# Duck stamp should be increasing



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Well the duck stamp looks to be raising $10 next year, it passed the senate:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/225733-senate-passes-increase-in-duck-stamp-price


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Cool! $10 more that will be mismanaged.
"Part of the price of duck stamps goes to conservation of public lands used for hunting." Where does the rest of it go? Oh wait, I got it.....Someone's pocket.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

We do this once or twice a year; one of my favorites.

.

.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Fowlmouth said:


> Cool! $10 more that will be mismanaged.
> "Part of the price of duck stamps goes to conservation of public lands used for hunting." Where does the rest of it go? Oh wait, I got it.....Someone's pocket.


I don't think 98% is too bad.

http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps/conservation/conservation.htm


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I don't think 98% is too bad.
> 
> http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps/conservation/conservation.htm


Amen brother. A 2% overhead cost in todays world is a real bargain, especially with federal government agencies involved. :grin:


----------



## drakebob01 (Jun 25, 2008)

If they used the money where its suspose to go, I wouldn't mind a 100.00 duck stamp. It might keep some people out of the swamps!


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

drakebob01 said:


> If they used the money where its suspose to go, I wouldn't mind a 100.00 duck stamp. It might keep some people out of the swamps!


Is that what you want? Government to use the power we have given it to price people out of hunting?

How long will it be before you get priced out so someone else can have a better experience? Are you sure that's what you want?

On another note, if you think a $10 increase in a duck stamp is going to improve your duck hunting experience, I have a bridge you may be interested in.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

drakebob01 said:


> If they used the money where its suspose to go, I wouldn't mind a 100.00 duck stamp. It might keep some people out of the swamps!


Please do your research before you start making false claims. Of the $15 it costs to buy the stamp, $14.70 (98%)goes into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund along with appropriations from the Wetlands Loan Act of 1961, import duties from arms and ammunitions, receipts from refuge admission fees, refuge rights-of-way, and Federal Aid funds. Only 30 cents covers the overhead. If that isn't "If they used the money where its suspose to go.", then what the Hell is in your mind?


----------



## Bret (Sep 7, 2007)

The stamp has not gone up in a very long time. It is time. I support it.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Bret said:


> The stamp has not gone up in a very long time. It is time. I support it.


So just because the fee hasn't gone up in a while means that it's ok to raise it?

Time isn't a reason to increase fees.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

dubob said:


> Please do your research before you start making false claims. Of the $15 it costs to buy the stamp, $14.70 (98%)goes into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund along with appropriations from the Wetlands Loan Act of 1961, import duties from arms and ammunitions, receipts from refuge admission fees, refuge rights-of-way, and Federal Aid funds. Only 30 cents covers the overhead. If that isn't "If they used the money where its suspose to go.", then what the Hell is in your mind?


To be fair, Bob, you've already paid for the overhead with your taxes. We're not talking about a conventional charity here.

I can't think of a single charity that operates on 2% overhead. Why? Because charities don't collect taxes and donations at the same time.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Bret said:


> The stamp has not gone up in a very long time. It is time. I support it.


I support the raise; long over due.

Raise it to $100 or $50 plus 8 hours community service at Wildlife Management Area.

.


----------



## Bret (Sep 7, 2007)

Because the value of a dollar has changed. If I go to the store my $15 doesn't buy what it did in 1992 does yours?


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

Although, raises haven't kept up though. This is why the middle class is worse off than 20 years ago


----------



## drakebob01 (Jun 25, 2008)

dubob said:


> Please do your research before you start making false claims. Of the $15 it costs to buy the stamp, $14.70 (98%)goes into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund along with appropriations from the Wetlands Loan Act of 1961, import duties from arms and ammunitions, receipts from refuge admission fees, refuge rights-of-way, and Federal Aid funds. Only 30 cents covers the overhead. If that isn't "If they used the money where its suspose to go.", then what the Hell is in your mind?


LOL, I never claimed the money did or didn't go to fund Migratory Bird Conservation! Learn how to read before you say I am making claims true or false!


