|
Forums46
Topics537,957
Posts9,731,106
Members87,051
| |
Most Online25,604
Feb 12th, 2024
|
|
|
 Re: KS wants more out of state hunters
[Re: Littledog]
#8107547
12/30/20 02:58 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 105
GoBears870
Woodsman
|
|
Woodsman
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 105 |
TPWD officers doing all of the things they do that have nothing to do with Texas wildlife. (Literally everything not covered by a city law enforcement agency)
TPWD doing work that should be done by Federal Agencies such as the Coast Guard or Border Patrol. (Glad they do but its at the expense of Texas)
To an earlier members post, if TPWD could just focus on Texas wildlife, maybe they would have enough resources to open up additional state owned or available lands.(?)
I see the waterfowl projects done in other states. How can they do those things but Texas cant? [quote=Littledog] Amen. A friend in the state gov sent me a pic of a river patrol boat the Game Wardens just got. It was seriously something the SEALs would use. Twin M240s on the bow. God knows what it cost.
|
|
|
|
Re: KS wants more out of state hunters
[Re: Sniper John]
#8107558
12/30/20 03:07 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 557
Littledog
Tracker
|
|
Tracker
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 557 |
Last year TPWD sold 3.1 million hunting and fishing licenses. The state estimates there are 300,000 dove hunters. For argument's sake let's assume there are 500,000 migratory bird endorsements sold. So, $1.5 million extra annually after a $3 increase on top of the $3.5 million they already get, just from that fee. Then there's the Pittman-Robertson math. No, it's not enough to create a Bayou Meto for us. But it would make a difference on what they're able to do with existing WMAs and lakes. A few land donations here and there in the future, which is where the latest wave of parks and WMAs are coming from, and maybe you see something significant. It's the long game. TPWD budget does not work like that. When you buy a migratory bird stamp endorsement it does not go directly to migratory bird management. It goes to the general Game, Fish and Water Safety Account (fund 009). https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_a0900_0679_01_19.pdf#page=10As for Pittman-Robertson aka Sporting Goods Tax? It provides for 50% of Fund 64's budget aka the State Park fund. Thank you Sniper for the link!! Really informative.
|
|
|
|
Re: KS wants more out of state hunters
[Re: Hopedale]
#8107623
12/30/20 03:40 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 557
Littledog
Tracker
|
|
Tracker
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 557 |
Wow. I'm gonna need to read that budget publication about three more times.
A couple things that catch my eye already -
1. Read the "Roles and Responsibilities" section.
In my opinion; for a state the size of Texas, this is absolutely absurd. These responsibilities need to dispersed across several agencies that would have their own budgets and be able to focus on their assigned areas of concern.
2. For the $419m budget, less than 8% of it goes into "Wildlife". "Wildlife" does not include fisheries. My assumption is that this portion of the budget goes to game "management" on both public and private lands, etc. (see item 1) It looks to me that if there were any wetland habitat improvements or projects, it would come from this part of the budget (?)
3. The bulk ($280m, 66%) of the budget supporting revenue comes from licenses, registrations, and sales tax on sporting goods. State Park revenue and Federal dollars make up most of the balance. In other words - Hunters pay a much bigger portion of the budget than they see applied to hunting. (see item 2)
It looks to me like Texas hunters and fishermen fund ALOT of non-fishing and hunting stuff.
Maybe I got this wrong. As I said, I'll read the report again.
|
|
|
|
Re: KS wants more out of state hunters
[Re: GoBears870]
#8114032
01/04/21 01:15 AM
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,089
2flyfish4
Pro Tracker
|
|
Pro Tracker
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,089 |
Do you consider the tp&w dove fields a viable solution for the dove hunter?
Bc i don't, some do hold birds at times but for the most part they are over hunted and have very limited food, shelter, rest, and water for the birds to stay in/around the fields for any length of time. False equivalency. The migratory bird stamp does not just fund dove fields. It’s all the inland wetlands, playa lakes, coastal prairie refuges, and research. The barrier to entry for quality dove hunting is not high. Dove habitat is also not a priority for the department nor should it be. Therefore, it’s unfair to suggest the quality of dove fields is a barometer of TPWD’s ability to provide waterfowl habitat and hunting areas. All I’m saying is if it wouldn’t cost hunters THAT much more through license fees to provide more waterfowl opportunities, it’s something they should look into. A quality duck hunting trip normally runs around $200, about twice what a day in the dove field runs. I wouldn't call the cost a barrier, especially when you consider what people pay for concert or sporting event tickets. I brought up the dove fields bc if the state can't do a better job than what they do there, they damn sure can't be trusted to build and maintain waterfowl habitat. I still believe it will and does cost alot of money to provide quality waterfowl habitat. And I agree it would be nice if the state of Texas would drastically improve the current state of public waterfowl habitat. I really don't know why the local chapters of DU and delta can't partner with the state and work on providing said habitat.
Instagram - 2flyfish4
|
|
|
Moderated by bigbob_ftw, CCBIRDDOGMAN, Chickenman, Derek, DeRico, Duck_Hunter, hetman, jeh7mmmag, JustWingem, kmon11, kry226, kwrhuntinglab, Payne, pertnear, rifleman, sig226fan (Rguns.com), Superduty, TreeBass, txcornhusker
|
