Raise Federal Stamp to $25

[MuskyHunter]

There has been talk about a possible raise in Federal Waterfowl Stamp prices from $15 to $25. Do people all over the country support this?

Anyone have any numbers on where exactaly the money goes?

I had an idea, saying that I would like to see every individual state recieve 50% of the money that given state's residents spent on a federal stamp to be used for projects within that state while the other 50% woul be used in various areas around the country.

Thoughts?

[Gitcha Some]

It really doesnt bother me to pay an extra 10 dollars as long as i know the money isnt funding soemthing ridiculus instead of wildlife habitat. Think about it, we already spend thousands of dollars every year on equipment and everything else, ten more dollars isnt going to make a difference

[dahmer]

I support it as long as the money goes back to wetland restoration and not some politians pet project.

[Travis Jendro]

with all the money going to wildlife i'm all for it!!!

[MuskyHunter]

Would you like to see some of the moeny spent in your home state?

[Allen Riggs]

Maybe use some to try and draw the youth into the sport. The numbers of hunters is continually falling, with more hunters-more stamps would be bought and maybe the cost could stay low. Rising costs are a fact of life and $25 bucks isn't that big of a deal, unless the feds get the bright idea to begin raising the prices every couple of years.

[MuskyHunter]

I have no problem with paying the extra cash, I would just like to know where it is going. How about some specific numbers. Like I said before too. 50% of the money, so $12.50 per stamp should go back to each hunters state and the other go into a big pool. That way everybody benefits a bit from it.

[Weatherby]

There has been talk about a possible raise in Federal Waterfowl Stamp prices from $15 to $25. Do people all over the country support this?

Anyone have any numbers on where exactaly the money goes?

I had an idea, saying that I would like to see every individual state recieve 50% of the money that given state's residents spent on a federal stamp to be used for projects within that state while the other 50% woul be used in various areas around the country.

Thoughts?
i like that idea about the states...except none going to sotuh dakota for them being from the kgb when it comes to out of state licenses :p

[SMIGRATOR]

Maybe use some to try and draw the youth into the sport. The numbers of hunters is continually falling, with more hunters-more stamps would be bought and maybe the cost could stay low. Rising costs are a fact of life and $25 bucks isn't that big of a deal, unless the feds get the bright idea to begin raising the prices every couple of years.


I am with you on this one, the younger we start getting them into the sport the more we will see doing it in 50 to 100 years.

[Joe Fladeland]

Like the others have said, an extra 10 dollars in no big deal considering how much we are spending throughout the year on dekes, shells, and equipment. I'm for it as long as it is all going back to the waterfowl. And yes, I would like to see part of it come back to the state.

[Can-man]

I am definitely for it. They claim that the federal duck stamp is actually one of the few legitimate licenses out there in that the money actually goes back into the system (rather than some legislator's stupid pet project). Supposedly 98% of the $15 we pay now goes back into habitat management for waterfowl. However, there is no direct correlation between how many duck stamps a state buys and how many dollars go back to that state. Where the money is spent is stirctly a federal issue.

[MuskyHunter]

I am definitely for it. They claim that the federal duck stamp is actually one of the few legitimate licenses out there in that the money actually goes back into the system (rather than some legislator's stupid pet project). Supposedly 98% of the $15 we pay now goes back into habitat management for waterfowl. However, there is no direct correlation between how many duck stamps a state buys and how many dollars go back to that state. Where the money is spent is stirctly a federal issue.

Exactaly, that's why I would like to see 50% go to each of the states based on there sales.

[Lance Ohnmacht]

I would be 100% for an increase in the price of the Federal Stamp. I can't remember the last time that the price changed.

[Can-man]

I cannot agree with a system that sends 50% back to the states. Even though in my own self interest it would benefit me to have the money coming back to Illinois. However, I realize that there are certain areas of the country that are more important to waterfowl than others. Mainly it is very important to work on the habitat in breeding areas. I think most would agree that money would be better spent in North Dakota than Nevada.

[portahunter]

I'm all for an increase whether the money goes back to states in which it came from or not. Personally I'd like to see it go to the PPR region right now with the current situation that's going on. We're loseing CRP land at a quick rate right now and we need to find a way to slow it down.

