Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Would you pay more 4 tags/licenses if

not stalked, t � defied.

And you're not the only one. You can be sure that the others'll be right here too � my name in a thread has become a Campfire version of a Royal Coachman or a chunk of Velveeta to certain bottom-feeders who come to the top now 'n' then.

Is puerile the word that you're fumbling for?

No, if I used that word only you and I would know what it means.
I've enjoyed the company.
Lets see if you can guess where I'm going next.













Bed. So long for now.
t

... and I to my recliner ("bed" since the stroke).

Sleep well, friend � and wake happy.

Here's a novel idea.

Why doesn't the F&G use some of the money it already has to provide incentives (i.e. tax reductions, free seedlings, low interest loans etc.) or develop other programs that are specifically designed to encourage existing landowners to permit hunting on their property?

For example, many F&G Departments issue crop damage permits that allow farmers to kill as many deer as they see fit (day or night, I might add) while at the same time they are permitted to post their land against hunting!

I spoke to a farmer once in Connecticut who refused to allow hunting on his land, but bragged about shooting over 100 deer on his crop damage permit that summer and then burying them with a front end loader.

Now does this make any sense?

Also, state wildlife agencies should never accept donations of land that have no hunting provisions attached to them.

Once the owners of this land realize that it has no commercial value, they "donate" it to the state to relieve themselves of the tax burden and then have the audacity to attach a no hunting proviso to it!

The sad thing is that the Wildlife Dept. accepts the "gift" with open arms and then sends it storm troopers out to put up the NO HUNTING signs.

The "EPO'S" then lurk in the shadows in their brand new SUV's ready to pounce on anyone who dares to trespass.

Isn't it ironic that the person who is being prohibited from using this land, paying for the EPO and his brand new SUV to police it etc., etc., is usually the licenced, tax paying hunter who paid for it all in the first place!

I'm tired of it all!!!

This is a good idea and I would probably pitch in a bit more dollars with a big big beware attached to it.


Obviously I do not know how the game departments of each and every state are run. Elected, appointed, bureaucratic sub department etc etc.


I do know this: when you put politicians in close proximity to piles of money you can bet your last dollar that it won't get spent just the way you though it would.

Texas as most know has no public land, relatively speaking. The P&W Dept does supply some so called public hunting via various means and strategies.

I have been on some of them. I would not wish them on my worst enemy.


BCR

We already do. My state has had a Habitat Stamp program in existence for over 20 years. Current cost for the stamp is $13, not the $1-5 you propose. We also have an Aquatic Habitat Stamp that you need to buy in addition to your license if you want to fish. This is in addition to the taxes the Ken mentioned above.

We also have programs like what djmbow suggests. The CRP-MAP Conservation Reserve Program- Managed Access Program funded in a partnership between Pheasants Forever and our Game & Parks Commision pays farmers that have land enrolled in the CRP an extra several dollars an acre to allow public walk-in hunting access. A couple of other programs like WHIP (wildlife habitat improvement progam) and Corners for Wildlife (habitat program on the triangular corners of 1/4 section fields with center pivot irrigation systems) are funded the same way.

Between taxes, licenses, stamps, and what I give to my PF chapter that they in turn give to the state, the portion of what I spend on hunting and fishing that is supposed to go to increased access and improved habitat is probably around $200.

bergie

It is an interesting concept. Sort of like a welfare hunting program for the middle class.

Like a few of the others I have retreated to where the hunting and fishing access was an improvement from where I left. Also it is apparent that some of the open access land we have should not be taken for granted. We have a welfare program for landowners in Michigan. I have some land in it. It is called Commercial Forest. Land taxes are mostly defferred until time of timber harvest. In return the land must remain open to hunting and fishing. I pay approximtely $1.10 per acre.

In the recent past some corporate land owners have sold land to middle man, who in turn chopped it up into small tracts that was affordable to many. The many then came and bought land, built a camp, and posted the land. The more they came, the more they made it like where they came from.

The bottom line is that in America hunting is going to be the sport of the higher socio-economic class people. Yes, there are many of the current bunch of hunters that will be priced out of the sport they love. Or have to have their time in the outdoors severely curtailed due to economic constaints.

Would I pay five dollars more per tag? Let's see I buy all species fish (2), Double deer (2), bear(1), small game(1), waterfowl (1), fur harvesters (1), off road vehicle (1). That is nine tags at $5 each.... 45 bucks. For increased land access in an area I will never hunt, to a DNR that is only marginally acting in the best interest of the sport hunter and fisherman?

Yes, I sure would. It sort of sounds like a closet Democrat, now doesn't it? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

No. Where I live we already have considerable amounts of state and federal land to hunt. As it is the DNR rapes our license fund and we have had millions come up missing. Our Damolecrap governer has just appointed one of her pals as the head of the DNR. His qualifications? He was a pastor. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Kique, how could you insure that that would really happen? It seems that often things begin for a good reason, and then the money gets "diverted" at some point.

I'm thinking about the lottery in my state. Way back when it began, a big selling point was that the money would be used for schools. Now hardly any of the money is used for schools (school levies still abound on the ballot), and yet the lottery is still there.

