TPWD changes passed for MLD

[jdg13]

If you are in MLDP, and are voluntarily working with the biologist to reach management goals, then a fee makes sense. You are paying for a service. However, in many counties, MLDP is required to shoot does during general season. We've been using the MLDP system for years, having the landowners do all the work. All of the sudden we have too many does, so here's a new rule change, doe days. Sorry, you are in MLDP, but that doesn't apply to you and we aren't going to issue you any more tags, now we want $30. Yes, it is a specific example, but it is an example of yet another TPWD rule change that serves one purpose at one one moment in time (in this case they need money) without thinking about the big picture.

[RiverRat1]

How much have you been paying the state per year?

Hunters on MLD still buy a hunting license. And the ranches that bring in hunters and make millions off them those hunters are required to buy a HL also...

And lets see..Then the property has to buy a land lease license...


And pay taxes on those millions don't forget.

[Dale Moser]

Hunters on MLD still buy a hunting license. And the ranches that bring in hunters and make millions off them those hunters are required to buy a HL also...

And lets see..Then the property has to buy a land lease license...


And pay taxes on those millions don't forget.

I'm only somewhat familiar with the program....but here's how it looks from the outside..

So they want a program to provide more tags, and a longer season, if certain requirements are met. But they don't want to pay any extra for that program to be run....therefore taking revenue produced from regular license sales of people who have no access to your deer surplus, to fund the program...for about 3 decades.



Also, modifying range conditions, supplemental feeding, blah blah.....all done voluntarily, is what caused the surplus of deer beyond what the range can sustain. So now we need a program to allow us a longer season, and a bunch more tags to control the population.....wait, wait, wait.....we don't want to pay for that program!!!



Oh, and by the way....we don't want anyone coming in to help with the surplus either.

[ultrastealth]

We are MLD, and I look at this as a user fee. I'm fine with it.

[ateague11]

What is another $300 atop already high cost deer lease cost. Grand scheme of things its not really a big blow

[mmlreiner]

I'm only somewhat familiar with the program....but here's how it looks from the outside..

So they want a program to provide more tags, and a longer season, if certain requirements are met. But they don't want to pay any extra for that program to be run....therefore taking revenue produced from regular license sales of people who have no access to your deer surplus, to fund the program...for about 3 decades.



Also, modifying range conditions, supplemental feeding, blah blah.....all done voluntarily, is what caused the surplus of deer beyond what the range can sustain. So now we need a program to allow us a longer season, and a bunch more tags to control the population.....wait, wait, wait.....we don't want to pay for that program!!!



Oh, and by the way....we don't want anyone coming in to help with the surplus either.

Not exactly correct but I see why it might look that way. In our case, landowner buys large parcel of land. The land is in a county where the deer population is dense. Landowner does not hunt but sees a serious need to have the population controlled so he partners with a buddy that hunts. No payment is exchanged but the buddy can only shoot his tag limit making it almost useless. Deer are being struck by cars, deer are in poor condition because the range doesn’t sustain the amount of mouths to feed. Landowner and buddy meet with TPWD and say if they will do everything the program requests, costing thousands of dollars over the years (land clearing, habitat improvement, seeding NATIVE grasses and Forbes not protein feeders, cost of purchasing equipment, etc) can they enter this program. TPWD says sure, do all those things and you can come into the program that helps the state control an ever growing population of deer on your own dime. Yeah, buddy gets to shoot 20-30-80 deer a year that get donated to the local market for hunters for the hungry. Longer season, great, this just means I don’t have to shoot, drag and quarter up 10 deer every single weekend and can get away with spreading the work out a little.

Landowner has no intentions of selling hunts therefor this work is entirely up to the buddy and any single person the landowner allows to help.