[CRAWLER]

I cannot agree with a system that sends 50% back to the states. Even though in my own self interest it would benefit me to have the money coming back to Illinois. However, I realize that there are certain areas of the country that are more important to waterfowl than others. Mainly it is very important to work on the habitat in breeding areas. I think most would agree that money would be better spent in North Dakota than Nevada.

I think that's where the other 50% from other states would come into play. The Dakotas would obviously get alot of that remaining 50% being a crucial breeding ground and so sparsely populated.

[Can-man]

As the system is now they do spend money in each state. I don't know if there is any formula or if they just address what they feel are the needs at that time. You can go on the USFWS website and see what their projects are in each state. I know there are several in the state of Illinois at this time.

[eye_guysd]

if 1/2 would go back to the state it would be rationed out that way as well.

I think..

Meaning with North Dakotas great hunting they will sell more than say Nevada..... thus North Dakota will get more money than Nevada. Using it as an example.

And can you track it state by state? If not divide it up by licenses sold or something.

raise the price of gas,shells,licenses, heck after I get my kid new boots can I even afford to go anymore? Maybe if I don't renew my DU membership wait that money goes back to the sport.. (devils advocate)

[MuskyHunter]

As the system is now they do spend money in each state. I don't know if there is any formula or if they just address what they feel are the needs at that time. You can go on the USFWS website and see what their projects are in each state. I know there are several in the state of Illinois at this time.

In 2005, the majority of the land purchased or leased was in the south, espically LA and MS.

With the 50/50 deal, right away ND would get it's 50% and then you take the remaining 50% of all the states and spread it out amongst the PPR. If they can determine the number of resident licenses bought, I am sure they can roughly use that same number as far as FWS's purchased.

With this possible increase, say 50,000 people buy a stamp in ND, that's $625,000 just for ND, now say 500,000 are sold nation wide. If ND would get the full 50% of the nation's total, tha's another 6,250,000 right back to ND.

[Matt Rodgers]

I would be for an increase to $100 a year as long as the money went directly to wetlands habitat protection and restoration but I know that that isn't realistic. Think about what the difference and impact would be if the duck stamp increased only to $25.00. I know personally that I couldnt see a better way to spend my money than on the federal duck stamp program.

[Can-man]

Matt I have to agree that the federal duck stamp program has been a success. It is actually one of the very few government programs where the money actually goes towards what they are trying to accomplish. That's why I don't believe that changing it to get certain amounts of money back to certain states will work. Since government moves so slow it will take them 3 years to study it and another 5 years to implement it. Then when they are done they will probably screw up a good thing. That's why I'm all for them raising it any reasonable amount and keeping it the way it is now.

[goosegrinder87]

im all for it the only thing that sometimes bothers me is seeing the wetlands that were just built bone dry during the summer i think they should get it to where there is some water year round. Just my 0.02

[Gooseanator26]

I'm all for it

[Cory Johnson]

More money for the ducks. I wouldn't mind paying the $25.

[George Kuhns]

I agree, $10 is a small price to pay to increase habitat. It's like a box of shells, depending on what you shoot.

[NYBackwater]

I think federal duck stamp money purchases waterfowl production areas in the pph region and other critical waterfowl nesting areas in the U.S. I am for the $10 hike. I think the money should go for wetland restoration and purchasing critical nesting habitat as well as wintering habitat.

[Tyler Frank]

i would rather pay and extra 10 rather then a good ole visit from mr. DNR

[Land Sculler]

Some very good info.

http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps/Conservation/conservation.htm

One of the most important thing for all duck hunters it to recognize that in the PPR there are over 400 landowners that are waiting for easements in MT, SD and ND. Why the wait? Funding. It would take about $100,000,000 today in order to complete these "waiting list" easements(so land won't be tilled or drained). FWS can only do so much per year based on dollars allocated to this. Most ducks come come from these three states on average in the US, so you see how critical this is. The FWS provides the dollars that make this happen.
Ducks Unlimited helps with the funding of this national priority as well. http://www.ducks.org/page49.aspx#grasslandeasements
As duck hunters we really need to see this duck stamp fee increase to have the dollars for this type of massive habitat protection even if 100% doesn't go directly to ducks. What is sad to see, and it happens, is when a waiting landowner cannot wait anymore and it sells and eventually is broken up for production. Lost opportunity in every case.

[Dux r me]

shoulda split it half way add 5 to fed and add 5 to state.

[IdaHowitzer]

With a single exception.

