State WMA issues
Connecticut
Wouldn't it be nice to lobby DEEP to keep dog walkers, horseback riders, and mountain bikers off of state wildlife management areas? Hunters and anglers have paid for many of the WMA's and continue to do so but we do not get any rights to the land during hunting seasons. Many WMA's are over run with other recreational users who do not pay a fee like we do. It would be nice if DEEP followed suit with some other states and charged an access fee license for people who use the WMAs for recreational uses other than what my hunting dollars have paid for.
How do I get the petition started. Horses, dogs, and bikes off state wmas unless they pay for a license like we do.
I hunt Babcock WMA...I never see anyone in there. And it's open to hunt. And if people are walking in there I hunt far enough away that the deer and turkeys aren't bothered.
I would like to see a statewide "permit" for any access beyond hunting...but how could the state enforce it? And who would do the enforcing?
What WMA's are you referring to?
Most of the ones on the eastern side of the state. The wardens. The same way they would enforce a hunting or fishing license. Some will buy it some will not but it would be revenue.
i always take the time to be polite and all smiles when I see some one in a wma, they vote so we need to leave a positive image and two we don't hunt near the trails they walk so never an issue
Tried Durham Meadows last year.. Steady stream of folks walking their dogs. Wasted an entire afternoon. But you know what the argument will be.. It is state land and all the peoples should be able to enjoy it. I just wish they would open more state land up at least to bowhunting.
Remember we don't pay to use the land we pay to harvest the deer
Tracker,
not true. Most state owned land was purchased through taxes and license fees paid for by hunters. No other group contributes any near what hunters do to preserve open space, not just for hunting but for everyone.
and most of the funds for the road maintenance, gates, wildlife managers, biologist, equipment, and anything else that goes into managing land. hunters tend to tread lightly on the land, not so much for dogs, horses, and mountain bikes.
Well if any of you has ever hunted Trout Brook in Easton/Weston you know that it's a steady stream of runners, hikers and bikers! Even with snow on the ground the darn fools are on their trail bikes!
I am on the State Board of the NWTF and hold the position of VP. We had a meeting last Monday night about several things here in CT. There is always at least 1 DEEP member at our meetings and we discuss many topics and state land is always on our list. The only thing that we can do is to keep writing our elected officials. I can assure you that the NWTF will do everything in our power to petition our legislaters to act. We will also be fighting for Sunday hunting again this year. If anyone would like to join our local chapters PM me and I can give you the info. We presently have 3 chapters in our state and need members. I am the President of the Central CT longbeards and there are 2 others, one in the Fairfield area and the other in the Norwich area. Thanks.
While I agree it's frustrating (sucks in the moment) when a biker/runner/skier/hiker/horseback rider goes by while I hunt... I also view it as a positive in the big picture.
Those people are enjoying open space. We need open space to hunt/fish and the deer and other game or fish we hunt/fish for need open space to live.
Those folks use the land in different way's, but that helps add to political clout to keep open spaces open.
A lot of times other users get freaked about seeing hunters of any kind. People get scared around weapons and have a bad, Disney fulled image of what we as hunters are. Every person we see while hunting is a chance for us to show them that hunters are highly respectful, respectable and intelligent fellow users of the amazing open spaces we have access to. There's no better way to shift the mind of a mountain biker who's unsure of hunting into a believer than an interesting conversation with a hunter in the field.
Again, I agree that it blow's when a hunt is blown. I have limited time (and I know most on here do) so a blown hunt sucks! But, Ill take my chances on this one with the thought that just maybe, I'm increasing the odds that both my 3 year olds will have a chance to hunt public land when they are my age (40).
Will
great point! I don't have the problem of running into non-hunters where I hunt, but I do run into them around town coming home from the hunt when I stop in for a drink/snack.
Some people ask how did you make out and I always try to put a positive face of the hunter forward. I say what I say on this sight. "Had a great day." That will usually get the reply, oh so you got something. To which I say "No, not a thing but I just love being in the woods. Oh, I saw a couple of deer I could have shot, but I decided not to, it's all good."
