If You Think The Threat To Conservation Isn't Real...

[Al Agnew]

C'mon guys...to you and me 97 million sounds like a lot of money, but in the whole scheme of things it isn't as much as it sounds. The state of Missouri will take in somewhere in the neighborhood of 27.7 BILLION in 2015. Which means that what MDC takes in from the sales tax is less than 0.5% of what the state will spend this year. In total, including the sales tax which accounts for a hair less than 60% of MDC's total revenue, permit sales which are a bit under 20%, and federal dollars from things like Pittman-Robertson tax on hunting and fishing equipment at 15%, the MDC budget is still less than 1% of the state's budget. And the money brought in from timber sales, farming leases, etc. that somebody mentioned above? About 4.4% of the MDC's total revenues, or somewhere around 5 million bucks, and that includes all sales and rentals.

To put things a little more in perspective, we all agree that we need conservation agents, and the more the better up to a point. I don't know what agents are paid, but it seems to me their jobs should be worth $50,000 a year. If you had one agent for each of the 114 counties, that's 5.7 million just for their salaries. I think there are more agents than that, but you get the point. What about biologists? The people who operate the nature centers? The maintenance people for all the department lands? Without even getting to the bureaucrats, we're talking about a lot of money just spent on the salaries of people who would seem to be pretty necessary.

You can always find waste, or what seems like waste, in any bureaucracy. It's never a good thing. But is the waste and questionable spending at MDC worse than it is in any other government agency? I would bet not.

[Flysmallie]

Do some maintenance on their trucks and stop allowing all the agents/employees to use them AND THE FUEL CARDS to do all their personal errands while not on the clock....ya know, so the vehicles last several years longer.

Those boys/girls get paid plenty well enough to afford their own personal car.

Wonder what ol' Kaching Mahing gets paid for his pictures for the Conservationist magazine ?

I'm totally against screwing with anyone's pay unless it's the turds at the top. You let them start cutting the fat from the people that are out there making it happen and next they could be restricting marine repair pay.

If those vehicles were "sold" to them as part of their pay then they deserve it and you can't take it away. Yeah maybe they make enough to buy their own transportation but that would be taking a cut in pay. I have a company car and I could go buy my own tomorrow. But that would take some of my income so I would be making less. Plus I don't have to worry about tires or maintenance or gas or insurance, nothing. And I can drive it anywhere I want. But it was part of my deal. So if driving those trucks was part of their deal then you can't take it away. You could, but why be a dick to the people that are trying when there is plenty of waste somewhere else.

And as long as Noppadol Paothong is getting fair market value for his pictures who freaking cares. It's pennies when you compare it to something like Elk.

[Al Agnew]

C'mon guys...to you and me 97 million sounds like a lot of money, but in the whole scheme of things it isn't as much as it sounds. The state of Missouri will take in somewhere in the neighborhood of 27.7 BILLION in 2015. Which means that what MDC takes in from the sales tax is less than 0.5% of what the state will spend this year. In total, including the sales tax which accounts for a hair less than 60% of MDC's total revenue, permit sales which are a bit under 20%, and federal dollars from things like Pittman-Robertson tax on hunting and fishing equipment at 15%, the MDC budget is still less than 1% of the state's budget. And the money brought in from timber sales, farming leases, etc. that somebody mentioned above? About 4.4% of the MDC's total revenues, or somewhere around 5 million bucks, and that includes all sales and rentals.

To put things a little more in perspective, we all agree that we need conservation agents, and the more the better up to a point. I don't know what agents are paid, but it seems to me their jobs should be worth $50,000 a year. If you had one agent for each of the 114 counties, that's 5.7 million just for their salaries. I think there are more agents than that, but you get the point. What about biologists? The people who operate the nature centers? The maintenance people for all the department lands? Without even getting to the bureaucrats, we're talking about a lot of money just spent on the salaries of people who would seem to be pretty necessary.

You can always find waste, or what seems like waste, in any bureaucracy. It's never a good thing. But is the waste and questionable spending at MDC worse than it is in any other government agency? I would bet not.

Here's a few ways they can save money....

Do some maintenance on their trucks and stop allowing all the agents/employees to use them AND THE FUEL CARDS to do all their personal errands while not on the clock....ya know, so the vehicles last several years longer.

Those boys/girls get paid plenty well enough to afford their own personal car.

Sell the dam high-dollar John Deere Gators at all the state parks and replace with wheelbarrows to move bags of trout food and such across the street.