And I am not claiming a perfect solution but I see one problem.

I believe this could be another deterrant for future hunters. For somebody who in unsure whether they want to start waterfowl hunting, $25 is a big sum. I believe, the best time to get hunters is at a young age. Some of these kids may want to start but are not exempt from the stamp. For example, anyone over the age for exemption (15 or 16, I don't remember), $25 is a lot of money. That translates into a lot of lawns to mow, a lot of leaves to pick up, etc. It's just so much easier to play video games.

Could the states themselves have the choice to issue a one time or one day stamp, for a trial waterfowl hunt with the fed's permission. A hunter would one or two in their lifetime. Maybe $5 or $10 for a single day?

Idaho has free fishing days and it has made a tremendous contribution to the number of licenses purchased. People take their kids for the free fishing day, and they decide they want to take it somewhere else and everyone in the fam (12 or over) gets a fishing license.

As I said, I don't have a solution, I just think we're scaring a lot of people away.

[XR-2 Fan]

I'm all for it if the money would go to the breeding grounds which is where the real problems are IMO. It's common sense to me, if we don't have ducks fly to south we can't kill em!!! Everybody talks about the record 99-00 season being so awesome but heck the numbers were through the roof!!! We can't expect seasons like that anymore unless the population rebounds to those kind of numbers. I SAY SEND IT ALL TO THE BREEDING GROUNDS!!!!

[Trey Peterson]

I wouldn't mind paying a extra $10 dollars if I knew it was going to help wildlife habitat.:)

[MONUBE]

BUT...if 25 bucks gets a bunch of lawns mowed theses days than I need the name of that lawn service.

That video game they stay home playing is going to cost more than the stamp.

In MO the youth seasons seem to be working, they have waders for kids available at the areas, and just look at the youth pro staffers on this site alone. Some of these kids really have it together and love the sport for the right reasons.

maybe 25 bucks to a kid that doesnt really get hunting, is a bunch of money. But you tell a young person that hunts for the right reasonsthis money is going to help the sport and I think they are actually better intune with conservation than some older hunters.

[Josh B]

If you look at what we currently pay ($15) compared to what we get in return, we get 110% of our monies worth. Typically we have a very long season with relatively liberal bag limits. We spend thousands of dollars on gear annually and very little on licenses.

The federal duck stamp is one of the only license fees that we pay that we see a direct return for. I support raising the cost of the stamp to $25. Heck, I would even pay it if it was $45. We can easilly afford to pay more money for our stamp, especially considering it comes back and supports us.

In regards to the expense for youth, I believe that the law states that anyone 14 and under is not required to have a federal stamp. Therefore, these youths can get involved and be brought into the sport relatively cheap. Then, once they turn 15, they can start to pay the fee and give back to what they have been given. It makes sense and I don't feel that an increase would have a negative impact.

Lets increase it to $25...its only going to help us out in the long run...

-Josh

[Can-man]

Its sounds like the raising of the federal duck stamp to $25 is going to happen. This is definitely a good thing. It's about the only time I ever supported the raising of a tax or fee.

[Jeremy DeVries]

Just what we need. Another government program to allocate funds to "helping habitat" only to have special interest earmarks attatched that provide for the redisperment and prolification of the three toed finger snail in Zambia. And while they're at it, some jack ass politician will add on the Tire Pressure Act of 2008 with special provisions that you must run 33 and a third pounds of nitrogen in 3 of your 4 tires because its better for the environment and that underinflated tires effect the healthcare system for disinfranchised youth in the inner city. Screw the increase of the Federal stamp!!!!

Our money is better spent with PRIVATE organizations (like DU) that actually do something valuable with it instead of buying $700 toilet seats and $1500 staple guns from starving children in the Philipines.

;)

[Duckstew]

that actually do something valuable with it instead of buying $700 toilet seats and $1500 staple guns from starving children in the Philipines.

;)


I think that that's a bit over the top. I believe that the increase would be very beneficial so long as the Fed. Govt. uses that money for the right purpose (considering what was purchased with the money should be benefitting from the money). The states can do as they wish with individual state waterfowl stamps which, in my opinion, should be raised a few dollars in support of the hard working men and women of their respective Fish and Game (DNR). They need the money to properly manage wildlife so that we all can enjoy it!

