cyberhunters

[Ynothirekybiologists]

come on boys post your thoughts and ideas on art lander's article: Cost of Nature, wildlife management area examine user fees"
jimmie

[Strutter]

Haven't seen it. How bout you posting it and telling us what you think.

[Xtreme]

I have not seen it as well. I daresay that if it concerns a WMA our much respected GSP will have a very respectable comment about this subject[;)]

[GSP]

Here is the article:

Posted on Sun, Nov. 10, 2002

cost of nature
wildlife management areas examine user fee
By Art Lander Jr.
HERALD-LEADER OUTDOORS WRITER


Each year thousands of people purchase licenses and permits, to fish, hunt or boat on Kentucky's state wildlife management areas (WMAs).

Additionally, hunters pay fees to take part in lottery drawings for quota hunts for white-tailed deer, pheasant or wild turkey.

But thousands of other people use state WMAs at no cost, for activities ranging from wildlife viewing, hiking and horseback riding to dog training, field trials and target shooting.

"Times are changing, money is tight, and demand is increasing for the use of these areas," said Rowland Beers, president of the League of Kentucky Sportsmen, which has about 10,000 members, organized in 140 sportsmen's clubs across the state.

"We don't think it's fair that hunters and fishermen should have to bear the entire cost of the upkeep and maintenance of state wildlife management areas."

Two of Kentucky's largest WMAs, Central Kentucky WMA and West Kentucky WMA, have a combined maintenance cost of more than $300,000 a year.

At the quarterly meeting of the Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Commission on Aug. 23, Beers presented a resolution passed by the league at its annual meeting in June, supporting the creation of a state WMA user permit. Licensed trappers, hunters, fishermen and boaters would be exempt.

"We did this to precipitate a discussion on the subject. We know there are a lot of issues that will have to be resolved," Beers said. "The cost of the permit should be about the same as the cost of a fishing and hunting license, ballpark figure about $20."

User fees already are in effect on two state WMAs. At the 60,000-acre Peabody WMA in Ohio and Muhlenberg counties, regulations state that "any person age 16 and older entering the area for any recreational purpose must obtain and carry a Peabody WMA user permit."

The permits cost $12.50 and are sold by license vendors throughout the state.

The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources owns about 70 WMAs outright, totaling more than 120,000 acres. But it manages fish and wildlife resources through lease agreements on about 1 million acres.

"We know a lot of the use of our WMAs is by people who don't have a fishing, hunting or boating license," said Tom Bennett, commissioner of the department of fish and wildlife resources. "We are considering several options to develop a fair process so that users pay for programs."

Bennett said he will bring the matter before the Task Force on Funding for Wild-life Conservation at the Nov. 22 meeting.

The 5-year-old task force, which includes legislators and representatives of tourism and resource management groups, is trying to develop long-term funding strategies to offset lost revenue from declining license sales.

"That core group (anglers, hunters and boaters) is paying for wildlife management that benefits everyone in Kentucky," Bennett said. "It's only fair to spread the cost."

Jim Owens, the department's financial officer, said funding for WMAs is about $4 million a year, or about half of the wildlife division's operating budget.

But some groups oppose a potential fee to use WMAs for recreational purposes.

"We would be in favor of user fees for individuals, with the exception of field trial events," said Wayne Caudill, a London resident and spokesman for the Kentucky Houndsmen Association. "(A user fee) would be devastating to local clubs because it would cut down on out-of-state participation in field trials, especially events near bordering states."

No fee is paid to the department to run dogs on WMAs in licensed field trials, in which game cannot be taken or harassed.

"Fewer participants would mean fewer tourism dollars for local economies," Caudill said.

Ronnie Wells, the Paintsville recreation director, said he believes horsemen would accept a fee to ride trails on state WMAs, but not to use federal property, such as land managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

"This position is a reasonable one that's been well thought out," said Wells, who rides with the Kentucky Mountain Saddle Club. "Riders are against user fees on federal lands because (the maintenance of trails and facilities) is a federal expense, something we get for paying income taxes."

[Xtreme]

To ride, shoot straight and speak the truth......[;)]

[GSP]

Now that y'all have read it.
I think it was a well written aricle. It fairly showed both sides and when you put it in black and white, how does it not make sense????
Ronnie's points are very valid. If on Federal land, I do not see the need. But on land owned by the Dept (you & me)?????? Let's see, that land is bought, paid and maintained by our dollars and someone worries that out-of-staters will get pi$$ed and not come back if they have to chip in $15 a year to help on the up-keep of over 1 million acres (btw, while they are using it, we can't)???? If that $15-$20 is ever TRUELY a factor, I say, "don't let the door hit you in the a$$".

Just one man's opinion.

[Ynothirekybiologists]

shall we discuss just how much to charge???? the houndsman are concerned it may lower participation...very valid point! i would like to hear comments on a per/dog fee for field trials on WMA's. ballpark $5/dog? would this help alleviate the possibility of loosing participation? all other non-consumptive users of WMA lands (bird watchers, hikers, photographers etc) that have not purchased a KY sporting license shall be required to purchase the WMA User Permit. I think this sounds fair. What regulations does our neighboring states have on the usage of State owned land purchased with P.R. funds have established???

[GSP]

The Resolution calls for:

"This permit should cost no less than the cost of an annual resident Kentucky hunting or fishing license"

[grouseguy]

I'm personally not opposed to a permit fee for "regular" non-hunting users of WMA's, (i.e. hikers, horseback riders, mountain bikers, bird watchers, etc.) However, I've been to numerous field trials in numerous states and know of no other state that requires a license or permit to use public lands when no wild game is taken, and I'd hate to see KY become the first.

