Split between the two.
Would you support.
The agfc using the money they've been using to buy more land to hire, train and outfit more WO's to help better enforce all game laws?
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
They better buy all the land that they can.Lease prices keep going up and economy down wma might have a waiting list to hunt.
What ????????????A Game Warden on every...............Clearcut? Cause if I remember right Clinton promised a cop one every corner.......What for G/W's????
I think we've come to a consensus that enforcement is a problem. Do you see a better solution?What ????????????A Game Warden on every...............Clearcut? Cause if I remember right Clinton promised a cop one every corner.......What for G/W's????
Your right about enforcement but those officers cost money.I think we've come to a consensus that enforcement is a problem. Do you see a better solution?
Is the state gonna come off the money and if they do where do they find them?
Law Enforcement Agencies throughout the state are having a hard time finding quality people. You can probably find some bodies but if they are not smart enough then we are wasting our money.
I always thought being a Game Warden would be the worst field in Law Enforcement. Always alone, rarely have back up and most of the people you deal with are armed and out in the boonies. A recipe for disaster!!!
You know those G/W most likely know who the culprits are and probably have arrested the thugs......But the court system won't hammer them
Fire half of the current force and buy even more land.
Fire half the office staff and make the other half work harder and buy even more land.
Drive trucks till they are wore out, and make the W/O's use cheaper boats, and buy even more land!
Buy more land.
Fire half the office staff and make the other half work harder and buy even more land.
Drive trucks till they are wore out, and make the W/O's use cheaper boats, and buy even more land!
Buy more land.
Every time we get into a discussion about those whom we do not speak the word "enforcement" is thrown out like parade candy by folks from both sides. When a possible solution for the enforcement problem comes up no one is willing to do it.
Etu mainbeam?:smack:
Now bruin has a rational, I don't agree with it, but it's valid.
Etu mainbeam?:smack:
Now bruin has a rational, I don't agree with it, but it's valid.
:thumb:Fire half of the current force and buy even more land.
Fire half the office staff and make the other half work harder and buy even more land.
Drive trucks till they are wore out, and make the W/O's use cheaper boats, and buy even more land!
Buy more land.
According to Amendment 75 they were supposed to do both. They get 45% of the .01 cent sales tax which amounts to numbers in the millions each year. They have thus far created a cash hog that will eat more money in the future in the way of Nature Centers. I am for educating the non hunting public but a building with with a few employees can only educate so much and unless it explains the whys of animal population control, animal diseases, animal/human conflicts, habitat encroachment and abuse and numerous other factors they, the non hunter, will never be educated enough to be in full support of hunting as a tool. They anti hunter could care less about why we need to hunt or how valuable a tool it is. The WO's need good boots, that is the biggest problem I have seen. They have good trucks and they seldom get out of them like the old school guys did. Officer Cookie Rankin from Perry County would run you down in the woods if he needed to and I did meet Ross Spurlock in the woods one day a good 1/4 mile from his truck but he thought I was hunting out of season when I was taking pictures before turkey season last year. But by and large I have seen few that could do that now days. They do their work from a truck seat which is fine at times but there are times when they have to get in the woods.
God isn't making anymore land, better get what you can and all you can. If I understand we still do not have 2 WO's per county. In 06/07 there were 594 regular positions and 170 extra positions, far 07/08 they requested 599 regular and 170 extra positions. Here is a summary report detailing some cost and some possible revenues from drilling on WMA's.
Operating Divisions% Expense Categories %
Wildlife Management 18.1% Maintenance & Operations 34.6%
Fisheries Management 13.7% Capital Projects 12.6%
Education & Outreach 8.3% Equipment & Vehicle Purchases 4.3%
Capital Projects 12.6%
General Administration 4.0%
Support Services 22.7%
Sorry this may appear jumbled but it was in pdf.
God isn't making anymore land, better get what you can and all you can. If I understand we still do not have 2 WO's per county. In 06/07 there were 594 regular positions and 170 extra positions, far 07/08 they requested 599 regular and 170 extra positions. Here is a summary report detailing some cost and some possible revenues from drilling on WMA's.
AGENCY COMMENTARY
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission is submitting its fifth biennium budget request since voters approved the 1/8 Cent Conservation Sales Tax (Amendment #75 of 1996). Historic concerns about inadequate revenue and cash flow have been replaced by needs for a long-term capital improvements program, greater resolution in program evaluation and tracking, and a management information system that facilitates public accountability and input. Changes are being made in our management and information systems to address these needs. Revenues from the 1/8 Cent
Conservation Sales Tax are meeting projections, and have allowed the Commission to address a backlog of maintenance needs and operational needs for the first time in decades, while allocating a large portion to capital improvements and the new nature centers around the State.
