MDC proposed fee increases

[Gavin]

They should make everyone  apply for a permit and get rid of this landowner tag nonsense. Tags s/b free for MO residents. We pay enough through or sales taxes.

[jdmidwest]

Private Land is the largest part of Missouri. 

Private land generates the most tax revenue, Public land generates almost none except for some tourism dollars. 

Public land is property tax free, private land is taxed. 

Public land costs taxpayers money to maintain and mis managed by several government agencies.  Public land is a burden and cost that taxpayers have to endure so others can enjoy it.  Private land management does not cost a taxpayer anything if they don't own any.

Private landowners pay for Missouri with their taxes based on the acreage they own and manage, taxes on the products they produce, why shouldn't they catch a break on their own land?

Landowners pay the same sales taxes on the goods as you do.  They pay for permits on lands they do not own.

 

[tjm]

Regardless of how many (deer, trout, elephants) you can kill on 5A ,  a 5A piece with 1/2A house and 4A of 3" high fescue lawn  is not producing or feeding any deer or other wild life. The landowner tags were meant to encourage and reward landowners to allow wildlife to flourish by land management. from that stand point , very small holdings contribute very very little or none.  40A or more has significant probability of  producing or maintaining some wildlife. I would expect many 5A landowners either filled the tags (this can total many tags when each person who lives at that 5A gets 6-8 tags per year, at one time my household was eligible for ~30 tags total) down the road or gave them to a friend. A system that neither checks the ownership nor sees the deer is open for abuse. Years ago a 1/4 section got one (1) buck only tag and they required the Township and Range numbers fro the legal description of the land.  It looks as though the MDC is trying to go back to a system that has some control and may be enforceable.

The non-resident stuff kinda puts us on par with our neighbors and I don't have a problem with that- if you charge $500 to spit in your yard it is fair to charge you $500 to spit in my driveway, eh?

2 hours ago, jdmidwest said:

Private Land is the largest part of Missouri.  

I know it's nitpicking, but to me "private" denotes an Individual or family ownership, and I strongly suspect corporate ownership exceeds individual-family ownership. I am at odds with giving landowner tags to a corporation even though the land owned produces much wildlife. Try getting permission to use/cross  corporate lands for hunting or fishing. 

[moguy1973]

30 minutes ago, tjm said:

Regardless of how many (deer, trout, elephants) you can kill on 5A ,  a 5A piece with 1/2A house and 4A of 3" high fescue lawn  is not producing or feeding any deer or other wild life. 

1/2 acre house.  Dang that’s a big house. That’s a 21000 square foot house!

[tjm]

6 bed rooms & 10 baths ... And no deer. But if 9 people reside there & each gets 5 tags = 45 tags, no problem with that, they pay a lot of taxes on $8million house;   and all city apartment dwellers should get one tag for each story above grade that they live too. Through their landlords they are paying real estate taxes. Taxes have nothing to with wildlife management, what the heck.

Safer Driving with zero deer!!

ed: my point was many lots that size are primarily residences with no positive affect on conservation.

[Gavin]

Have a football field sized property in the STL burbs. House sits on the first 100x100. Plus deer. Can’t shoot them but our dog likes to run them off.

[Devan S.]

17 hours ago, tjm said:

Regardless of how many (deer, trout, elephants) you can kill on 5A ,  a 5A piece with 1/2A house and 4A of 3" high fescue lawn  is not producing or feeding any deer or other wild life. The landowner tags were meant to encourage and reward landowners to allow wildlife to flourish by land management. from that stand point , very small holdings contribute very very little or none.  40A or more has significant probability of  producing or maintaining some wildlife. I would expect many 5A landowners either filled the tags (this can total many tags when each person who lives at that 5A gets 6-8 tags per year, at one time my household was eligible for ~30 tags total) down the road or gave them to a friend. A system that neither checks the ownership nor sees the deer is open for abuse. Years ago a 1/4 section got one (1) buck only tag and they required the Township and Range numbers fro the legal description of the land.  It looks as though the MDC is trying to go back to a system that has some control and may be enforceable.

The non-resident stuff kinda puts us on par with our neighbors and I don't have a problem with that- if you charge $500 to spit in your yard it is fair to charge you $500 to spit in my driveway, eh?

I know it's nitpicking, but to me "private" denotes an Individual or family ownership, and I strongly suspect corporate ownership exceeds individual-family ownership. I am at odds with giving landowner tags to a corporation even though the land owned produces much wildlife. Try getting permission to use/cross  corporate lands for hunting or fishing. 

This right here. 

https://mdc.mo.gov/contact-engage/public-comment-opportunities/landowner-permit-changes

From the link above: "As an example, when it comes to deer and turkey, a 5-acre threshold is not a meaningful acreage requirement and does not reflect their habitat needs.  Essentially, a healthy deer density in Missouri equates to about 1 deer for every 20-25 acres.  In 2018, there were over 180,000 unique landowners that were issued no-cost landowner deer and/or turkey permits.  The Department performs an annual qualification check of a random subset of individuals receiving no-cost landowner permits.  During our 2018 check, 34% of individuals directly contacted were found to not qualify for no-cost landowner deer permits.  The most frequent reasons individuals did not qualify included claiming to possess 5 acres or more when in fact they did not (i.e., fraud) or individuals who obtained the no-cost landowner permits when they were no longer a household member of a landowner (i.e., not eligible)."

Moving it to 20 acres makes sense just like you said it takes 20 acres to sustain wildlife. Adding a registry(this should already be in existence due to tax records) means those that are miss-using them and don't have 20 acres wont get the tag anyways. 

[tjm]

If they simply go back to the question township and range from the legal description they wouldn't really need a "registry", but if mainlining a registry gives three more people jobs, that's three more people off welfare. 

[jdmidwest]

9 minutes ago, tjm said:

If they simply go back to the question township and range from the legal description they wouldn't really need a "registry", but if mainlining a registry gives three more people jobs, that's three more people off welfare. 

But, is three more people sucking off a taxpayers teat.  Welfare is cheaper, no pension.

[tjm]

JD, it's a socialist country we live in and every body is on the government teat. I can't think of three jobs that don't get the money from the government  in some way.  I worked 50 years in construction and you could track every job to government subsidy of some sort.