Reply
Go Back   TexasBowhunter.com Community Discussion Forums > Topics > Around the Campfire
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-26-2020, 11:26 AM   #51
ttaxidermy
Pope & Young
 
ttaxidermy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brazoria county
Hunt In: Brady,McCulloch Cnty, Brazoria cnty, South Africa, Namibia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenheadless View Post
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..
ttaxidermy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-26-2020, 11:40 AM   #52
IkemanTX
Ten Point
 
IkemanTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Denton
Hunt In: Caddo
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deerguy View Post
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 canít 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, Iím 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
IkemanTX is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-26-2020, 11:49 AM   #53
Greenheadless
Ten Point
 
Greenheadless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Hunt In: Liberty County
Default

Itís voluntary, not a mandate or law. People can chose to participate or not.
Greenheadless is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-26-2020, 12:29 PM   #54
wildaggie
Six Point
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Decatur
Hunt In: Archer County
Default

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 isnít 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.
wildaggie is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-26-2020, 12:37 PM   #55
M16
Pope & Young
 
M16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Hunt In: Colorado, LaSalle, ,Menard Counties
Default

How about paying landowners rent for providing the habitat for the state’s wildlife?
M16 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-26-2020, 01:07 PM   #56
Greenheadless
Ten Point
 
Greenheadless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Hunt In: Liberty County
Default

Or you could fence them out so they will stop ‘stealing’ from you.
Greenheadless is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-26-2020, 01:52 PM   #57
Banded Drake Calls
Associate Sponsor
 
Banded Drake Calls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edna, Texas
Hunt In: Jackson Co.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon B View Post
-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
Banded Drake Calls is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-27-2020, 09:35 PM   #58
farlow
Nubbin' Buck
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Default

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.
farlow is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-27-2020, 09:59 PM   #59
Banded Drake Calls
Associate Sponsor
 
Banded Drake Calls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edna, Texas
Hunt In: Jackson Co.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by farlow View Post
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
Banded Drake Calls is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-27-2020, 10:36 PM   #60
farlow
Nubbin' Buck
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Default

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.
farlow is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-27-2020, 10:43 PM   #61
Banded Drake Calls
Associate Sponsor
 
Banded Drake Calls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edna, Texas
Hunt In: Jackson Co.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by farlow View Post
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.
Well dont feel too bad, we only got word through our monthly newsletter in an email, and then again notified of it passing in the next letter. But, maybe he saw the writing on the wall and knew the state didnt really care about anyone's input. Guess on the bright side I didnt waste my time voicing it to them.

I guess once it passed, our biologist figured he'd better get ahead of us and explain to us what we're dealing with before we bombarded his phone with questions

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Banded Drake Calls is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 08:35 AM   #62
J.Shoot
Six Point
 
J.Shoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tuscola
Default

We are like a lot of others on here. We have been in the MLD program for over 15 years. In those 15 years I have seen 2 different biologist work in our area. The original biologist helped set our survey routes up and discussed a management plan. After that it was a phone call or email, which is fine, I know they are busy and have plenty to do. We don't lease our property so it gives us the ability to manage our deer herd. Our ranch consists of 3 separate properties, so my interpretation is we will be paying $900 to be in the program.... There are 2 parcels of land that separate our property, one is separated by 1/4 mile and the other by 1/2 mile. The total property is 3600 acres... $300 would be ok.... $900 is a little excessive.
J.Shoot is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 08:51 AM   #63
RiverRat1
Pope & Young
 
RiverRat1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Leander
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon B View Post
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.
Yep - Saw this coming a mile away. It was like a slap in the face to even bother asking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon B View Post
-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.
Haters are going to hate. Those not in MLD are jealous and it's sad they are happy fees are dinging MLD guys.

