MDC income

[Chief Grey Bear]

Sorry I was not trying to bring the school in to this it was just a reference there is no connection that I am aware of.

GF is correct the tax is on everything sold and resold and so on.

I still haven’t seen any posts as to new property that MDC has purchased and if we are getting to use it!

More land was added to Columbia Bottoms at the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi a year or two ago. And yep, you can use it all you want.

GF I would say your right on track. I just want them to show me the property and buildings that have been bought and built with the 1/8 tax. I don't even want to know about when they built Truman or Stockton. I am not talking about all that. I am talking about after they started getting the 1/8 sales tax..................

There is also a new vistor center being built at Joplin Mo. The MDC bought about 30 acres of chert glades. IIRC that is about half of what is left in the state of Missouri. Glad they protected it. Thanks MDC.

Brownieman you didn't use to work for the News Leader did you?

You ever read Larry Dablemont's column?

He is another one that loves the benefits and makes his living from the accomplishments of the MDC but has a very noticeable disdain for them.

[gonefishin]

I have been looking over their budget a bit.

They brought in 30 Million in permit sales

They spent 21.5 Million on fish and wildlife

Now I understand why they had to cut trout limits. If they hadn't they would have had to get into the special sales tax money to pay for the upgrades. Cant have that.

[Al Agnew]

I just skimmed through a lot of the stuff that has been posted since I left town on July 2.

I hope, jcoberley, that somebody has clued you in by this time to the fact that the Nature Conservancy, which bought the land in Brazil you had your shorts twisted about, is a private organization, not a state agency, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with MDC. I also hope that, by this time, you have gotten hold of a Missouri Conservation Atlas and seen the amount of land and accesses MDC owns, the vast majority of which was bought with the sales tax. Yep, some of it was donated. Most, including most of the parcels that are big enough to furnish good hunting, was purchased.

The problem that some have seen with the sales tax, is that it gives MDC a whole different constituency from hunters and anglers and forestry workers, their traditional constituency. Now, everybody in the state has more of a stake in how MDC spends money, including bird watchers and bicyclers and hikers and...well, anybody who spends any time outdoors. MDC has had to juggle their traditional role as provider of better hunting, fishing, and forestry opportunities, with the role of "conserving" all of nature in Missouri for everybody. Hence the urban conservation centers in Springfield, KC, St. Louis, Cape Girardeau, Jeff City, Columbia, and wherever else they are now. Hence buying a lot of land in and near the big cities. Hence managing land for more than just game species. Like it or not, we as hunters and anglers are only a percentage of MDC's constituency these days, and not even a majority percentage. That's why I kinda like the fact that we still pay for hunting and fishing licenses. That, at least, gives us a bit more clout with MDC than, say, the big city animal rights idiots.

I wonder...those who are complaining about not being able to find out exactly where the money is going--do you know of ANY governmental agency that gives any BETTER report of where and how they spend the money? When you're talking about a state agency as big as MDC, the full report is there somewhere, but would take a long time to slog through (though I agree with Gavin that it shouldn't take several years to audit). I also wonder how the administrative costs of MDC compare with the administrative expenditures of any other state agency. I would suspect that it isn't a higher percentage.

I know how MDC has spent the money (and emphasis) in the areas I really care about, like Ozark streams and smallmouth bass, for instance. While I'm not happy about everything they've done in those areas, I can see the river accesses they've bought, the improvements they've made to them, the problems they've had maintaining those improvements on some of them. I've seen the effort they've spent in studying how to improve smallmouth fishing, and the resulting regs and how they've worked out. Do they spend more on trout than other fish? Sure. Trout are the ONLY species in Missouri that MUST be raised in hatcheries and stocked. It only stands to reason that the bulk of the money will be spent on them. Am I completely happy with that? Nope, but I understand it. MDC has spent a lot of money and effort on Ozark river walleye, including raising and stocking them (which is much more expensive per fish than trout). They've spent a lot recently on trying to reestablish alligator gar in the bootheel. They've spent a lot on musky. Bass and crappie and bluegill and catfish don't NEED to be stocked.

And to suggest that the sales tax has given us bear and cougars is ridiculous. MDC has NOT stocked those species. The bears have come back on their own, coming from Arkansas. The only thing the sales tax may have done is give the bears (and cougars, if there IS a breeding population, which is very doubtful) a few more places to live.

