South Dakota antlerless deer program

[P Joe]

If there were no hunters to sell licenses to, there would be no need for GF&P. The states would be more than happy to have us eliminate anything that causes problems so they wouldn't have to pay to do it. There would be no need for a game department at all and that alone would be a substantial savings to the taxpayers.

Isn't GF&P funded entirely by the revenue it generates??!

 

[publichunter]

GF&P Willdlife Division is funded by license sales and matching PR Funds from the Federal govt. PR Funds come from a special tax put on and paid for by people who buy outdoor gear, from binocoulers to snow shoes.

LB wouldnt you just like the ability to take care of the wildlife on your land..... :lol:

 

[Liberty Belle]

Isn't GF&P funded entirely by the revenue it generates??!

P Joe, I only wish you were right about where GF&P gets their money.

For the year 2008, the GF&P will receive almost $25 MILLION from the taxpayers, $6 M from South Dakota and almost $19M from federal taxpayers. Since neither the federal government or the SD government have any money, every dime of that comes out of the pocket of the taxpayer.

GF&P also receives $325,000 from the counties for the animal damage control program.

Money raised from license sales is estimated to be $26,684,360 in 2008, about half of what they will spend next year. Pittman-Robertson sent South Dakota a little over $4M last year, not a very big percentage of the almost $65 MILLION GF&P plans to spend this year, is it?

LB wouldnt you just like the ability to take care of the wildlife on your land.....

Frankly publichunter, I don't know a rancher that doesn't have the ability to take care of the wildlife on their land if it comes to that.

 

[Happy go lucky]

LB don't leave it that vague, break it down as to where the 25 million will come from? From what I hear they get little to any from your states general fund ? If your talking federal dollars, many states receive far more in federal dollars than your state I can assure you on that! The 6 million from your state is that general fund dollars?

Pitt/robertson in all states is given back at a %, your state has a smaller population base therefore gets less than others. I still wouldn't call 4 million a small amount!

Also your GFP,what % of that 65 million will go into your states parks program? How much is just wildlife and fisheries? Also if this is a complaint on the tax dollars being brought into your state, then where do you sit on funding your parks and natural resources?

 

[Liberty Belle]

Happy: LB don't leave it that vague, break it down as to where the 25 million will come from? From what I hear they get little to any from your states general fund ? If your talking federal dollars, many states receive far more in federal dollars than your state I can assure you on that! The 6 million from your state is that general fund dollars?

Dang it Happy, go back and read what I posted. I DID break it down for you!! That almost $6M came from the general fund!!! Translate that to mean the money came directly from South Dakota taxpayers! And the $19M came from the US taxpayers. That's my tax money and your tax money. Did anyone ask either of us if we wanted to use OUR money this way? Oh, and the $325,000 from the counties? That's tax money too!

Pitt/robertson in all states is given back at a %, your state has a smaller population base therefore gets less than others. I still wouldn't call 4 million a small amount

I wouldn't call almost $25 million a small amount either, would you?

Also your GFP,what % of that 65 million will go into your states parks program? How much is just wildlife and fisheries? Also if this is a complaint on the tax dollars being brought into your state, then where do you sit on funding your parks and natural resources?

Since I'm going to be spending a goodly amount of time with our local game warden and on the phone to the GF&P Secretary today, I'll let you do your own homework. Here's a link for you that every taxpayer in this state should look at: http://www.state.sd.us/bfm/budget/Rec08/08r06.htm

 

[Happy go lucky]

