$176 License

[jwilliams]

That is a good point playa. I know lake amistad, fork, falcon, toledo bend, and sam rayburn are almost as good as lake murray and santee. almost.

[dixiedeerslaya]

IM JUST SAYING.

[quackaddict]

SCDNR may do 10X's the work with the funds available, but, without checking, I would bet a dolla to a doughnut Texas puts $10 to every $1 to the resource that SC does.

Maybe on private land, but not public(I'm not talking about NWR's here either).

[Wood Duck]

You mean to tell me they are going to tell all of SC they can only kill 4 doe? Did i miss something? I am no Johnny 40 Deer but 4 that could be cutting it a little close.

Got to have some doe days.

If the money would be going to DNR i dont have a problem with a LITTLE more fee situation but i dont trust that it is as far as we could throw it.

Sounds like we need the

[jwilliams]

8 deer a year? Who could feed their family with only 8 deer a year?

[stonecoldkiller]

What is bullshit, is that the residents catch it in the ass, while the out of staters come in and pay less here than they do in their own states, driving up our lease costs, and decreasing our opportunities.

Spot on! Compare the prices of other states non resident
to resident cost. We are missing the boat here.

[Tater]

Still waiting on that check to DNR. Set the example. I'm sure everyone will follow.

I do, every year on my state tax return. What do you do besides undermine everything our DNR has done in an effort to protect the state's deer herd by importing deer to turn loose and then saying "uh hayell, I dinnit know dat was wrong??????"? Fuck you, it's been in the damn regulations book for as long as I can remember. Oh that's right, you're all for "private property rights" and you trained these deer NOT to leave your property and NOT to breed with deer they weren't raised with.

You're nothing more than a roadblock riding out his time till you can get your pension and move on. You wanna come on here and spew all your no fees bullshit yet no one has seen nor will they ever see a bill from you to repeal all these "fees" that you are so vehemently against.

You like to do all this stupid ass dancing around questions...in my eyes just a narcissistic, felonious piece of shit. Why don't you do somethign productive and spend your next post spelling out what fees are acceptable ACROSS THE BOARD so that we can fund the STATE......I'll be patient.

[Tater]

Yes you can, if it was lawfully taken from the jurisdiction where it originated and it is not reasonably expected to adversely impact the natural resources of the SC or its wildlife populations.

Anymore species you concerned about?

[Tater]

Why don't you do somethign productive and spend your next post spelling out what fees are acceptable ACROSS THE BOARD so that we can fund the STATE......I'll be patient.

Still waiting....

[jwilliams]

Well this turned into a nice discussion. Ridiculous.

Back to my original question. What does fee increases have to do with the recommended limits. Can we not have one without the other?
1. yes

or

2. NO

Please choose 1 or 2.

[jwilliams]

Thanks

[Variable]

I do, every year on my state tax return. What do you do besides undermine everything our DNR has done in an effort to protect the state's deer herd by importing deer to turn loose and then saying "uh hayell, I dinnit know dat was wrong??????"? Fuck you, it's been in the damn regulations book for as long as I can remember. Oh that's right, you're all for "private property rights" and you trained these deer NOT to leave your property and NOT to breed with deer they weren't raised with.

You're nothing more than a roadblock riding out his time till you can get your pension and move on. You wanna come on here and spew all your no fees bullshit yet no one has seen nor will they ever see a bill from you to repeal all these "fees" that you are so vehemently against.

You like to do all this stupid ass dancing around questions...in my eyes just a narcissistic, felonious piece of shit. Why don't you do somethign productive and spend your next post spelling out what fees are acceptable ACROSS THE BOARD so that we can fund the STATE......I'll be patient.

What's all this about felons and importing deer?

[MC]

Quoted from the Charlotte Observer, October 14, 1997
By Jonathan Dube

"Phillip Lowe did exhaustive research on deer genetics before importing 27 deer from Ohio to his Florence, S.C., farm in 1994 and 1995.

``My idea was to have a small breeding pen -- 35 acres -- allow the deer to breed several seasons, and let the fawns into the wild to proliferate,'' Lowe said. ``As a sportsman, I want to hunt deer with good racks, but unfortunately South Carolina deer just don't have the right genetics.''

He didn't know it was illegal -- but he found out after being appointed to the S.C. natural resources board. He resigned in December 1995, and a year later he pleaded guilty in federal court and now faces up to one year in prison and a $10,000 fine."

