TPWD changes passed for MLD

[Banded Drake Calls]

I think there is some confusion here with the different programs and implemented fees. The proposed fees, which are set to begin in the 2021-2022 season, are $300 annually for each property enrolled in the Conservation option, and $30 for each property enrolled into a WMA under the Harvest option.

It sounds like most of you are enrolled in the harvest option, which is basically a do it yourself management practice; you do the counts, you collect your own data, you decide your land management practices; etc.

The conservation option is where you have a biologist that works with you and pretty much makes the recommendations for you. They do the counts, the do the logs and harvest data, and they recommend management practices for your property. In my opinion, $300 for this service isnt bad so long as you are actually getting the benefits.

These are some shots from our recent newsletter



Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Jon B]

This was such a sham. We are implementing a fee. Period.

But to make it PC, let's ask for feedback and then wholeheartedly ignore it and say that we received overwhelming support for the measure.

[Jon B]

-Fulldraw 529

Before we had the choice between Harvest or Conservation option we did all the work. We did the spotlight counts, the visible area survey and the photo census. I haven't read the latest iteration of what passed but I would be highly surprised if the TPWD biologists do any additional work.

When we started our program, I spoke to the biologist over the phone for 2-3 years before I ever met him. I did send him jawbone's for the first 3 years and then they cut that out. I. Not saying it was a bad program because it wasn't. It was just very obviously designed to be autonomous and needed minimal oversight.

Let's be honest with ourselves...with 3 spotlight counts and a visible distance survey, I can determine sex ratio, recruitment, deer density and extrapolate that information for the entire property and decide what a sustainable buck or doe harvest would be. This information could be written into a very simple computer program that would more accurately represent a specific property instead of using the county wide population data that they are currently using for the harvest option.

Maybe someone else's biologist was doing more work than mine. Maybe they just had faith in the work we were doing and never thought it was important to audit our work....who knows.

This was nothing but a cash grab by TPWD. They realize that we are willing to spend lots of money to grow big deer. They just want more of their piece of that pie. Let's just sit back and see how many years this goes before the first increase in these fees.

I am betting the rates will be increase by double or triple in the first five years. You guys that think we are just whining are welcome to tell me if I am wrong.

[Greenheadless]

MLD is not aimed at growing big deer.

[PondPopper]

When any government collects money and gives nothing in return but "permission to do certain things" it not a fee it is a TAX... They found a weak spot. The know people are willing to pay big money to hunt and will extra money(a TAX)to shoot more deer and hunt longer and they capitalized on this... They can call it whatever they want.

[PondPopper]

MLD is not aimed at growing big deer.

But reducing head count can be very beneficial on some ranches but that's not what it's used for in most cases.. It mainly used to hunt longer, kill more deer and killing more deer generates more money... It's always been about the money..

[IkemanTX]

It IS an optional program. You can always just utilize the county season, bag limit, and tags and that still doesn't cost anything other than a license. Most folks don't really NEED to be in MLD anyway, just look at it as a luxury tax. I stopped using MLD when the new program started since I didn't really need it.

This is kind of my thought...
I can’t afford a property, or helicopter surveys, or 2,000lb feeders, but I shell out $300 every year to be able to archery hunt Oklahoma on top of Texas.

If I could afford a big property and all the other things that come with it, I’m pretty sure I could spring such a tiny fee to have the benefits above and beyond the standard county restrictions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Greenheadless]

It’s voluntary, not a mandate or law. People can chose to participate or not.

[wildaggie]

The money generated by this is supposed to be used to hire about 15 more field biologists. This should result in more personalized assistance for each ranch that wants it. Some TPWD biologists are working with more than 100 ranches, and all are working with at least 45. This is in addition to county wide surveys for most game species, working with small landowners seeking the wildlife tax valuation, wildlife research, outdoor education, and of course, a major CWD collection focus November-January. There isn’t enough time on the clock to give each ranch the attention they deserve. Hopefully this new revenue will allow for more time to be spent with each ranch.

[M16]

How about paying landowners rent for providing the habitat for the state’s wildlife?

[Greenheadless]

Or you could fence them out so they will stop ‘stealing’ from you.

[Banded Drake Calls]

-Fulldraw 529



Before we had the choice between Harvest or Conservation option we did all the work. We did the spotlight counts, the visible area survey and the photo census. I haven't read the latest iteration of what passed but I would be highly surprised if the TPWD biologists do any additional work.



When we started our program, I spoke to the biologist over the phone for 2-3 years before I ever met him. I did send him jawbone's for the first 3 years and then they cut that out. I. Not saying it was a bad program because it wasn't. It was just very obviously designed to be autonomous and needed minimal oversight.



Let's be honest with ourselves...with 3 spotlight counts and a visible distance survey, I can determine sex ratio, recruitment, deer density and extrapolate that information for the entire property and decide what a sustainable buck or doe harvest would be. This information could be written into a very simple computer program that would more accurately represent a specific property instead of using the county wide population data that they are currently using for the harvest option.