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

So the next time the federal government shuts down, like it did in October of 2013, all you guys that support an increase please let me know what that extra $10 is getting you. I'm pretty sure the gates at the federal refuges will be locked again.;-)


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

keep the federal stamp at 15 bucks, introduce a state stamp at 10 bucks to fight phrag.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Or sell a federal duck stamp for each individual flyway. So the guys that hunt more pay more, and they are supporting the flyways they hunt. 
Pacific 
Central
Mississippi
Atlantic
I don't know all about how the federal duck stamp money is divided up now, but this seems like a possible fair way to have hunters dollars spent on land purchases and conservation in the flyway(s) they hunt. We all currently pay $15 for a federal stamp, but I'm guessing that not all flyways receive the same amount of money for conservation and land purchases. I would rather my flyway get my money and support than having it go to another flyway I will never hunt. 
Is the $10 increase going to keep me from hunting waterfowl? No Is the increase really necessary? It probably is because land costs have risen over the past 23 years. I still question if the money really goes where it is supposed to. If it does then great! The negative part with an increase is there is the potential that some hunters will quit. If that happens, did we gain anything with a $10 increase? Sell less stamps and we are back to where we started.;-)


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

or ticket those that:


 litter
 shoot outside of legal hunting hours
 waste migratory game birds
there is just tons of money out there.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Bret said:


> Because the value of a dollar has changed. If I go to the store my $15 doesn't buy what it did in 1992 does yours?


So the solution is to give the same people who made your dollar less valuable more money? :-?


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Dodger said:


> So just because the fee hasn't gone up in a while means that it's ok to raise it?
> 
> Time isn't a reason to increase fees.


But the inflation increase since 1991 certainly is a good reason to raise the fee.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Dodger said:


> To be fair, Bob, you've already paid for the overhead with your taxes.


BS! The overhead is the cost to print and distribute the stamp. The amount of taxes I pay, or don't pay, has absolutely no bearing on the duck stamp program. Show me a direct link to where federal income tax revenue is in any way, shape, or form used to support or fund the cost of printing or distributing duck stamps.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

drakebob01 said:


> LOL, I never claimed the money did or didn't go to fund Migratory Bird Conservation! Learn how to read before you say I am making claims true or false!


No, you claimed "If they used the money where its suspose to go" which is a very clear insinuation that it is NOT going where its supposed to go. That is a false claim/insinuation. The fact that 98% of the money is going exactly where its supposed to be going makes your claim/insinuation that that it isn't, is 98% false.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

dubob said:


> But the inflation increase since 1991 certainly is a good reason to raise the fee.


Why? And don't tell me it is because inflation devalues the dollar. Tell me why the people who cause the inflation should take it out on me.



dubob said:


> BS! The overhead is the cost to print and distribute the stamp. The amount of taxes I pay, or don't pay, has absolutely no bearing on the duck stamp program. Show me a direct link to where federal income tax revenue is in any way, shape, or form used to support or fund the cost of printing or distributing duck stamps.


I wasn't talking specifically about federal income tax, but sure, let's take that one first.

Who pays the salaries of the people who sit on the migratory bird conservation commission that decide how duck stamp money is to be spent?

Let's see:
http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps/conservation/mbcc.htm
http://www.fws.gov/refuges/realty/mbcc.html
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/migratory-bird-conservation-commission /

Interesting. Senators, congressmen, administrative secretaries. I'm sure any charity would like their board members paid by someone else. Please, seriously, how else could you claim a 2% overhead?

Second, every box of ammunition you buy comes with a special tax for the purpose of funding wildlife conservation, including ducks, whether you hunt with the ammunition or you buy it. Plus, there is a good possibility you paid another conservation tax when you bought an Italian made shotgun, whether you hunt with it or not.

Pretty slick accounting if you use all of your other income to pay the overhead so the duck stamps look good at a 2% overhead.

C'mon Bob. You're paying taxes 4 times to hunt a duck. Let's not pretend they are doing us a favor by asking for more.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

I agree let raise it and then when the feds shut down again we are out of hunting some more land untell they pull there heads out of there ass. I call bull **** on it all. leave the dang duck stamp where it at. we pay enough to play.


----------



## Jeff Bringhurst (May 20, 2009)

The money raised with Duck Stamps does not pay the salaries of those that work at the Federal Refuges. The money is used to acquire habitat for the National Wildlife Refuge system. $24.50 of every stamp is going to go towards acquiring habitat for the waterfowl we love to hunt. 

I think that is a great investment in the future of hunting. If this program hadn't been started 1934, I think we would be seeing a lot less success then we are enjoying now. I am Ok with the increase and will probably continue to purchase more than one stamp a year.