It would be like your scenario I guess if the land was purchased to make a profit from selling hunts but in my case, it’s truly to improve the overall population and range conditions to sustain a normal herd. My biologist gave us a plan 16 years ago and we made it happen. After that I can hardly get ahold of him. Probably busy on those other ranches like you mentioned. [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Dale Moser]

Not exactly correct but I see why it might look that way. In our case, landowner buys large parcel of land. The land is in a county where the deer population is dense. Landowner does not hunt but sees a serious need to have the population controlled so he partners with a buddy that hunts. No payment is exchanged but the buddy can only shoot his tag limit making it almost useless. Deer are being struck by cars, deer are in poor condition because the range doesn’t sustain the amount of mouths to feed. Landowner and buddy meet with TPWD and say if they will do everything the program requests, costing thousands of dollars over the years (land clearing, habitat improvement, seeding NATIVE grasses and Forbes not protein feeders, cost of purchasing equipment, etc) can they enter this program. TPWD says sure, do all those things and you can come into the program that helps the state control an ever growing population of deer on your own dime. Yeah, buddy gets to shoot 20-30-80 deer a year that get donated to the local market for hunters for the hungry. Longer season, great, this just means I don’t have to shoot, drag and quarter up 10 deer every single weekend and can get away with spreading the work out a little.

Landowner has no intentions of selling hunts therefor this work is entirely up to the buddy and any single person the landowner allows to help.

It would be like your scenario I guess if the land was purchased to make a profit from selling hunts but in my case, it’s truly to improve the overall population and range conditions to sustain a normal herd. My biologist gave us a plan 16 years ago and we made it happen. After that I can hardly get ahold of him. Probably busy on those other ranches like you mentioned. [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I would say your situation is probably a LOT more the exception, than the rule.

I would also say to the landowner, being a landowner aint for everyone, nothing is free, and $300 is a lot cheaper than a high fence.


I appreciate your reply, and his predicament, either way.

[TexasTK]

I will begrudgingly pay the fee even though I do not use the state biologist or use any of there resources other than there approval for amount of tags. One thing I do have an issue with is the game surveys. They require me to do a Helo survey which is totally worthless & a waste of time & money. They are about as accurate as tooth wear.
Observation reports should be an acceptable means of determining population.

[Chance Love]

How much have you been paying the state per year?

The same as if I wasn't on MLD. Like I said before, our "payment" was to be the extra habitat improvements, more intense management practices, surveys, ect. in return for extended seasons (which costs the state nothing) and more liberal bag limits. The only cost to the state is the few minutes of time it takes the biologist to enter our survey data into a formula. And really this could be totally automated now. So again, what is my $300 going toward?

I could be wrong but I believe anyone can get the same "assistance" from a state biologist on a non-MLD property. And it's always been that way. But now I gotta pay $300, and the non-MLD guy still pays nothing. The only difference is for me he has to enter 3 numbers into a formula, and then I get an automated email telling me how many tags I can have.

[RiverRat1]

I'm only somewhat familiar with the program....but here's how it looks from the outside..

So they want a program to provide more tags, and a longer season, if certain requirements are met. But they don't want to pay any extra for that program to be run....therefore taking revenue produced from regular license sales of people who have no access to your deer surplus, to fund the program...for about 3 decades.



Also, modifying range conditions, supplemental feeding, blah blah.....all done voluntarily, is what caused the surplus of deer beyond what the range can sustain. So now we need a program to allow us a longer season, and a bunch more tags to control the population.....wait, wait, wait.....we don't want to pay for that program!!!



Oh, and by the way....we don't want anyone coming in to help with the surplus either.

So you're jealous others get more tags so they should be taxed. You could have just said that.

[gingib]

$30 for us, since we are in WMA. Still sucks. But more bearable then $300

[doeboy11]

If you have too many deer I am sure some of the greenscreen brothers and sisters can help you.

[Greenheadless]

One thing I do have an issue with is the game surveys. They require me to do a Helo survey which is totally worthless & a waste of time & money. They are about as accurate as tooth wear.
Observation reports should be an acceptable means of determining population.

I am with you this. We don’t do helo, but spotlight. Total waste of time as our average sight distance along the entire 8 mile tract is precisely 10 yards either direction.