November 20, 2008 09:59 pm
—
By Andy Ostmeyer
aostmeyer@joplinglobe.com
MILLER, Mo. — Tammy Alger likens a new policy proposed by the Missouri Department of Conservation to a time when peasants couldn’t hunt the “king’s deer.”
“It’s really going back to feudalism. ... The state feels they own the deer,” said Alger, of Miller.
Her comment was prompted by a department proposal to raise the minimum number of acres needed for people to hunt free for deer or turkey on their own property from five to 80 acres.
Those, like Miller, who live on less than 80 acres would be required next year to buy a deer permit, which is something they haven’t had to do in the past.
“It just seems like our government wants to take more and more and more of our rights away from us,” she said.
Steve and Tammy Alger have 10 children between the ages of 5 and 27, many of whom like to hunt and often use the family’s 35 acres.
Under the proposed changes, they still would have basic small-game privileges — squirrel and rabbit, for example — for free. But each member of the family who hunts for deer would need to buy either a permit for antlerless deer or an any-deer permit.
Along with the acreage change, the department also is proposing raising the fees for residents from $19 to $22 for a basic hunting permit, from $7 to $10 for an antlerless-deer firearms permit, and from $17 to $20 for an any-deer permit.
The Algers were so upset that they wrote to state Rep. Don Ruzicka, R-Mount Vernon.
“This is unfair to small farm owners and families,” they wrote. “Why should only wealthy large landowners be able to hunt for deer and turkey on their own land at no charge to them? This is outrageous and we believe that the Missouri Legislature ought to make it impossible for the Missouri Department of Conservation to implement these changes next year.”
Ruzicka advised them to write to the department and voice their concerns.
If approved, the changes would take effect next summer, in time for the 2009 deer season.
‘Cheat the system’
“The agency is paying very close attention to all the input that is received,” said Jim Low, spokesman for the Department of Conservation in Jefferson City. He said the state is welcoming public comment through Dec. 16.
“I really do think it is worth noting that wildlife do belong to the people at large,” Low said when told about Alger’s comment about the “king’s deer.”
But the state also spends millions of dollars annually managing wildlife populations.
“What they are paying for is the cost of management,” Low said.
The recommended fee increase is not generating near the number of comments as the proposed acreage change, he noted. He said 70,000 landowners fall in the range between five and 80 acres.
Under department rules, landowners in recent years have had to register with the agency, but they received no-cost hunting permits for deer.
“Unfortunately, that procedure provided opportunities for unethical hunters to cheat the system,” the agency says in a question-and-answer format on its Web site.
So, as part of the changes, the agency also is tightening up its landowner requirements. On July 1, landowners wanting to hunt for deer and turkey on their own property must first list their property with the agency’s Landowner Registry. The property owners must provide the legal description, the number of acres and the status of each person in the immediate household.
According to the department, the number of smaller landowners in the state has resulted in a growing number of no-cost deer and turkey permits being issued, and with that, a loss in state permit fees and federal aid.
The state can receive $17 in federal aid for each deer permit it sells. The money comes from the federal excise taxes collected on hunting equipment and ammunition to fund state wildlife programs.
“It costs us twice when someone doesn’t buy a permit,” Low said.
Greg Jones, permit services supervisor, said there is no way to know what the impact will be, but he said the exemptions for tracts of land between five and 80 acres could be costing the state as much as $1.4 million in direct permit purchases and federal aid.
Losing revenue?
Low also noted that the agency started offering landowner exemptions in 1944 to encourage landowners to provide habitat and to compensate them for the damage to their land from deer, but the landowner had to live on the land and derive a significant amount of income from it initially.
The Algers acknowledge that they are “hobby” farmers who depend more on off-farm income than the money they derive from selling niche products such as “pastured” poultry and eggs.
Tammy Alger said she is unhappy that four unelected commissioners with the agency can change the rules.
“They are not accountable to anybody,” she argued. “They can just change rules, making people into lawbreakers. There are no votes by our state representatives or senators.”
She also argued that the state isn’t “losing” revenue because of the exemption.
“What they are doing is going to raise revenue,” she said. “They are not losing revenue because they never had it in the first place.”
Low said state voters in 1935 set the agency up under the Missouri Constitution to be independent and bipartisan, so it would “not be prone to vicissitudes of political pressure.”
He also wanted it known that the agency isn’t just hunting for more revenue but has made strides to scale back on spending as money has tightened up, as many property owners have had to do.
The state agency has frozen 40 open positions and wants to reduce personnel costs even further, and it also has lower targets on fuel consumption.
Potential decline
But Tammy Alger and other landowners also worry that the agency’s proposal to raise revenue by changing the landowner requirement could backfire.
“This rule is going to discourage the small landowner from encouraging the deer to come on their property,” she said.
“It definitely would be a discouragement to this household. ... To go out and spend that kind of money on hunting permits is not going to happen.”
Eric Vimont, who lives south of Mount Vernon on 68 acres, agrees.
Like Alger, he has philosophical objections to the department’s proposal, arguing that landowners should be free to do with their land as they see fit.
But, he added, there is a practical matter.
“The mind-set that prevails in our nation today is that if you raise taxes (and fees), then government will have more money,” he said, but the opposite may be true.
As the state adopts more rules and restrictions, more people lose interest in activities, such as hunting, and may stop altogether, he said. That means they not only won’t be buying permits, but they also won’t be buying hunting gear, rifles and ammunition, from which the department collects tax revenue. They also may no longer want to cooperate with the state when it comes to providing habitat.
“This is a disincentive to those wildlife programs,” Vimont said. “People will say, ‘What should I do that for?’ They are going to lose people’s willingness to cooperate.”
Low said he didn’t think the impact would last long.
“Most people in Missouri are pretty passionate about hunting, and I don’t see any long-term, large-scale discouragement to hunting,” he said.
Andy Ostmeyer is the metro editor for The Joplin Globe.
Contact
Landowners who want to voice their views on the proposed rule changes may write to the Missouri Department of Conservation, Regulations Committee, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, MO 65102.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.
Photos
Globe/Roger Nomer
Joshua Alger tests the sight lines from a deer stand on his family’s land near Miller. The state is proposing several changes in hunting regulations.