----------



## mallardgoose (Oct 11, 2010)

For those who can’t afford a $25 Duck stamp, stop shooting black cloud, and buying Duck Dynasty merchandise.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

utahgolf said:


> keep the federal stamp at 15 bucks, introduce a state stamp at 10 bucks to fight phrag.


Wait.... just a quick thought, why should a state stamp go towards controlling frag when Rio Tinto introduced the frag. They should foot all the cost for the clean up! Just like Chevron with the oil spill in Red Butte.

If and invasive species is brought in and causes issue's or disrupts the natural live cycle then that person, company, organization should fix the issue!


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Dodger said:


> C'mon Bob. You're paying taxes 4 times to hunt a duck. Let's not pretend they are doing us a favor by asking for more.


Get a clue Dodger. 

Okay, #1, you are mixing apples (MBCC) and oranges (Pittman-Robertson). The MBCC manages duck stamp expenditures for the benefit of migratory waterfowl ONLY without state interaction. The P-R money is allocated to individual states for projects the states want to pursue on a 25% State funding/75% Federal funding basis. And 50% of all P-R money MUST be spent on hunter education/shooting ranges. So, yea, your analogy is a very big stretch to compare.

Number 2, the MBCC is NOT a charity. Why do you insist on trying to compare it to one? It's a federal program mandated by a federal law with specific guidelines on how, and by whom, it is to be managed. It manages and tries to improve the migratory bird environment without spending our tax revenue to do so. It uses its own funding based on stamps being purchased be the very people that will benefit the most.
Some of you want to project the duck stamp program as just another rip-off by the federal government. It isn't; get over it.
The $10 increase is warranted in my opinion and I support it 100%. I'm all done watching this thread.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Seems funny to me that hunters shell out hundreds of dollars just for the chance to get an elk or deer,then pay to have it cut up,plus all the food beer etc.Good lord its 10.00 dollar extra.I think I can afford it.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

dubob said:


> Get a clue Dodger.
> 
> Okay, #1, you are mixing apples (MBCC) and oranges (Pittman-Robertson). The MBCC manages duck stamp expenditures for the benefit of migratory waterfowl ONLY without state interaction. The P-R money is allocated to individual states for projects the states want to pursue on a 25% State funding/75% Federal funding basis. And 50% of all P-R money MUST be spent on hunter education/shooting ranges. So, yea, your analogy is a very big stretch to compare.
> 
> ...


Bob, with all due respect, you aren't even trying to understand what I'm saying. You are simply not interested in hearing a viewpoint that contradicts yours. Fine. But let's not pretend I'm the one who is ignorant, ok?

Your opinion is that the duck stamp program isn't a federal government ripoff. You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree with your opinion and you simply won't hear it.

I had a lot of respect for you Bob, especially with your work on the Vet's fishing day. You told me that I was wrong with the experience I had and I accepted your word on it. But now I see that you just won't listen to anyone you disagree with, whether it's their experience with the vets or their opinion on a duck stamp.

Let me know if you change your mind and want to actually try to understand why I feel like I do.


----------



## Stimmy (Sep 10, 2007)

I am truly amazed at the push back here. to me the waterfowl stamp program is one of success...it is $10 people. less than a box of shells...I will GLADLY pay it. Even if half of goes back into the wetlands it is a win. Bunch of tin foil hat wearers. :mrgreen:


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Stimmy said:


> I am truly amazed at the push back here. to me the waterfowl stamp program is one of success...it is $10 people. less than a box of shells...I will GLADLY pay it. Even if half of goes back into the wetlands it is a win. Bunch of tin foil hat wearers. :mrgreen:


 Tell us how glad you are to pay it when you have 5 kids that want to hunt and need the stamp.;-) (No I don't have 5 kids, but I know folks that do) just trying to keep it real.


----------



## stuckduck (Jan 31, 2008)

Fowlmouth said:


> Tell us how glad you are to pay it when you have 5 kids that want to hunt and need the stamp.;-) (No I don't have 5 kids, but I know folks that do) just trying to keep it real.


I have 6 kids that live at my house... not all of them hunt.... The ones that do are totally capable of earning money to buy there own stamp.. 10 bucks more is nothing to the grand scale of things...

My gripe is not the money paid into the system its much needed, its more with how the money is spent on habitat. to much red tape to get the real work done that is way over needed!!!


----------

