Hey Gang,

I was just wondering something and I was curious how you all thought about it. I have seen the loss of habitat and also the loss of hunting land. Due to both development and anti hunters buying up land.

The question I am wondering about is this.

Would you pay say $1 to $5 more for your tag, license (hunting or fishing), and stamps (duck,HIP, whatever) If you knew that that money would be set aside for/by the Game and Fish to purchase land that would/could not be sold and would be open to hunting and fishing?

The way I see we can all complain amonst each other about losing land and hunting rights. We can also complain about the Anti's buying up land. Or We can fight back and see if the G&F of our states can help us preserve our sport.

I am throwing this out, because I am wondering how many care and how many just talk about it.

I will start by saying that I would pay the extra as long as it went to buy land and improve that land and not for anything else.

Anyone with input? Much thanks.

Kique

The cost of tags is going to go up anyway and I'm going to pay it so sure I wouldnt complain as much about the higher cost of licenses and tags if I thought the money was going to good use.

Jamie

A provisional yes.
t

No I'm not willing to pay more for my licenses and/or tags for the simple reason I do not live on the I-5 Corridor here in Washington State and as such the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife could care less about my Hunting and Fishing prospects they only care about those coming out of Snohomish, King, Pierce and Thurston Counties on the I-5 Corridor.

They only hold their policy setting meetings for hunting and fishing regulations on the I-5 Corridor not out in the areas of the state where locals or those with the knowledge are able to attend without having to make three or four hour trip to attend a meeting and then have to make that same three or four hour trip back home after the meeting.

There is an old saying here that if you want to insure the extinction of a species of fish or game give it to the WDF&W to manage. After seeing the antics of one of our State's Fishery Biologists in SW Washington who walked over everyone for years and overstepping his authority and treating the area like his own personal playground until he got called on it a couple of years ago resulting in his being removed from his position because of his incompetence. As a result of his actions he is forbidden to even work in three or four counties in SW Washington anymore in effect we got the SOB neutered because of his management practices.

So no after seeing how the WDF&W works no I would not be willing to pay more especially after they shut the Sport Crab Season down here in the state and then giving the remainder of Sport Crab Quota to Commercial Fisherman and the Indians for profit and then when the Indian Fishery doesn't or won't honor their quota and keep on fishing and the state won't do anything about it, hell no I'm not willing to pay more.

So, the "antis" are the only ones buying up land....and creating cement realities for the rest of us???? I think not. Increased resource consumption....landscape expansion.....and the like....is a burden shared by ALL of us that choose to live as we do....and pro-create/condition additional humans (children) to do the same.....and over time....with the advancement of technology/increase in sheer numbers/etc....the tax on natural landscapes will continue to increase....be it good, bad, or indifferent...... You can't have your cake and eat it too....and this has nothing to do with antis buying up land <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />!!

Do I want to give more money to Fish and Wildlife, or any other regulatory agency???? Naw, but I'd like to see them scale down....and put that money into more healthy public lands/access.

Just my .02.

HoundGirl

Good girl!

I'm getting the hang of Alaska's gratis tags,lengthy Seasons and generous limits.

Cain't imagine myself ponying up loot for table scraps.............................

Yes

Stick
I know its not your policy, but you might want to think this through again. If we lose our places to hunt down here, we'll have no choice but to head for Alaska and take your critters.
t <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Bring a rain slicker.......

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

One can get the "hang" of a lot of comforts.....and then find themselves faced with the same "table scraps" being rationed to the masses.

Seclusion, and isolation, does not, and never will, equate protection.....

AK today....doesn't represent AK a 100 years from now. I'd try to learn from the mistakes of others....and those places that still afford some standard of living.....shouldn't be taken for granted.....or they will end up in the same ugly mess as the rest.

HoundGirl

HG--well said!

HG
What a downer. Now I'm depressed.
t <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Not me, I'm raping Alaska as if I wasn't gonna be here in 100 years........

Oh yeah. I feel much better now.
Maybe I'll refill my lithium perscription tomorrow.
t <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

That's why I'm here.......

Good place for you.
Oh, you mean to help. Never mind.
t

IIRC, that was � is � supposed to be included in the rationale behind the federal excise taxes (Pittman-Robertson Act [1937] and Dingell-Johnson Act [1950]) requested by hunters and fishermen, to fund game- and fish-restoration and to preserve hunting and fishing.

HELP
I'm being stalked by an arrogant jerk.






Now that's even more juvenile and unless someone else followed us from that other thread they won't get it anyway.
Just so they know, it's supposed to be funny.

T <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

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.

Whttail,

Thanks for the info and links.
I am very proud to be a guide/outfitter, but at the same time I feel shameful about what others in my same profession do. Money is what moves mountains it seems like. I am very much against the rising cost of tags and such in AZ, but I feel we need to do something.
I don't know if you are aware, but in AZ the Game and Fish is the only self-sustaining department. The only help they get outside tags and fines and such comes from the lottery. Not much else. Most of the high cost of tags come from the pay raises game wardens want/need. However the cost of tags is getting rediculous.
I love to guide and make money doing what I love (hunting), but however I would much rather hunt with my best friend and my Father than guide. In saying this I mean the tags are getting to the point where my father would rather not hunt than pay for a tag that may or may not be filled. I cherish every moment I can with my dad especially in the outdoors. Most of my guiding in AZ now, the money goes for our tags, as I am now paying for Dad, myself and my best friend. Anything extra is for the trip.
So when it comes to hunting, I love the chance to guide and help people take a trophy, but at the same time, I watch hunting getting to the point where only the rich can do it. I am not rich, so I am sure in a few years hunting for me will be out of reach and all I will have is guiding.
If I had my way, I would tell the AZGFD that hunting is for everyone not just the rich. I would go as far as to say everyone has the right to a trophy not just the rich. I think trophy units/hunts are a bunch of bull they should not cost more so everyone could have a chance. Right now I have a few hunts given away to youth that drew prime tags. They are being conducted at no cost and some of my guides are pitching in to the effort. I do this as a way to give back and hook the young ones to the outdoors. I am also open to giving up a few slots for people looking to try hunting for the first time. Just my way of not forgetting why I outfit. I do it because of my love of the outdoors not the money. I just wish there were more out there. Trust me if I was in it just for the paycheck my prices would be a lot higher. Currently I am below most other outfits, but my clientel is different. Not all my clients are rich. Most have 9 to 5's and most only do guided hunts once in a long time. I am not Biased, I accommodate anyone interested in a hunt as long as I am not out anything most of the time.

Thanks again for the info, and I hope the aboves gives you an idea what I and my outfit are about. And how I run my business and why I do it that way.

From the heart,
Kique

I think it would be a fine idea for here in Arizona, Enrique. I live in the Valley of the Sun and have watched the housing explosion the past few years. Areas I used to deer and javelina hunt just a couple of years ago not far from home are now rooftops and asphalt.

What most folks don't know is that although this is a large state, 1/3 of it is Indian reservation, another large segment is military basing/gunnery ranges, national monuments, etc. This leaves about 1/3 of the state as Federal/State lands. Another sizeable portion is privately owned and municapilities. Of that amount, maybe a 1/4 of the state is suitable for big game hunting. Even though the seasons and areas are staggered for hunting, the public lands are are crowded not only with hunters, but others wanting to recreate by hiking, horseback riding, dirt back riding and pleasure cruising. The woods get awfully crowded.

I'd be more than willing to pony up a small fee to help with additional land purchases for G&F if they had it open to hunting/fishing. As you know, a portion of the $10 million the G&F gets from the state lottery is to go toward such purchases, anyway.