As I said theres a long way to go but I dont see this ending without both BOAH and DNR both
playing a role.
playing a role.
Joined Apr 2014
1,245 Posts | 0+
Greensburg, IN
States generally keep hunting license fees very close to those of neighboring states. The state understands that hunting license fees that are higher than the neighbors will hurt them while competing for out of state hunters. In my opinion these fees will put Indiana's preserves at a disadvantage to neighboring states preserves and long term strangle both producers in Indiana and the preserves considering more and more borders are closing. I believe that we as Indiana deer farmers should follow Ohio's model and reciprocate the same fee structure and regulations on hunting ranches as our next door neighbor. There was a time when it was felt that having a sunset in our bill was the only hope to pass it. The profit margins in the deer industry are getting tighter and tighter. The cost of raising deer for hunting ranches is something to consider. Is there going to be room for the DNR to confiscate these fees long term? Changing any of the structure of the fees will be tough after engrossment. We only have one chance to get this right. Let's do it.
Joined Apr 2009
1,428 Posts | 0+
Northeast Wisconsin
A reasonable yearly licensing fee to Ag should be all anyone has to pay. What do breeders in your state pay now for fees? Preserves shouldn't be any different.
Hotrod1011131424181048
Legislative action over rule court rulings. The agencies that will be governing our industry as we move forward will need to be compensated for their cost occurred. That is where the fees come from. Its a long way from over but we are doing everything we can to keep the preserves in Indiana in business and in a place to be competitive in the market. We defeated a couple amendments yesterday that was added where one would have required owners to pay a $10,000 fine for each escaped animal. Its a very difficult and delicate issue in Indiana that we have fought for over 10 yrs.
With all due respect, I am reading this as you believe it is up to industry to pay for regulatory agencies that are already funded by public tax dollars? I'm not trying to fan the flame here, but I do not see the logic in that statement. If that is the case, they should fund themselves just like any other regulatory agency rather than putting it on the tab of those they regulate...If I have read that wrong, then please disregard...
Respectfully, I hope something is agreed upon that is beneficial for the industry...It sounds like there has been a lot of hard work and time invested by those who are fighting for the industry....It would be really funny if someone would send a sympathy card to Sabalow when favorable legislation gets passed...
Legislative action over rule court rulings. The agencies that will be governing our industry as we move forward will need to be compensated for their cost occurred. That is where the fees come from. Its a long way from over but we are doing everything we can to keep the preserves in Indiana in business and in a place to be competitive in the market. We defeated a couple amendments yesterday that was added where one would have required owners to pay a $10,000 fine for each escaped animal. Its a very difficult and delicate issue in Indiana that we have fought for over 10 yrs.
With all due respect, I am reading this as you believe it is up to industry to pay for regulatory agencies that are already funded by public tax dollars? I'm not trying to fan the flame here, but I do not see the logic in that statement. If that is the case, they should fund themselves just like any other regulatory agency rather than putting it on the tab of those they regulate...If I have read that wrong, then please disregard...
Respectfully, I hope something is agreed upon that is beneficial for the industry...It sounds like there has been a lot of hard work and time invested by those who are fighting for the industry....It would be really funny if someone would send a sympathy card to Sabalow when favorable legislation gets passed...
Joined Oct 2009
3,165 Posts | 1+
upstate ny
AustinFarms1011111424156176
Hope you don't mind my 2 cents worth...Here's something to keep in mind...if you agree to a $50/head fee, what is stopping them from upping that to say $5k/head???
The best thing to do when trying to outsmart an opponent is think the situation over from their point of view and figure out how you would do it...Incrementalism is what they are setting you up for with that $50/head fee...Mark my word, that fee won't stay there long....If they are truly out to close everyone down, they will use that as an opportunity and a tool to price everyone out of business if they can't regulate them out...
If it were me, I would hold their feet to the fire and fight them like no tomorrow on both the $2k fee, hunting licenses, and this bogus head-fee...You have a judge on record as saying that the deer are private property....Right there, that proves no jurisdiction for a license...Just food for thought...
Although i agree with this to a point i also believe if you look at that state that bent a bit and worked with their DNR you will see an industry inside that state that is very successful and you do not see their states name in the news making waves.. If deer are Ag then they could very well make up rules like dairy farms that have to do with waste disposal and numerous other farm rules. If 50 bucks a deer would have saved my border from being closed you can bet i would be cutting the check. I sure have lost much more. Sometimes its best to play ball their way or they very well may shove the bat right up your ---. Dont think for a second they cant do it because we found out different and without big $ to fight the fight, they will shove it deep!
Hope you don't mind my 2 cents worth...Here's something to keep in mind...if you agree to a $50/head fee, what is stopping them from upping that to say $5k/head???
The best thing to do when trying to outsmart an opponent is think the situation over from their point of view and figure out how you would do it...Incrementalism is what they are setting you up for with that $50/head fee...Mark my word, that fee won't stay there long....If they are truly out to close everyone down, they will use that as an opportunity and a tool to price everyone out of business if they can't regulate them out...