Maybe someone else's biologist was doing more work than mine. Maybe they just had faith in the work we were doing and never thought it was important to audit our work....who knows.



This was nothing but a cash grab by TPWD. They realize that we are willing to spend lots of money to grow big deer. They just want more of their piece of that pie. Let's just sit back and see how many years this goes before the first increase in these fees.



I am betting the rates will be increase by double or triple in the first five years. You guys that think we are just whining are welcome to tell me if I am wrong.

I'm not arguing one side or the other, just simply stating the facts for those saying everyone will be paying $300 every year now. I'd be willing to bet a good portion of those who think they're being roped into paying $300 more are actually only in the harvest option and are paying $30.

Individuals are certainly entitled to hiring their own biologist instead of having a state employed biologist do the work/or not do the work as some have stated they don't. But that cost of a private biologist is on them.

Everyone complains about additionally fees and costs of programs or services, but these same people want to have their cost of living adjustment each year for their own paychecks. Everything costs money, and each year inflation drives prices up on everything.

I dont have any say on how the state government uses its funds anymore than anyone else does, in the end they're going to do what they want anyway.

Hunting licenses go up in costs, you complain about it but pay it anyway because at the end of the day you're not going to give up hunting or risk the fine, or maybe you will.

Pay it or don't, its your choice. I know what we're going to do moving forward. $30 a year for how we manage our properties isn't much to blink at. Since we've started managing deer, including taking anterless close to what's recommended, our herd has looked very well, our bucks are making it to maturity, antler genetics are looking good, and overall our hunters are happy with the program. Seems like a win win for all

If fees continue to increase substantially over the next few years, then I'm sure a lot of folks will rethink their management plans and drop out. Drop out trends with fee increases will either halt the increases, or end up doing away with the program all together and change hunting regulations



Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[farlow]

FD529:

I have tried to follow a couple of your analyses on what the Conservation Option enrollees are receiving but, as I am one of them, am unable to follow your rationale and don't know who is giving you this information. We have utilized the Wildlife Valuation (some call it an exemption) opportunity since near its inception in '96. Before that, we had the Ag Valuation with livestock. The reason we changed was the continual trespassing of the cattle owner's family during hunting season as well as the mineral lick/molasses delivery guys who figured since they had a key to get in, they could kill what they wanted, when they wanted. Our personal problem but that was how we handled it.
My first biologist was fantastic but he retired and the next guy was here for 15 years and I saw him ONCE and that was when I invited him his first year. We were on level 3 MLDP and we sent in the pics and they mailed the permits to us.

Two or three years ago we got a new biologist. He is ok because he is not demanding. We chose the Conservation Option because my Region 5 county has a very diverse landscape and apparently they do the county survey lines in sparsely populated areas. On our almost 645 acres, we would most likely get 4 permits, split between buck and antlerless. Why do I say 'most likely'? Because I have asked my biologists for the past 18 years how many I would be assigned if I went with the county average and have been told "we can't give out that info". !!!!! Must be some super secret stuff. So, because we have a density of 1 deer/12 ac in my deer sanctuary (my newest biologist's words), 4 permits would result in an explosion that would defeat the purpose of the effort to protect the habitat and I would be close to the state of the landscape in '96 shortly.

So, with the CO, we set up our cameras, put out the corn bait in Aug/Sept to get those pics, travel to the property every 3-4 days, and then do all the identification of every buck and count every doe and fawn pic and the submit them via email on a form that has about 6 blanks for those numbers. He plugs in the numbers and we get an email telling us what the computer recommended. If we agree, we get to print the permits.

So, I am confused where you get the info you stated below. They don't do the counts. They don't do the logs. They don't do the harvest data. I have yet had one to make a recommendation of management practices but I do get to chose from a list.

The conservation option is where you have a biologist that works with you and pretty much makes the recommendations for you. They do the counts, the do the logs and harvest data, and they recommend management practices for your property. In my opinion, $300 for this service isnt bad so long as you are actually getting the benefits.



Also, your statement below is confusing. It doesn't matter if someone has a private biologist employed to do the work for them as far counts, etc. The state guy doesn't care who gets the info to him as long as he gets it in time.

Individuals are certainly entitled to hiring their own biologist instead of having a state employed biologist do the work/or not do the work as some have stated they don't. But that cost of a private biologist is on them.

I am not trying to be confrontational in my remarks but I think a lot of posters here do not understand the nuances of the choices many have made in signing up for this program.
I need to keep our Wildlife valuation in order to continue to keep the taxes low enough to continue to own the property and I am not the only one here who is in that boat. But I will give up the 5 months of hunting by moving to some other option in order to keep from paying the $300. I can afford it but I will be getting nothing in return and that just sticks in my craw. And it will keep some kid from utilizing an antlerless permit that I have had in January.

