Agree or Disagree Poll

[mike rossi]

Chuck Parker, President, New York State Conservation Council, said, “From the feedback that I have received as President of the New York State Conservation Council, I would like to report that the Council is glad to see the proposal of a simpler license structure system as presented by DEC and the Governor’s Office and endorsed by the Conservation Fund Advisory Board. With the simpler license fee system there should be an increase in numbers and participation of hunters, fishermen, and trappers while still yielding a very positive economic impact to the NYS Conservation Fund, which should lead to increase funding possibilities being proposed.”

[robw]

I would find it hard to believe that anyone who wants to hunt or fish,and isn't is not because the licence fee structure is too complicated. Cost and access restrictions, sure, and time constraints, probably, but lowering the cost and increasing access to hunting and fishing areas alone would get you to the same point. It the simplification is what has to happen to allow the state to reduce fees, then great, glad they're doing so, but if the cost and access restrictions aren't addressed, then simplifying probably wouldn't have any effect

[virgil]

I can't imagine that a simplified process will lead to an increase in utilization. But, if the simplified process is less labor intensive and less costly, I could see why it would have a positive economic impact.

[mike rossi]

The advisory people are saying that the conservation fund is large and growing therefore the license fees should be reduced and that reduction will make the conservation fund even larger and then we can spend it for conservation. Explain that logic...

If what I said directly above doesnt resonate with Parker's quote, then I suggest you listen to him, and the reps from the CFAB and FWMB, on the youtube video titled DEC budget hearing.

[Lawdwaz]

Bold = Insanity in this example.

[robw]

What could happen, is if the cost of hunting is reduced, then more people might hunt. So if the price reduction drops revenue by say 5%, but new hunters and fishermen add 10% new revenue from new licence and equipment sales, the fund does get bigger. But that logic only works if the increased revenue from new licence sales is greater that the reduction of revenue from the price reductions. No idea if that will be the case.

[tuckersdaddy]

Nothing to do with the conservation fund. It cuomo standing up and say 'i support hunters see what I did'. Hes looking for that a boys for his next election. Dont get caught in the details and miss the big picture, he is looking to appease the sportsman after kickimg them in the gut.

[phade]

I actually think it's not far off.

They're simplifying the structure and reducing cost. Look at licenses like a tax...less tax...more business/growth. Now, I don't necessarily think it will lead to more revenue now than before, but the funding may be increased from different sources or the tag structure itself. For example, in Ohio, you can buy antlerless for $X dollar, but the tag is no longer valid after X-date (usually the start of regular season). You can however, buy an either-sex tag for more than double the cost of the antlerless, which is good for a longer period of time. You can buy up to X either sex, but can only take one buck.

I think the funding part is meaning the money can be earmarked for actual spending rather than stockpiling the coffer.

[SteveB]

$1 less for a bowhunting licence - I bet that changes a lot of minds.

[phade]

$1 less for a bowhunting licence - I bet that changes a lot of minds.

A dollar and a dream! I agree that makes no sense.

[virgil]

Does anybody really think that the cost of a hunting license is actually keeping anyone from taking up hunting?

[SteveB]

Does anybody really think that the cost of a hunting license is actually keeping anyone from taking up hunting?

Not really - unless they start giving them out free.

[mike rossi]

$1 less for a bowhunting licence - I bet that changes a lot of minds.

Yeah, but how many bowhunters do we have? Multiply that by one dollar and subtract it from the conservation fund. We save one dollar each and the hit on the fund is how much?

This may be thee most outragous line of thinking in the history of conservation....

[phade]

Yeah, but how many bowhunters do we have? Multiply that by one dollar and subtract it from the conservation fund. We save one dollar each and the hit on the fund is how much?

This may be thee most outragous line of thinking in the history of conservation....

While not the brightest of ideas, it's most certainly not the most outrageous. You must have some pretty low standards.

[landtracdeerhunter]

Haven't seen a price on the Super Sportman license. Anyone have a clue?

[mike rossi]

What could happen, is if the cost of hunting is reduced, then more people might hunt. So if the price reduction drops revenue by say 5%, but new hunters and fishermen add 10% new revenue from new licence and equipment sales, the fund does get bigger. But that logic only works if the increased revenue from new licence sales is greater that the reduction of revenue from the price reductions. No idea if that will be the case.

Three people testifified that license fee reduction was justified because the conservation fund is swelling.... Additionally a senator implied in a question to the dec commissioner the same thing. Again: watch the video!

