WMA Fees?

[Xtreme]

I know this has been discussed in other circles and I know it is a subject that the Dept. wrestles with but would the hunting public be willing to pay a fee to hunt on WMA's? The reason I bring this up is that more and more I hear discussions on WMA's I myself know several folks who utilize them quite a bit.

This is a two bladed sword as Commisioner Bennett stated at the last LOK convention that the good news was we aquired X amount of new acreage for WMA's and the bad news is we aquired X amount of new acreage. The good news is we got it and the bad news is it takes money to maintain it. I have no doubt of this at all.

I went to a bow shoot today and I asked several folks would they be willing to pay extra for a quality place to hunt regarding public ground? Everyone to the man said yes as long as it was put right back into the WMA's and distributed fairly throughout the state.

Finding a quality place to use our tags and licensces is becomming more of an issue every year. Not everyone has 4 or 5 hundred dollars to get in on a lease.

Lets hear some opinions and ideas.

[Darton73]

Hey Rick,

I personally like the idea, BUT it should be ALL users of the WMA and not just hunters. If you fish on it, hike, birdwatch, whatever, you should have to have the permit. It's time some of the "non-consumptive" users start footing part of the bill for what they use.



Brian Grossman
Darton73@alltel.net

[GSP]

Thank you Darton!!!!!!!

I think Xtreme pulled this one out so he could see how fast I would climb on the soapbox.
In my own opinion, better yet! I authored a resolution passed at this years LKS convention that read, all users of WMS's that do not have a valid hunting or fishing liscense, must purchase a user permit that shall not cost less than an annual hunting or fishing liscense.
Bottom line is we are paying for others to have "Parks". Go to Central WMA. 90% of the activities that occur on this 1700 acres do NOT require a hunting liscense. Go to Clay farm and watch trailor load after trailor load of horse back riders and campers pour in each weekend. Those require no fee or hunting liscense.
I don't mind paying a WMA fee if needed. BUT, I think the people freeloading on WMAs should pay first.

[Flintlock54]

I agree with Darton and GSP on this one.

[Highbow]

I agree completely, if you hunt or fish you must pay the price so why shouldn't anyone else??

[Xtreme]

This will probably be the first organization in the history of this state that has a full agenda of issues to address before it is ever officially formed.

Birdman and GSP where is Grouseguy? We need his expertise. Is he still on vacation?

Now, what would be a fair price for the person who already has a license?

How will you regulate the non-hunters from the hunters. I know if Joe Blow is setting in his treestand and along comes a horse and rider there is going to be some unhappy campers.

I think I'm right in foreseeing WMA's being a VERY important topic in the near future. There are a lot of things being made every day but real estate is not one of them.

[MULESKINNER]

Are WMAs purchased/leased solely with funds generated from tags and license sales?
Can we as the license buying hunters of Kentucky claim sole responsibility for the procurement and maintenance of these areas for public use?
I still have no opinion on charging non hunters for access, but I can already tell that this is going to be a touchy subject.

I can say that if required, I would gladly pay for use of WMAs if I thought that the money was going back into it.

Doesnt Peabody still have a fee. Is the fee just for hunting only or is it for ANY use? It's been 3 years since I have been there.

L A T E R . . .

[grouseguy]

I guess I may be a little territorial about this, but my opinion is that these areas were purchased/leased (and are supposed to be managed) with hunter dollars (license & taxes) to be used as WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS, not multiple use public recreation areas. Therefore, I would be more in favor of limiting the use of these areas to their intended purpose and excluding horse back riding, atv's, bird watching, etc.

Remember, if we start charging some type of useage fee, then these OTHER users will also have input into the management of the WMA's. Personally, I feel we should "dance with the one that brung us" and focus on the hunters.

That said, I would be willing to purchase a user permit IF AND ONLY IF the Dept would guarantee that 100% of the funds would be equitably redistributed directly back to the WMA's for maintenance, procurment, and habitat improvment.

[Marvin Campbell]

I feel that we should not have to pay to hunt on WMA's, we are already paying in several different ways for this right.

Part of the money we already pay is due every April 15, and the other money is paid with every license and tag we buy, which continue to increase every year.

I hunt public land only as well as many other people across the state, and am not interested in leasing hunting property or paying to use public land.