LB thanks for the link, very informative. Your general fund dollars don't even make up 10%!!!! You don't think the people of your state should have to help fund the protection of your resources? Your state also shows the lowest% of increase in any of those figures you presented. Also name any other federal spending that gets asked by any tax payer if they want it or not?
We elect people who will look at out interest in each state and if you don't like that, then vote for someone else from your state! I'm telling you many other states contribute far more than what yours does from general funds to their DNR's and game depts. I my self would rather see them spend some of those federal dollars back in states on these issues than many others the feds channel millions and millions into!
Your head tax correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't that help pay for your predator program? Again if you don't help foot the bill who will? You complain of tax payer dollars in your game dept, yet want your cake and eat it to when it comes to predator control? Who should pay for predator control? Who should pay for your GFP? Carefully think this out before your answer. You are hard to read as your all over the map.
The federal government and state's has the mandate to protect the resources for the good of all citizens and to do that will take tax dollars, unless you have the solution without using tax dollars?
Many other states get 4-6 times what yours does LB from general funds! Look at others and see where there funding comes from, yet how much in the news do you hear of people complaining too much is being spent on wildlife and fisheries? How many complain that multi use areas are to well kept? How many say the parks I visit are too nice and overly maintained?
Outdoor recreations are used by both residents and non residents of many states alike and it helps to fund tourism, without that what would bring people into many states? Not the malls or shopping!
We go round and round I guess I would like for you to spell out, if LB was in charge of her GFP what would it look like and how would it run? You continue to bash the concept and your Game Dept, but have given no one real answers on how you could make it better! Good day!

 

[publichunter]

The Wildlife3 Division gets ) ZERO dollars from the general fund, Now Custer State Park gets some general fund. Leave it to Liberty to point the finger but tell the whold story LB. Taxpayers pay zero for GF&P wildlife Div.

 

[Liberty Belle]

If I remember right, the issue was how many tax dollars go to fund GF&P and I told you that – lots!!!

If you want to know what was spent this year, dime for dime, it's broken down for you in the following link. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Wildlife Division a part of GF&P?

Look at the requests for tax money in here and tell me that none of these have anything to do with wildlife. It looks to me like the lion's share of GF&P's budget is connected to wildlife. Do you suppose that's why they are called GAME, FISH and Parks?

Do you see that there are 570 Full Time Employees? Tax payer money is also used to pay them, and no, they don't all work at the state parks.

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2007/appropriations/Game%20Fish%20&%20Parks.pdf

And Happy - mind your own business and let those of us in South Dakota worry about OUR business.

 

[P Joe]

That second link was much better. Lots easier to follow. According to those number GF&P recieves 9% of their budget from SD's General Fund and 29% from federal tax dollars. So, according to that, GF&P is funded 62% directly by the hunters.

The state puts in $5.4 million. Seems like a pretty fair price since they are in charge of taking care of the state parks. Enforcing state game/fish laws and such. I can't argue with that number for being to much. I mean the state has to cough up something for their services, don't you agree?

The Feds put in 17.4 million. I am assuming that 4 of that is from the tax leaving 13.4. Out of that how much $ do they generate from the federal waterfowl stamp and migratory license? Another hunter tax. Lets say 3.4 million for that. So in reallity the feds actully cough up 10 million. Not that much in the grand plan of things is it? How much money do the feds spend on roads? I would hope you wouldn't be against my county receiving federal $ for our roads since YOU personally don't need to drive on my county roads would you LB???

I would like to see how much GF&P takes in on revenue. $40 million seems low to me. If you figure 100,000 out-of-state pheasant hunters at a $100 pop, that gives you 10 million there. How much do they make from all the other tags/licenses they sell? How much does the campgrounds bring in? Some of the money they bring in must be going elsewhere? Not to mention that a percentage of any fines paid for violations goes to the school district in which said crime was committed. The other percentage goes to the court system for court cost. Seems to me that GF&P is more suffecient than any other state department. Name another state agency that can pay its own way.

I don't understand your extreme bias against the GF&P. I understand that they did some things wrong, but times are changed and new people are running the show. Why not give them a chance? I hate to burst you bubble, but their will always be some sort of wildlife depatment to manage and maintain our parks and resources. Things will never be left up to us landowners. If you want you deer herd killed off you land, then allow a bunch of hunters of your chosing and your rules on and kill them off. I'm sure their are plenty of people out their that would follow your rules.