[Banded Drake Calls]

FD529:

I have tried to follow a couple of your analyses on what the Conservation Option enrollees are receiving but, as I am one of them, am unable to follow your rationale and don't know who is giving you this information. We have utilized the Wildlife Valuation (some call it an exemption) opportunity since near its inception in '96. Before that, we had the Ag Valuation with livestock. The reason we changed was the continual trespassing of the cattle owner's family during hunting season as well as the mineral lick/molasses delivery guys who figured since they had a key to get in, they could kill what they wanted, when they wanted. Our personal problem but that was how we handled it.
My first biologist was fantastic but he retired and the next guy was here for 15 years and I saw him ONCE and that was when I invited him his first year. We were on level 3 MLDP and we sent in the pics and they mailed the permits to us.

Two or three years ago we got a new biologist. He is ok because he is not demanding. We chose the Conservation Option because my Region 5 county has a very diverse landscape and apparently they do the county survey lines in sparsely populated areas. On our almost 645 acres, we would most likely get 4 permits, split between buck and antlerless. Why do I say 'most likely'? Because I have asked my biologists for the past 18 years how many I would be assigned if I went with the county average and have been told "we can't give out that info". !!!!! Must be some super secret stuff. So, because we have a density of 1 deer/12 ac in my deer sanctuary (my newest biologist's words), 4 permits would result in an explosion that would defeat the purpose of the effort to protect the habitat and I would be close to the state of the landscape in '96 shortly.

So, with the CO, we set up our cameras, put out the corn bait in Aug/Sept to get those pics, travel to the property every 3-4 days, and then do all the identification of every buck and count every doe and fawn pic and the submit them via email on a form that has about 6 blanks for those numbers. He plugs in the numbers and we get an email telling us what the computer recommended. If we agree, we get to print the permits.

So, I am confused where you get the info you stated below. They don't do the counts. They don't do the logs. They don't do the harvest data. I have yet had one to make a recommendation of management practices but I do get to chose from a list.

The conservation option is where you have a biologist that works with you and pretty much makes the recommendations for you. They do the counts, the do the logs and harvest data, and they recommend management practices for your property. In my opinion, $300 for this service isnt bad so long as you are actually getting the benefits.



Also, your statement below is confusing. It doesn't matter if someone has a private biologist employed to do the work for them as far counts, etc. The state guy doesn't care who gets the info to him as long as he gets it in time.

Individuals are certainly entitled to hiring their own biologist instead of having a state employed biologist do the work/or not do the work as some have stated they don't. But that cost of a private biologist is on them.

I am not trying to be confrontational in my remarks but I think a lot of posters here do not understand the nuances of the choices many have made in signing up for this program.
I need to keep our Wildlife valuation in order to continue to keep the taxes low enough to continue to own the property and I am not the only one here who is in that boat. But I will give up the 5 months of hunting by moving to some other option in order to keep from paying the $300. I can afford it but I will be getting nothing in return and that just sticks in my craw. And it will keep some kid from utilizing an antlerless permit that I have had in January.

Are you talking about the Wildlife Exemption for tax purposes? That's a separate program from the Managed Lands Deer Program, which these fees that are being added pertain to.

We have never been on the Wildlife Exemption, strictly agriculture. We enrolled into the MLDP several years ago for the sole purpose of managing our deer population within a co-op, which I believe is what many here have done as well.

I dont think this program is linked to the Wildlife Exemption requirements that you are referring to.

If you'd like clarification as to what the Conservation option and Harvest option are, pertaining to the Managed Lands Deer Program (MLDP), which is where the new fees are, the photos below are directly from the Texas Parks and Wildlife website defining what they are. Again, pertaining to the MLDP, not Wildlife Exemption.

Now, if you being Wildlife exempt causes you to have to be enrolled into the Conservation option in the MLDP, then that's certainly something for you to have to consider if its worth it.

Again, we are ag exempt only, enrolled into the MLDP through a co-op for our county, which has us in the Harvest Option....$30 annual fee per property in the co-op


I'm not being confrontational, just providing the same information I've been given by our county biologist who specifically explained this to me and which option we are and what fees to expect. The information is provided for others to do their due diligence and find out which option they are currently enrolled in



Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[farlow]

The Wildlife Valuation (exemption) is employed by a county's Appraisal District but is initially based upon a property having a TPWD biologist-written Wildlife Management Plan. However, if an owner feels comfortable just using a Timber Management Plan or an Agriculture Valuation, as you are apparently doing, it is their prerogative. I was simply explaining why we are on it and it doesn't affect the TPWD plan about to be enforced. You are correct as they are 2 different animals.

At least your biologist has explained things to you. Mine didn't even give me a heads up about the public input until I asked him about it a couple of weeks ago.