Just wait until fees hit them...Then they complain and expect us to give a crap.
RiverRat1 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 08:56 AM   #64
Traildust
Pope & Young
 
Traildust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Alvin, Texas
Hunt In: LookingÖ.Pow Pow!
Default

Maybe the land owners will deduct the fee from your lease prices

I had to pay school taxes 15 years before I had kids too!
Traildust is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 08:59 AM   #65
RiverRat1
Pope & Young
 
RiverRat1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Leander
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenheadless View Post
Itís voluntary, not a mandate or law. People can chose to participate or not.
So is hunting and fishing..and everything else. I hope hunting license go up to $300

Quote:
Originally Posted by M16 View Post
How about paying landowners rent for providing the habitat for the stateís wildlife?
People just don't get it. The original "deal" was TPWD told landowners how to manage their ranch. The landowner footed the bill improving habitat per what the biologist said. TPWD wants more land to hold game..and healthy game.

Now they want the landowners to do the work AND pay TPWD at the same time.

We shall see how it turns out. If most people stay in the program they will charge more than $300 very soon. If lots drop out they will stick with the $300 IMO No tax every goes away
RiverRat1 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 09:02 AM   #66
RiverRat1
Pope & Young
 
RiverRat1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Leander
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traildust View Post
Maybe the land owners will deduct the fee from your lease prices

I had to pay school taxes 15 years before I had kids too!
Lease prices will go up $300 first

Then we can see the real Bi#$%ing LOL
RiverRat1 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 09:07 AM   #67
Graysonhogs
Pope & Young
 
Graysonhogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Savoy, Texas
Hunt In: Fannin/Grayson/Erath
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRat1 View Post
Lease prices will go up $300 first

Then we can see the real Bi#$%ing LOL
LO needs to be sure to Itemize that charge on the lease contract. LOL. Then we can get "Crappy Landowner passes cost to us".
Graysonhogs is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 09:08 AM   #68
Graysonhogs
Pope & Young
 
Graysonhogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Savoy, Texas
Hunt In: Fannin/Grayson/Erath
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRat1 View Post
So is hunting and fishing..and everything else. I hope hunting license go up to $300



People just don't get it. The original "deal" was TPWD told landowners how to manage their ranch. The landowner footed the bill improving habitat per what the biologist said. TPWD wants more land to hold game..and healthy game.

Now they want the landowners to do the work AND pay TPWD at the same time.

We shall see how it turns out. If most people stay in the program they will charge more than $300 very soon. If lots drop out they will stick with the $300 IMO No tax every goes away
They'll find that point of diminishing return and throttle it back ever so slightly.
Graysonhogs is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 09:17 AM   #69
Traildust
Pope & Young
 
Traildust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Alvin, Texas
Hunt In: LookingÖ.Pow Pow!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graysonhogs View Post
LO needs to be sure to Itemize that charge on the lease contract. LOL. Then we can get "Crappy Landowner passes cost to us".
I'm sure that LO can deduct that expense on his taxes when he claims the lease money profit when he files it
Traildust is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 09:28 AM   #70
Dale Moser
Pope & Young
 
Dale Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wise Cty
Hunt In: Young Cty
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by txwhitetail View Post
I donít have any issue with the program as it was intended when we all signed up 20 years ago. Instead of a management tool itís now a courtesy. Too many are on the program that shouldnít/donít qualify as originally intended. There should have been an admin fee from the start for all of us on it. The software admin costs and state employee time should be covered by those actually using the program. Thatís not a ďhardĒ concept to grasp.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How much did it cost before this change?
Dale Moser is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 09:43 AM   #71
Dale Moser
Pope & Young
 
Dale Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wise Cty
Hunt In: Young Cty
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chance Love View Post
Awesome. So what extra work is our state biologist gonna do for us with this extra $$? Conduct the helicopter survey? Wait, we do that. Maybe take care of the several habitat management practices that need to be done each year? Wait, we do that. Oh, I guess he will come up with our Wildlife Management Plan? Nope, we did that too. Silly me, he will surely print out our tags and mail them to me? Silly me again, I have to print my own tags. Remind me again what this $300 is for?
How much have you been paying the state per year?
Dale Moser is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 09:53 AM   #72
Traildust
Pope & Young
 