[surfcock]

So my total cost for licenses next year will go up from $100.50 now (for the Sportsman's license, Salt Water Fishing, State Waterfowl, Federal Waterfowl, and four doe tags) to $136 (everything above, and now I have to pay for turkey tags and buck tags too)? That's a big jump!

I'm still not sold on the the buck tag system, and I agree with charging a small fee for the migratory bird but I say roll the doves in with the waterfowl permit and don't charge a penny more until that money goes STRAIGHT to DNR for public dove field planting. I think they're handling the buck and turkey tagging system in a way that only makes them happy too, but if you're gonna make us tag everything we kill you gotta pay for that extra level of bureaucracy. It just makes me sick that they'll charge my more than 30% more just to hunt next year.

From what I understand the buck tagging is to make folks be more selective in the bucks they harvest. If they want to do that, then just put QDM restrictions on public lands. It'll tick everyone off, but it'll get the job done without charging me an extra $20 or $25 per year.

[Tater]

If one wanted a lesson in diversion they should look no further than your own posting.... The fact that you committed the crime you did, directly threatening 50+ years of work and policy by SC DNR, yet you have any say whatsoever on ANYTHING to do with DNR is a farce in and of itself and reeks of personal gains.

Your original diversion was "personal property rights", but the personal property aspect of your crime went away with your desire to "let the fawns out to proliferate"....

You tried to be a badass and ask me a question about the Bighorn Sheep, unfortunately for you I DO know the answer. As for your follow up regarding illegal aliens, they aren't covered under the laws you are guilty of violating.

Now quit this diversionary bullshit and answer MY question.....

Why don't you do somethign productive and spend your next post spelling out what fees are acceptable ACROSS THE BOARD so that we can fund the STATE......I'll be patient.

[BugBuster]

I am not in favor of any more regulations than we already have now. Once politicians and money get involved in something it goes to hell and gets worse from there. Prime example it is legal to flood corn and shoot ducks (non-agricultural process) but it is illegal to dump corn out and shoot them over 'bait.' Did I miss something here? Politicians got involved and now we have no wild ducks and half the hunters are tickled to death to shoot tamies. Releasing pen raised ducks is just as bad as importing deer.

If our deer population is on the decline, dnr should cut back on the issuance of does tags and/or doe days. If I am not mistaken if you shoot a deer in Mississippi it has to have a minimum number of points on one side?

No matter what happens if they raise our hunting fees, etc. our politicians will piss away the extra money, guaranteed!

[Variable]

It's the same diversion pulled out when a debate is not going someones way.


This thread is about the seemingly harmless requests by this committee to better fund DNR while making several changes. If changes are desired, stick to the issue and not the funding.

I do not think a single fee or tax increase will be allowed by the republicans in the House.

If you think DNR deserves more revenue through higher taxes or fees then be prepared for every other agency to do the same.

Maybe so, but who/what is even being referred to here? Maybe it's just me, but I'm lost. I do know one thing, though...if Tater is calling someone a felon, he better have his facts straight.

[Tater]

Resorting to name calling?

You still haven't answered the question oh ye of no fees.....what is so hard about it? The only thing being lost here is your temper and your ability to answer a question straight up. Answer the question.

You keep deflecting to "give DNR your money....put your money where your mouth is" I have. If you would READ instead of getting all butt hurt you would know that. And, I haven't taken a stand one way or the other on the tag fees...all I've done is shown up at the table and watched as that got you all bent out of shape.

You think everyone other than you is an idiot...you're wrong, and you can't stand it

Razorbacks are NOT allowed to be imported....The species that are are not now nor have they ever been indigenous to SC and you will most likely NOT ever get permission to remove them from their native habitat and if you did, DNR would simply defer to the second part of the law which I laid out for you and deny them based on impact to the natural resources and/or native wildlife of SC.

Plead guilty in Federal Court, felonious, if want that to be considered calling you a felon then so be it. While we're on the subject, since SC makes illegal the practice of importing deer, why wasn't your particular case a violation of the Lacey Act?

Oh yeah, the question.....

Why don't you do something productive and spend your next post spelling out what fees are acceptable ACROSS THE BOARD so that we can fund the STATE......I'll be patient.

[Tater]

And felons cannot hold office so your wrong again my huckleberry.

While you're formulating your non-answer.....

I didn't call you a felon, I called you "felonious"

fe·lo·ni·ous/fəˈlōnēəs/Adjective1. Of, relating to, or involved in crime.


Do you not fit the bill, huckleberry?

[Glenn]

You really want to do something productive then back the fairtax.