[Strutter]

I agree with you guys on this one. I would pay the fee. A guy I work with hunts Central WMA a lot and he was telling me how grown up it is. He stopped awhile back and asked the overseer if they needed any part time FREE help and he would be glad to run their bushhog for them. He was told no. Today he told me that the F&W had made a deal with the city to come out and mow the place cause they were low on funds and couldn't pay to have it mowed. This is secondhand info but I don't think this guy would make this up. Was told by another guy that they wish all the deer would leave Central cause all they really want it for is rabbits and quail and shooting events. I know they used to put out some crops for dove but I haven't seen any in a couple years. Something definately needs to be done.

[Darton73]

Marvin,

Nothing you pay on April 15 pays for WMA's, unless that's when you buy your hunting and fishing license. The KDFWR receives no funding from state taxes. It is strictly funded by license sales and taxes on hunting and fishing related equipment.

Peabody's fee is a "user permit" which I would assume would be anyone using the property for any purpose.

Strutter, Central WMA is in the process of being completely mowed, and it is being done by Dept. personnel. They also have a pretty nice plot of sunflowers from what I seen and I'm pretty sure they have had a dove field every year.

Grouseguy, I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not sure how you would limit people from bird watching, blackberry picking, hiking, etc.



Brian Grossman
Darton73@alltel.net

[Birdman]

Boys I'll get back a little later I finally figured out how to use this da-m site. And when I do I'll give you some figures, that I think will knock your hat in the creek.

[Multidigits]

LBl has a user fee. The Dept. charges a fee for Peabody(don't know where this money goes to?), and in my opinion--"nothin' in life is free". I know from my prospective, I litterly spend several thousand dollars a year on my hunting property, counting a lease and the farm I own. Those that don't own land and expect to use the WMA's should be happy to pay a small fee ($10) or so. Other states charge similar fees for their public hunting areas. I also see no reason why horse, mule or ATV riders shouldn't have to pay. Maybe even bird watchers???

[Marvin Campbell]

The public land that I generally hunt on is purchased, owned/and operated by the USFS.

I do hunt on several WMA occasionally, and it is my understanding that some, if not quite a bit of this property is owned by the USFS also. The KDFWR owns and/or leases some of the WMA property's, but manages all of them.

If I am wrong about the actual ownership of the property, then federal tax money does not play a role in the WMA's, if not then I stand by my first statement that we pay for it with taxes.

[Multidigits]

In that respect, Marvin is right. I would guess he's talking the Daniel Boone National Forest, and soon could be talking about one of the newly approved National Wildlife Refuges that are being aquired. I too believe that NO FEE be imposed on any nationally owned property, with the exception of those lands that are actually hands on managed by the Dept. ( T'ville WMA, Green River WMA, ???). Any property that the Dept. spends money on should have a fee attached for the user.

[Duster]

Peabody... user permit needed to bird watch, hike, fish, tresspass in any way.

LBL is it not federal land ? User permit needed there even tho owned by the federal goverment ?

Indiana has several WMA's called Fish & Wildlife areas there. No fee to anyone for use of the property for hunting or fishing. Camping was a minimum fee per night.

I for one wouldn't want to pay to hunt where there is unlimited access , the overcrowding problem can be a big headache. If an area was limited to x amount of hunters per day or week where the overcrowding wouldn't be a problem I might rethink my stand.

[Multidigits]

LBL is not owned by the Federal govn. I don't believe. It is owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority, which is some sort of agency but it's not Federal.

[Duster]

Well sorry to inform you but TVA is a goverment agency. When I worked for them my paycheck was exactly like your tax return check, issued by the United States Goverment. When there used to be guards at the gates on entrance they were goverment employees.

[Darton73]

Didn't TVA turn LBL over to the National Forest Service? I know they manage it, but I'm not sure of ownership. You are correct, Marvin. I was not thinking in terms of federally owned property. I think the LBL fee is just for hunting. I don't think you have to pay to hike, mountain bike, etc. You do pay a fee to ride ATV's in the ORV area.

As for the $20 Peabody fee, I would imagine it goes towards paying the leased property?

As for the overcrowding issue, maybe a small fee would ease this somewhat. If not, then the revenue would be fairly substancial, I would think.



