# Duck Stamp $$$ Increase



## Fowlmouth

It looks like the Federal duck stamp may possibly be going up to $25. 
http://www.wildfowlmag.com/raise-price-of-duck-stamp.html


----------



## pelican

Sounds good to me. Personally I also think regardless if you are seven or seventy, you should be required to buy a stamp.


----------



## Stimmy

long overdue.....will gladly pay an extra $10...


----------



## horn hunter

I'm personally against it. The Feds get enough of our money every year.


----------



## Dodger

"But while inflation has doubled and even tripled the prices of such commodities, we plop down the same amount for a duck stamp in 2014 as we did 23 years ago: $15."

And, who exactly caused the inflation that doubled/tripled the prices of commodities?

Yes, the exact same people who want to charge you $10 more for a duck stamp.

There used to be a time in this country that a 1% tax on stamps was cause to start chucking tea in the ocean and hanging kings in effigy.


----------



## Fowlmouth

Dodger said:


> "But while inflation has doubled and even tripled the prices of such commodities, we plop down the same amount for a duck stamp in 2014 as we did 23 years ago: $15."
> 
> And, who exactly caused the inflation that doubled/tripled the prices of commodities?
> 
> Yes, the exact same people who want to charge you $10 more for a duck stamp.
> 
> There used to be a time in this country that a 1% tax on stamps was cause to start chucking tea in the ocean and hanging kings in effigy.


Well said Dodger.


----------



## Dodger

I think my point is that you don't need the government to buy you a place to duck hunt.


----------



## Stimmy

Federal Duck Stamps are vital tools for wetland conservation. Ninety-eight cents out of every dollar generated by the sale of Federal Duck Stamps goes directly to purchase or lease wetland habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Understandably, the Federal Duck Stamp has been called one of the most successful conservation programs ever initiated and is a highly effective way to conserve America's natural resources.

from the duck stamp website,

this is one of the rare times govt gets it right. 

E


----------



## dkhntrdstn

I would be fine paying that as long as the money went back in to the marsh here.But we all know that not going to happen. not that going to coast me 75 bucks for my family to hunt. What the reason for the increase?


----------



## pelican

The pothole region. Canada's breeding grounds are much more important than Utah, although Utah is a important stop during migration. Here at home, delta DU, UWA, the local chapters and YOU,mmeaning all hunters can do more on the local level.


----------



## Dodger

Stimmy said:


> Federal Duck Stamps are vital tools for wetland conservation. Ninety-eightcents out of every dollar generated by the sale of Federal Duck Stamps goes directly to purchase or lease wetland habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Understandably, the Federal Duck Stamp has been called one of the most successful conservation programs ever initiated and is a highly effective way to conserve America's natural resources.
> 
> from the duck stamp website,
> 
> this is one of the rare times govt gets it right.
> 
> E


First, the only things the government is better at than the private sector are those things it is assigned to do in the Constitution - maintain armies and navies, coin money, administer a patent system, etc. Everything else, everything, the private sector can do better than any government.

Why does the government have to be the one to buy and lease marsh land? Why can't you do it? Why can't DU do it? Why can't ANYONE else do it?

The answer to the trick question is that none of those entities can FORCE you to participate and buy a duck stamp. The government can! So really what you are asking for is for the government to use it's power to force everyone who duck hunts into paying to buy/lease more land.

If people wanted to pay more to duck hunt, they would contribute to groups that would buy/lease land themselves without government power/coercion. But, since that isn't happening, the only way to do what you want to do is to force people to participate.

Even if we assume that the program has worked well there is 1) nothing that says it will continue to work well, 2) the government won't take that land it bought/leased and say no hunting allowed any more on that land, and 3) that the government will actually use the money they take in from the stamps to buy/lease more land. Until I see that the government will guarantee that the land it buys will be permanently open to hunting and all of the money taken in will always be used for marsh preservation, I will oppose any hike in any tax or fee on a duck stamp.

You don't need the government to buy you a place to hunt ducks.


----------



## pelican

Others are buying it, others are improving it......for themselves....tilling up the prime areas and growing crops. CRP fields are disappearing like someone lit a match. These funds are buying and protecting these places. If a landowner can profit by leasing to the government, they will. If the profit comes from soy or corn and destroying these areas he will.

I think the government is doing a fantastic job. Record number of birds. Seven bird limits. You can shoot more of certain species of birds, longer seasons. Climb down off the tea bag.


----------



## Stimmy

Its $10 people...good god. less than a box of shells...and his has not gone up in what 15 years. put away the tin foil hats

-O,-


----------



## Dodger

pelican said:


> Others are buying it, others are improving it......for themselves....tilling up the prime areas and growing crops. CRP fields are disappearing like someone lit a match. These funds are buying and protecting these places. If a landowner can profit by leasing to the government, they will. If the profit comes from soy or corn and destroying these areas he will.
> 
> I think the government is doing a fantastic job. Record number of birds. Seven bird limits. You can shoot more of certain species of birds, longer seasons. Climb down off the tea bag.


So, by your logic, if a landowner can profit by leasing land, they will. Why do you need the government to lease the land for you? Why can't/won't you lease it/buy it and let everyone come use it?

Your argument doesn't explain why the government needs more money to buy/lease land. Your argument is that they have been doing it so they should keep doing it. But that's not really an argument for why everyone should pay more for a duck stamp. Maybe you need to have a cup of tea and think about it.


----------



## Dodger

Stimmy said:


> Its $10 people...good god. less than a box of shells...and his has not gone up in what 15 years. put away the tin foil hats
> 
> -O,-


The dollar figure is irrelevant and so what that they haven't raised the price in 15 years?

You don't have a good rebuttal argument so the best way to respond is to call me an extremist?


----------



## pelican

How old are you?
Nutshell....they are protecting a resource
You have no idea who I am and what I do
Tea taste like duck a**


----------



## Dodger

pelican said:


> How old are you?
> Nutshell....they are protecting a resource
> You have no idea who I am and what I do
> Tea taste like duck a**


Old enough to carry on an intelligent argument, if the other side can/will oblige.

OK, they are protecting a resource. I'm saying others can do a better job of it and we are all at their whim if they decide not to do it any more.

Relevance?

If you don't like the taste of tea, you may not be refined enough for common sense or you've been licking the north end of too many of the south bound ducks we see around here.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

This increase is a great thing for our waterfowl as long as the money is used throughout our nation and in our state as well. Every penny should be spent on habitat and population improvements to ensure our waterfowl have a future. Waterfowl are a nation-wide responsibility and I want to see some of the money spent in our beautiful state, but in order to have good duck numbers you need the government protecting and improving the habitat, the increase is needed and I hope it goes through. I am glad to put money toward habitat and the betterment of our wildlife. I hope to see some of it return to Utah as well.