If it were me, I would hold their feet to the fire and fight them like no tomorrow on both the $2k fee, hunting licenses, and this bogus head-fee...You have a judge on record as saying that the deer are private property....Right there, that proves no jurisdiction for a license...Just food for thought...
Although i agree with this to a point i also believe if you look at that state that bent a bit and worked with their DNR you will see an industry inside that state that is very successful and you do not see their states name in the news making waves.. If deer are Ag then they could very well make up rules like dairy farms that have to do with waste disposal and numerous other farm rules. If 50 bucks a deer would have saved my border from being closed you can bet i would be cutting the check. I sure have lost much more. Sometimes its best to play ball their way or they very well may shove the bat right up your ---. Dont think for a second they cant do it because we found out different and without big $ to fight the fight, they will shove it deep!
Joined Oct 2009
3,165 Posts | 1+
upstate ny
Bell1011301424264880
Mike, the bill also says that only Indiana born deer may be harvested in the preserves. So the border is basically closed to preserves by the bills language but not producers.
Wonder who got that brain fart to come up with that one. That is what you call your state trying to help your producers. Same thing they told us here, They are protecting us they say. Thats why i am going to have both breeding and hunting on my property.
This bill has not gained any traction has it?
Mike, the bill also says that only Indiana born deer may be harvested in the preserves. So the border is basically closed to preserves by the bills language but not producers.
Wonder who got that brain fart to come up with that one. That is what you call your state trying to help your producers. Same thing they told us here, They are protecting us they say. Thats why i am going to have both breeding and hunting on my property.
This bill has not gained any traction has it?
Joined Apr 2009
1,428 Posts | 0+
Northeast Wisconsin
Really! What difference does it make if the deer are born in Indiana or elsewhere?? They will be dead either way. And compensate the state for what loss? These weren't their deer to begin with! Like I said earlier, hunters will come from out of state. Will the state kick back some of that extra money out of state hunters bring in, spending on food, gas whatever?? Ridiculous!
Joined Feb 2013
780 Posts | 1+
Markleville IN
The leader of the Indiana Senate said Wednesday that a bill to legalize and regulate fenced deer hunting will remain in the rules committee he controls until the GOP caucus finds a solution “that’s fair and reasonable.”
Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said if that solution can be found, he’ll send House Bill 1453 to the natural resources committee for a hearing.
“Right now, we are in a grey area, where no one really know what the law is,” Long said.
The bill – already approved by the House – aims to end a 10-year battle over the legality of fenced deer hunting. In 2005, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources tried to shut down several fenced preserves. One sued and the Court of Appeals recently ruled the DNR has no authority to regulate wild animals on private land.
The House legislation would only allow pre-existing facilities to receive a license. Only four are currently in operation under a court injunction – in Harrison, Blackford, Kosciusko and Marshall counties.
Long has stopped fenced hunting bills in the past while waiting for the courts to weigh in. Now, he said he’ll be looking for a fair solution before moving forward with the legislation.
Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said if that solution can be found, he’ll send House Bill 1453 to the natural resources committee for a hearing.
“Right now, we are in a grey area, where no one really know what the law is,” Long said.
The bill – already approved by the House – aims to end a 10-year battle over the legality of fenced deer hunting. In 2005, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources tried to shut down several fenced preserves. One sued and the Court of Appeals recently ruled the DNR has no authority to regulate wild animals on private land.
The House legislation would only allow pre-existing facilities to receive a license. Only four are currently in operation under a court injunction – in Harrison, Blackford, Kosciusko and Marshall counties.
Long has stopped fenced hunting bills in the past while waiting for the courts to weigh in. Now, he said he’ll be looking for a fair solution before moving forward with the legislation.
Joined Oct 2009
3,165 Posts | 1+
upstate ny
jerrilee cave1013291425257259
The leader of the Indiana Senate said Wednesday that a bill to legalize and regulate fenced deer hunting will remain in the rules committee he controls until the GOP caucus finds a solution “that’s fair and reasonable.”
Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said if that solution can be found, he’ll send House Bill 1453 to the natural resources committee for a hearing.
“Right now, we are in a grey area, where no one really know what the law is,” Long said.
The bill – already approved by the House – aims to end a 10-year battle over the legality of fenced deer hunting. In 2005, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources tried to shut down several fenced preserves. One sued and the Court of Appeals recently ruled the DNR has no authority to regulate wild animals on private land.
The House legislation would only allow pre-existing facilities to receive a license. Only four are currently in operation under a court injunction – in Harrison, Blackford, Kosciusko and Marshall counties.
Long has stopped fenced hunting bills in the past while waiting for the courts to weigh in. Now, he said he’ll be looking for a fair solution before moving forward with the legislation.
Fair is good but i would think the end result would be that anyone can open a ranch as long as a set amount of acres are fenced in. No less than 100 acres or such a matter.
The leader of the Indiana Senate said Wednesday that a bill to legalize and regulate fenced deer hunting will remain in the rules committee he controls until the GOP caucus finds a solution “that’s fair and reasonable.”
Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said if that solution can be found, he’ll send House Bill 1453 to the natural resources committee for a hearing.