Wonder what ol' Kaching Mahing gets paid for his pictures for the Conservationist magazine ?

Should I go on.... ?

MDC does some really cool stuff, but they also piss away MILLIONS on ridiculousness.

The part that sends me orbital is when they threaten to close all accesses IF the gravy train has to slow down.

I have no idea what they pay their photographer, but I know that way back when I looked into being their staff artist. Could have had the job. I'd just started on my career as a free lance artist, and I wasn't making all that much. But it would still have been taking a significant pay cut to take that job, with not much chance for the salary increasing much. I highly doubt that he's paid a pile of money for those photos. I don't know whether he just gets a salary as a staff member or if he's paid per photo used, but ask any wildlife photographer who sells photos to magazines, and they'll tell you their payment per photo is pretty meager. They have to sell a lot of photos to a bunch of different magazines each month to make a decent living. I doubt that MDC pays more than the going rate. I know I've done more stuff for them for free than I've ever been paid for.

[Phil Lilley]

Thanks, Al.

[rondo]

You can dismiss my concern with a condescending wave of your hand if you wish but how many mature trees does it take to make 5 mil. I would never allow my property here in the ozarks to be logged. I have seen the results and it ain't pretty. Seems a little counter- intuitive to me for a conservation oriented organization to be cutting trees for profit. This is typical governmental overreach. I don't have a problem paying for fishing and hunting licenses, I know the enjoyment I get in return. All one has to do is look at all the pictures at bass pro to see that some type of regulation was needed or we would just be reminiscing about the good old days.

[Justin Spencer]

The reason I work for myself now is because I have worked for state agencies and it takes a long time before you make much money. In Florida I had a state truck that I took home and it saved time and money for myself as much of my job was spent in the field and some of my territory was north and some was south of my house (which was a considerable distance from the office). I looked at it as part of my meager salary and without it things would have been more difficult for me. Unlike other government agencies I don't see MDC always begging for money and wanting new taxes for certain things, they seem to work within their budget and for me the bottom line is I like what they are doing in general. They try to take the public into consideration much more than the feds do and while there will always be ways to improve I stand behind them 100% and hope their funding is not changed putting "their money" into a place where other agencies can piss it away on lord knows what. Licenses are dirt cheap in Missouri and probably keep a few poachers off the lakes and rivers.

[Justin Spencer]

You can dismiss my concern with a condescending wave of your hand if you wish but how many mature trees does it take to make 5 mil. I would never allow my property here in the ozarks to be logged. I have seen the results and it ain't pretty. Seems a little counter- intuitive to me for a conservation oriented organization to be cutting trees for profit. This is typical governmental overreach. I don't have a problem paying for fishing and hunting licenses, I know the enjoyment I get in return. All one has to do is look at all the pictures at bass pro to see that some type of regulation was needed or we would just be reminiscing about the good old days.

I assume the 5 million figure is in their fiscal report as income from logging. I encourage you to call and get some information from the state as to what and why this was done if it concerns you. I know there are many management practices in place including selective harvest and glade restoration that would result in some income from logging while at the same time improving wildlife habitat. I don't see 5 million in timber coming from this but surely some of it. I hope you will get all the facts, or if you have them please share, before going on the attack. I have personally not seen logging practices on any of the state owned land in my part of the Ozarks and if I do you better believe I will be the first one asking why! I look forward to hearing what explanation they have Rondo.

[Phil Lilley]

Just got this -

SB 56 is dead and by default HB710. These bills would have made permits free(56) or treated non resident landowners as residents(710).

[Claybuster]

1) I don't mind paying my part to participate in outdoor sports! Although it has become far more complicated than just buying a hunting/fishing combo that was hand printed with a real INK pen!

2) in the big scheme "scam" of things $97 million is a h@ll of a lot of money! It would almost pay off my mortgage:)

3) who really benefits from all of those beautiful TROUT swimming in lake taneycomo ? No trout no fisherman staying at the local resorts! And who actually paid for them? I have a $7 trout stamp that I never had to buy when I was a kid! Hmmmm....

4) and while I'm at it,,,,,,, don't ever,,,,,,, and I mean never forget to buy a boat ramp pass on a corp of engineers lake!!!! Unless you want to be officially deemed a criminal;-(

5) obviously there has to be some funding to operate any government agency, but WOW,,,,,, when does common sense come into play?????

[Claybuster]

And now...... Gotta get back to filling out my personal property assessment list so that I can accurately " pay the man, yet again"

Peace & love :-)