----------



## pelican

The relevance is I own a hunting club. I have learned a ton and still don't know squat about game management. The duck stamp and the fees I charge to hunt relate though. My fees cover improvements. Hunter satisfaction requires me to kill predators year round, water levels, cover ect... The duck stamp is doing the exact same thing, except it is pooling all hunters together to pay for it. Let the private sector control this and public hunters will have less say and less land to hunt. You'll see huge chunks of land sold to pay for what is paid for now with a stamp. Private would be much like the NRA, RMEF,DU, Delta ect.... Compared to those that benefit, very few contribute. Then you get your auctions and limited access. Then you'd become a Democrat and whine about your "entitlements"


----------



## dkhntrdstn

Stimmy said:


> Its $10 people...good god. less than a box of shells...and his has not gone up in what 15 years. put away the tin foil hats
> 
> -O,-


yea ten bucks no big deal right.But when you are dumping 100 bucks just n stamps and also 120 in linc fees. 400 bucks in shells. yep no biggie at all. come on not every one is making 20+ bucks a hour. they will be pushing the youth out of this sport that we are fight so hard to get the youth in. that not going to help.


----------



## Dodger

pelican said:


> The relevance is I own a hunting club. I have learned a ton and still don't know squat about game management. The duck stamp and the fees I charge to hunt relate though. My fees cover improvements. Hunter satisfaction requires me to kill predators year round, water leveled, cover ect... The duck stamp is doing the exact sane thing, except it is pooling all hunters together to pay for it. Let the private sector control this and public hunters will have less say and less land to hunt. You'll see huge chunks of land sold to pay for what is paid for now with a stamp. Private would be much like the NRA, RMWF,DU, Delta ect.... Compared to those that benefit, very few contribute. Then you get your auctions and limited access. Then you'd become a Democrat and whine about your "entitlements"


So did the government build your hunting club?

Why do people pay you to hunt on your club? Presumably because it provides a better experience than hunting on the land the government is currently buying for hunters, right?

You proved people can do it themselves and provide a better experience than the government can, right?

So, why exactly do you need the government to step in and buy more land to hunt on? If you let the public do it, it will do exactly what you have done - improve the hunting experience.


----------



## dkhntrdstn

I guess the other thing that piss me off is we pay it and brbr dont have water rights and cant keep water in the refuge for the hunt.


----------



## utahgolf

Dodger said:


> So did the government build your hunting club?
> 
> Why do people pay you to hunt on your club? Presumably because it provides a better experience than hunting on the land the government is currently buying for hunters, right?
> 
> You proved people can do it themselves and provide a better experience than the government can, right?
> 
> So, why exactly do you need the government to step in and buy more land to hunt on? If you let the public do it, it will do exactly what you have done - improve the hunting experience.


so do you think private entities managing lands would increase or decrease opportunity for hunters?


----------



## lablover

" Dodger" Really? are you high?
So let me put this in terms you may understand better-
We can turn all the WMA's in the state into a giant duck club that charges you $25k per year to hunt OR You can buy a annual pass from the feds(called a federal duck stamp) for $25 and hunt the same property?
What you are saying is you would prefer the giant duck club idea!
I hope you are HIGH and come down.......
Cuz $25 is pretty cheap


----------



## Trooper

Dodger said:


> First, the only things the government is better at than the private sector are those things it is assigned to do in the Constitution - maintain armies and navies, coin money, administer a patent system, etc. Everything else, everything, the private sector can do better than any government.
> 
> You don't need the government to buy you a place to hunt ducks.


Just out of curiosity, don't you know anyone who hunts ducks in Utah who wouldn't voluntarily purchase prairie pot-holes in Montana? By the way, how much marsh have you leased in North Dakota on behalf of Utah duck hunters? Think about it? Who is going to buy that ND cattail slough, knowing that the ducks will be far away from there by the time hunting comes around? Who is going to buy that slough, which will only benefit hunters-god knows where- when it could be drained and used for $7 bushel corn? Preserving waterfowel is EXACTLY the kind of thing government is for and good at. Besides aren't ducks worth something and don't they fly accross state lines? _The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;_


----------



## Dodger

utahgolf said:


> so do you think private entities managing lands would increase or decrease opportunity for hunters?


I'm saying that private duck clubs have better duck hunting than public lands.

But, what I'm really trying to get at is that a non-profit group would be a better manager/owner of duck hunting ground than the government is.



lablover said:


> " Dodger" Really? are you high?
> So let me put this in terms you may understand better-
> We can turn all the WMA's in the state into a giant duck club that charges you $25k per year to hunt OR You can buy a annual pass from the feds(called a federal duck stamp) for $25 and hunt the same property?
> What you are saying is you would prefer the giant duck club idea!
> I hope you are HIGH and come down.......
> Cuz $25 is pretty cheap


No, I don't want that. But, that's not really what I'm talking about. Don't you see the hazards of the government providing your hunting opportunity? If they are the ones giving it to you, they are the ones that can take it as well.

There is NOTHING that prevents congress from taking every dime of the waterfowl stamp money and using it to pay for birth control in Chicago.

If the private sector, like a non-profit group, was able to buy land for the public to use for duck hunting, don't you think that would be better than the government doing it?



Trooper said:


> Just out of curiosity, don't you know anyone who hunts ducks in Utah who wouldn't voluntarily purchase prairie pot-holes in Montana? By the way, how much marsh have you leased in North Dakota on behalf of Utah duck hunters? Think about it? Who is going to buy that ND cattail slough, knowing that the ducks will be far away from there by the time hunting comes around? Who is going to buy that slough, which will only benefit hunters-god knows where- when it could be drained and used for $7 bushel corn? Preserving waterfowel is EXACTLY the kind of thing government is for and good at. Besides aren't ducks worth something and don't they fly accross state lines? _The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;_


If preserving waterfowl was what the government was for, why the broad cite to the commerce clause?

Is that the same section of the Constitution that the Supreme Court uses to say that rape is commerce? Or maybe, it's the same section that is used to say that growing wheat in your own back yard is commerce?

So flying ducks are commerce? Right.

Any group that was interested in buying/leasing ground that is valuable as habitat for ducks, whether hunted or not, can and would do a better job than the feds.

Imagine what a non-profit group could do with the amount of money that comes in from duck stamps.


