Hunt Chat  

Go Back   Hunt Chat > All Things HC > Almost Anything Goes

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #14  
Old 02-08-2007, 03:37 PM
drummer drummer is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 420
economics 100

More people+Fewer hunters+Less land+ rising fuel and mainetenence costs = ?

Using the illegal kill argument cuts both way. If there were fewer poachers, your license costs wouldn't be so high. People are responsible for their actions and passing the blame onto somebody else doesn't get it done. Hopefully the fine is much more expensive than the license though. In time we will have to do a more thorough job of weeding out the dead beets.

It costs about $70 to fill up your truck and 4 wheeler, but the license breaks you? Unfortunately the entitlement attitude of the hunting communtiy is similar to that of the inner city.

Look, with overpopulation and urban development, the pie is getting smaller. In order to preserve hunting for future generations, we are all going to have to work a little harder and make more sacrifices, be it license increases, or volunteering time and money to conservation groups.

Right now in my state, we are working on a "place to hunt program" (that is, those of us who want to give back to the sport and the wildlife; probably the minority.)

It offers tax breaks to landowners who allow walk in hunting, and smaller tax breaks to those that agree not to develop their land.Unfortunately, the program will probably fall apart because some "hunter" will disrespect the land in some way. Our COs are stretched out thinner than piss on a hot rock.In order to try to prevent that, we are going to need more conservation officers. How is that going to be feasible? A license increase. Guess who's going to complain? If more money becomes earmarked for land acquisistion, I will support a license increase.

Somebody has to pay for this. To my knowledge, only Arkansas and Missouri receive a portion of the state sales tax. Most wildilfe agencies do not want other sources of revenue; be it taxes or nonhunting WMA access permits, becuase when somebody pays $$$, they want a say in policy making. In this way the hunters have a better degree of control.And despite large urban areas, Michigan is a hunting state.

Also, you will recieve 3 dollars from the feds for every one dollar Michigan generates thanks to the Pittman Robertson act.That money goes straight to wildlife management and education.

Think about it.

Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.