I don't question or begrudge anybody asking questions about MDC and how they spend the money. That's our right and duty as citizens. But, before you go off half-cocked about something, at least educate yourself as much about it as possible.

[gonefishin]

Al: All I am doing is questioning where and how the money is spent. I don't understand why they don't have a little more money to spend on fishing and hunting, after all a certain portion of the bucks generated by the 1/8th cent are paid by that same ol' constituency.

Apparently fishing, hunting has to stand on their own with license sales and be profitable because they aren't allowed to share in any the 1/8th cent sale tax.

I know there are some new access points, some improvements and some added land but are they adding 100 million dollars worth per year?

Here is an interesting read for you. Why does an industry that generates 4.4 billion a year need help from the 1/8th cent tax MDC gets?

I underlined a paragraph you might find particularly interesting.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Missouri: Forestry and Wood Products

In Missouri, there are about 14 million acres that are forested; and most of the forests in Missouri are privately owned, at about 85 percent of the acres.

The wood-using and forest products industry in Missouri has an economic impact of about $4.4 billion each year and supports 32,250 jobs with earnings of $1.1 billion.

Each year, the forestry and wood-using industries in Missouri generate $54 million in state sales tax.

More than 1 million acres of forests have been added to Missouri's landscape in the last 30 years.

Forests in Missouri are increasing faster than they are being harvested.

Forests are important to Missourians who enjoy outdoor recreation such as camping, sightseeing, watching birds, canoeing, photographing nature, hunting, or fishing.

Forests in Missouri are essential for healthy streams, clean water, wildlife habitat, and environmental stability.

At the Missouri Department of Conservation forest nursery, each year, more than 5 million seedlings of more than 50 species are grown and distributed throughout the state. The seedlings are planted on both public and private land.

In the recent fiscal year, more than $270,000 of cost-share assistance was provided by the Missouri Department of Conservation to more than 40 Missouri communities for tree planting and maintenance of urban forest resources.

Missouri Department of Conservation staff work with over 800 fire departments to offer training, to provide federal excess equipment, to provide grants for the purchase of fire equipment, and to assist in wildfire prevention activities.

The amount of sales tax generated from the forest products industry and fish and wildlife recreation is well over the amount of sales tax received by the Missouri Department of Conservation from the Conservation Sales Tax; in other words, conservation pays its way in Missouri.

A fact sheet on Missouri forestry and wood products is on page 15 of the 2005-2006 Annual Report of the Missouri Department of Conservation available at: http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/13141.pdf

There is additional information on the accomplishments related to forestry on pages 17-35 and 47.

Posted by David H. Thorne at 10:06 PM

Labels: annual report, benefits, conservation, economic, forest, impacts, missouri, missouri department of conservation, public, success, wood products

[gonefishin]

Here is a site everyone should look at.

Take back the MDC

[Chief Grey Bear]

Al: All I am doing is questioning where and how the money is spent. I don't understand why they don't have a little more money to spend on fishing and hunting, after all a certain portion of the bucks generated by the 1/8th cent are paid by that same ol' constituency.

What are you talking about? What more do you want? If I fished or hunted a new MDC CA every day of the year it would take me about 3 years to hit them all.

I for one am glad they don't manicure them like a golf course as some here have complained about. That keeps out all the people that don't want to do a little work at getting to the sweet spot.

I know there are some new access points, some improvements and some added land but are they adding 100 million dollars worth per year?

Do you have any idea what the cost of research is? Facility maintenance? Donations to the republican party? Yeah. Look that one up.

The amount of sales tax generated from the forest products industry and fish and wildlife recreation is well over the amount of sales tax received by the Missouri Department of Conservation from the Conservation Sales Tax; in other words, conservation pays its way in Missouri.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here?

I will agree in that a former director (Jerry somebody) got into bed with the timber industry and tried to sell or lease a large amount of forest for clear cutting. Thankfully it didn't happen. And strange enough, he stepped down and retired only to be hired on by a large lumber company doing biz in Missouri.

[gonefishin]

What are you talking about? What more do you want? If I fished or hunted a new MDC CA every day of the year it would take me about 3 years to hit them all.

