Meeting 10/14/02

[Birdman]

We discussed a permit or license for anyone, using our WMA's, of $15.00. This would include in state and out of state users. Anyone holding a hunting or fishing license will not be required to purchase another license. This is just in the discussion stages so lets discuss it.

The problem with the six district using the Central WMA for federation meetings is over. According to the people repersenting the field trialers, they new nothing about the problem and would be glad to see the federation meet there. John Gassett will be talking with the grounds keeper to get this straightened out.

[Multidigits]

I'm wondering if each WMA could be self-sufficinet and each one be run as a usiness and not be a liability to those that don't use them????

The managaer would be ressponsible for providing a program that was good enough to generate enugh permit sales to make his WMA profitable.
This would completely change the Central WMA problem. The field trialers and horse riders would have to pay their way. The quota hunt would be managed on a local level. Each area could offer a unique menu of activities, as long as it paid the bills?????

[Highbow]

I would hope that this WMA license would apply to any in the state.

[GSP]

I wasn't at the meeting, but the heart and sole of the resolution that brought this to the table, was to get the users of WMAs to pay their part.

[Xtreme]

Folks let me just say this. For the first time in 15 years I was not drawn to bowhunt Ft. Knox. As I understand they have had a record number of hunters apply. If I understand correct 1700 were turned down for the bowhunt alone.

This goes to show that the preservation of our Public Hunting grounds are of the essence. We MUST stand together and we MUST oppose any loss of such grounds. By the same token we must demand accountability of funds going to these areas as well as we must be willing to pay for aquisations and upkeep of these grounds.

When I first started bowhunting Ft. Knox there were 250 civilian bowhunters registered that year and until just a few years ago no one got turned away. Look where it is now.

Folks our WMA's and public hunting ground i.e. Ft. Knox, Ft. Campbell, Bluegrass Army Depot etc. are our future for a lot of people. That is why this organization has fought tooth and nail so far for Auxier Flats.

Today it is Auxier Flats.......Tommorow?

[shogan]

Out of state should pay double of instate call it a WMA fee and apply it to anyone with out a hunting license.

We already know how to take a piece of property and make it profitable. It's called hunting club/ranch. Plenty of places already exist with profitability and are open to anyone who can afford them. I for one feel that tax dollars bought WMA and they should stay public lands. I worry less about the precision managment then the rest of you guys (if you want that go join a club that can run it right and profitable or buy your own land). Or just buy the biggest buck you can find at the stock yards and tie him to a stake. Make a profit (Not what the GVT is suppose to do) and raises every hair on my neck.

[GSP]

Easy there Shogan, <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I for one feel that tax dollars bought WMA and they should stay public lands. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I agree with your thoughts on keeping goverment out of things, but you need to realize that the goverment paid not one red cent for the Dept owned WMAs. The hunters of this state bought these and this is exactly why the resolution was brought before the LKS. These are not PUBLIC owned areas! These area's belong the the hunters! Not PETA, Sierra Club, Heartwood or Wood Pecker Counters of America. The HUNTERS of KY, bought these properties. Not the goverment!
The reason for the resolution was to get the free loaders to chip in on the up-keep of these since they use them more than the hunters do.

[Multidigits]

OK, beens my idea was poopooed, I'll say I'm for a USER's FEE, and I imagine most others are also. But we need to decide if hunters and fisherman pay in addition to the license cost or just the others not buying a license. We need to decide how this applies to the different WMA's that the Dept. owns and or just manages.

My opinion is that the USER FEE apply to EVERYBODY, even those already having a license. This way, it can be used on ANY AND ALL WMAs in the same manner, even those not owned by the Dept. The price paid should be below $20 for now.

[Valley Station]

Xtreme,
Sorry to hear about your "bad luck" at Ft.Knox, that makes you the "designated camera man" this season.
"Dang it , that's worse than hangin' your gonads on a durn screw-in step".
There were several not drawn this season.

[Birdman]

Multi what we discussed at the meeting and everyone agreed to with the exception of the coon hunters, was as I stated above. Please don't make this more complicated than need be.

[Multidigits]

If you've already decided what you want, why do you want to discuss it???

[shogan]

Multi I don't set out to poopooe your ideas it just comes naturally to me I guess. I admire your efforts.

I thought the purchasing of hunting license/tax was already suppose to go to support WMA.

WHY ARE COON HUNTERS ANY DIFFERENT THEN ANY OTHER USE OF THE LAND!