“Right now, we are in a grey area, where no one really know what the law is,” Long said.
The bill – already approved by the House – aims to end a 10-year battle over the legality of fenced deer hunting. In 2005, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources tried to shut down several fenced preserves. One sued and the Court of Appeals recently ruled the DNR has no authority to regulate wild animals on private land.
The House legislation would only allow pre-existing facilities to receive a license. Only four are currently in operation under a court injunction – in Harrison, Blackford, Kosciusko and Marshall counties.
Long has stopped fenced hunting bills in the past while waiting for the courts to weigh in. Now, he said he’ll be looking for a fair solution before moving forward with the legislation.
Fair is good but i would think the end result would be that anyone can open a ranch as long as a set amount of acres are fenced in. No less than 100 acres or such a matter.
Joined Feb 2013
780 Posts | 1+
Markleville IN
Joined Feb 2013
780 Posts | 1+
Markleville IN
The latest on the Indiana bill, does Crider not know what a constitutional taking is???? Evidently not. This appears to be heading the wrong way.
Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, is urging both sides of the debate around Indiana’s high-fenced deer hunting preserves to work out a deal before he lets a bill legalizing the facilities advance.
This year’s bill, which legalizes only existing preserves, is already a scaled-down version of previous legislation, which would have allowed the industry to expand.
Sen. Sue Glick, R-LaGrange, the bill’s Senate sponsor, says the work now is to address remaining concerns, including ones about morality. She says that likely involves ensuring the preserves are big enough and include enough wooded areas and ground cover.
“We want to ensure this is a sportsman-like hunt, that these animals are not drugged or sedated,” she says.
But Sen. Michael Crider, R-Greenfield, a former conservation officer and one of the leading voices opposed to the preserves, says his issues lie with the threat of disease.
Many argue the preserves could lead to the spread of chronic wasting disease, which has yet to spring up in Indiana.
Glick says she’s also looking at potential restrictions on importing deer across state lines into the preserves as a way to help prevent the spread of chronic wasting disease, but Crider says one area he wants addressed is what happens if there is an outbreak in a preserve.
Currently, the state would have to compensate the owner after their herd is destroyed. Crider wants some sort of bonding requirement to reduce the state’s costs.
“It turns out that DNR’s paying sportsmen’s dollars to clean up something that’s a private enterprise; I think that’s completely wrong,” Crider says.
Crider also wants to halt the import of deer across state lines, an issue he admits is broader than just the hunting preserves.
Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, is urging both sides of the debate around Indiana’s high-fenced deer hunting preserves to work out a deal before he lets a bill legalizing the facilities advance.
This year’s bill, which legalizes only existing preserves, is already a scaled-down version of previous legislation, which would have allowed the industry to expand.
Sen. Sue Glick, R-LaGrange, the bill’s Senate sponsor, says the work now is to address remaining concerns, including ones about morality. She says that likely involves ensuring the preserves are big enough and include enough wooded areas and ground cover.
“We want to ensure this is a sportsman-like hunt, that these animals are not drugged or sedated,” she says.
But Sen. Michael Crider, R-Greenfield, a former conservation officer and one of the leading voices opposed to the preserves, says his issues lie with the threat of disease.
Many argue the preserves could lead to the spread of chronic wasting disease, which has yet to spring up in Indiana.
Glick says she’s also looking at potential restrictions on importing deer across state lines into the preserves as a way to help prevent the spread of chronic wasting disease, but Crider says one area he wants addressed is what happens if there is an outbreak in a preserve.
Currently, the state would have to compensate the owner after their herd is destroyed. Crider wants some sort of bonding requirement to reduce the state’s costs.
“It turns out that DNR’s paying sportsmen’s dollars to clean up something that’s a private enterprise; I think that’s completely wrong,” Crider says.
Crider also wants to halt the import of deer across state lines, an issue he admits is broader than just the hunting preserves.
There has to be room for growth to sustain the industry. The rules and regs also has to be able to allow us to compete in the market place. I haven't heard of a show stopper yet but things have to remain reasonable.
Joined Feb 2013
780 Posts | 1+
Markleville IN
When they think they are above the constitution there are issues!!!! That's assuming what is in the article is factual about no indemnity.
They have always thought they are above the law, thats why Ive been in a lawsuit for 10 yrs. Will know more in couple days.
Joined Apr 2014
1,245 Posts | 0+
Greensburg, IN
If the states border is closed to preserves by the bill and a preserve then gets a CWD positive, logic would indicate the source of the positive came from the uncontrolled wild herd. If the uncontrolled states deer infected the privately owned ranches deer then endemnity should be paid as to any other kind of farmer in my opinion. I would argue that if the bill closes the border to out of state hunt bucks then the state pays endemnity. Leave it open to out of state hunt bucks and the state pays no endemnity. If Senator Long is sincere about fairness in my opinion this would be fair.
If their intent is to hinder our ability to operate and compete fairly there will be no bill. Then next year we will do it all over again and there will be 30 preserves started up and in business. From all the conversations I've had we can get this done,
Similar threads