----------



## Dodger

Also, by the way, no one has explained to me why they need to increase the price of a duck stamp. We are arguing over whether or not there should be a duck stamp - which is a step in the right direction, I concede.

But, the only arguments I've seen for raising the price are 

1) they haven't raised the price in a while (so what?)

and 

2) the money doesn't go as far as it used to (who's fault is that? And, why do you think giving them more money will help?)


----------



## rjefre

I agree that the private sector can run things better than the govt, but the duck stamp money goes toward protecting and preserving habitat all over the country for the benefit of all of us (even non-hunters unfortunately). Private interests have no compulsion to do good things for the benefit to all unless it is a profitable enterprise. The duck stamp is a friggin bargain for what it provides to the waterfowl that we all love. The pric eof wetlands and breeding areas has skyrocketed (especially in North Dakota), if you think that a non-profit is going to out compete an oil company in a money fight for land aqusition, I think you would be incorrect. It always sucks to pay more, but this is a program that returns benefits to us all for a relatively cheap price. 15 bucks in duck stamp money just doesn't go as far as it did decades ago. It's time.
R


----------



## RandomElk16

$25 Duck Stamp today, LE Duck WMA tomorrow.

If they are using the resources as they should, I am all for it. I am just not sure WHAT more they will do. I didn't go through this whole thread yet, but how many stamps are sold a year? Multiply that by $10 then decide what that extra funding will do. With a 66% increase they have to have some great ideas! More officers? They aren't going to make rain, or add water circulation. Either way, if it is used for good, I have no problem. Each year we spend less than a $1 a duck.

They could probably put a Porta-potty at more WMA's and a dumpster; maybe more people would pick up their shells.

Yes, I see the potential issues with these two things.


----------



## wyogoob

I gleaned a few tidbits from Duck Stamp website: 
http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps/Conservation/conservation.htm

A repeat of what Stimmy said: For every dollar you spend on Federal Duck Stamps, ninety-eight cents goes directly to purchase vital habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.

*Since 1934:*​
*1.84 Million* Federal Ducks Stamps have been purchased in Utah.
*119.3 Million* Federal Duck Stamps have been purchased nationwide.
*$671.1 Million *has been raised for habitat conservation by the nationwide sales of Federal Duck Stamps.


----------



## goosefreak

the feds can stick it up their but wholes. I'd rather pay my state than my gov. but, i'll be a sucker and pay what I need to so I can hunt. see thats how they get you!


----------



## pelican

Without paying and supporting the pothole, you'll have no reason to support your state because there won't be enough birds to have a hunting season! Some of you amaze me. You hope and pray for northern weather to push birds here, but when it comes to a ten dollar bill you get stupid and forget where birds are made. They don't call it the duck factory for nothing.Geezos, Its like playing cards with my sisters kids.


----------



## Fowlmouth

$10 isn't a deal breaker for some of us, but here's the thing. There are other private organizations that donate a lot of money for wetland conservation. DU, Delta Waterfowl and Pheasants Forever to name a few. The donations come from us the hunting community to support these organizations. We pay and we pay and we pay. When will it ever be enough? I get tired of hearing "it's only $10". This statement is probably coming from guys that are only thinking of themselves and not taking into consideration that others have families that enjoy the sport too. The $10 extra charge can add up in a hurry when you are purchasing for every family member. At some point guys are going to say "screw it, it's not worth it" and quit hunting all together, then where's the money going to come from? The guys left that want to hunt better have a shi+ load of money to pay to make up the difference for all the guys that quit hunting.


----------



## ducknuts

*Cheap SOB's*

$10 bucks seriously!! ya'll complaining spend more then that on black hoodies and waterfowl stickers for your trucks. $10 bucks!! Cut back on the McDonald's and the Java Joe's. Also get more involved, the state needs help with phrag spraying, nesting projects, habitat restoration projects. it's the same guys year after year doing the work. There's a nesting project this weekend at Farmington Bay. Who's going?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I agree Fowlmouth, it has gotten to a point where we as hunters are nickled and dimed to support our nations wildlife out of our pocket. License fees have gone up, applications fees have gone up, more is required, and yet I don't see the true results in a lot of things, a lot of people making money, not helping wildlife. With something like a habitat and conservation stamp I feel just fine about spending more money, now $5 added to my hunting licenses to support coyote control or "SFW agendas" is not my cup of tea. This year alone if a combination is increased by $8 and the duck stamp is increased by $10, that is $18 more annually which I understand adds up. As long as the money goes where its supposed to I support it. I do not support however money going to useless studies, do what works, habitat works. I don't support coyote control, put that $5 towards more habitat, guzzlers, and protection of habitat rather than throw it away on something hunters already do, kill coyotes. Organizations such as Pheasants forever, DU, Delta Waterfowl, and others are great organizations I have joined 5 different organizations in the last couple months just to get a view on there organizations to see what they're all about and who is best to support in the long run. I would like to see more Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever chapters in our state, it would be great to see nesting habitats improved, and habitat protected and improved. Hopefully with a $10 raise on duck stamps well see more habitat work and not fatter pockets on government officials. If the money goes where it should to useful and beneficial futures for our wildlife and hunting, then I'm all for it, if it doesn't stop ripping me off and putting the burden on hunters.


----------



## Bret

This kind of stuff always amazes me. I will happily pay for the duck stamp.


----------



## Dodger

If the Feds put that land into some kind of land conservation trust that had a board and members with bylaws that said that hunting could never be banned on the land that was bought with the duck stamp money, yeah, I'd be in.

This isn't about $10 people. 

I'm asking for a little accountability for my required "donation." I want to make sure it does what it is supposed to do for the long haul. That doesn't make me cheap, an extremist, a tin foil hat wearer, high, or put me on top of a tea bag.


----------



## Dodger

pelican said:


> Without paying and supporting the pothole, you'll have no reason to support your state because there won't be enough birds to have a hunting season! Some of you amaze me. You hope and pray for northern weather to push birds here, but when it comes to a ten dollar bill you get stupid and forget where birds are made. They don't call it the duck factory for nothing.Geezos, Its like playing cards with my sisters kids.


So an extra $10 for the duck stamp is going to fix the weather and make sure the birds fly down here?

Where have I heard something like that before? Hmmm . . .


----------



## lablover

IMO I think the government has done a pretty good job with our WMA's ? I also think the FEDS do a better job managing duck dollars than STATE! IF $.98 cents of every dollar goes back to the ducks that's amazing! I guarantee you our state does NOT do that! It's probably more like $.03 of every dollar goes to the duck's in Utah..........
I also think ANYONE entering a WMA should have to produce a Federal stamp to enter!8)
Don't get me wrong I'm not PRO Government but I do think the feds have given or saved land for the people to enjoy including all our national parks!