[duckin82]

i personally think its going towards a great cause and i will be glad to make a nest out of that $25 and give it to a willing duck(as long as it aint a merganser:D ) although having said that i would much rather donate it to DU

[Jeremy DeVries]

Didn't catch my sarcasm? I thought I laid it on pretty thick?

I believe money allocated for actual nuts and bolts type work like habitiat building and wetlands management is much better spent by putting it directly in the hands of the folks actually holding the shovel and driving the tractor. That specifically means PRIVATE groups like DU, TU, Walleyes Unlimited, Pheasants Forever and many others, NOT GOVERNMENT.

Want to really make a difference? Make EVERY dollar from the increased duck stamp go to DU. EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR. Then you'd actually see some changes on the local level that matter. It will never happen though. If you want to know why, refer to my previous post.

Here is my point. I'd rather fill the farmers tractor with diesel for a day when he's planting fields than pay that same amount of money to a politician who "says," he'll pay it to the farmer.

[Can-man]

I agree with you Jeremy that habitat management could be handled better by the private sector. I believe that anything can be handled better by the private sector than the government. However the facts being what they are, this is what we got. I'm sure DU could do a better job, but as you said that won't happen anytime soon. I believe in what the private secctor does and that is why I support DU, Delta Waterfowl, Ruffed Grouse Society, etc... At this point in time a raising of the duck stamp can do things those orgaizations cannot. If there is a time when they can take over habitat management, I would be all for it.

[Jeremy DeVries]

I will pay the increased stamp price, holding my nose all the while because it stinks. Likewise, I will cross my fingers on the juvenille optimism that MAYBE some politician will actually get at least a portion of the money to the destination that it was intended BEFORE it is diluted down to basically nothing.

[Land Sculler]

A couple of things for thought. FWS has a very important role with habitat and it is this.

a. Providing matching funds for DU led wetland projects and easements.

b. No one else enforces laws regarding wetland drainage and the monitoring of the easements. Just because the easements are in place doesn't mean the landowner won't attempt to drain the wetland or allow oil development or filling it with rocks and dirt.

Even the easements that DU assists in purchasing are enforced by FWS.

Think about this. FWS is one of the few agencies that actually handles enforcement of easement violations.

[Land Sculler]

I need to point out one more thing with duck stamp dollars that is in the works. The duck stamp had a loan provision in our past history once and we were able to obtain many federal WPA's (Waterfowl Production Areas). It worked like this. The govt allowed almost 200,000,000 loan against the sale of future duck stamps in I think 1961. That allowed a lot of work to be done without the wait. We're in the same situation again and habitat could use the injection of money right now so it's not disappearing while we wait for annual duck stamp sales. It makes sense in so many ways. Here is the text version of the bill. Herein is the rationale for the increase of the duck stamp.

HR 2757 IH


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2757
To amend the Acts popularly known as the Duck Stamp Act and the Wetland Loan Act to reauthorize appropriations to promote the conservation of migratory waterfowl and to offset or prevent the serious loss of important wetlands and other waterfowl habitat essential to the preservation of such waterfowl, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


June 15, 2007

Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend the Acts popularly known as the Duck Stamp Act and the Wetland Loan Act to reauthorize appropriations to promote the conservation of migratory waterfowl and to offset or prevent the serious loss of important wetlands and other waterfowl habitat essential to the preservation of such waterfowl, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS FOR CONSERVATION OF MIGRATORY WATERFOWL AND HABITAT.

The first section of Public Law 87-383 (16 U.S.C. 715k-3), popularly known as the Wetlands Loan Act, is amended--

(1) by striking `for the period' and all that follows through the end of the sentence and inserting `$40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2018.'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following: `Funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall be treated as an advance, without interest, to the migratory bird conservation fund. Such appropriated funds, beginning on July 1, 2010, shall be repaid to the Treasury out of the migratory bird conservation fund. Such repayment shall be made in annual amounts comprising the moneys accruing annually to such fund that are attributable to the portion of the price of migratory bird hunting stamps sold that year that is in excess of $15 per stamp.'.


SEC. 2. PRICE OF DUCK STAMP.

(a) Price of Stamp- Section 2(b) of the Act of March 16, 1934 (chapter 71; 16 U.S.C. 718b(b)), popularly known as the Duck Stamp Act, is amended to read as follows:

`(b) Price of Stamp- A person authorized to sell stamps under this section shall collect, for each stamp sold--

`(1) $25 for a stamp for any of hunting years 2009 through 2016; and

`(2) $35 for a stamp for each hunting year after hunting year 2016.'.