Brian Grossman
Darton73@alltel.net

[Birdman]

Gentleman this WMA issue is not a tuff call if you knew all the facts. I'll try to explain, to the best of my ability. Lets start with WMA's owned by us or the dept. We can do anything we want with these properties, why because we own them.

Take Central WMA about 1,700 acres that was bought with money generated by hunters and fisherman. Anyone with out a hunting or fishing licenses should not be allowed on this property, cut and dryed. We put about $150,00.00 a year into that one WMA, so that people from other states can run field trials on our money or trap shooters can come and shoot without a licenses, this happens because we let it happen, you and I. We cann't blame anyone else, it's our fault, and it's up to us to correct this problem.,(LOKS&Cyber Hunters).

If you don't know what WMA's belong to us, check our web site under public hunting lands, this list every WMA in this state and who owns it.

Now lets look at WMA's owned by the Corp. This property was bought with federal tax dollars,(everyone that works) all of us owns this property. Whether you ride horses, watch birds look for crawdads, hunt game animals or just go out and sit down. This property was bought for one thing FLOOD CONTROL nothing else.

Our fish and wildlife department leases this property for hunters to hunt and fish on , at no cost (for the lease) to the dept. or use. We, or the dept. signed a lease with the Crop to maintain this property for wildlife with a varity of habitat and food sources that was in that area prior to condemnation. The dept. can perform any act on this property in the name of habitat improvement they wish. The only restrictions are they cann't cause erosion or pollution to our waters. This means they can clear cut (to regenerate our forest), commercial log, create alternative food sources(food plots), as long as any money made from these activities, remain on the WMA in which it was created. And that's the long and short of it. If any of you have any doubt, I have one of those leases, and would be glad to share it with you.

Now lets look at WMA's owned by the Ky Forest Service. These are properties in between the first two. But property bought for the mangment of timber, that our dept. leased for hunting Again this proterty can and should be managed for wildlife.

Now the Daniel Boone National Forest. Owned by everyone but bought for property and timber managment. We sat on our ass and let 65 people close roughly 600,000 acres. And if we don't step forward on this issue we may not get it back. The forest service is working on their long term managment plan as you read this. They hope to finish by Sept. or Oct. I'm waiting on a call for their next meeting. I hope to see the Cyber Hunters and members of the LOKS there in force (I'll post the date as soon as possible).

When you get right down to it we cann't and proably shouldn't try to stop, bird watchers, horse riding, etc on any of this property other than the first situation we discussed (property we own), we should work with these people and co-exist with them. As far as paying for a permit there's no use to, the lack of proper spending or waste is our financial problems, when we spend $40,000.00 for 4 acres of dove fields, not counting the equipment, another $60.000.00, there's something wrong, something bad wrong, and it's up to the hunters in Ky. to fix it. So lets get off our ass an do it.

If I sound pissed off I am we've got the best hunting area you can find and we're doing nothing with it. THANKS












Edited by - Birdman on 08/12/2002 7:42:08 PM

[Xtreme]

I pretty much agree with everything you said birdman other than the fact that I see nothing wrong with paying to make the WMA's that the hunters and fishermen own better and aquire more. If there is a huge amount of waste we need to demand that it is held in check.

As for the co-exist of National Forest property I whole-heartedly agree. We need to live together.

[Birdman]

Give me the names of the WMA's in your area and I'll get you some numbers and you tell me.

[Multidigits]

Ronnie--Do you have any ideal how that $150,000 breaks down. What in particular did they spend the money on. I would think that with the State trap shoot and some of the other events held there that they would make money on that installation????

[Xtreme]

Ronnie the only WMA I have been on is Yellowbanks. I've been on Lapland when it was a WMA.

[Marvin Campbell]

Extreme,

Why are you so interested in having all hunters spend additional money to use lands which we already foot the majority of the bill for?

I feel that the funds to better manage these properties is there, it just needs to be done. One of the WMA's that I have hunted on is Mill Creek, in Jackson County, this WMA was previously planted in some food plots but hasn't in several years. True the overgrown fields are better wildlife habitat than just upland forest, but maintained food plots would be better. The rumour that was reported about why these food plots were not maintained is that the KDFWR did not file the correct forms to allow planting?