----------



## pelican

Dodger for thousands of years the ducks have migrated the way they do. YES!!!!! Investing in the breeding grounds produces birds....those birds come here, its really that simple. The feds don't own all that land, it is in Canada and the US.....and really, this whole conservation effort deals with both north and south america....private and federal lands. This program does what leaving it up to the States won't do..... Do you think the Canadians and northern States would spend their money just to make sure Dodger would have birds to hunt? Do you think landowner leave their land undeveloped just so the Mexicans.... Argentinians ect..... can have a hunting season? Regardless of of what the tea party generals tell you, we do need federal government sometimes, and this is one of those times


----------



## chukarflusher

If you don't like the increase quit bitching and don't pay it go on strike don't hunt ducks then that way people that care and don't bitch about ten bucks can hunt and enjoy it without whiners in there way


----------



## wyogoob

I don't think $25 is too much to ask for 300 to 400 ducks a year.

.


----------



## 1BandMan

A-freaking-mazing. Are you kidding me?????

95% of the population of hunters are takers without giving back anything....ever. 
If it could be made manditory that each and every hunter put into a pot a chunk of change to give back to the resource, I'd push HARD for it, private or government, it wouldn't matter.
It's a-freaking-mazing people get bent out of whack over $10 when they have thousands of dollars worth of hunting equipment, but cant spare some change for the birds. Give me, everyone else and for that mater yourselves a break if $10 a person will break your bank.

If this is about politics, take it to the political forum.


----------



## Stimmy

1BandMan said:


> A-freaking-mazing. Are you kidding me?????
> 
> 95% of the population of hunters are takers without giving back anything....ever.
> If it could be made manditory that each and every hunter put into a pot a chunk of change to give back to the resource, I'd push HARD for it, private or government, it wouldn't matter.
> It's a-freaking-mazing people get bent out of whack over $10 when they have thousands of dollars worth of hunting equipment, but cant spare some change for the birds. Give me, everyone else and for that mater yourselves a break if $10 a person will break your bank.
> 
> If this is about politics, take it to the political forum.


 Agreed. but "it isn't about the money. it is about the government telling us where we can hunt" or something like that...I still cant understand why we are at page 5..... :grin:


----------



## wyogoob

Hey, don't get me wrong, I hate the government as much as anybody, but this really is not about politics.

I'm thinking they should leave the stamp at $15 and charge $1 a duck on WMAs.


----------



## pelican

If they charged per duck on the WMA, there would just be more mud stomped ducks.


----------



## wyogoob

pelican said:


> If they charged per duck on the WMA, there would just be more mud stomped ducks.


Yeah, you're probably right.

.


----------



## RandomElk16

I just wish you paid $25. $15 went to the feds, $10 went to your state. I think utah could do some good stuff for WMA's with that $10.


----------



## Gee LeDouche

Do I like it? Not necessarily. I don't have a choice if I want to continue waterfowling. I just have to hope that the Fed knows best and spends it the way I would want it spent instead of spending it wastefully or giving it to people I don't think deserve it.

Bottom line is I will pay the 25 dollars because it is what is required to do what I enjoy.

*READ MY SIGNATURE LINE!!!*


----------



## utahgolf

the only thing that irks me is how nothing is incremental anymore with fees. When they increase something these days, they really jack it up overnight, sometimes double of what it use to be.


----------



## dkhntrdstn

yes the hard core duck hunters will pay the money.yes it piss me off because i dont see anything changing like they say it going to.just like the swans going up. but I think it going to hurt some family's.


----------



## Dodger

pelican said:


> Dodger for thousands of years the ducks have migrated the way they do. YES!!!!! Investing in the breeding grounds produces birds....those birds come here, its really that simple. The feds don't own all that land, it is in Canada and the US.....and really, this whole conservation effort deals with both north and south america....private and federal lands. This program does what leaving it up to the States won't do..... Do you think the Canadians and northern States would spend their money just to make sure Dodger would have birds to hunt? Do you think landowner leave their land undeveloped just so the Mexicans.... Argentinians ect..... can have a hunting season? Regardless of of what the tea party generals tell you, we do need federal government sometimes, and this is one of those times


So, ducks were migrating the way they do for thousands of years without any one having a duck stamp? If it's been working for so long, why do they need to raise the price of a duck stamp?

You haven't listened to a single thing that I've said. You're not interested in talking about how to manage ducks, you are just interested in disagreeing with me because you don't like my view of the government's influence on duck hunting. You, and others, have just insulted me throughout this entire thread without making any coherent argument to support your point of view. You can say crap like a $10 increase in duck stamps will make ducks fly south and no one makes a peep.

Quick, everyone shut down intelligent debate! We have an extremist among us! Someone call the moderators! We gotta shut this guy up! He sounds like he's one of those "tea bag" people! Hide your kids, hide your wives!

I've shot 11 ducks and 1 goose ever. Period. I can also easily afford to pay $10 more for a duck stamp. I'm not even a waterfowler. I didn't grow up in a hunting family. I never shot a duck until last year. I don't know why you don't understand that I'm opposed to fee increases on principle.

Anyone that makes points on principles around here is free game I guess.


----------



## Fowlmouth

Let me remind some of you folks that think the federal government always has your best interest in mind. These are the same people that locked the gates at BRBR, Ouray and Fish Springs on opening weekend last year due to furloughs. Do you really think $10 can buy you a spot on federal land when that happens again? Hell NO! 
I support having a duck stamp, but is an increased fee necessary? I know where the federal government could get lots of money to pay for lots of things, but the welfare recipients are not going to like the idea.:shock:


----------



## pelican

Dodger how will you fund paying landowners to not develop their land? You never answer a question....just keep coming back with your government BS. Loss of habitat means less birds...its that freakin simple! That's what these pay for. So explain to us how in the world of the tea bagger, without using the government how you will accomplish what this program has for less.

Dustin....you really haven't seen any improvements? How do you like record bird numbers? Longer seasons with larger limits? Just tgr fact that you are able to hint swans. I was out to my club toddy. There are probably 150 geese pairing up, that ain't nothing compared to what's going on up north. Lose that land, those water rights and the only hunting you'll be doing is on a video game.