[SteveB]

Mike - was being sarcastic.

I don't feel any reduction is needed, but $1 is just stupid to bother with.

No incentive and just hurt's the fund

[WNYBuckHunter]

I see the logic in the line of thinking, it does make sense. I am not necessarily opposed to lowering the costs, but the cost should have been lowered to residents in the same manor and percentage rate as non-residents. I have always felt that the big hike they made in the licenses a few years ago was BS anyway.

Now, I also wouldnt really mind if they left the costs at the higher rate, if they would use the money toward improving hnting and fishing, hire some more DEC officers, etc. I also see the reduction for what it is, an attempt by Cuomo to get us to take our eyes off the ball, and in that regard I say F U Cuomo.

[mike rossi]

Here is how they made ice cream to calm thier children:

[landtracdeerhunter]

I see the logic in the line of thinking, it does make sense. I am not necessarily opposed to lowering the costs, but the cost should have been lowered to residents in the same manor and percentage rate as non-residents. I have always felt that the big hike they made in the licenses a few years ago was BS anyway.

Now, I also wouldnt really mind if they left the costs at the higher rate, if they would use the money toward improving hnting and fishing, hire some more DEC officers, etc. I also see the reduction for what it is, an attempt by Cuomo to get us to take our eyes off the ball, and in that regard I say F U Cuomo.

Are u talking about the NYS I know? Their flush the money into the general fund.

[mike rossi]

Mike - was being sarcastic.

I don't feel any reduction is needed, but $1 is just stupid to bother with.

No incentive and just hurt's the fund

I KNOW you were, but not everyone reading this does and some who read it a month from now may not get your drift either....

[WNYBuckHunter]

Are u talking about the NYS I know? Their flush the money into the general fund.

If they did that, they would no longer receive the Pittman-Robertson funds from the Feds.

[mike rossi]

If they did that, they would no longer receive the Pittman-Robertson funds from the Feds.

They cant "sweep" or "divert" license fees because they will forfiet those federal funds and this is protected by "assent legistlation".

They are "sweeping" the EP fund however, if you believe the rep from the NY Env. Advocates who says he helped create it 20 years ago who indicated its intent was land aquisition and nothing else. Even if he is wrong, everybody is trying to get their hands on that money, thats why the hearing is almost 8 hours long...

But you raised the PR Funds... Those are grants. The state has to submit a proposal and if approved the federal funds are dispersed. One of the stipulations of the grant is that the state and/or nonprofit partners contribute 25%, the grant picks up the remaining 75%.

The maximum the state is eligible for is contingent on how many licenses it sells (prev. 5 year average) and how many acres of open space it has. How much it actually gets is three times the matching funds, ie. the conservation fund it invests in its proposal(s).

So why has that fund ballooned? And why not move forward differently and use the conservation fund for conservation and leverage the available dollars? - because the three advisory boards suggested to put the fund on a diet by reducing the price of licenses. Go figure. They did give a few bogus justifications such as that the CF should not be used to control invasives. They also were misleading, perhaps intentionally, when they discussed the Finch Land in the ADK, because they did not make a clear distinction between the EPF and the CF. Like I said, IMO those justifications are bogus and even if they were not they have no bearing on going forward with proper use of the CF. Go figure again...

Edited February 22, 2013 by mike rossi

[WNYBuckHunter]

Didnt they get a warning from the Feds about closing the loop hole that allowed them to divert the money? I know I read something about it last year.

[mike rossi]

Didnt they get a warning from the Feds about closing the loop hole that allowed them to divert the money? I know I read something about it last year.

The FWS agreed to language last year but told them that next year they have to do even better. Apparently NY didnt change a dam thing, as a matter of fact they told the FWS "well you accepted this last year", to which the FWS replied "but we told you 2013 we want even more protected language". The state says it is currently working on revisions to get into compliance and expects no problem.

I dont know what you are getting at with this. Are you alluding that the states CF can grow to the point it maxes out its leverage based on licnse sales and land? First of all there would be no acceptable excuse for that. Second of all, as far as I know, the CF can be used for conservation independent of using federal leverage, but it cant be used for non-related things or swept.

Those PR fund rules are a great tool for distraction every year arent they? Gives the sporting magazines and the newspapers something to write about and stir things up . Which in turn makes our advisory boards, ploiticians, and organizations look like there all working !