. If cuts are needed then do them and stop looking for the easy way out by putting another tax on over taxed landowners. Maybe hiring qualified business managers to allocate funds would be better idea than political appointees. h.h.

The federal farm bill subsidises Food stamps also.. This would be for Wildlife and its management think about it spend 5 and you are giving 27 for wildlife nothing else

Are ALL landowners able to hunt/kill game animals on their properties regardless of size and/or usage without a license?

jjas, yes today that is how it reads.

Thanks for the response jb.