----------



## Dodger

pelican said:


> Dodger how will you fund paying landowners to not develop their land? You never answer a question....just keep coming back with your government BS. Loss of habitat means less birds...its that freakin simple! That's what these pay for. So explain to us how in the world of the tea bagger, without using the government how you will accomplish what this program has for less.


I never said I was against having a duck stamp. The ONLY thing I've advocated for is more accountability. You've been too busy calling me names to pay attention.

In my perfect world, you'd buy a duck stamp. The money would go to a waterfowl land conservation trust with a board and a director. The bylaws of that organization would mandate the board and the director to manage the land/acquisition of land for the benefit of the hunters who PAID FOR IT! They would buy habitat/lease land/pay to keep it open.

The trust would own the land and keep it open and available to the public.

No furlough bull. None of your left leaning pals deciding hunting on public land shouldn't be allowed because they want to bird watch. No jackass president deciding he just doesn't want to fund waterfowl programs any more. No congress deciding that it wants to buy more votes from the people who can't think for themselves with the money instead of putting it into the habitat the hunters are paying for.

I don't know how many times I've said that in this thread. Several at least.


----------



## goosefreak

what the hail is this world coming to? Duck stamps going up, next thing you know health insurance will start going up


----------



## wyogoob

This thread is becoming too political. Intelligent debates are based on facts. Some of the comments, on both sides, are just not true.

If you come here to continually bash the government you have come to the wrong place.


----------



## pelican

I haven't called you a single name, just the tea party stuff has grown tired. With all the money from a duck stamp going back into the ducks, with the birds doing so well, and knowing cost have gone up in 20yrs, I have no problem with the program or paying more money.Its really the only wildlife program that has shown real positive results. All you keep thinking is government bad. I'd be insulted for you calling me a leftist, if it weren't so funny.


----------



## dkhntrdstn

pelican;
Dustin....you really haven't seen any improvements? How do you like record bird numbers? Longer seasons with larger limits? Just tgr fact that you are able to hint swans. I was out to my club toddy. There are probably 150 geese pairing up said:


> Im 34 years old man. the limit as all was been 7.I never said anything about the limits. Yes we get to hunt swan awesome. But here the thing that im not happy about.Brbr has a nice chunk of land. They just bought some more land a couple years from the clubs up there. Guess what THEY ARE CLOSED TO HUNTING.So why did they buy that land to give the DUCKS AND GEESE AND SWAN MORE RESTING AREA. sorry the they have plenty right now us hunters are losing hunting land every year.from phrag no water the list goes on. So raise the duck stamp up and have no reason to beside saying it has not been raised for so many year is bs.


----------



## pelican

Really limits haven't been raised in 34yrs? How many pintails can you take now? Canvasbacks? How about snow geese, any changes there? Other flyways, its not just about Utah, any changes there? If they keep having record numbers of birds every year, some species of birds making huge rebounds, you really can say you're not seeing any changes in 34yrs???? Now to keep things simple, what does a new boat cost now compared to 34yrs ago? How about a new truck?These aare just two simple tools needed by the USFG. Yet raising stamp fees isn't needed to cover the differences? Are you helping with the nesting project this weekend?


----------



## rjefre

It truly sucks that the feds buy up lands that have always been open to hunting (even if they were pay-to-play) and shut them down to public use. That is one thing I would like to change, and I'm working in it as we speak. Overall, though, I do believe that the duck stamp program shows a good return on our investment. It has very little to do with how these refuges are managed, but rather, it focuses on protecting valuable habitat that no one else will probably ever step up and protect. Sad, but this is a necessary function of federal government. Unfortunately, some things need to be protected for our capitalist society because without protections for the environment, it would all be drained, plowed, drilled and plundered until it is gone. Most of it has already dissappeared, but we can still protect what's left.
R


----------



## Ryan

Beating a :deadhorse:


----------



## Dodger

pelican said:


> I haven't called you a single name, just the tea party stuff has grown tired. With all the money from a duck stamp going back into the ducks, with the birds doing so well, and knowing cost have gone up in 20yrs, I have no problem with the program or paying more money.Its really the only wildlife program that has shown real positive results. All you keep thinking is government bad. I'd be insulted for you calling me a leftist, if it weren't so funny.


That's intellectually dishonest. I told you exactly what I'd do and you had nothing substantive to say about it.

You're also the one that started throwing around political labels. I said I won't support any increase in price for any duck stamp until my concerns with the program are met. That's all.

You're head is so far in the sand that you won't even think about something beyond the status quo for something that might be better. Even if the Feds have done a good job, I think there are better solutions to the waterfowl habitat issue.

You and others perceive that as government bashing and political. If anything, my proposal is taking the politics out of duck hunting and duck habitat. I think that's GOOD for duck hunting and duck habitat because a government that gives you a place to duck hunt can take your place to duckhunt, as Fowlmouth so eloquently pointed out.

The duck stamp is a federal program. But if I point out flaws in the system I'm a tea party extremist fanatic? Pointing out that a vast majority of duck hunting could be wiped out with a stroke of a pen is government bashing from underneath a tin foil hat?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why the fee should be raised just because it hasn't been raised for 20 years.

I'm also waiting for someone to explain why inflation caused by government policies is a reason for why everyone should pay more for a government mandated duck stamp.

But, hey, if you don't have a response, you might as well call them a bigoted racist psychopath extremist terrorist loving puppy hater just to make sure no one actually wonders why those questions haven't been answered yet.


----------



## pelican

Dodger.... a, never mind.


----------



## Trooper

What's scary to me is how many of you think Utah WMAs are a significant benefit of the duck stamp program. That's awful Utah centric. The benefits of the duck stamp to Utah hunters come from protecting nesting habitat in the northern tier of states. Just to fire Dodge up, I'll go so far as to add this: whatever crumbs of duck stamp money are spent in Utah, it's probably too much and probably ought to be spent in ND.


----------



## Vanilla

I'm okay with the cost going up, I guess. But only if EVERY user of WMA's and state parks, etc where waterfowl are enjoyed should have to possess one. I'm tired of hunters footing the entire bill and then still getting attacked constantly by anti-hunting tree huggers that benefit from the money we invest in waterfowl. 

Require everyone that goes to enjoy the birds to have one regardless of how they choose to enjoy them. Not just hunters. Do that, and I'll support the increase. Quit nickle and diming us as hunters.


----------



## GBell

How about this deal here??

Take all the WMA's and Refuges in the state. 
Divide total acreage as follows. 

1 general hunt area. Regular price
2 limited entry area. Pay $250.00 more to hunt. 
3 auction only area. All blinds are sold to the highest bidder.