 

[Liberty Belle]

That second link was much better. Lots easier to follow. According to those number GF&P recieves 9% of their budget from SD's General Fund and 29% from federal tax dollars. So, according to that, GF&P is funded 62% directly by the hunters.

The state puts in $5.4 million. Seems like a pretty fair price since they are in charge of taking care of the state parks. Enforcing state game/fish laws and such. I can't argue with that number for being to much. I mean the state has to cough up something for their services, don't you agree?

Why? Where is it written that the taxpayers have to cough up anything? Let the parks pay for themselves.

The Feds put in 17.4 million. I am assuming that 4 of that is from the tax leaving 13.4. Out of that how much $ do they generate from the federal waterfowl stamp and migratory license? Another hunter tax. Lets say 3.4 million for that. So in reallity the feds actully cough up 10 million. Not that much in the grand plan of things is it?

Maybe $17.4 million doesn't sound like much money to you but it sure does to me! Taxing some old couple in suburban Cleveland to enhance hunting for you just seems wrong… but maybe that's just me.

How much money do the feds spend on roads? I would hope you wouldn't be against my county receiving federal $ for our roads since YOU personally don't need to drive on my county roads would you LB???

I don't know what kind of roads you drive on, but out here our roads are paid for using the gas tax specifically created for the purpose of funding our state highways. Our county roads are taken care of using tax money raised from within the county.

I would like to see how much GF&P takes in on revenue. $40 million seems low to me. If you figure 100,000 out-of-state pheasant hunters at a $100 pop, that gives you 10 million there. How much do they make from all the other tags/licenses they sell? How much does the campgrounds bring in? Some of the money they bring in must be going elsewhere? Not to mention that a percentage of any fines paid for violations goes to the school district in which said crime was committed. The other percentage goes to the court system for court cost. Seems to me that GF&P is more suffecient than any other state department. Name another state agency that can pay its own way.

Tell you what guys… you don't mind your tax dollars going to fund Game and Fish. However, I do mind and so do most of my constituents. Since GF&P takes in so much revenue, how about just letting them fund their own operations, "pay its own way" I think is the term you used?

I don't understand your extreme bias against the GF&P. I understand that they did some things wrong, but times are changed and new people are running the show. Why not give them a chance? I hate to burst you bubble, but their will always be some sort of wildlife depatment to manage and maintain our parks and resources. Things will never be left up to us landowners.

Well I hate to burst YOUR bubble, but except for a new guy at the helm who does seem to be quite an improvement over the last secretary, nothing has changed within GF&P. The same problem employees are still employed by GF&P, some of them in the exact same place where they created the problems that brought on this whole fiasco. Not only that, but GF&P hasn't changed any of its policies, and until those concerns are addressed, there will be no change in our position either.

If you want you deer herd killed off you land, then allow a bunch of hunters of your chosing and your rules on and kill them off. I'm sure their are plenty of people out their that would follow your rules.

P Joe, here we go again. Read this carefully. The lockout came about because of the actions of a few GF&P employees and the abuse of property rights by GF&P. It had NOTHING to do with hunters. Hunters are not the problem!!! The only reason we don't allow hunting is because GF&P insists that it has the "right" to drive onto private land without our knowledge or consent just to make sure our hunters aren't breaking one of their game rules.

You signed a contract with them when you bought your license allowing GF&P or anyone else to check you for game violations. We didn't sign anything and we refuse to allow our rights to be violated because GF&P thinks you guys might be committing some crime.

We like hunters. Our families have been ranching here for well over a century and hunting has always been free on our place and on most of our neighbors. We just don't enjoy hunters so much we are willing to submit ourselves to these actions by GF&P.

Sorry. That's just the way it is and the way it will stay until GF&P decides to deal honestly with landowners. When the Open Fields Doctrine is done away with, as it has been in several states, we will once again open our ranches and farms to hunters. If that happens, and I hope that it will, call me – have I ever got a big buck for you!!