Traildust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Alvin, Texas
Hunt In: LookingÖ.Pow Pow!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Moser View Post
How much have you been paying the state per year?
Type a little louder D....no ones listening!
Traildust is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 09:54 AM   #73
Graysonhogs
Pope & Young
 
Graysonhogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Savoy, Texas
Hunt In: Fannin/Grayson/Erath
Default

.
Graysonhogs is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 09:55 AM   #74
Graysonhogs
Pope & Young
 
Graysonhogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Savoy, Texas
Hunt In: Fannin/Grayson/Erath
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traildust View Post
I'm sure that LO can deduct that expense on his taxes when he claims the lease money profit when he files it
Well, I'm not an accountant, so there's that.

I was speaking from a purely comedic scenario..
Graysonhogs is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 09:57 AM   #75
Traildust
Pope & Young
 
Traildust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Alvin, Texas
Hunt In: LookingÖ.Pow Pow!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graysonhogs View Post
Well, I'm not an accountant, so there's that.

I was speaking from a purely comedic scenario..
Me too!
Traildust is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 10:06 AM   #76
FVR JR
Six Point
 
FVR JR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Houston
Hunt In: San Saba County, Colorado County
Default

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.

Last edited by FVR JR; 01-28-2020 at 10:08 AM.
FVR JR is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 10:35 AM   #77
RiverRat1
Pope & Young
 
RiverRat1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Leander
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Moser View Post
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.
RiverRat1 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 10:49 AM   #78
Dale Moser
Pope & Young
 
Dale Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wise Cty
Hunt In: Young Cty
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRat1 View Post
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.

Last edited by Dale Moser; 01-28-2020 at 11:07 AM.
Dale Moser is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 11:15 AM   #79
ultrastealth
Ten Point
 
ultrastealth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Katy
Hunt In: Camp Wood, TX
Default

We are MLD, and I look at this as a user fee. I'm fine with it.
ultrastealth is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 12:01 PM   #80
ateague11
Ten Point
 
ateague11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Taylor, TX
Default

What is another $300 atop already high cost deer lease cost. Grand scheme of things its not really a big blow
ateague11 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 01:14 PM   #81
mmlreiner
Ten Point
 
mmlreiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Magnolia, TX
Hunt In: Kerr County, Tx
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Moser View Post
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 doesnít 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 donít 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, itís 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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
mmlreiner is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 01:33 PM   #82
Dale Moser
Pope & Young
 
Dale Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wise Cty
Hunt In: Young Cty
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmlreiner View Post
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 doesnít 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 donít 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, itís 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.


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.
Dale Moser is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 02:48 PM   #83
TexasTK
Ten Point
 
TexasTK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Boerne
Hunt In: Dimmit County & Beyond
Default

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.
TexasTK is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 03:22 PM   #84
Chance Love
Pope & Young
 
Chance Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Leander, Texas
Hunt In: Hill Country and South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Moser View Post
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.
Chance Love is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 03:43 PM   #85
RiverRat1
Pope & Young
 
RiverRat1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Leander
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Moser View Post
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.
RiverRat1 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 03:44 PM   #86
gingib
Pope & Young
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Central Tx
Hunt In: NTX
Default

$30 for us, since we are in WMA. Still sucks. But more bearable then $300
gingib is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 03:53 PM   #87
doeboy11
Six Point
 
doeboy11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Round Rock
Hunt In: Georgetown, Balcones Canyon Land Lee County
Default

If you have too many deer I am sure some of the greenscreen brothers and sisters can help you.
doeboy11 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-28-2020, 04:01 PM   #88
Greenheadless
Ten Point
 
Greenheadless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Hunt In: Liberty County
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasTK View Post
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 donít 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.
Greenheadless is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1999-2012, TexasBowhunter.com