(b) Limitation on Application- This section shall not affect the application of section 2 of such Act before July 1, 2009.


SEC. 3. USE OF FUNDING.

(a) Acquisition of Lands Only Upon Recommendation of Migratory Bird Conservation Commission- Amounts appropriated after the date of the enactment of this Act under the first section of Public Law 87-383 (16 U.S.C. 715k-3), popularly known as the Wetlands Loan Act, as amended by this Act, or from the migratory bird conservation fund, shall be available to acquire land only if the acquisition is recommended by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

(b) Designation of Authorized Priority General Public Uses- Not later than one year after the acquisition of land with amounts referred to in subsection (a) that will be included in the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, shall designate the priority general public uses (as that term is used in section 4(a)(3) of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(3))) that will be authorized on such land, and the first date on which each designated use will be allowed.


SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE EXPENDITURES OF FUNDS.

It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the funds provided pursuant to the amendments made by this Act--

(A) should be used for preserving and increasing waterfowl populations in accordance with the goals and objectives of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan; and

(B) to that end, should be used to supplement and not replace current conservation funding, including funding for other Federal and State habitat conservation programs; and

(2) this Act should be implemented in a manner that helps private landowners achieve their long-term land use objectives in ways that enhance the conservation of wetlands and wildlife habitat.

[Duckstew]

I agree that both private and governmental agencies play a critical role in conserving wetlands. I too am a big supporter of DU, however with that said I still strongly support the work of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as State Fish and game departments.

[Jeremy DeVries]

Anyone else notice that after all the governental ramblings were posted,..... everyone lost interest in this thread? We went from 4-7 posts per day to 1. Even though it said some great stuff, everyone found a different thread to pay attetion to because it's easier?

Thats what happens when governement is involved in anything. It slows to a crawl and is diluted to nothing. That being said, I do commend President Bush for his foresight and raising the duck stamp. It will provide funding for some great programs. My point from the begining is (and still is) that private organizations could do 10 times what the government can. I realize that the duck stamp dollars in the past have gone in large part to habitat building. I hope that continues.

[Land Sculler]

Just so all know that I do not work for a government agency. Never have. I was born in ND and have remained here. I love the ducks and work hard to keep the habitat intact in this awesomely beautiful place. Any real help is good for the ducks. There is a real urgency to do as much as possible right now in ND, SD, and MT.

[portahunter]

This is badly needed. With land prices going through the roof increased funding is needed to just be able to keep up.

[IdaHowitzer]

I think I was a little mis-interpreted.

I'm all for the duck-stamp being $25, I just think it is a good idea to let somebody go once or twice with a temporary day-stamp that is in the $5-10 range. If they like it, that means they buy the stamp and give a $30-35 contribution, if not their impact is small.

As for more people to donate private money, I am ALL FOR IT! However, there is an economic term used to describe a certain person or groop called "free rider(s)". This is the person who reaps all the benefits without making any contribution. You are already a free-rider if you buy a $15 duck stamp and go more than a half-dozen times. (6 is an arbitrary figure.) What I am saying is, the duck-stamp alone cannot support waterfowl with the amount of pressure an them today. And thanks to DU, Delta and all the others, we can have 107-day seasons with 7-bird limits (in some states :D)

As a tax/government-hating-Libertarian, I believe this ONE particular instance is a good reason for government habitat work. The duck stamp is a proven asset who's successes have already been marked.

Hope that cleared some things up
Phil

(edit: spelling - "person OR group" vs "person of group")

[Duckstew]

Well said Phil. I may have come off as a government supporting coat-tail rider, and I apologize for anything taken personal. I just feel that the Federal Waterfowl Stamp is a great thing and helps my lifestyle as well as many of your's. However, Private organizations cannot do it alone. They need governmental backing. I think as waterfowlers, we need to make a point to our congressmen to stand up for what we do, otherwise if you just ignore government altogether and don't express your opinions/interests the government will ignore your opinions/interests. Take for instance the Farm Bill. Not trying to rattle any cages here, but I just feel that if you want your grandchildren to be able to enjoy what we are today, then you need to voice how you feel. That is in direct relation with what organizations like DU say themselves.