[Birdman]

Multi I hate to say this but your RIGHT. The area of your statement I was referring to was if hunters should also pay for the license. I think as did the other people that was involved that the hunter has and does pay their way now. AND I REALLY HATED TO SAY YOU WERE CORRECT. But you were.

[Xtreme]

Wouldn't multi be a good cross examiner?[:o)]

[Birdman]

That's why I nominated him. And look at us now. Good job big guy.

[Multidigits]

Let me 'plain it again. Everybody pays now, that buys a license. Some don't use WMAs and some do. In my opinion, a USER FEE should be just that. Let the USER's finance the bulk of the operation, if not all of it. YES, even those with a license should buy the permit. That makes it less of a burden on those that don't use WMAs.

Now, I don't think field trialers and out-of-state one or two night or day users should pay. Their fee should be paid by the event organizer in the form of a event fee. For example, a PCA Coon Hunt, where no game is taken, would not require a USER FEE on the out-of-state user. But the PCA or local club making money on the event would have to pay a fee based on entries recieved.

Bird watchers and horse back riders would have to pay.

[Birdman]

Multi not a bad suggestion but those bird watchers and horse back riders pay for WMA's not owned by FWL and most of them hunt also. I don't agree that hunters should pay the fee on top of their hunting license.

[shogan]

I think they (out of staters) should pay and good. Because as it has been boldly stated no state or federal tax money goes in to this (I sure want to see some proof of that). So that explains the high license fee I've been paying now for 20 years. Why should they come in and with a 2 dollar per head fee or whatever and use it during peak hunting season. Nope they should pay good. And if the ground require special preparation for their little trisk then they should be billed for addtional actual cost and clean up. And if they use it during normal hunting season they should pay exhorbanat. I don't care if it's paid in one lump some by organization but seems our rules are every man woman and child that steps foot on it. Not just particpants.

If I'm following everyone right I'm already buying my WMA pass with my license (and since no gvt money is on the table then it has already been paid for ehy) why are we trying to double dip. ((Are you saying hunting license fee's will drop dramaticaly HUM!!!!!!! Again I'm a skeptic of such fee's dropping))). I don't require all the maintence the rest of you do why should I pay 15 more dollars cause you want tons of managment. Sounds like you bird hunters have a lot of requirements when it comes to land maintence.

Maybe you need to have different passes a deer shooter pass comes with hunting license and you fellows after more labor intensive game well you fellows fork up the money to have your dove, quail, ducks, and etc grooming. Call it a game pass.

Sorry if If the reigns need to be pulled back on me. My brain doesn't seem to work right I guess. Or maybe I'm just not educated enough. I'm sure trying to understand it all and see truth from misconception.

[GSP]

Let's start this over.
The question on the table that Birdman is asking about comes from a Resolution that was passed by The League of KY Sportsmen this past June. It has been submitted to the Dept.
The Resolution is:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Resolution


Whereas: The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife receives no monies from the state general fund and funding is primarily generated through the purchase of hunting
and fishing licenses and boat registrations.

Whereas: Wildlife management areas of Kentucky are properties that have been purchased, leased or donated to the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Whereas: The sale of Kentucky hunting and fishing licenses have been declining.

Whereas: The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife receives no usage monies for Kentucky’s Wildlife management areas from non-licensed users.

Whereas: Due to diminishing areas, in which licensed sportsmen have to hunt, fish, mentor youth and engage in outdoor sports.


Therefore let it be resolved that the Blue Grass Sportsmen’s League request that the League of Kentucky Sportsmen at their annual convention in June 2002, call upon the Department of Fish and Wildlife and hereby request that the Department initiate an annual usage permit (fee) for users of WMAs that do not hold either a valid Kentucky hunting or fishing license. This permit should cost no less than the cost of an annual resident Kentucky hunting or fishing license. This annual permit should be required by all non-licensed users of Kentucky’s WMAs even if the event they are participating in does not require a valid Kentucky hunting or fishing license. This user permit should also be required for non-licensed participants of events that are leased by outside entities.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The intent of this Resolution is to make the user's of WMA's pay to use them. It is not asking the hunters and fishermen to pay more.

It was written due to the fact that WMA's are being ran over by horseback riders, bird watchers, special interest groups tieing up WMA's, etc. If these groups are licensed sportsmen, that's great, if not, pay up!

