Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Duck Stamp to $25?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,921

    Default Duck Stamp to $25?

    Interior Department faces resistance in push for more public lands
    By ROB HOTAKAINEN

    By ROB HOTAKAINEN
    McClatchy Newspapers

    WASHINGTON -- It's cost $15 to shoot a duck since 1991, but that will change if President Barack Obama gets his way. Under the president's new budget proposal, the cost of the federal duck stamp required for hunting would rise to $25 next year, a move aimed at making it easier for the Interior Department to buy more land for migratory waterfowl.

    It's just a small example of how the Interior Department wants to get both larger and leaner in the coming year, relying more on fees and less on tax dollars.

    Seeking a budget of $11.5 billion, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has big plans. He wants to make the U.S. the world's top tourist destination and to get more visitors into the national parks. Appearing before a House of Representatives committee Wednesday, Salazar called the parks "the envy of the world."

    The department, which already controls 20 percent of the nation's public lands, is proposing to use $212 million in public funds to buy land for more parks and wildlife refuges, including multiple sites to commemorate the Civil War.

    In addition, the department wants to buy more land with $450 million from the nation's Land and Water Conservation Fund, a 30 percent increase from this year's purchases. It's a separate fund that doesn't rely on tax dollars, instead using royalties from oil and gas drilling.

    In Washington state, for example, the Interior Department wants to use $1 million from the special fund to acquire 226 acres to expand Mount Rainier National Park, and another $1 million to pay for a 201-acre expansion of the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. Supporters of the Rainier expansion project say it would allow the National Park Service to protect the wild Carbon River - a habitat for salmon and steelhead - and give the public more recreational opportunities. Nisqually provides a habitat for waterfowl, songbirds, raptors and wading birds.

    Since the conservation fund was created in 1965, it's helped protect many Washington state icons, including Mount Rainier, Olympic and North Cascades national parks, the Pacific Crest Trail and the Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge.

    The expansion plans could pose a big challenge for the National Park Service, which runs 397 parks in 49 states but would lose 218 employees under the new budget. Like most other federal workers, the remaining 25,000-plus employees would get pay raises of 0.5 percent next year, coming on the heels of a salary freeze this year.

    It also could be a heavy lift for Congress.

    Critics, including Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, contend that the federal government already has too much property to maintain.

    When Salazar pitched his plan to the committee Wednesday, Hastings said it would be far better if the Interior Department focused instead on improving its current holdings.

    "The Interior Department continues to have a maintenance backlog on federal lands that measures into the billions," Hastings told Salazar. "The bottom line is that we should not be increasing spending for land acquisition when the government cannot maintain the land it already owns."

    Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., a committee member, told Salazar that Congress should find even more money to reduce the backlog, saying that Americans are "shortchanging their heritage" by letting the maintenance work pile up.

    Salazar said the Interior Department planned to do "more with less" in 2013, noting that the entire department - which includes the Park Service, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management - would lose 591 positions through attrition and buyouts.

    He said the department planned to downsize several programs, saving more than $517 million, and that it would reduce the costs of travel, supplies and administrative expenses by another $207 million. Salazar said he was asking Congress to approve "a squeeze budget" that included painful spending cuts while making plans for new expenses, such as $2.6 million for the U.S. Park Police to provide security and "visitor orientation" for the presidential inauguration next Jan. 20.

    Hastings acknowledged that the department's funding increase amounted to 1 percent over this year but said that "simply freezing and holding the line on spending is not enough." He said the department should promote more oil and energy development to boost the economy and hold down the rising cost of gasoline, which he said had increased by an average of $1.68 per gallon since Obama took office three years ago.

    "By locking up the Atlantic, Pacific and parts of the Arctic, the Obama administration is forfeiting the production of new American energy, the creation of over a million new American jobs and the generation of new revenue," Hastings charged.

    Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, the committee's top Democrat, defended Salazar's proposal and charged that Republicans were most interested in an "oil above all" approach. He said the GOP was promoting "phantom revenues" because there weren't enough votes in Congress to allow more drilling in the Alaskan wilderness or off the coasts of California and Florida.

    As Congress debates the proposed Interior budget, conservation and recreation groups said the stakes were high.