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission is submitting its fifth biennium budget request since voters approved the 1/8 Cent Conservation Sales Tax (Amendment #75 of 1996). Historic concerns about inadequate revenue and cash flow have been replaced by needs for a long-term capital improvements program, greater resolution in program evaluation and tracking, and a management information system that facilitates public accountability and input. Changes are being made in our management and information systems to address these needs. Revenues from the 1/8 Cent
Conservation Sales Tax are meeting projections, and have allowed the Commission to address a backlog of maintenance needs and operational needs for the first time in decades, while allocating a large portion to capital improvements and the new nature centers around the State.
As in previous biennia, the agency’s budget request asks for appropriation in excess of anticipated funding. This is done to ensure there is sufficient appropriation in all the commitment items to allow the Commission the flexibility to adjust priorities for the agency as strategic planning advances, as unanticipated opportunities or needs arise, and to cover major construction projects in progress that are carried over from one fiscal year to the next. In 2004-05, the agency sold over 222,000 hunting and fishing licenses to non-residents visiting Arkansas and over 669,000 licenses to Arkansas residents. In 2001, the most recent year for which data is available, state residents and non-residents spent $1.1 billion on wildlife-associated recreation in Arkansas (2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation, USFWS, 2002). More than 20,000 full and part-time jobs are supported in the Arkansas economy as a result of the many rounds of spending resulting from original retail purchases by hunters, fishers and wildlife watchers (Southwick Associates).
The agency is actively looking at potential revenue opportunities associated with natural gas exploration within the geographical confines of the newly defined Fayetteville Shale area. Currently, it is estimated that the agency holds title ownership to approximately 109,736 surface acres on 18 different wildlife management areas in 13 counties and an undisclosed number of net mineral acres available for gas exploration. The net mineral acreage available for exploration and the agency’s potential revenue enhancement can only be determined after sufficient title searches have been compiled and reviewed. The agency is leaving the arduous task of these title searches to the interested gas exploration developers that submit lease proposals for the Fayetteville Shale area. As of September 20, 2006, the agency is negotiating with three different gas exploration companies on bids on three different WMA’s. No final contracts or leases have been signed or executed. This biennial request includes a new line for Gas Lease Revenues and includes an estimate of $15 million the first year of the biennium and $5 million the second year. The appropriation request for the first year includes $15 million in the Land Acquisition commitment item and $5 million in the Operating Expenses commitment item. The request for the second year includes $5 million for Land Acquisition and $2 million for Operating Expenses. Requesting extra appropriation for both years will allow the agency some flexibility in allocating the funds between acquisition and repair and maintenance.
Annually, the agency prepares an internal operating budget detailed by functional operating divisions and expense categories.
Annually, the agency prepares an internal operating budget detailed by functional operating divisions and expense categories.
The 2006-07 Fiscal Year internal budget was allocated as follows:
Operating Divisions% Expense Categories %
Law Enforcement 20.6% Salaries & Related Expenses 48.5%
Wildlife Management 18.1% Maintenance & Operations 34.6%
Fisheries Management 13.7% Capital Projects 12.6%
Education & Outreach 8.3% Equipment & Vehicle Purchases 4.3%
Capital Projects 12.6%
General Administration 4.0%
Support Services 22.7%
Support Services includes Communications, Construction Engineering and Real Estate, Fiscal Services, Human Resources, Information Technology, Legal, Operations, and River Basins divisions. This Biennium Budget would be allocated in approximately the proportions listed above, except for some adjustments related to construction and operation of the proposed nature centers and utilization of the Gas Lease Revenue line item.
Sorry this may appear jumbled but it was in pdf.
What AGFC needs to do, is through license on dogs.....they should be tested for their obedience and size[12" beagles], and only then should they be allowed to deerhunt. All other dogs, including those trespassing should be out of the woods....including hog dogs! There's just too much leeway for cheating, like having a dead pig in your truck and saying we're hog hunting when in fact you're deer hunting. The idea that enforcement is lax, is the correct one....it's high time that dog deer hunters follow the same kind of rules as the rest of us. Can't you imagine?
With the rising prices of leases, and land becoming more scarce, the purchasing of land is a priority.