I try to let them know we're not all about blood, and killing and dead animals. I hope it works to some small degree.
biker/runner/skier/hiker/horseback rider need to pay an access permit to help fund the open space they enjoy. just like us most of these are wildlife management areas. not state parks or state forest
I agree with Tracker, we are not paying to simply be there. We are paying to harvest game there. Everyone that pays taxes has a hand in the pie as far as funding for state owned lands. Last I knew all of our license fees have been diverted into the general fund. Who knows what they are being used for these days.
http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/state-wildlife-conservation
I would suggest all of us take the time to read the article on the attached site. It explains how wildlife management funds have been raised and managed over the years, and how the scope of responsibility is changing for the wildlife management group.
One thing is clear, hunters and fishermen continue pay for the bulk of the wildlife management budget, but everyone benefits. Just being a tax payer doesn't mean money is being put towards wildlife management, in fact it's just the opposite. The government is now trying to reduce/eliminate things like stocking pheasant and divert the funds to things like looking for missing children or hikers.
License fees all go into the general fund. They make sure they mix them around really well, so when they write the check back to the DEEP, you can't determine/claim where the money came from.
No way to prove that the funds to purchase these lands came from Sportsmen.
In fact, did you ever try to claim that Hunters pay for Wildlife (to a Politician)? Try it sometime, they'll give you an education on state finances. It might make you sick to your stomach, but it will open your eyes.
Anyone care to speculate on the future effects the newly created deEp? By adding 'energy' to 'environment', who here thinks wildlife, fisheries, and the environment will benefit more than before?
They are wayyyyy ahead of us, and they make the rules (and enforce them), and control the finances. Oh, and they count the votes too so ...
Carry on!
The pitmman-Robertson act proves what hunters pay for.
Of the P-R funds available to the States, more than 62 percent is used to buy, develop, maintain, and operate wildlife management areas. Some 4 million acres have been purchased outright since the program began, and nearly 40 million acres are managed for wildlife under agreements with other landowners.
There is no other group that is taxed like this for this reason.
AS far as sharing the woods, I've had dirtbikes and hikers blow through my area only to think my hunt is blown to have deer show up just minutes later. I have no problem sharing the woods with non hunters and i try to use them to my advantage as well.
In Western CT the bikers are bad, I ranted last season on here about trails being made all over Wooster mountain all the way up top. I took pictures of healthy trees being cut down with chain saws, brush being moved all over, drainage issues. I emailed the state and they ignored the issue, I had to give up on many good spots that I hunted and traveled far to get to be away from hikers and bikers and now they turned state areas into mountain bike rec areas with little to no areas being free of trails. I have private land, but enjoyed hunting close to home and the quality of deer in these remote mountain areas.
I used to hunt state land and really enjoyed being in the ct state forest. 20 years later the same woods are now full of hikers, dog walkers and mt bikers. Last few times I've been there the deer seem to have gone but the people trails have exploded. In my opinion the state should have limited the amount of trails. Seems to late now. Now people are hiking in every direction. Some of these spots were loaded with deer, not anymore! I've had my hunts blown up to many times and prefer private property.
Ace
you're somewhat correct, but in that same budget thye have to show WHERE the moneys come from in the accounts receivables, so there's a list of license fees, tags gun taxes, ammo taxes, Fed Excise tax allocations, etc that would be listed. All of this income is generated by sportsmen.
Now, how and where they spend is the issue, but keep in mind that the dollars used to purchase open space in CT are the same dollars contributed by sportsmen, no matter what account they place the money in once they get their hands on it!!
As for asking a politician to explain anything,......I wouldn't ask them the time of day. Lies, lies, lies!!
and think about the fact most of these lands the state acquired through hunters and anglers however many years ago. when multi use issues were not at hand as much as they are now. we fund the majority of the lands and upkeep and the land managers/biologist. wether you hunt, mountain bike, or hike we all enjoy the same thing open space, wildlife, and vegetation, etc. they should chip in and pay for some of it or get out during hunting seasons.