 

[Happy go lucky]

Lb sorry it is on a public forum therefore fair game for all to research and respond to, also I have friends in your fine state. So as long as you are posting on these matters I will be there to debate you on issues of this type!

Your laughable LB, you tell me don't worry about those in your state, yet you want to worry about the old couple in Clevland,OH? LOL!!!! Who is to say that old couple hadn't been to your state a half dozen times, taking in MT Rushmore, the black hills area or the old guy and his kids on 3 -6 pheasant hunting trips? All bringing tax dollars to your fine state!

LB quote: Where is it written that the taxpayers have to cough up anything? Let the parks pay for themselves.

LB do you know or grasp how tourism works? You set your park pricing to high and you have less visitors!!!! Many can't or don't want to pay $$$ in private resorts or hotels but want to stay in state or county parks, more space, less cost and to them an overall better camping experiance. :!:

Your roads also get federal dollars for repairs and bridge maintenance, maybe that old couple in Cleveland doesnt want to pay to fix your bridges or maybe they have never been on I-90 LOL. Again wanting your cake and eating it to.

The highest amount spent by the federal gov is on schools, maybe all states should just 100% fund the schools? States receive fed dollars based on population and smaller states almost always take back more federal dollars than they pay in, did you know that LB? Why because smaller populated states need more help with funding or there tax rates would be so high no one could afford to live in the small states correct?

All state game agency's receive federal dollars in many forms, so your stating here on ranchers net that all states should have zero federal dollars? YES or NO!

So again I ask you which is your biggest gripe? State funding your GFP or the feds? Or both because you have the attitude that you want your GFP to be on dire straights so you have more power and can control them?

As far as 570 state wide employees to run a whole state program including all divisions that is less than 200 per dept correct? Less than 200 for wildlife,fisheries and the parks? I would say top to bottom that that number isn't out of line at all for a state your size.

Look at Iowa on the net LB 1,100 full time, 270 seasonal and a budget of 127 million!!! I could look up others for you and I know where I'm at in a rural state we have more than what you have for full time and budget as well. You need to take off the blood shot eye glasses of anger, which is highly evidant and see your states GFP is a well run and well thought of program nation wide. Just the facts LB nothing less.

Have great and wonderful day your best friend HGL :wink:

 

[publichunter]

Nice post Happy....
LB here is my 2 cents worth.
Myself as a SD taxpayer, maybe I dont want to pay for predator control in my County. I do though, my County and every County in the State has a per head on cattle and each and every county resident pays this tax Why? Because it is part of being a society...I personnally think it is ok to pay this tax, perhaps someone doesnt most people I am sure dont even know.
The way you think (if pars should be self supporting) then maybe the ranchers should pay the entire price of predator control...the producers couldnt afford it, so the Govt. (tax payers) help, just like they do with my Parks, my roads, my boat ramps.......

I as a License buying sportsmen here in South Dakota, I am the only willing person (and many thousand more just like me) whom willing choose to fully support our SD GF&P Wildlife Division by our license fees, there is no SD taxpayers dollars used or given to Wildlife.

 

[P Joe]

Why? Where is it written that the taxpayers have to cough up anything? Let the parks pay for themselves.

How do the parks pay for themselves?

If there is no GF&P to take reservations, put in campsites, and maintain the fishery and park, then who does??? How much does it cost us to employ another agency to do this? Isn't this kinda of a wash? What do you propose?

Maybe $17.4 million doesn't sound like much money to you but it sure does to me! Taxing some old couple in suburban Cleveland to enhance hunting for you just seems wrong… but maybe that's just me.

Taking social security out of my paychecks to pay for their retirement that they forgot to save for just seems wrong to me to! Maybe thats just me! :wink: Besides about 7.4 of that is tax money directly generated from a hunter. AKA Federal Waterfowl Stamp, Migatory licenses and the other "outdoor" taxes. Why shouldn't they get it back? Why shouldn't the hunting group get something back from the feds. YOU persoally get federal dollars. EQUIP, what other programs are you enrolled in LB??? Why are hunters not allowed to share in the receiveing end as well.

