WMA open meeting in Jackson

[Don Miller]

Are Lifetime Liscence(sp?) holders still exempt from having to pay the $50 user fee?

[MSDuckmen]

I think the $50 permit is a bit high especially for us folks in south ms where there are no birds except for woodies.

redneck22ms there is much more hunting in a WMA besides ducks.

I would have to ask you how many times you have attempted to contact the managers of your WMA. Do you know his name? Do you know how many area's his people cover? Have you as a user of the WMA offered to assist him with projects that the public can volunteer with?

My guess would be no..

Yet you still have the right to call it a joke.

JMO

[MSDuckmen]

Are Lifetime Liscence(sp?) holders still exempt from having to pay the $50 user fee?

My guess would be yes. However I am a lifetime holder but still choose to pay the permit fee because it is important and well worth the investment.
We'll just have to see if they choose to raise it and if so what restrictions are applied.

[Po Monkey Lounger]

MSDuckmen, the following is not a criticism, just legitimate questions.


I am all in favor of an increased fee for use of WMAs statewide, so long as the money is used to improve our WMAs. BUT, will this money be earmarked strictly for use in the WMAs, or will it simply go into the general funds raised by the MDWF&P that gets raided every year by the state general fund?

If earmarked to the WMAs, will the added fees actually increase money to spend in and to improve those WMAs, or will it just replace current MDWF&P funds used for such expenditures? Will we see badly needed improvements in our WMAs, and perhaps long overdue raises for our state wildlife officers who manage and enforce regulations in those WMAs? And will there be an effort made to provide specific feedback to our sportsmen with respect to the improvements ---how the money was used and the results.

IMO, our state needs to leave the funds/fees revenue collected by the MDWF&P alone, and let the department spend this money on things related to their oversight ---- game animals, fish, habitat, enforcement of game laws, etc. Until that happens, I am somewhat skeptical of the end use of additional fees and license costs.

[Don Miller]

Po Monkey, I totally agree. If the user fees go toward anything but the above mentioned I'm against it. Hopefully the dept. won't use this user fee money to slash and burn habitat to build another damn golf course.

[Wingman]

and perhaps long overdue raises for our state wildlife officers who manage and enforce regulations in those WMAs?

Thanks to the State Personnel Board's salary realignment recommendations, the House and Senate unanimously approved (with the exception of one vote against) salary realignment for all state agencies last week. Starting pay for Conservation Officer 1 will increase by $4250 and all other positions will increase accordingly. MS was well behind the salary curve of all surrounding states and equal jobs in the private sector with the last major raise to MDWFP employees ($600 I think) in 2002. Now maybe we will be able to attract and keep more qualified people. As it were, a supervisory position (Lieutenant) in MDWFP law enforcement was not even making 30 grand a year (and that's someone with at least 8 years on the job). Starting conservation officers were being snatched up by local PD's and SO's making 30 grand their first year and MDWFP had become a stepping stone for law enforcement. Guys were getting trained, working for a few months then leaving for jobs that allowed them to pay all of the bills.

I will let someone more qualified than I answer how exactly the permit fees can be used by MDWFP.

[MSDuckmen]

I hear you loud and clear Monkey. I was told that the money was strickly for the WMA's.
However I was also told that the replica weapons for primative season would be black powder and that didn't happen.
My group is going a step further. We have a group right now that is drafting letters wanting a full accounting for all the money made from the sell of duck stamps. We want a detailed break down of where every dollar was spent and for what.
Money that the department had put aside from sells of hunting related items (IE: pitman fund) Is by my understanding being put in the general fund for any department to feed off of.
Guys if you don't make a stand and start asking questions you just don't have a clue.
I learned last night that some parts of the department are spreading seed along the highways in areas of the state and calling it food plots. When the real fact is that it is being used for erosion. Then they wonder why we have so many deer/car accidents.
The men and women that work in the department need us to help. The only way change is going to happen is if we get off our rears and become proactive.
I could give a list of things I see done as wrong. One voice won't matter.
Get a group together and you'll see things start to happen.
My groups are growing. rapidly.