I have no doubt that there may be a budget crunch in the KDFWR, but from a review of some of the WMA budgets, the problem is not on the revenue side like the KDFWR would have us believe, but on the expense side. I am not familiar with the particular WMA's cited in the article, but based on the budgets for WMA's that I am familiar with, I would question whether there was actually $300,000 worth of expense associated with thouse WMA's.

[Birdman]

Rick thanks for posting the article, and I agree, he represented both side well.

As I've stated several times concerning WMA's, it's not the amount of money that is spent but the lack of work that is actually done with that money.

Incompetence of some of there technicians is atrocious. Their lack of effort in most cases is just as bad.

As for the users fee on WMA's owned by the department, I'm for it.

[Flintlock54]

I agree that the article was well written and seems to present both sides of the issue. I do however disagree with Birdman on the federal property use issue concerning horseback riding. Cave Run Lake is a Corps of Engineers lake and if I want to launch my boat and park my vehicle I have to pay a three dollar/day recreational pass fee. If I want to camp overnight at the Red River Gorge area (including Indian Creek) the daily fee is required. Horsback riders should not be allowed to skate on this just because they are using federal property.

As for the field trailers issue, a minimal fee ($3) could be imposed on a per dog shown schedule. It would be the responsibility of the hosting party(s) to collect the fee and it would be the hosting party responsibility to inform potential handlers of the fee.

[Ralph]

FINALLY! But I really don't think a user-fee will stop anyone from doing something they want to do. LBL has a user's fee. If I want to hunt LBL--- I pay it.

Ralph

[Wildcat]

I'm not a cyberhunters member but here's my 2 cents.

We need to seriously think of the future, the numbers of hunters is declining at the same time other outdoor sports are on the raise. Somewhere down the road there will be a crash of wills on what happens to all our public lands, look at the National Parks today. It's gotten to the point in Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon where they've closed raods to the public and the only way to get though there is by bus, everywhere we trun around there's more and more people and less and less money for the budget. It's the same way for state lands and ever WMA's. In the past few years I've seen more and more non-hunting people use the public lands where we can hunt than ever before. I say it's time for the others to pay up, other wise it will be the hunters who will see another raise in fees so all those others can enjoy the lands free.


About the $3000,000 budget, I beleive it. In fact I thought it was more. Most of that is in salaries. When it comes to that most people forget it's not just what you see on a paycheck but other things. Say someone makes $500 a week before taxs but that's not all the company pays, it has to match S.S., Medcare, insurance, retirement, paid vacation, etc. That $500 easily cost the company $750 -$1,000. Then you add upkeep like road repair, buldings, trucks, insurance, etc. Heck, I think they are doing a heck of a job keeping the budget for those two WMA's at $300,000.

[Walt K]

If this is a free country, why does it cost so much? Many sides to look at on this. First, I disagree with charging non-consuming users as much as hunters/fishermen, $5 would be reasonible in my opinion for "watchers". But then, in a way, it's going to cost the hunter even more. You as a hunter are already paying out the nose for the privilege. Now in the off season, you want to take wife and kids to the same WMA you hunted and guess what, you're paying another $50 - $100 for a family of four, (depending if the cost is set at hunting license fees or not)
Then there is another concern I have. If everyone pays, and only 10% of the population hunt, then who's going to have the greater say of how that WMA is used in the future. You wouldn't be able to use the argument anymore about hunters pay for conservation and WMA costs.
A note on horseback riders, KDFWR just passed a reg that no riding in WMA's during a firearm deer season, if the horse riders start paying, that would put them up front to contest that for sure.
Personally, I'd say leave it alone. I don't mind paying the bill, if it will insure that we keep what little political clout we have. If the KDFWR finds new folks to pay the bills, we may all be in trouble.

[glenn]

The comments of Walt K may have summed it up for me. The more people that "pay", the larger their voice(s) becomes. We could find ourselves in a situation where we could be "voted" off a particular piece of property.

Not a simple issue to resolve...just have to think creatively!

[Ralph]

Where did we get ANY political clout out of this? We, as sportsmen & hunters don't have any say as to what goes on at the WMA's. None. Nada. Zilch. Remember "KY's Sportsmen pay for Conservation in KY. No general revenue funds are spent." That doesn't get you any clout. That only gets you a license & some tags which keep increasing in cost :( That's why we are so happy to pay. It is supposed to keep the politics OUT of the process. Decisions are made & actions are taken & money is spent for the sole purpose of benefiting the Sportsmen & women of KY--- who pay for Conservation in KY. Isn't that how it is supposed to work. WMA's are NOT General Recreation Areas. They call those --- State parks. They come under the Dept. of Tourism. Wait a minute. I seem to recall that our illustrious Governor also put KDFWR under the Tourism Dept. a few years ago. Could there be a connection here??

Ralph

[Walt K]

Ralph,
If sportsmen don't have ANY clout, then why aren't we wearing orange in non-firearm deer WMA's?
Walt

[Ralph]

You will be. Remember I said that, too.

Ralph

[Ky Headhunter]

From what I have seen at several public areas, non-hunting users apparently already have a "voice".

Clay WMA- no archery season until mid-October, due to some sort of dog or horse thing.

West Ky. WMA- are all those great big bushhogged paths for hunters' benefit, or for horse & dog people?

Higginson-Henry WMA- no camping on one side of the camping area this year, I'm told this was because it was torn to shreds last year by horse trailers & new grass had to be grown? Maybe I heard wrong.

If they're being catered to at some of these places already, might as well try to charge 'em for it. As to having to pay the fee myself in order to hunt, well, it's still a helluva lot cheaper than leasing.