registernow

The F&W is not perfect, but they are necessary to the longevity of hunting and fishing. Without them, we would not have fish or game. Consider all the species reintroductions and population growth projects that they have done. The species that really stand out in my state as F&W success projects are turkey and moose. And they're working on salmon, and others. The most ironic thing about the F&W is that they manage game populations that roam privately owned habitat.

The attitude that really gets me is the " I will take whatever I want, when I want, where I want and I will take everything before you do" attitude. If everybody operated with that attitude, then there would be no game at all.

ir655

Most of our governments regulations are bull****, I watch old western movies and wish I was living back then...

There has to be a limit to everything, the government just starts to 'claim' rights and we sometimes end up with less power than we started with.

Can't wait to the day farmers pick their arms up and go against the government (on of our constitutional rights) because they are controlling TOO much...

skeeter 7MM

Listen guys I agree 100% that the money that is channeled to the resources is worth the price of admission but in my area where I have seen cost rise yet less be put back into the resource I am sorry if I feel it is a form of taxation. The fact they have closed CO offices, taken more CO's out of the field and bought less land meanwhile charging us more you do the math. I agree with enforcement, bag limits and the tag system - hell it is all I know but it has become increasily more obvious where these monies go is not back to management or to further the resource. To me that is an informal way of taxing the sportsman, who pays tax on gas, meals, lodging, supplies, processing...the more traditional form. Small population base that has a lot of hunter who have the right to hunt without a license is a another problem but I'll just stop before I take out a gasket.

BTW my tags cost me 250 bucks, not a huge chuck of change but in 03 the same thing would have cost me 15% less...no new hires but layoffs were reported for CO's and another 12 post were closed. The Co's now have less allotted miles for particulars seasons, once those miles are met they can only drive for TIPS related calls.....It all just makes me go HM!

rem7400 2

$50 a year and I can hunt 1.2 million acres in SC. That same money also allows me to fish. The DNR has set the rules and regulations, I can live with them and expect every person that enters afield or stream to abide by the same rules. Without these rules there would be no more game, no more fish because the outlaws and game hogs that complain about DNR would like nothing better than to pillage the resource.
My state DNR is seriuosly underfunded and I am willing to pay more if necassary to enjoy the woods and water. $100-$200 a year would not be too much as long as its dedicated to the resource.

Coastie

Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars' and unto God that which is Gods'. Ceasar, the State in this instance, takes precedence since "We the People" have for centuries recognized the dominion of the State in these matters. If you believe that our fore fathers were wrong in allowing this then you have a long hard fight to change the status quo.

CLOUD 9, MN

$40 .....what a small price to pay. Hopefully the government does a good job manageing the states wildlife. No management would be a disaster.

Good Luck!

TimberCreek

I am a landowner and we do not pay to hunt, because we spent our money to buy the land. For others who do not purchase land, they have to pay for tags, which in return a large portion is used to buy millions of acres around the nation to hunt. It is really a trade off, if you do not want to pay to hunt, purchase your own land.