If y'all want to add more to this, I would suggest writing a Resolution such as this and run it through the LKS. If you can't convience them, you are going to have a hard time convinviencing the Dept. For what it is worth, a passed Resolution by the LKS, speaks for 35,000 sportsmen in this state.
I'll be glad to help write a Resolution, I wrote this one, so I guess you can put me down as being for it![:D]

[Multidigits]

Questions: 1. What's the present status of the resolution?

2. How much money will be generated by this resolution?? Will this money be put back into the WMA system?

3. Will this open the door for additional user groups and will it allow those user groups to have a voice in the operation of the WMAs???

[GSP]

Questions:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1. What's the present status of the resolution?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> It has been presented to to Dept and assigned to a committee.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2. How much money will be generated by this resolution?? Will this money be put back into the WMA system?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This is an unknown due to sign in is no longer required at WMA's. Probably an accurate count has never been known. The local WMA to me had use of less than 500 license required hunters in 2000 and had an operating expense of over $125,000 of the hunters $$$$. (Not a good pay back in my book. So you get a good picture, over $.50 of every deer tag sold went to this property)
Bottom line is the bottom line. Every speach Tom gives now shows that we will be hurting for $ soon. We have major money tied up in the care of WMAs and the sportsmen are getting the short end of the deal in many cases.

As for the money pool, the Dept will have to decide the use.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">3. Will this open the door for additional user groups and will it allow those user groups to have a voice in the operation of the WMAs???<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This door was ripped off the hinges 2 years ago! There is no tracking and I agree that the system they had in place failed to capture the activity on the WMA's. The non-required license holders already have input on the the way WMA's are being ran.
If anything this resolution will address some of the issues of the "user groups" as it has with the horse riders in deer season.

Another concern to address on this topic is the "right" to a Commission vote. This still requires a license or boat reg.

An analogy I have used before, I come to your house once a year for supper. That probably ain't a big deal. I start showing up for supper 3-4 times a week, you would probably want me to start buying some groceries. I show up with a sack of food and 50 friends, it still don't give me the right to tell you what to cook in YOUR house.

[Ralph]

The Resolution, as written , appears OK to me. It is not an assessment on those who have already paid; that is the hunters & fishermen. Soon I will be able to hunt OH cheaper than I can KY. Go figure that one out!

[shogan]

OK

See now I agree. ((Though I stil think out of staters should pay more). And people requiring special hunting/land managament.

I know deer or squirrel hunting does not cost $125000 dollars a year to manage. My goodness I don't know what kind of hunting on a single piece of property does. I think someone is getting paid real well to cut some grass and plow up a few strips of dirt, and throw down sunflower seed. I smell pork and me with no place to hunt pigs. Sounds like we also need to look at where our money is going. Though no doubt we should also require those users not currently contributing to belly up to the counter and put down their cash.

Now if we need an extra fund for those people who use them ok 1 tag for the whole state. But that is only after we look at where the current money is going and try to cut cost. I can tell you now that I know the boats go to this fund over 200 bucks a year goes from my house to this fund (not including my wifes licenses) They speak of shrinking license fee's well I must turn and cough because there are PWC everywhere and boating has surged not declined. Hunting is only down because it's hard to find a place to hunt. But go try to rent a slip at any dock. I think I'm paying a goodly amount. Further, I believe money should currently be going to buy more land. And less needs to be spent on grooming the land we already have. More places to hunt openly more hunters more revenue. How about buying some cut over timber land for 500 bucks and acre and doing nothing with it but letting it sit. Just cut back on some of that 125000 grooming were doing on existing land.

But wait this brought new light to the table I register 3 boats shouldn't I also get a pass on WMA area without having to buy hunting/fishing license or special permit. Who said it wasn't a tax. The tenticles of this whole thing just grew a bit further. I'm not complaining I'm actually happy to know where my boat taxes have been going. I guess the rationale is the Fish and Game guys patrol the water ways and thus the boat tax goes to the KDFWR.

You all I'm trying very hard to learn here and be constructive hopefully my comments are taken in such light.

[Big58cal]

Well, I guess I might as well throw in my 2 cents worth on this.....

The resolution as written is OK for a start. Let's see if that gets implemented first before anything else is done. As they say, you have to start somewhere.

Next, and this is just my opinion on it, I think that a user fee for ANY user should be implemented, this includes anyone who is chosen for a quota hunt also (the only people that should be exempted from it are college students doing research or school projects, since after all, these people are our future). I know that this is going to tick some people off, but here is the reasoning. Everyone who purchases a hunting or fishing license in the state pays in part for the WMA. Even though they may not use a WMA, they still pay. This money can be used to purchase additional areas in the future, or to make up any deficit from user fees (more on that later). I personally, don't use WMAs, but I don't have a problem with some of my money going toward this. The reason for this is that some day my SON or GRANDSON may use a WMA (by force or choice, it doesn't matter). I want to make sure that they are around for future generations to use.