----------



## Fowlmouth

GBell said:


> How about this deal here??
> 
> Take all the WMA's and Refuges in the state.
> Divide total acreage as follows.
> 
> 1 general hunt area. Regular price
> 2 limited entry area. Pay $250.00 more to hunt.
> 3 auction only area. All blinds are sold to the highest bidder.


We already have that here, it's called big game hunting.


----------



## GBell

Exactly my point Rob. 

I keep hearing that Utah has 10 times the funding
And does more habitat work than all the other western
States combined. 

We are around 30% of the deer hunters in the state of where
We were 20 years ago. But.. But... We've put all this money on
The ground and hunters have sacrificed in not being guaranteed
A tag every year. So where the hell is the payoff?? If you listen to
The idiots on the RACs ( not you R ) and Wildlife Board about
How Utah is "the envy" of all the other western states you can see
How full of Shiz they are. 

Look teabaggers. Struggle to understand that hunting
Is a SOCIALIST endeavor. It's not meant to be privatized. 
It doesn't work with big game and it sure as hell won't 
Work with migratory game. 

If paying $10.00 more means a farmer in ND doesn't backfill
And plant a pothole on his property it's money well spent. 
For those of you with kids or grand kids coming up look at this
As the investment your hunting mentors invested so you'd have the chance
To hunt.


----------



## dkhntrdstn

pelican said:


> Really limits haven't been raised in 34yrs? How many pintails can you take now? Canvasbacks? How about snow geese, any changes there? Other flyways, its not just about Utah, any changes there? If they keep having record numbers of birds every year, some species of birds making huge rebounds, you really can say you're not seeing any changes in 34yrs???? Now to keep things simple, what does a new boat cost now compared to 34yrs ago? How about a new truck?These aare just two simple tools needed by the USFG. Yet raising stamp fees isn't needed to cover the differences? Are you helping with the nesting project this weekend?


There been miners changes. Yes we went from one pintail to up to three and back two now.Yes cans are up to two for once in a very long time. blue bills are at four. ok these ducks bag limit change every year.So that not the change Im talking about.


----------



## pelican

Sooooo a positive change isn't enough, more hunting opportunity isn't enough, long season dates, not enough. So what are the changes you are looking for?


----------



## Gee LeDouche

I don't have a problem contributing to the betterment of waterfowling. What I do have a problem with is being forced to give more money to a government that has a irrefutable history of wastefully spending billions of dollars, then coming back and demanding more. 

kinda like when you give 10 dollars to your alcoholic brother in law to get something to eat, you never see the 10 dollars again, hes still hungry but he has a fresh 6 pack in his hand.. How many more times are you going to get burned by the BIL before you stop giving him more $$

I read the laughable statistics about "98% goes right back into habitat" and think to myself, this absolutely cant be true. No organization, let alone any government,, work with 98% efficiency. BUT, I would be more apt to believe it if there was ANY accountability for these funds (and every other tax dollar spent). I guess I just don't trust anyone to spend the money I earn better than I can.


----------



## fishspook

I think the increase should be a lot more than $10. A Utah combination license and a federal duck stamp might be the best entertainment bargain on the planet. I've never shot a duck in Utah and thought it was worth less than I was paying. There is no reason to offer this amazing resource so cheaply. In my opinion, we should all be charged a lot more, and the money should be used to help the sustainability of the resource for future generations.


----------



## dkhntrdstn

pelican said:


> Sooooo a positive change isn't enough, more hunting opportunity isn't enough, long season dates, not enough. So what are the changes you are looking for?


im not bitching about the bag limits,long season,more hunting.No im not. Im bitching about the gov buying land and closing it to hunting. They are not opening any of it up to hunting witch is bs.Im not the only one bitching about that.


----------



## Fowlmouth

fishspook said:


> I think the increase should be a lot more than $10. A Utah combination license and a federal duck stamp might be the best entertainment bargain on the planet. I've never shot a duck in Utah and thought it was worth less than I was paying. There is no reason to offer this amazing resource so cheaply. In my opinion, we should all be charged a lot more, and the money should be used to help the sustainability of the resource for future generations.


So next time you are applying for hunting permits you can just check the donation box and put whatever amount you want to donate. Or, if you really want to pay more just go donate directly to the DWR offices or send a check to the Feds, or donate your money to DU, Delta Waterfowl or Pheasants Forever. I don't think any of these groups will turn your money down. If you want to pay more by all means get paying more. Don't wait for the rest of us man, just because some of us don't want to pay more shouldn't hold you back from paying as much as you want. Hell donate several of your paychecks this year. Nobody is stopping you get with it and start giving your money away.....


----------



## wyogoob

I love this this time of year on the UWN.


----------



## fishspook

Fowlmouth said:


> So next time you are applying for hunting permits you can just check the donation box and put whatever amount you want to donate. Or, if you really want to pay more just go donate directly to the DWR offices or send a check to the Feds, or donate your money to DU, Delta Waterfowl or Pheasants Forever. I don't think any of these groups will turn your money down. If you want to pay more by all means get paying more. Don't wait for the rest of us man, just because some of us don't want to pay more shouldn't hold you back from paying as much as you want. Hell donate several of your paychecks this year. Nobody is stopping you get with it and start giving your money away.....


You make some great points. Those organizations depend on generous donors, and I do my meager best to support a couple of them. We all benefit from their actions, and I think we could all do more to support them. When considering it costs more to take your family to the movie theater once, than your entire season of duck permits, I think that every duck hunter could afford to pay a little more as an alternative to more expensive entertainment options.


----------



## diverfreak

Most of us on here hate prices to rise on anything. I for one get irritated when the price of gas jumps 10 to 20 cents but it doesn't keep me from driving. Even if the federal duck stamp jumped to 200 a stamp those who are complaining will still buy it and if they don't then there priorities are different than most. I hate the fact that the feds keep buying up property and not opening any up to make it the 60/40 they are required to, but I know without the rest areas there wouldn't be any birds. In the grand scheme of things I could care less if the stamp jumps up to 100 each. I am far more worried that gas and electric goes up5% each year and my health insurance went up 20% from 2 years ago. I think someone needs to call whine 11 and get a wambulance as a 10 raise in a duck stamp is a drop of water in the sea compared to the other things we pay more for everyday.

Diverfreak


----------



## wyogoob

March is UWN "Whine Month" on years that do not have a Presidential Election.

During Presidential Election years UWN "Whine Month" is January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, and October and if your guy doesn't win the next 36 months after that.

Whine on.