[iron grip]

MsD Wrote:

It is sad that we as a race of beings that think that we are entitled to everything. I would absolutely love to see it go to a hundred per year. With the listed restrictions.
I think it would be great and would stop the weekend warrior from blasting up everything that moves. It would bring the quality back to the heritage that for the most part we have allowed to dissolve for immediate gratification.

To me, the shell limit would be the key to ending skyblasting and shooting anything that moves. Morons will still pay even a hundred bucks if they think they can get out ther and shoot up some chit. The shell limit at 12 or 15 would be detremential to merganzer killers and blackbird busters.

Secondly I'm all for the raising of the fee. But, I want to feel like I'm getting the better deal as an IN-Stater. Meaning if I have to pay $50 so be it, but Mr. S.C. or whoever else that is OOS'r should pay the $100-150.

Thirdly we as a race were givendominion over all things and ordered to subdue it.

[Greenhead22]

I'm all for the increase, heck who in the hell could complain about getting to hunts thousands of acres of land for $50.........geez.

I do agree, however, that OOS should pay double, if not triple, what we would have to pay.

[Wingman]

Wait a minute.

Jeff, don't you live in Louisiana now?

[Chuckle12]

Chuckle12, Yazoo is a National Wildlife Refuge as well as the other refuges in that complex (Panther, Hillside, Morgan, Matthews). They are not MDWFP WMA's.

Oh yeah... I forgot that little tidbit of info. I don't know what I was thinking.

[mudsucker]

OK, so after ONE year we jump from $15 to $50?! Show me what you did as an agency with $15 per user and what you will do with $50 to let me know that we will derive that much more benifit from such a huge one year jump.
I also wonder if the money raised will just mean that other funds would be taken out of WMA's budget?
Wish i could have been there last night but had to attend a funeral in Nawlins as we burried my Uncle Al(85) another of the "greatest generation".

[tupe]

Are these all a done deal?

I am all for it. And even though I now live out of state I would be in favor of OOS permits being more than residents, $100, fine by me.

Tupe

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Dan, keep up the good work and ask those hard questions. If I can help in any way, let me know ---who to call that will make a diff., etc. I am sometimes my alter ego ---- loud, opinionated, and not afraid to stir up some schit.

I am also going to point out something that may ruffle a couple of feathers on here, and that some are probably already thinking, but don't want to say it for fear of becoming the next spinner whipping boy. Since I have already held that title before, without justification I might add, I will fearlessly proceed. I think if we are going to ban spinners on state WMAs, then they need to be banned statewide on all land ---public and private ---like Arkansas. Banning them just on the WMAs will give the private landowners, with land/water adjacent to or surrounded by WMA land/water, a considerable advantage over the public hunters. I don't think that is fair. Logic dictates that what is good for the goose, should be good for the gander, so to speak. I am in favor of a total ban in Mississippi ---but nothing short of that.

The shell limitations appear to be reasonable ---I don't take more than a box of shells on my hunts, and have never run out of shells, even on my best hunts and worst shooting days.

I wish I could have gone to Jackson to this meeting, but I could not due to work. Maybe they could bring such a meeting to Tupelo in the near future for additional comments?

[OldMan'sBoy]

1. I'm for the $50 fee and I would gladly pay it and consider it money well spent. But I have some concerns. First, as has been mentioned, I don't know that the funds from the $15 fee went toward any obvious improvements. Maybe the money was well spent but I haven't noticed it. Second, $50 is a lot of money to a lot of people. It would have been hard on me when I was in school to come up with $50 for a few hunting trips. I'm afraid that the MDWFP would be cutting out hunting opportunities for lots of people. From an "I wish there were less people in my holes" standpoint, I'm for that. From a long range view, where we need new blood in hunting and outdoor pursuits, it makes me a little nervous.

2. Shell limits -- This is a good start but I think 25 is still way too many. I wish it was a 15 shell limit.

3. Prohibition of all electronic devices -- I haven't used a spinner in about 3 years so this rule is fine with me.