SpinnerMan wrote:aunt betty wrote:What makes almost no sense to me is that Missouri (the poorest state) kicks ass on Illinois (one of the richest) at managing waterfowl sites. Then someone explains the meaning of "corruption" and it makes sense.
Missouri is far from the poorest state, but it truly is the corruption problem. In PA, money from hunting licenses goes directly to the PA Game Commission and it is spent on hunting and nothing else. That's how it should be done in every state. In IL, it goes into the general fund and is spent on whatever the corrupt government decides will get them more votes than it costs them. I heard years ago that most of the wardens especially in the most rural areas don't have enough money in the budget to afford enough gasoline to do anywhere near the amount of patrolling they need to do.
I would certainly not argue with an Illinois resident about corruption in his home state, but it is NOT true that hunting license money in IL goes into the general fund. That would be a violation of the terms of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson), and the state would not be able to share in those revenues, which Illinois clearly does. See
https://www.hunter-ed.com/illinois/stud ... 700158977/ and
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/news/WSFR2016-IL.html However, the same quick google search to get those links, also turned up this one:
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois ... our-money/ which shows some strong dissatisfaction with how the Illinois Department of Natural Resources was using those funds in 2010. Interestingly, some of the things complained about in this article are things I also spend Pittman-Robertson fund on in Louisiana ...... white-fronted goose research, hunter-opinion surveys, e-mail sampling for state harvest surveys, aerial waterfowl surveys, wood duck banding and nest box maintenance and monitoring, mottled duck banding and nesting ecology studies, etc. Of course, it doesn't add up to a fraction of the P-R money spent on our WMAs, where the largest expenditure is rock for maintaining the access roads.
An interesting thing that hunters need to consider when discussing P-R money: I was blown away at the 2016 Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Conference sub-committee meeting on Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Recreation Participation, when I learned that about 74% of P-R money now comes from people WHO DO NOT HUNT! No-one else in the room seemed fazed, but I am a new-comer to this group, and I was floored! I'd always known that clay target shooters contribute more than bird hunters to P-R funds, but geez ......... It's one reason a larger % of LDWF's allocation of P-R money was recently allocated to shooting range development and improvements.
I also don't know how "rich" Missouri is relative to other states, but I know that they've had 1/8 cent sales tax earmarked for their wildlife management agency since 1977. With that kind of reliable funding, their wetland habitat management puts ours to shame. In 1997, Arkansas got a similar tax dedication, and we are seeing them make similar expansions and improvements in their state-owned wetland habitats like those detailed in weekly reports like:
https://www.agfc.com/en/news/2018/02/21 ... ck-magnet/ and
https://www.agfc.com/en/news/2018/05/09 ... for-ducks/ Of course, both states have also had hunting license fee increases in the 19 years since Louisiana has had one.
Here in Louisiana, we have increased our WMA holdings primarily with donations. HUGE donations of Maurepas Swamp WMA, tracts of Joyce and Manchac WMAs, and most recently Wham Brake at Russell Sage WMA. Of course, when groups donate such large amounts of land, especially near large population centers, you can be assured it's not terrific stuff. And of course, the addition of so much acreage has not been accompanied by funding or staff to manage, enhance, or even maintain it. We recently purchased a tremendous tract of land at Russell Sage (we have some funds that are earmarked solely for acquisition) that has been farmed for rice for decades, so it had everything we needed to do some excellent moist-soil management as well as farm rice and leave some un-harvested, with solid water management. We excitedly wrote the plans, but no ....... financial limitations dictated we lease it back to the seller to continue farming it. Luckily, we have partners like DU that can help us piece together NAWCA grants to hopefully replace the pumping capacity not provided in the sale. In fact, without those partners and NAWCA grants, our management capacity would be reduced more than it is.
Sorry for being a long-winded whiner.