Penny

In Colorado,,we already do. Now it will have to be seen if the money actully goes where it is suppos to

Hey Gang,

Thanks a bunch for the input. You all have shared great comments and have explained well the why I would and the why I would nots.
The reason I bring this question up, is due to what I see happening around AZ. Developers, businesses, Anti's, cities are all buying up land that was once excellent hunting areas, and either building structures or closing it to hunting/fishing. Mrs. B brought up a good point. "How can you be Sure?" I guess you really can't, but you can hope it would. Ken also brought up the P-R act. That does do a lot, but at the same time I don't think it does enough.
I get the picture that states really don't care about hunting and only money. Here in AZ many ranches are closing their gates and charging to get in and limiting access to public land, because their land is infront of state land and they gate it. So in the run we are still paying to hunt on our state trust land. To me it doesn't make sense. Besides that, the G&F is allowing it.
I don't know I just get frustrated of see less and less hunting land taken up. I am hoping us as hunters can do something as a group to help fight this depletion of hunting rights and rights to our own hunting land.
Thanks again guys for the input. You guys have given me a lot to think about and put this better into perspective.

Kique

Oklahoma has already implemented a $5.00 habitat stamp. So far, their proposed acquisitions include a 350 acre parcel in NE Oklahoma that straddles the Illinois river (a heavily used canoe/rafting stream) and approx. 5,000 acres of heavily degraded wetlands in western Oklahoma. They have not released (and probably never will) the cost of the Illinois river property, but two "conservation partners" have reportedly ponied up over $150,000 each to contribute to the purchase. The 5,000 acre tract is under multiple ownership, so the purchase price will have to be negotiated with each parcel owner, so the price of this project will be well above current market rates. At the same time, tens of thousands of acres of mountainous commercial timberlands are being sold off in SE Oklahoma at reasonable prices while the ODWC yawns and watches it go. This is land that has been open to the public for hunting through memorandum's of understanding and lease agreements with ODWC for years. As the corporate owners sell it off it is being closed to public hunting, so if you live in SE Oklahoma your $5.00 "donation" is going to purchase over priced small tracts in other parts of the state, while you are getting gated out of once public hunting areas. Sounds like a great deal, doesn't it?

I had to turn my pronghorn tag in this year because the ranch I usuallly hunt on was sold and they now do not allow hunting. 47K acreas. All the other ranches in that GMU charge trespass fees. The cheapest one being $800. It is almost inpossiple to find private land to hunt on in CO anymore unless you pay a BIG trespass fee. The DOW has this voucher system that permits ranches to get more tags if they allow a small percantge of public hunters, but it 's about like a pimple on an elephants butt

North Carolina is going to up our fees weather we like it or not.
Next year, Saltwater Fishing is going from free to 15 dollars a year, even for those like me who paid 250 dollars for a LIFETIME fishing license. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

In ohio all license fees go to the general fund. our resident deer tag is now $24. Ohio built many state forrests from license fees before all the money was redirected to the general fund. Since then there has been little bought that is anywhere near prime hunting land. Mostly they have aquired old strip mine land in leiu of persuing the mining companies for violations. That acidic land will grow nothing but weak grass at first then years later the multi floral rose takes over. Waste land I call it.

garryc, last year I paid Ohio for an out of state deer tag,(special black powder hunt, Salt Fork) and THEN found out I was only going to get it if I hit a lottery, oh and the application fee was non-refundable. That was a big turn off to someone who was willing to pay the out of state tag anyhow.

Kique- do you, as an outfitter, lease private lands? If so, does that give you and your clients exclusive hunting privileges?

Whttail_in_MT

hows it going? Just thought I would answer this question you asked.

I lease private land in Sonora Mexico, no where else do I have that comfort. In AZ a friend of mine has a semi public ranch that I have the privilege of taking my hunters on. it is not leased and some public hunters are allowed on it, but it is limited.
It is funny you ask the question. Because my friend is one example why the G&F needs to step in. Sure it is nice that I, my family and my clients can hunt on the ranch, but what about the children and others that do not have the same opportunity as I. That is what I am trying to get at. I may be a outfitter, but I was first a hunter and a young hunter (youngbuckaz86) I want the same for my son and all future hunters. If ranchers keep blocking off our access, and developers keep building, what is going to be left for our future's to hunt on?

I know I kinda went off track, but to put it short. No, I do not lease Private US land, I have friends that let me on along with x amount of public. the ranches in AZ I hunt are semi-public.

Kique

It's a tough question for me. More money in gubment hands just means more mismanagement. I would probably say yes though the I cringe at the pumpkin patch pressure.

MI DNR runs a program that pays farmers to allow hunting on their lands. Unfortunately, the locals don't use it. The permits are gobbled up by folks from the city coming out to hunt. There isn't much state or federal land in the lower half of the LP. You either drive a long ways or lease.


Mac

Enrique- Thank you for answering. I'm glad you're concerned about the dwindling access to a public resource. Commercialization of wildlife drove many species to near extinction but the North American model of wildlife conservation provided the means to recover populations to what they are today. Unfortunately, commercialization is again threatening game species by disenfranchising the common people from their resources. For selfish reasons, hunters have been the cornerstone of modern conservation. Without us, wildlife, and its habitat, will no doubt suffer. To better understand the North American model of wildlife conservation, here are some links:

RMEF interview with Dr. Geist


RMEF article on model


Orion Institute

Arizona's agency is a member of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. As such, they should be adhering to the North American model. Ask them (and your commissioners) what they are doing to promote this model, especially the tenet dealing with democracy of hunting. Don't be surprised, though, if you have to ask several people before you find one that even knows what the North American model of wildlife conservation is. Don't put too much faith in agencies solving things though. Legislators sometimes have axes to grind with agencies and will vote down anything brought up or supported by an agency. Legislators do, however, listen to factions that have large and vocal support. That is how things will get changed. Just like it did when Teddy Roosevelt was at the reins...It will be an uphill battle as those with commercial interests in wildlife are ever-increasing. There's no time like the present to start doing something about this loss of access to our public resource before many more common folks are disfranchised.