Thought provoking

Drake91

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
864
Location
PA
By that analogy it becomes a rich mans game. Only the wealthy get to hunt?

Sounds like Great Britain.

Depending where you live its pretty much there already... atleast from what I seen in some states with deer hunting... my buddies do it every year in ohio they lease land and every other year lately it seems to keep increasing... so they got a lease they pay $1500 a piece for 4 guys on 200 acres... then the gas driving back an forth checking cameras planting food plots then their archery gear... I mean it's like they have their own farm pretty much... but the owner can just keep kicking the price up as much as he wants till they quit or someone else comes in... I did that game with em for 5 years... if that's what it comes to I'll take my chance on public land this sport is expensive enough anymore
 

Drake91

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
864
Location
PA
I forgot to add when we first found the lease about 10 years ago it was only $450 a person
 

riverrat47

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
3,951
Reaction score
5,033
Location
nw illinois
Probably the same guys and gals that do now - federal and state game wardens.
While I've hunted with numerous state and federal game wardens, in over 60 years of duck hunting, I've run into three state wardens-one due to my call- and one federal wardens in the field. Maybe the wardens I've known know that I play it pretty close to the vest and quickly get rid of people who play fast and loose with the regs. Maybe it was because half that time I worked for DNR, but I doubt it. There were enough state & federal wardens who would consider it a big feather in their cap to ticket a biologist.
One time, I happened to stop at a ramp because I saw a local warden checking duck hunters. He had four boat with 3-4 hunters each. With checking guns, ducks, licenses and safety equipment, and more boats coming in, it was about to turn into a traffic jam, so I helped him out. Now, I could just see the major cluster flop of trying to check 6 muddy tag numbers against a duck stamp number.
Then we get to the vendors, be it private or the PO. In my area, less than 20 miles from the Mississippi, several PO's simple don't order duck stamps, claiming they don't sell enough to make it worth the hassle. We have enough trouble keeping private vendors selling licenses/permits and stamps without adding more of a burden.
 

bill cooksey

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2000
Messages
23,341
Reaction score
26,970
Location
Bartlett, Tn., USA
I'm not so sure that it would be an enforcement nightmare. Most bird tags that I have seen have a serial number that ties back to the license/stamp.

Would there be some cheating? Sure. Would it exceed the amount that exists now? Doubt it.

As to harvest data, a tagging system would certainly add more certainty to the overall "harvest estimates".

Anywho - at the end of the day, the best "recruitment tools" for duck hunting are birds in the sky and the opportunity to shoot the same. If the "casual hunter" can't see and shoot at ducks - they will be a casual hunter no more, and their dollars (as well as their vote on hunting issues) will disappear. The word "habitat" has been drummed into our heads for decades is "habitat ", and every public and private waterfowl related organization says that our duck related habitat is woefully inadequate. Makes sense to me that those who take the most should be more than willing to pay for the taking - whch brings me right back to the coffee shop analogy, where you pay for each cup of Joe.

Pittman-Robertson anyone? Those who hunt the most do pay the most.
 

KENNEDY63

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2005
Messages
11,873
Reaction score
5,956
Location
MINNESOTA
Pittman-Robertson anyone? Those who hunt the most do pay the most.

Of course we do - yet we are still reminded on an almost daily basis about the next coming habitat crisis - which (assuming the doomsayers are correct) - spend our habitat money in a wiser fashion, or simply raise more money.

Either way - those who take = those who pay seems like such a simple market concept - yet people here seem to struggle with it.
 

bill cooksey

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2000
Messages
23,341
Reaction score
26,970
Location
Bartlett, Tn., USA
Of course we do - yet we are still reminded on an almost daily basis about the next coming habitat crisis - which (assuming the doomsayers are correct) - spend our habitat money in a wiser fashion, or simply raise more money.

Either way - those who take = those who pay seems like such a simple market concept - yet people here seem to struggle with it.

Again, those who most utilize the resource do pay more through the market. I recall a licensing company meeting with us years ago about price increases. The new COO said they were increasing prices due to decreasing revenue and shrinking sales. While license fees should obviously increase with inflation, raising prices in the face of decreasing customers is as dumb as a licensing company increasing prices due to fewer people buying.

That COO was gone in a year. And with an exploding population, there will always be habitat crises. It's what I now work on every day.
 

bill cooksey

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2000
Messages
23,341
Reaction score
26,970
Location
Bartlett, Tn., USA
And yes, duck hunter numbers are declining per USFWS.
"According to the report, there were 989,500 active waterfowl hunters in the United States last season, down from 1.09 million in 2018-2019. The decline marks the first time since the 2015-2016 season and only the third time in the past 81 years that the number of waterfowl hunters in the United States has dipped below 1 million."
 

Sam Ortmann

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
1,985
Reaction score
4,218
Location
NOLA/Missouri
Of course we do - yet we are still reminded on an almost daily basis about the next coming habitat crisis - which (assuming the doomsayers are correct) - spend our habitat money in a wiser fashion, or simply raise more money.

Either way - those who take = those who pay seems like such a simple market concept - yet people here seem to struggle with it.
But we’re not paying for consumption of the resource, we’re paying for access to the resource. Why completely change the system to make it a more complicated and less efficient process and also might very well make less money doing so?
Also, I would assume that making it harvest based would make the amount of funding far less predictable every year. My guess is the number of duck hunters fluctuates less than the number of ducks killed, which is problematic from a budgetary stand point. And, as I said earlier, why would you send the link to an article saying kill numbers are down and then argue that they should increase funding by charging based on the amount killed? I can’t make those two facts compute in my head.
 

bill cooksey

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2000
Messages
23,341
Reaction score
26,970
Location
Bartlett, Tn., USA
But we’re not paying for consumption of the resource, we’re paying for access to the resource. Why completely change the system to make it a more complicated and less efficient process and also might very well make less money doing so?
Also, I would assume that making it harvest based would make the amount of funding far less predictable every year. My guess is the number of duck hunters fluctuates less than the number of ducks killed, which is problematic from a budgetary stand point. And, as I said earlier, why would you send the link to an article saying kill numbers are down and then argue that they should increase funding by charging based on the amount killed? I can’t make those two facts compute in my head.

Makes as much sense as a hemorrhoid transplant.
 

Latest posts

Top