----------



## Montego13

Fishspook...I like your analogy of taking your family to the movies IF... You would like to make it a little more accurate, think about this

At the movies, they provide the movie, the theater with all the seats, the screen to play it on, the projectors, the people to operate the equipment and clean up..... 

Find me a place they provide a gun, decoys, boat, shells, calls, waders, people to set up and clean up for $11 ..... I'm in! 25 days of hunting for $275 with no equipment to maintain, clean, or repair.


----------



## Mtnbeer

Montego13 said:


> Fishspook...I like your analogy of taking your family to the movies IF... You would like to make it a little more accurate, think about this
> 
> At the movies, they provide the movie, the theater with all the seats, the screen to play it on, the projectors, the people to operate the equipment and clean up.....
> 
> Find me a place they provide a gun, decoys, boat, shells, calls, waders, people to set up and clean up for $11 ..... I'm in! 25 days of hunting for $275 with no equipment to maintain, clean, or repair.


Actually (and not to beat a dead horse), a more accurate analogy using your thoughts would be the movie theater that buys your glasses or contacts to watch a movie in sharp detail or provides you with a car so you can go to the movies. I don't know of any that do that.

Federal refuges provide land for you to hunt, habitat for the ducks, food for the ducks, and improvements/facilities for you to access and use the habitat (restrooms, dikes and other water impoundment structures, blinds, trash cleanup/pickup). All for $25 a year. Try and find a better deal than that.


----------



## Fowlmouth

Mtnbeer said:


> Federal refuges provide land for you to hunt, habitat for the ducks, food for the ducks, and improvements/facilities for you to access and use the habitat (restrooms, dikes and other water impoundment structures, blinds, trash cleanup/pickup). All for $25 a year. Try and find a better deal than that.


Just remember that the Feds can lock the gate and keep you out at anytime too. Remember opening week last season? Federal employees were furloughed and things were shut and locked down. Nobody is arguing that $25 is going to keep us from hunting. I just don't think the Feds will stretch the extra $10 to really make any difference.


----------



## wyogoob

Lets pro-rate the price of a Duck Stamp according to your wages....say 0.0011347 x line 31 on your 1040 Income tax form.

If that total is less than $15 you will be forced to eat all your ducks.

I'm calling it the ADCA, (Affordable Duck Care Act)

.


----------



## Lonetree

GBell said:


> Exactly my point Rob.
> 
> I keep hearing that Utah has 10 times the funding
> And does more habitat work than all the other western
> States combined.
> 
> We are around 30% of the deer hunters in the state of where
> We were 20 years ago. But.. But... We've put all this money on
> The ground and hunters have sacrificed in not being guaranteed
> A tag every year. So where the hell is the payoff?? If you listen to
> The idiots on the RACs ( not you R ) and Wildlife Board about
> How Utah is "the envy" of all the other western states you can see
> How full of Shiz they are.
> 
> Look teabaggers. Struggle to understand that hunting
> Is a SOCIALIST endeavor. It's not meant to be privatized.
> It doesn't work with big game and it sure as hell won't
> Work with migratory game.
> 
> If paying $10.00 more means a farmer in ND doesn't backfill
> And plant a pothole on his property it's money well spent.
> For those of you with kids or grand kids coming up look at this
> As the investment your hunting mentors invested so you'd have the chance
> To hunt.


Hunting is no more a Socialist endeavor as it is a capitalist endeavor. The pursuit, maintenance, and preservation of hunting, wildlife, and wild lands must be _Egalitarian_ by design and necessity. While people like Don Peay have called it socialist, the falsity of that distinction is very important. Every bit as important as why it is not an endeavor of privilege or money. Under a socialist/Marxist system it would be "to each their need. from each their ability" So everyone gets to hunt, but not everyone has to buy a duck stamp. Under a system of privilege or capitalism, not everyone gets to hunt, only those that can afford access to property and animals. Under the current Egalitarian system of public trust, everyone has access to the wildlife, that we collectively hold, and everyone has to buy a duck stamp to hunt. Something about responsibility or some other non-sense. The current system, based on egalitarian public trust doctrine, is the only one that does, or can, benefit the ducks on a complete, multi-state, multi nation level. And it is that benefit to the water fowl, that is of the utmost importance to us as hunters. It still baffles me how truths, that have been borne out over centuries, are still some how "debated".

For those in opposition to raising the price of a duck stamp, shut ******** up. I'm sick and tired of listening to anti-hunters tell me about how they are "hunters". Pulling the trigger, while advocating for ideology and policy that flies in the face of centuries of hunting heritage, does not make you a hunter! It makes you someone's insurgent pawn in a debate you don't actually understand.


----------



## wyogoob

Lonetree said:


> Hunting is no more a Socialist endeavor as it is a capitalist endeavor. The pursuit, maintenance, and preservation of hunting, wildlife, and wild lands must be _Egalitarian_ by design and necessity. While people like Don Peay have called it socialist, the falsity of that distinction is very important. Every bit as important as why it is not an endeavor of privilege or money. Under a socialist/Marxist system it would be "to each their need. from each their ability" So everyone gets to hunt, but not everyone has to buy a duck stamp. Under a system of privilege or capitalism, not everyone gets to hunt, only those that can afford access to property and animals. Under the current Egalitarian system of public trust, everyone has access to the wildlife, that we collectively hold, and everyone has to buy a duck stamp to hunt. Something about responsibility or some other non-sense. The current system, based on egalitarian public trust doctrine, is the only one that does, or can, benefit the ducks on a complete, multi-state, multi nation level. And it is that benefit to the water fowl, that is of the utmost importance to us as hunters. It still baffles me how truths, that have been borne out over centuries, are still some how "debated".
> 
> For those in opposition to raising the price of a duck stamp, shut ******** up. I'm sick and tired of listening to anti-hunters tell me about how they are "hunters". Pulling the trigger, while advocating for ideology and policy that flies in the face of centuries of hunting heritage, does not make you a hunter! It makes you someone's insurgent pawn in a debate you don't actually understand.


No, our members do not have to shut *** **** up if they disagree with you and stay within the UWN rules.

As far as the whining goes, that's what makes the UWN one of the top 23 Utah outdoor forums.

.


----------



## rjefre

Sweet!...We made it into the top 23! 
R


----------



## Lonetree

As you know Goob, I'm all about disagreeing, so no disagreement there.

Yes, by all means, lets hear about how changing the egalitarian basis of the NAMWC, towards a capitalist, or socialist model, is better, and benefits waterfowl, and hunters.


----------



## wyogoob

Lonetree said:


> As you know Goob, I'm all about disagreeing, so no disagreement there.
> 
> Yes, by all means, lets hear about how changing the egalitarian basis of the NAMWC, towards a capitalist, or socialist model, is better, and benefits waterfowl, and hunters.


Uh..........your post reminds me of something Richard Nixon once said, and I quote verbatim:
 _
"I don't think you quite understand that what you believe I may have meant isn't what you think I said"_

:smile:


----------



## Lonetree

Exactly


----------



## GBell

Prolly oughta check egalitarian theory
before you go running off with the ramrod 
Still in the barrel.


----------



## Lonetree

GBell said:


> Prolly oughta check egalitarian theory
> before you go running off with the ramrod
> Still in the barrel.


e·gal·i·tar·i·an
[ih-gal-i-tair-ee-uhn] Show IPA 
adjective 
1. 
asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, economic, or social life. 
noun 
2. 
a person who adheres to egalitarian beliefs.

"Egalitarianism in politics can be of at least two forms. One form is equality of persons in right, sometimes referred to as natural rights; John Locke is sometimes considered the founder of this form.[10] The slogan "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" was used during the French Revolution and is still used as an official slogan of the French government.[11]
Social ownership of means of production so that the surplus product produced accrues to society as a whole as opposed to private owners is sometimes considered to be a form of economic egalitarianism. Although Karl Marx is sometimes mistaken to be an egalitarian, Marx eschewed normative theorizing on moral principles. Marx did, however, have a theory of the evolution of moral principles in relation to specific economic systems.[12]

Karl Marx was a proponent of two principles, the first applied to socialism and the second to an advanced communist society: "To each according to his contribution" and "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need". Marx's position is often confused or conflated with distributive egalitarianism, in which only the goods and services resulting from production are distributed according to a notional equality; but in reality Marx eschewed the entire concept of equality as abstract and bourgeois in nature, focusing instead on more concrete principles such as opposition to exploitation on materialist and economic logic"
Modern socialism as we understand it, has its roots in Marxism. And in practice looks much more like capitalism, than some would be comfortable in admitting.

Equality of access, ie. the ability of everyone to purchase a license, or access public land. Equality of ownership, ie. public trust doctrine as it relates to wildlife and public lands. And an equalization of responsibility, to the prior two points, via taxation for support of public lands, and duck stamps for the conservation of waterfowl, based on their consumptive use, are rooted in egalitarian doctrine. Egalitarian doctrine sees the equality to access, and responsibility, unlike socialism, communism, or capitalism.

There are many American endeavors and traditions that are either socialist, or capitalist by their very nature. But hunting, as a whole, is not, nor should it ever be.

So while public trust doctrine, and collective ownership of wildlife and land, could be argued as being communistic, because of the "communal" nature of ownership. Their egalitarian roots predate, by centuries, Marxism, and the modern creation and forms of communism and socialism, that do not promote equality. Interestingly, in communist and socialist counties, hunting culture and philosophy look much more like capitalism, with limited access.

While in all practically the NAMWC is not a perfect egalitarian model, that is the foundational ideal that it has rested on for centuries(eight of them). So while one could argue that egalitarianism is the same as socialism, or communism(the two are often confused, or intertwined), especially while only looking at the public trust side of hunting. Taken as a whole, especially with an eye towards the last 100+ years of conservationism, progressivism would seem to be the modern model that most closely represents the long egalitarian tradition of hunting, especially on a whole, when coupled with conservation and responsibility, such as duck stamps.


----------



## GBell

The egalitarian concept is based entirely on
The concept of strict equality in all things. 
Based on this the concept of authority does not exist. 
This is the tragedy of the commons in practice. 
IE, if you adhere to this concept there is no room
To create a rule that would prevent another from access
In any way shape or form.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Are we to understand then that an increase of $10 would prevent access? Less than the cost of a box of shells. Is that the point?


----------



## Lonetree

GBell said:


> The egalitarian concept is based entirely on
> The concept of strict equality in all things.
> Based on this the concept of authority does not exist.
> This is the tragedy of the commons in practice.
> IE, if you adhere to this concept there is no room
> To create a rule that would prevent another from access
> In any way shape or form.


In its purest interpretation, yes. One could make the argument that poachers could not be restricted from their access, to their animals.

On the responsibility side of things, where we are supposed to have equal, democratic access to the governing process, we also have the authority to govern. That equal access to governance does not exist with a socialist, or privatized capitalist model.


----------



## RandomElk16

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Are we to understand then that an increase of $10 would prevent access? Less than the cost of a box of shells. Is that the point?


No no no.. $10 today means $1000 tomorrow. Plus that $10 will just go into the pockets of some... And those with families can't afford it, even if unlimited ducks means free food.

I think its something like that.


----------



## GBell

Ha ha!! You like to argue meaningless crap more than
I do. 

Poaching could not exist in an egalitarian system
Because that would mean access is limited.


----------



## Lonetree

GBell said:


> Ha ha!! You like to argue meaningless crap more than
> I do.
> 
> Poaching could not exist in an egalitarian system
> Because that would mean access is limited.


I would agree it is meaningless on a certain level. But when it comes to the accuracy of communication, it means everything.

What comes to mind when I say "The conservation organization, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife"? Precision in definition matters at a certain level.

It is just my view of the world, I spent a lot of years where the difference of .0001" was the difference between good, and bad. And in my current view, parts per million and isotopic distinctions make all the difference in the world, and affects everything.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> No no no.. $10 today means $1000 tomorrow. Plus that $10 will just go into the pockets of some... And those with families can't afford it, even if unlimited ducks means free food.
> 
> I think its something like that.


It was $15 for a very long time while gasoline and ammunition quadrupled in price. It will only be $1000 tomorrow, if we continue with the same mentality of the last 30 years, and only do something when its almost too late. The price should have risen to $25 over a longer period of time, and kept pace with everything else. It would have then been working for us over the last couple of decades, rather than us playing catch up now.


----------



## skeeter065

*Duck stamp increase*

I was given this cool 1949 federal stamp from my grandfather back when it was one dollar.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

So did the stamp go up or do we know when they'll decide if it goes up?


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> It was $15 for a very long time while gasoline and ammunition quadrupled in price. It will only be $1000 tomorrow, if we continue with the same mentality of the last 30 years, and only do something when its almost too late. The price should have risen to $25 over a longer period of time, and kept pace with everything else. It would have then been working for us over the last couple of decades, rather than us playing catch up now.


I forgot the {insert sarcasm here} tag....

I am fine with the increase. Its the cheapest hunting permit I have to buy each year, even with an increase.


----------

