Enforcement

[trout fanatic]

I voted no. Not because I am not in favor of more enforcement (actually I am), but because I suspect our monies would somehow wind up being somebody's pet project that has little to do with hunting or fishing. Call me a cynic (cuz I am) but that is my take on the entire issue.

[fishinwrench]

I voted no. Not because I am not in favor of more enforcement (actually I am), but because I suspect our monies would somehow wind up being somebody's pet project that has little to do with hunting or fishing. Call me a cynic (cuz I am) but that is my take on the entire issue.

That is definately a reasonable assumption.

A major increase in money spent on enforcement would likely go unnoticed as far as end results are concerned. Even if the extra funds WERE used as directed.

[troutfiend1985]

All I know is that if we don't make some change in the way we conduct enforcement in Missouri, things won't change. I see individuals reporting breaches they see as being helpful, but not a cure. One person on here said they had called the hotline only to have the agent tell them that they were on the other side of the county. While constant reports would bring attention to an area, the person who is committing the violations will go free. This is a major problem in that the people who are poaching or overharvesting are getting away with it, and the lack of enforcement encourages this behavior. I encourage the reporting, but it shouldn't be a person’s duty. I do it out of my free will, but I don't have the same expectations to others.

To me, the lack or enforcement is similar to the broken windows theory of criminology. Without some form of authority, the people committing these violations will tend to think that no one cares or that its not a big deal. Reasoning that if it was a big deal to over harvest or poach, their would be someone there to enforce the rules.

Education is a great tool, but the problem with that is it also takes money. The other problem I see with that is you can't tell me in good faith that everyone who poaches does so in ignorance. Maybe at a trout park, where you get beginners and first time trout angler on the stream, I can understand this happening at Bennett or Roaring. But, when people are poaching a wild trout stream, a special management area for smallmouth or are hunting illegally, I find it very hard to believe that they do so without knowing that it is illegal. I think education has its purpose with the youth, get them started right at a young age. But when an adult is poaching, I don't know if there is a lot that can be done to alleviate this problem other than enforcement.

If you look at the license fee, 12 dollars is not a lot of money. 7 dollars for a trout stamp isn't bad either. California charges 41 dollars. Iowa's is 17.50 for a standard license plus 11 dollars for trout, Nebraska is 26 dollars, Kansas is 20.50 dollars for a standard license plus 12.50 for trout. The only one that I could find cheaper than ours is Arkansas, 10.50 for a standard license plus 5 dollars for trout.

So, while I don't want to pay anything close to California, nor do I want to pay any more for the same service, I can understand why we have an enforcement problem. Now, I only looked online for about 5 minutes in finding these fee's, but I would be willing to bet that our fee's in Missouri are one of the lowest around.

[trout fanatic]

Troutfiend, you are correct in saying that $12.00 for a fishing license is not a lot of money. However, when you look at the fact that the same folks that enforce the fishing regulations also enforce the hunting laws, then the picture changes. $10 for small game, $19 for archery, $17 deer $17 spring turkey $13 fall turkey add em all up and the $ the state rakes in is indeed quite high. The issue is what percentage of the overall take is the state willing to spend on enforcement? My take on this is that an increase in any and all license fees would result in that same small percentage being allocated.

I do not believe for one second, that a $5 increase in licensing fees would result in a $5 increase per tag in enforcement fees. Period.

[Guest]

deleted

[oneshot]

Hard Times! Hard times! Everyone is having Hard Times now days.So why not the MDC? Thing is they was saying how low they was on funds but I have to admit I seem them come up with some innovative ideas on checking things without using more time and manpower.

Me I get to know most Agents and have seen them out all hours of the night and day.Got one that no matter where I am in the state he comes out of his way to say Hi! and ask how I'm doing.Truth I haven't met a Bad one yet.

oneshot

[Al Agnew]

Some thoughts...

MDC does indeed have plenty of money, BUT this state probably has more state-owned land than most, which requires more money for infrastructure and maintenance. It probably has more landowner programs. More nature preserves. Thanks to the sales tax, MDC has a lot of constituents over and above hunters and fishermen, upon which they spend money.

Is there waste and unnecessary spending? Sure. Too many bureaucrats? Probably. It would be nice to be able to cut the waste and stupid programs...but one person's waste of money is another person's terrific project.

And I have very little sympathy for those who say they are paying enough, or too much, already for licenses. Get real. You probably spend 100 times more on fishing tackle, gas, motel and campground fees, etc. for your fishing trips than you do on your fishing license, even if you don't amortize the cost of your boat and motor or other watercraft, waders, or anything else you've spent money on to go fishing. If you can't afford 20 or 30 bucks a whole year for a fishing license, you've got a lot bigger problems than being able to go fishing. I always hear about not wanting to cost people that are fishing to feed their families, but I bet there aren't 100 families in the whole state that depend upon fishing to survive. That may be pretty cold, but I grew up fairly poor, and I never even thought twice about spending the money for hunting and fishing licenses, because there's always something you can do without for a little while if the fishing is important to you.