    In 2010, the last year for which statistics are available, U.S. parks, wildlife refuges and historic sites drew more than 437 million visits, contributing $48 billion in economic activity and 388,000 jobs, according to the Interior Department. The department wants more international visitors, and Salazar told the committee that the average foreign tourist spends $4,000 on each U.S. visit.

    In Washington state, officials said outdoor recreation supported 115,000 jobs and contributes more than $11.7 billion per year to the state's economy.

    Joanna Grist, the executive director of the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition, a nonprofit citizens group that comprises more than 250 organizations, applauded Obama for calling for "robust funding" of the conservation fund that would pay for the projects in Washington state.

    "Safe, close-to-home recreation opportunities are essential to our health and quality of life," she said.

    Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/1...#storylink=cpy

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    24,581

    Default

    honestly suits me just fine......if someone would have asked me how much does the Duck Stamp cost I'd have said $20 bucks anyway. I have never really paid much attention to how much it cost. I know I have to have it and I'm going to pay so ........

    I just hope that the extra $ it generates that sorry SOB in the white house doesn't try to get his hands on it!
    Last edited by GobblerHntr; 02-16-2012 at 09:48 AM.
    You've got one life. Blaze on!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Buck Swamp
    Posts
    4,064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squatty View Post
    honestly suits me just fine......if someone would have asked me how much does the Duck Stamp cost I'd have said $20 bucks anyway. I have never really paid much attention to how much it cost. I know I have to have it and I'm going to pay so ........

    I just hope that the extra $ it generates that sorry SOB in the white house doesn't try to get his hands on it!
    well said

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Charlotte
    Posts
    1,520

    Default

    Long over due in my opinion; however, I'm cautiously optimistic that the increased funding will be used appropriately for waterfowl/habitat/wildlife, etc. and stay out of the hands of the current administrations BS programs.

  5. #5
    MC's Avatar
    MC is offline Daydreamer Extraordinaire
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Columbia
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    I would have to learn more and think on this one. In the past it has rubbed me the wrong way when JAB has made comments like the government doesn't need to be buying up land (I'm greatly paraphrasing here). However I'm seeing his point more and more. I’m not sure I'm in favor of turning our natural resources into a tourist attraction for foreign tourist especially on the backs of a group who has historically been very open with their wallets in an effort to help a resource they love (I’m talking about waterfowlers here).

    I for sure am not in favor of the other issue that flies under the radar in this article. That is buying out veteran staff to manage our resources in an effort to cut costs. I recently went on a draw hunt that was staffed by 3 DNR employees who didn’t have 10 years of experience between the 3 of them. The “leader” didn’t know the limit on mallards when asked and resorted to reading the limits to the group from the brochure. He also told the group they could kill 5 mergansers with no mention of the 1 hooded merganser. The technician that recorded my groups hunt afterwards asked me to show him which one was the wood duck and never thought of inspecting the black duck I had for evidence of hybridization.

    This was on a WMA with a rich history of high-quality mallard hunting and where the previous manager who was pushed into early retirement was “religious” about providing a hunting opportunity that the vast majority of SC hunters could never experience without such a program.

    I find it strange to hear a good friend who was one of DNR’s veteran biologists was snatched up by Louisiana along with veteran staff from other state and federal agencies when SC bought him out to get him to retire. When asked how Louisiana could afford to make such hires he told me the state had more money from the oil industry to spend on waterfowl habitat than it could use.

    Things like this are never black and white and the devil is always in the details. However I don’t see where it makes sense to have premier habitat in the hands of recent graduates that don’t even know the harvest limits on the very species they are managing.
    Last edited by MC; 02-16-2012 at 10:10 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    181

    Default

    What about the state duck stamp? I think it should go up also. I thought I read something about that a while back but don't recall. Any info?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    McClellanville
    Posts
    2,811

    Default

    I'm all for supporting the resource. I also think that this is a good way to increase funding, but lets call a spade a spade...er.. a tax a tax.

    Also not sure that buying more land is the best option, lets make sure the land they have is properly managed first.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    7,783

    Default

    it's just more in the coffers, just as likely to buy a case of mountain dew with foodstamps as an acre of land.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Upstate
    Posts
    2,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moatsy View Post
    it's just more in the coffers, just as likely to buy a case of mountain dew with foodstamps as an acre of land.

    That's my thought. I don't think the funds will be used properly. Do you really trust this crowd?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •