indy news article

Discussion in 'LOCAL INDIANA TALK' started by old newbie, Jul 1, 2009.

  1. indycatman

    indycatman New Member

    Greenwood, Indi
    more then likely research or for all the other game for protecting not the trophy catfishes--that is what would say

  2. Fishgeek

    Fishgeek Active Member

    The DNR has been trying to get a senior fishing license for years but it always fails. They get all kinds of complaining from the senior citizen population that they are on fixed incomes & can't afford the $3 license. The proposal a couple years ago was to drop the senior elligible license age from 65 to 60 yrs. So at age 60 anglers could purchase the $3 annual senior license for the rest of their lives. Mathematically it works out for the seniors. If you figure life expectancey at 75yrs (I think that's generous...may be more like 72yrs) then an angler purchasing the $3 license from age 60 to 75 (15yrs) only costs $45. But, the way it is now, anglers ages 60-65 have to purchase the annual $17 fishing license which over that five years is $85!!! So with the $3 senior license, even if a guy fishes until he's 85 he's still saving money...or at least breaking even. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

    Now, here's the reason the DNR has been pushing for that $3 senior license: The federal government kicks back about $7 per Indiana fishing & hunting license sold from excise taxes on fishing, hunting, & marine equipment. That $7 comes back to IN for any license purchased...doesn't matter if its a $17 license or a $3 license. So, by not charging the seniors a very limited license fee, the DNR is missing out on a substantial amount of money...while this large group of senior anglers continues to use the resources & takes advantage of the opportunities basically for free.

    The money from all our license dollars and the kick-back from the feds goes directly & only to the management of sportfish & wild game in the state. Parks & Reservoirs doesn't get it, IDEM doesn't get it, and I don't think that even the non-game species see any of that money. It's all earmarked for fish & wildlife management.
  3. old newbie

    old newbie New Member

    Now I'm not the brightest star in the sky so let me make sure I got that. I spend $3 the state keeps all 3$ plus gets 7$ from feds, so my 3$ turns into 10$ for the state to use on fishing alone. If thats the case I could live with that.
    Maybe Matt you should report for the star, that would have been nice to have included in the original news coverage.