[Multidigits]

Marvin, what most of us are trying to say here is that "if" money is the issue on the Dept. taking in more public hunting properties, that most of us wouldn't mind paying a small user fee for the right to use those areas, assuming that those fees get put back into the WMAs themselves and not other projects. Now we're debating the issues associated with those fees, such as should the WMA be open for berry pickers and horse riders and can they do that without paying the fee.

As far as not seeing any food plots on the WMA you mentioned, I can guess that the Dept. has decided that they won't plant food plots for deer and turkeys because they believe the habitat as is will maintain 25 deer per square mile without food plots. Or they may have planted natural grasses instead. Within the last 3 years they changed their policies on funding small food plots through the HIP program. To get funding, it has to be natural grasses now, except for the dove fields that they pay for, but thats another issue.

[Marvin Campbell]

What I am trying to say here is that the common hunter doesn't feel that they should have to spend any more money than we already do for KDFWR projects. At least not untill we see some more factual break down on current expendatures.

CyberHunters please note that as you are forming a new group to represent Kentucky's hunters to the KDFWR, you will need to get input from common hunters. My question is how will you do this, as I previously stated the people that log onto this site are not the common hunters, but are a cut above. In other words what you feel is okay for additionaly money etc. the common hunter may not wish to be represented in that manner.

[MrBowhunter]

I don't use them and prefer not to pay for them. If there is something you can buy seperate from your license that would be fine but don't add anything more to the license fees for eveyone.

[Birdman]

Multi go to members only for now I'll explan later on here.

[Multidigits]

Marvin, tey to look at it froma different prespective. Say you've never used a WMA, and don't ever plan to use a WMA--why should your license and tag prices go up to pay for something you don't use.

User fees are the fairest taxes we have to pay. Let those that elect to forgo the high cost of land ownership pay for the cost of maintaining and adding to the list of WMA available for those hunters.

[.300Savage]

Not to get too far off, but I noticed a same sort of fee when I was in San Diego, CA. The fee was for usage of public lakes in So. Cal. They ranged from $5-$8 per day. Now this was in addition I paid for a fishing lisence ($29+$6 for second pole stamp). It about killed my wallet going fishing 4-5 times a week, but it is well worth it, being that Southern California has by far the best Largemouth Bass fishery in the nation. I am all for paying for WMA usage if it will help improve the fish and game aspect of it, not just to try to make the park look "pretty".

Rocco

[Marvin Campbell]

Multi,

I understand what you are saying and do not totaly disagree...

But where is the idea that we need to provide extra money for WMA's coming from? Show me some actual numbers of money spent and money available, in addition to fees collected for quota hunts and extra permits for these hunts, then we can talk.

Sounds to me like Birdman has been doing some research and has some information supporting my take on this issue.

As far as I can tell the issue is management of management areas.

[Birdman]

MARVIN HAVE YOU JOINED THIS GROUP? IF NOT I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE YOU IN.

[Marvin Campbell]

Birdman,

I have not joined yet can someone e-mail me some information please concerning agenda and goals.

marvincampbell1964@hotmail.com

[KYhunter]

Against WMA fees.

[ky_great_white_bowhunter]

I am all about paying fees in order to use public lands, but I will have to agree with what several of you are saying and that is everyone that is using the land should have to pay as well. I have hunted several areas over the state, and have yet to see a place that a couple of extra dollars won't help out. Thanks for the time.

Great White Bowhunter <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

[Fortress]

Looks like you are falling right into the trap. When a new WMA is estblished the Department signs a lease as the habitate improvements they plan and promise. They have not lived up to their part of the bargain, in the mountains anyway. The money is there, it just needs to be spent properly. Do you know what the various budgets are for the WMA's accross the state? I will encourage you and others to review those. Are that you need to do is write and ask for a copy of the budget for all WMA. It should be a public record.

[Hunter]

i dont see nothing wrong with charging a small fee for the use of <b>( and i mean any use of a WMA)</b>, He** i have to pay a $30.00 a year just to able to launch my boat and park my truck at the lake, and the dept, dosnet get any of that money but yet it is there job to take care of the fish in it, but i would to see that money put to use, on the WMA's also.

just my .02

[MULESKINNER]

Ronnie,
How bout' T-ville WMA.
Got anything?
L A T E R . . .