On the subject of user fees, I am lucky enough to have private land to hunt. Others aren't. Be that as it may, ANYONE who uses a WMA should pay. When anyone buys a license, whether they use the WMA or not, they are paying. When they do purchase their license, they are not thinking about paying for the use of the WMA, they are thinking about going hunting, just as everyone else is. If it just so happens that they plan on using a WMA, then an additional user permit should be assigned.

Turkey hunters buy turkey tags. Deer hunters buy deer tags. Waterfowl and migratory hunters........ You get the picture. Small game hunters only have to purchase a license to utilize ANY area in the state, whether it be public or private. Also, whoever made the comment about the bird hunters wanting a user fee to further their own agenda, I take offense to! I don't bird hunt (nothing!! except for the occasional crow that ticks me off), and don't have any plans in the near future to start. Does "divide and conquor" mean anything to anyone? Users of certain resources pay an ADDITIONAL fee, whether it be public or private land. Let the users of those public lands help support them with an additional fee. That's my argument for hunters/fishermen paying an additional fee.

As far as other users, that's kind of a "no-brainer"!!! dOOO u UnDer'tannnd Wot i'm 'Taying??????? Sorry, couldn't help myself! No matter who they are (with the previous mentioned exception), they should have to pay a user fee. Call it a "ticket" for getting to enjoy something. BTW, I like the idea someone had about an event organizer paying one fee for the users of that event. GOOD ONE! I LIKE IT!!!!!

Hey Muti, have you got a headache yet from someone?? Lord knows I have!

[GSP]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Big.58.....Let's see if that gets implemented first before anything else is done. As they say, you have to start somewhere.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I agree 100%!
Crawl and then walk.

[taggedout]

Lets see, the groups that use the WMAs and don't participate financially at this time will have to pay this fee. This may run off some of those groups, which will leave more undesturbed and open lands for the sportsman who already pay in the way of hntn and fishing licenses.
Bottom line more for KDFW, more for KY Sportsman, whats the beef?
Lets support it!

Grummybear

[Multidigits]

Well if your chargeing a fee for a horse rider to ride, then he's entitled to ride when he wants, where he wants, same as you could hunt when and where you desire???

The same with bird watchers.They may want to bird watch on Mon, Wed.
and Thur. and you can't hunt on those days because it might scare the birds.

[Ralph]

I don't like where this is going. I thought we were talking about WMA's which stands for Wildlife Management Area, Not Horse Management Area or Bird Management Area. Some [people seem to lose track of that thought. I was always under the impression that the WMA's were purchased for those people in the Commonwealth that used the area to hunt or fish. This use ALWAYS required the user to purchase either a hunting &/or fishing license. Any person entering a WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA SHOULD HAVE TO PURCHASE EITHER A HUNTING &/OR FISHING LICENSE. We aren't talking about LBL here, which is run by the FEDERAL government. Their thought train is different. They have plenty of money & can afford to have non-paying users.

[Multidigits]

Let's get this back on top where it belongs. I think that the Cyberhunter's need to take a stance on this??? So far, there's not been any motions accepted to support the resolution one way or the other. I think that's good, cause I believe it needs more discussion.

The more I think about it, I like Ralph's idea.[:0] Wouldn't it cause less of an overall problem if the resolution just required all users entering a Dept. owned WMA to have a hunting or fishing lisense in his possession? I'd support that, except for short term events, such as 'coon hunts and field trials. For those, the event organizer would have to have a permit to cover any that might be out-of-state. This permit would have a fee, that would ultimately be passed on to the participant.

[KYhunter]

I'm NOT for the exclusion of short-term events. They need to pay-up like everyone else.

[Multidigits]

It's not reseanable to expect anyone to pay the price of an out-of-state license for a one or two day event. I've been to plenty of big coon hunts in other states and never been required to buy a license.

[KYhunter]

Most anybody has a brother-in-law or relative that breezes in during the holidays and they are expected to buy a tag for just a Thanksgiving afternoon. I'm afraid we might have to agree to disagree with this one.

[Multidigits]

anybody hunting would have to buy a license and tag.

Coon hunts and field trials where no game is taken should be a seperate matter. I can grauantee you TomBennet will oppose this without that exemption. Tourist dollars would be lost.