I don't know what kind of roads you drive on, but out here our roads are paid for using the gas tax specifically created for the purpose of funding our state highways. Our county roads are taken care of using tax money raised from within the county.

Come on LB, pull you head out of your..........................SAND!! Every county gets federal dollars for roads. FEMA ever been in the area??? Did you ever drive on a state highway. How about Interstate??? How about your rual water company or local electric co-op All partly funded by federal dollars.

Tell you what guys… you don't mind your tax dollars going to fund Game and Fish. However, I do mind and so do most of my constituents. Since GF&P takes in so much revenue, how about just letting them fund their own operations, "pay its own way" I think is the term you used?

I think they pretty much do. I know by your page, they look like 40% short. I question the $40 million income. Seems pretty short. I would like to see how much the camp grounds and deer licenses take in. The total has to be more than that.

Well I hate to burst YOUR bubble, but except for a new guy at the helm who does seem to be quite an improvement over the last secretary, nothing has changed within GF&P. The same problem employees are still employed by GF&P, some of them in the exact same place where they created the problems that brought on this whole fiasco. Not only that, but GF&P hasn't changed any of its policies, and until those concerns are addressed, there will be no change in our position either.

When was the last time that happen to you?

Did it ever really happen to you. Not your brother, or son, or nephew, or neighbor, or friend of a friend. I want to hear a story that starts with "A game warden came on my(LB's) land and...." I want to see that typed. Otherwise build a bridge and get over it!

P Joe, here we go again. Read this carefully. The lockout came about because of the actions of a few GF&P employees and the abuse of property rights by GF&P. It had NOTHING to do with hunters. Hunters are not the problem!!! The only reason we don't allow hunting is because GF&P insists that it has the "right" to drive onto private land without our knowledge or consent just to make sure our hunters aren't breaking one of their game rules.

You signed a contract with them when you bought your license allowing GF&P or anyone else to check you for game violations. We didn't sign anything and we refuse to allow our rights to be violated because GF&P thinks you guys might be committing some crime.

We like hunters. Our families have been ranching here for well over a century and hunting has always been free on our place and on most of our neighbors. We just don't enjoy hunters so much we are willing to submit ourselves to these actions by GF&P.

Sorry. That's just the way it is and the way it will stay until GF&P decides to deal honestly with landowners. When the Open Fields Doctrine is done away with, as it has been in several states, we will once again open our ranches and farms to hunters. If that happens, and I hope that it will, call me – have I ever got a big buck for you!!

Hey, I didn't mentioned the L word!!

If you think that is the best way to get GF&P to listen to you and come to terms, then by all means keep doing what you are doing. I see your point. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

But in the mean time, it is still illegal for you to "manage" your own herd of critters! GF&P has given us landowners a tool to use. AKA Anterless Deer Program. Sometimes you have to agree to certain conditions to use those tools. That there lays you delima!

 

[QUESTION]

So how is it different than up here? I have crown lease which is the same a government lease i have contol over what goes on with the particular land so i also control who hunts on it, but there is also a thing called wildlife lands. It is also owned by the government but is set aside as habitat for and is only used as emergency pasture and hay, everyone is allowed to hunt on it but on foot only. I have problems with hunters coming on my lease when the get lost :wink: on the wildlife lands. You would think the neon orange signs saying no hunting or trespassing cattle at large would be a clue. I do alot of hunting and respect the right of the landowner to allow or disallow anyone to hunt. I have no right to tell someone what or how to manage the land they have owned or leased.

 

[Liberty Belle]

QUESTION, if you can control land you lease from the government and can stop hunting if you want, you have way more control than we do in the US. Down here hunting is controlled by the government on all public land and the person holding the lease has no say about hunting, even if they have livestock grazing on the land.