I am going to be the oddball here, but the AGFC buying more land won't help some people out. They buy a big chunk of land, displace 100 hunters, then go to permit hunts only and allow 50 hunters, thats not helping the situation at all, plus a bunch of whacky regulations. Then you got 50 people with no where to go and those other 50 are trying to figure what the hell the rules are. Plus the AGFC can't manage at WMA to amount to crap. Yes, its nice to have that land reserved for the public, but what good is it when theres hardly a deer or turkey on it and I have to pray everynight to get a permit to hunt a weekend there.
AFGC needs to work with landowners and continue to promote leaseing weather it be financial or some other incentives.
AFGC needs to work with landowners and continue to promote leaseing weather it be financial or some other incentives.
If a lease is 5000 acres and 30 guys are hunting it then 50 is more than 30, more opportunity. On the other hand if you have 20 guys hunting 1200 acres then only 12 may get to hunt it, loss opportunity. If a 2000 acre farm in the Delta comes up for sale and they don't buy it then we have lost. What about inholdings in WMA's? What about parcels connecting WMA's? There is a LOT of opportunity to buy land besides currently leased land. Why not partner with the COE on creating WMA's on their land? Why not have a limited hunt weekend on State Parks where over population is already a factor. I drove past Pinnacle Mtn. Saturday about dark and there were 20+ deer near the maintenance building and in the rangers yard. Sounds like they need help. At the dam at Lake Maumelle you can see 50 deer in small groups in the field most any day this time of year and it is fenced off with an 8' fence and razor wire on top, it belongs to Central AR Water. Maybe they could work with them on an archery only area around the lake? There are viable options out there if they will look and IF they could partner with other entities.
I know that there is a big crop of cadets coming out the end of febuary:thumb: not sure the exact number but I know Yell County is going to get some relief! From what I hear from some of my friends up there they sure do need it! But like someone said until these judges start handing down some serious fines and even jail time it aint likely to change!:smack:
John are we now going to bring hog hunters into the ring?What AGFC needs to do, is through license on dogs.....they should be tested for their obedience and size[12" beagles], and only then should they be allowed to deerhunt. All other dogs, including those trespassing should be out of the woods....including hog dogs! There's just too much leeway for cheating, like having a dead pig in your truck and saying we're hog hunting when in fact you're deer hunting. The idea that enforcement is lax, is the correct one....it's high time that dog deer hunters follow the same kind of rules as the rest of us. Can't you imagine?
Hogs are not a game animal therefore not regulated by the AGFC. Private landowners have the right to remove them or try to control them on thier property.
On State owned land they do regulate when they can be hunted because the State owns the land but since they are not a game animal and the State does not own ALL land they will not regulate private land as to when people can go after hogs. Nor do I think the state will will start telling private land owners the methods they can remove these non game animals with.
Now I think that if enforcement was stepped up and then the Judicial System would really punish violators it would be somewhat of a deterent to other potential violators.
You know when you hear that someone lost their truck,gun and recieved a fine for hunting out of season! that might make someone think twice.
But when you know there are only two G/W's in a county what are the chances? Now if citizens would pick up the phone or just flip that cell open and make the two Wardens aware of what is going on then they might get out of those trucks more often.
They are not super human and they could use some help.
How many have the Game Wardens number?
How many know how to contact the WARDEN?
I have the Warden in my hunting areas card in my wallet right now. His number is programmed into my cell phone. Now if you talk with them I think they would do the same for lots of folks.
Just think if the wardens in every county had good contacts throughout the county what they could do just being two.
But like I have said in the past you have to be willing to do more than just call secretly and remain unknown. you are going to have to be willing to help them convict these people. Which means you may have to get on the stand and testify to what you saw.
I am leaning toward the thought that most would not be willing to go this far out of fear of retaliation.
If enough people would back thier words that they say in conversation whether in person or online I think it would make a dent in the problems.
But thats the problem people don't want to use the system and expect the LEO's to do it. They can't do it all!
More Wildlife Officers would be great and is needed to relieve the ones that are out there. But still they need the publics help.
In Police dept's and Sheriff's offices nationwide they depend on people calling and telling them what is going on. The AGFC LEO's need the same from creditable people like us.
they should keep buying all the land they can. our wma's are getting more crowded every year and we all could use more hunting and fishing places.:biggrin: i would still support a seperate "legacy permit" of $5 that had to be bought with every hunting and fishing license to ONLY be used to purchase more land.
Exactly....buying land is still the best investment for the money!:wink:they should keep buying all the land they can. our wma's are getting more crowded every year and we all could use more hunting and fishing places.:biggrin: i would still support a seperate "legacy permit" of $5 that had to be bought with every hunting and fishing license to ONLY be used to purchase more land.
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Arkansas Hunting
A forum community dedicated to Arkansas hunters and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, trails, clubs, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