[KYhunter]

Are we talking about the KDFWR or the Dept of Tourism. When did the Dept of Tourism ever do anything for wildlife? If you are talking a USER fee, then I believe(my opinion) that those that USE it should pay. I, for one, am not much on private groups getting first dibs on a WMA. What about that birdwatchers group that hikes around Kleber every year? Surely they wouldn't be exempt too.

[Duster]

I have a couple questions maybe one of you can address. I am not that familiar with the workings of Kentucky Wildlife areas that well other than peabody.

Question #1. If this proposed fee goes into effect, who will enforce the law that requires those that need permits ? Seems like the conservation officers are about at thier limit with work now.

Question #2. Does each wildlife area have a resident manager who would oversee users of thier area ?

I spent over 30 years in Indiana an they have several what is known as Fish & Wildlife areas. The only one I know of that charges a fee was Kingbury an that fee was only for use of the target range which was run by a private enterprise. The state had a range in place but it was dertermined to be unsafe, so this private party got permission from the state to build a state of the art facility.

There was NO horse back rideing allowed on these areas, only on state recreation areas was that allowed an those area's required a fee from every user no matter what.

Thanks for your time..

[GSP]

Duster, As for enforcement? It would be under he CO's area. This is part of the reasoning behind this. You have groups in a concentrated area, easy to check. Also, money will be generated, hopefully some will fall to the law enforcement side. These folks are shorthanded, overworked and underpaid in my book. The state is short 18 CO's at the last count and OT is forbidden!
As for going to other states not charging in field trials, go to Missouri and run some bird dogs, you will pay to run on a WMA! Go to Georgia and you will pay just to step on.
One person mentioned Kleber WMA, a big arguement I had was one person stating that there was a large group (mostly out of staters) that used this WMA every year as a one weekend get together and he thought this was unfair. Someone riddle me this, you are planning on driving 300-400 miles for a week-end and then realize that $15 would stop you???

[KYhunter]

Sitting in a tree gets a fella to thinkin. The more I though about Multi's statement(which I believe to be true) that T. Bennett would never do for it cuz the Dept of Tourism would oppose it. The more I thought, the more I believe Multi to be right about that statement. Is the Dept of Tourism on Game Farm Road? Or has Mr. Bennett's office moved? The KDFRW needs to realize for whom they work. I shutter at the very thought of the Dept having to get ANYTHING OK'd by the Dept of Tourism. They have done NOTHING, NADO, ZIP, ZERO for the Dept and us sportsmen and women. Anything the Dept of Tourism is for THEIR benefit- not OURS!

[Multidigits]

Roy Grimes all but runs the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Tom Bennett's position is strictly political. He'll only keep as long as he's cooperative to the present governors wishes.

I'm all for making the user of these areas pay their fair share, but I'll bet a bundle that this user fee will have so much added baggage to it that we'll be sorry that it ever came about.

Going hunting...be back after dark

[Birdman]

This will be discussed at the next committee meeting in Nov. or the spring meeting. At that time we'll need to get after this hard, untill then, it will make for discussion.

[Xtreme]

I've already read a few editorials regardeing our virile and repentent governor. Nearly all say that he should have been focused on the budget, the economy and tourism. [I thought well duh?] Also they say that the Democratic party as well as the tourism industry will suffer from this.

Folks, there are some awfull big dawgs pushing tourism of late. I've heard the word tourism mentioned more here in the last year than I can remember my whole life. Christ, you would think Kentucky is the next thing to the Bahamas or the Virgin Islands.

We need to keep both eyes open and several ears to the ground or the Auxier Flats deal will look like small potatoes.

[Birdman]

Boys there's two other projects going on like Auxier Flats, one on Green River and the other I can't remember but Ann Latia made that statment at the meeting friday. So look out.

[Ralph]

Guys, I thought that F&W WAS under the Tourism Cabinet now. Not trying to be funney here. Aren't they under Tourism Cabinet now? Isn't that what Ann Laita runs? Also, there is room for compromise on the two-day event with out-of-state participation, but there has to be some sort of charge as the WMA has to be managed for the event year 'round, not just the day before.

[Xtreme]

Folks, in our short life span as an organization I can tell you that the bulk of responsibility as far as responding to the letters I have sent to Patton have been "reffered" to Ann L.

Who, by the way has yet to contact me[xx(] Multi, I know you have been a bug in their butt as well, anything to add?

Tourist $$$$$$$.....these will be the times that try men's souls.[:(]