 

[Liberty Belle]

P Joe: Myself as a SD taxpayer, maybe I dont want to pay for predator control in my County. I do though, my County and every County in the State has a per head on cattle and each and every county resident pays this tax Why? Because it is part of being a society...I personnally think it is ok to pay this tax, perhaps someone doesnt most people I am sure dont even know.
The way you think (if pars should be self supporting) then maybe the ranchers should pay the entire price of predator control.

I'll go along with you here. In our predator control district we tax ourselves to pay for our aerial predator control pilots. They don't get a dime from GF&P to kill predators, although I might remind you that coyotes, fox and mountain lions eat game animals as often as they eat the livestock we pay our hunters to protect. I do think that part of the predator control efforts should be paid for by GF&P license revenue, since effective predator control is one of the main reasons there are so many game animals.

I as a License buying sportsmen here in South Dakota, I am the only willing person (and many thousand more just like me) whom willing choose to fully support our SD GF&P Wildlife Division by our license fees, there is no SD taxpayers dollars used or given to Wildlife.

Doggone, P Joe, I can't believe this! You and I are in agreement again!! Kinda scary, isn't it?

How do the parks pay for themselves?

You are charged a fee at the entrance gate and if you rent a cabin, you pay for that.

If there is no GF&P to take reservations, put in campsites, and maintain the fishery and park, then who does??? How much does it cost us to employ another agency to do this? Isn't this kinda of a wash? What do you propose?

If the entrance fees won't cover expenses, cut expenses. That's the way things work in the rest of the business world.

Taking social security out of my paychecks to pay for their retirement that they forgot to save for just seems wrong to me to!

Don't get me started on social security!

We agree on a lot more than we disagree about and I rather enjoy a lively discussion once in a while. Sharpens the wit, you know.

Since I'm feeling agreeable right now, I'll leave you with a new hunting website that the NRA will soon have up and running. I support the National Rifle Association and I think all hunters will get some good out of this site when they get it going. I checked it today and it hasn't come online yet, but it should be operational shortly. Enjoy! In spite of what some would have you believe, hunters have rights too!! www.nrahuntersrights.org

 

[Liberty Belle]

Happy: Your roads also get federal dollars for repairs and bridge maintenance, maybe that old couple in Cleveland doesnt want to pay to fix your bridges or maybe they have never been on I-90 LOL. Again wanting your cake and eating it to.

Happy, don't feel like I'm ignoring you. I said the money for our state roads comes from the gas tax. The federal fuel tax is 18.3 cents a gallon, and the SD state tax is 22 cents a gallon. The taxes are based on gallons sold and the federal tax is sent back to the states. Now if you want to quit paying the federal share of the gas tax you would be violating the Federal-Aid Highway Act and we can't have that, can we?

 

[QUESTION]

LB that doesn't make alot of sense if you are leasing a piece of goverment land and use it for a late graze you should be able to say no hunting most hunters realize the problem when cattle are running on a pasture. Not only bullets flying and not knowing where cows are but coming over a hill and having a herd spook. Who pays to fix fence? I pay lease fees they are for the whole year maybe the difference is because of how my lease is worded in the contract i have to sign. If you want a copy i can email you one .

 

[Liberty Belle]

You're right, it doesn't make much sense, but that's the way it is down here. The guy who leases the pasture also fixes the fence, maintains the water tanks, and does any improvements needed. If someone else gets the lease, any improvements go with the new lease and the former leasee loses his investment.

It would be interesting to look at your contracts, but there is nothing we can change here. We don't lease any public land, but a lot of our neighbors have either state land or federal land leases. Some also lease county land and I'm not sure if it is treated the same or not, although I suspect that it is.

 

[publichunter]

LB just wanted you to know that you gave P Joe credit for some of my quotes thats ok though it made me feel so warm and fuzzy when you said you agreed with me on a couple of them.
Question for you and question.
What are the rental rates? How do they compare?
I think with school lands and National Grasslands the leases doesnt allow grazing during hunting season so there isnt problems arizing from hunters and cattle on the public's land. AM I right?