Take a look at MDC's expenditures. Look at the money spent on enforcement. If that spending was doubled (theoretically twice as many agents), where would you take the money from? You'd have to take a pretty fair amount from just about everywhere else in order to pay for it with existing income. Sell some MDC land? Get rid of some biologists? MAYBE, if it was a high enough priority that the powers that be would be willing to do everything it would take to eliminate waste and questionable programs, you could pay for double the number of agents, but I doubt it, and we all know that probably won't happen.

So...want to know what would work? Make the raise in fishing and hunting license fees contingent on doubling the number of agents, period. In other words, have some sort of referendum that REQUIRED doubling the number of agents, with funding to be provided by however much of an increase in fees it would take to do so.

Now...some ideas on enforcement. First of all, you have to understand who you are wanting to target with regulations. There is always a certain subset of casual anglers that don't fish enough to know, or bother to learn, the regulations. Those probably have very little impact on the resource even if they sometimes break the law, because most of the time they don't catch much. I was talking with somebody recently (I don't think it was on here but it may have been--but it was somebody who had read the studies and surveys). They said that according to the surveys, most stream anglers seldom catch even one legal smallmouth. But I think that the surveys, which are apparently done on weekends at popular public accesses, are counting a lot of "anglers" that are actually either people who drive down to the access and fish for whatever they can catch with worms or other live bait and seldom catch much because it's right there at the access; or they are people who rent a canoe and happen to toss a Zebco no-brainer fishing rod in the canoe, and make a few ineffective casts during the day as they are drifting willy-nilly down the river in the canoe. Those people probably skew the surveys considerably, and the survey people aren't interviewing the guy who fishes during the week, or uses private accesses, or puts in at a quarter to daylight and/or takes out at dark-thirty. THOSE guys are the ones catching the fish. Those are the ones you target with regulations. Sure, you enforce the laws on everybody when you find them. But I don't think you worry all that much about the casual anglers. You try to enforce the regulations by being out on the river a lot at odd hours or away from the accesses, looking for the serious poachers. And otherwise, you simply make sure you have a VISIBLE presence on the rivers. We've hashed this out before, but while it's a nice technique to hide out in the brush and try to catch the bad guys doing something wrong, that does little to discourage them from doing it in the first place, because there just aren't all that many of them caught that way. Sure, it's a good technique if you're already pretty sure that somebody is doing something wrong in that particular place. But if you are VISIBLE, on the river a lot, showing up at random times both at the accesses and going up or down the river, the bad guys start looking over their shoulder a lot more whenever they are tempted to do something wrong, and the ones who break the rules on the spur of the moment are probably a lot less likely to do so...

And that takes boots on the ground. More agents, so that they have more man hours available to be on the river and doing their principal job.

As for reporting violations...if I'm pretty sure I don't have cell reception at that spot, what I've taken to doing is backing off to what I feel is a safe distance but still in sight of them, waiting until they are watching me, and then pulling out the cell phone and acting like I'm calling somebody. I figure it will at least make them be nervous, maybe make them leave, or not do whatever they are doing any more that day. I used to just go up and tell the miscreants in a confidential tone that I'd just seen the game warden up the river around the bend coming this way, so they'd better be careful. A lot of times they'd throw back the illegal fish they'd already caught, and I always hoped they'd be nervous enough that they wouldn't have much fun the rest of the day. Point is, a cell phone can be a rather useful tool even if you don't have reception or the agent is on the other side of the county at the time.

[awhuber]

c'mon you really pull your phone out and act like you are calling..where I usually fish there is no cell service and everyone knows that.

As said before there is plenty of money for enforcement it just needs to be used for that. My county of 15000 some odd folks(well not all are odd) has 2 MDC agents. While I spend a lot of time out I just do not see that many violations, but do seem to get checked alot.

[Phil Lilley]

c'mon you really pull your phone out and act like you are calling..where I usually fish there is no cell service and everyone knows that.

As said before there is plenty of money for enforcement it just needs to be used for that. My county of 15000 some odd folks(well not all are odd) has 2 MDC agents. While I spend a lot of time out I just do not see that many violations, but do seem to get checked alot.

I've used the old cell phone call trick several times and it's worked more times than not.

[trout fanatic]

I have read that several states have reported that hunting/fishing license sales have been on a downward trend for several years. About 4 or 5 years ago, I decided that hunting was not that much fun for me and did not justify the $ I spent for licenses-so I simply stopped hunting (I now fish during hunting season).

I guess my point is-is there a point where people would stop buying licenses because of the cost? Could the MDC raise fees and actually lose money on the deal?

Not really sure-but with the economy like it is, I think prudence is called for. To me, it doesn't matter if the actual cost of licenses are too high or not-if enough people THINK the cost is too high (and quit hunting or fishing as a result) than it is a BIG DEAL