True, but a lot, if not most, of them were already here before the tax went in. Where are all the new ones? Also, from what I can find out those areas were purchases and are totally supported by license sales and the special tax on fishing and hunting supplies, not the conservation sales tax.

I for one am glad they don't manicure them like a golf course as some here have complained about.

I certainly don't want the conservation areas manicured. I mentioned that earlier. In most cases I don't think there is any reason to put down paved trails.

That keeps out all the people that don't want to do a little work at getting to the sweet spot.

Along with the 'lazy' people, it also keeps out the handicapped and elderly.

Do you have any idea what the cost of research is? Facility maintenance? Donations to the republican party? Yeah. Look that one up.

I don't have any idea what the cost of research is, do you? I do know, from reading their report that the research for animals and fish are all funded by license sales, from what I read not one penny of the conservation tax is used to fund research of fish or animals.

I don't think a persons personal preference in politics has a real constructive part in this discussion but since you mentioned it I will say I am sure they make donations to the republican party and I am sure they make just as big of donations to the democratic party. That is part of my point. The money people put in that public trust is meant to be used for conservation not donations to support political parties. However, if the MDC were to support a political party over the other I am sure it would be the republican party because it is well known that most democrats would like to put a total ban on firearms which would put a big dent in hunting and shooting sports which in turn would cost MDC a small fortune in license sales. To them I am sure it would be a matter of self preservation.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here?

It was mentioned that the MDC spends a lot of money supporting the forestry industry in MO. I am trying to say, why does an industry with an economic impact of 4.4 billion dollars and earnings of more than 1 billion per year need to be financially supported by the MDC?

I will agree in that a former director (Jerry somebody) got into bed with the timber industry and tried to sell or lease a large amount of forest for clear cutting. Thankfully it didn't happen. And strange enough, he stepped down and retired only to be hired on by a large lumber company doing biz in Missouri.

[Chief Grey Bear]

No doubt about that CC. They probably had the plans to steal the money made way before the SS act even became law.

Speaking of SS (off subject I know but it does show how these things work)

Subject: Social Security- Interesting facts FYI ? just in case some of you aren't aware of this! Its easy to check out, if you don't believe it.

History of Social Security.

>>>_____________________________________________

Franklin Roosevelt, a democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away" -- you may be interested in the following:

>>>-------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: Lyndon Johnson and the democratic controlled House and Senate.

>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.

>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.

I guess you forgot about this post? Every so often they will print in the mothly mag where the money goes. A few years ago (this century) they stated that they donated in the Millions that went to the Republicans. Nothing as I recall to the other team.

[gonefishin]

I guess you forgot about this post? Every so often they will print in the mothly mag where the money goes. A few years ago (this century) they stated that they donated in the Millions that went to the Republicans. Nothing as I recall to the other team.

Nope. I didn't forget that post. It posted to show how the government process of grabbing money works. Personally I could care less, Dem or Rep. I am, and always have been a swing voter. I vote for the best person and could care less about their political affiliation.

[Chief Grey Bear]

True, but a lot, if not most, of them were already here before the tax went in. Where are all the new ones? Also, from what I can find out those areas were purchases and are totally supported by license sales and the special tax on fishing and hunting supplies, not the conservation sales tax.

So you are stating that little or no land has been added since 1976?

Along with the 'lazy' people, it also keeps out the handicapped and elderly.

Well, should we start paving trails all over the CA's? What is it you want?

However, if the MDC were to support a political party over the other I am sure it would be the republican party because it is well known that most democrats would like to put a total ban on firearms which would put a big dent in hunting and shooting sports which in turn would cost MDC a small fortune in license sales. To them I am sure it would be a matter of self preservation.

Can you show me where one democrat has called for a total ban on firearms? I believe the only mention of any firearms ban is for assult rifles? Do you of anyone using one of those for hunting? Every heard of the Brady Bill? What political affiliation got that going and passed?

It was mentioned that the MDC spends a lot of money supporting the forestry industry in MO. I am trying to say, why does an industry with an economic impact of 4.4 billion dollars and earnings of more than 1 billion per year need to be financially supported by the MDC?

I didn't read it that way. I don't see that the MDC is supporting the lumber industry. I may be reading it wrong and if I am please point it out.