Bad News for SD GF&P

tm, I think you are incorrect. The GFP does receive money from the General Fund and if that's not coming from general tax revenues I'd like to know what it is. Here's the quote from the Aberdeen News:

Part of Gov. Dennis Daugaard's proposed budget cuts this week included 22 percent, or $650,000, in what the GFP receives from the state's General Fund.
Click to expand...

The state is attempting to cut funding to all government agencies in order to balance the budget. You are implying that the Governor is taking money from the GFP to spend elsewhere. I dont see it that way. Why are you, as a Minnesota resident, so concerned about SD?
 
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/documents/Reversions_FY2010.pdf

Page 2 Appropriation Expenditure

** DEPT 06 GAME, FISH & PARKS 5,114,128.00 .00 .00 5,111,159.00

The SD General Fund gave Game, Fish, and Parks $5,114,128 FY2010 The GF&P spent $5,111,159 of this from the GENERAL FUND

So yes the GF&P does get GENERAL FUND DOLLARS. They have a budget of Roughly $51,000,000 so about 10% comes from the General Fund. The general fund monies are the ones to be cut, not the other monies (Lic, Federal, ect).
 
As a side note UGUIDE contributed about $20,000 is sales tax to the state of South Dakota last year and generated over $60,000 in South Dakota small game license sales in that same time period.

I should also mention that all of this is provided by those that come from out of state and of which the burden of cost is on them primarily.

It is worth mentioning that SD GFP has a fund for habitat cost share but we are not able to access $1 of it if you charge $1 to hunt and/or do not allow public hunting. In the UGUIDE model of camps this does not work so UGUIDE does not consider SD GFP a partner in our operations and I wish I could say that we do. They have some good programs but are not accessible to UGUIDE camps because of the "no deal" policy.

My point being when you have $60,000 + going out (to SD GFP) and not $1 comes back in (to any of 9 UGUIDE landowners) this my friends is NOT a sustainable habitat model.

Here is a case in point: I have a camp owner in Hand County where cash rent is $80/acre. CRP will pay $60/acre. The landowner will not signup CRP unless it is at or above what a renter would pay the landowner. SD GFP may have a program that covers the gap on the CRP rental rate. In this scenario you will not see much new CRP going in in Hand County South Dakota.
 
Last edited:
UGUIDE If my Math is correct $600,000 in lic fees at $114 lic you serviced over 5200 hunters last year. Was that all last year or since UGUIDE started?
 
moellermd said:
If this is the case I am not so sure I would not support the cut. To make up that money would require a 2% increase in fees if my math is right.
Click to expand...

They were already talking about raising Park fees. I do not think they will raise bird license fees, but I could be wrong. Big game could take a hit.
 
Wirehairs said:
UGUIDE If my Math is correct $600,000 in lic fees at $114 lic you serviced over 5200 hunters last year. Was that all last year or since UGUIDE started?
Click to expand...

Whooooooops!!! I knew somebody would hold my feet to the fire. Thanks wirehairs. That number should have been $60,000 not $600,000.

I made the edits to my original post. Ok, not that much money to go around now I guess:)

THANKS!!
 
UGUIDE said:
It is worth mentioning that SD GFP has a fund for habitat cost share but we are not able to access $1 of it if you charge $1 to hunt and/or do not allow public hunting. In the UGUIDE model of camps this does not work so UGUIDE does not consider SD GFP a partner in our operations and I wish I could say that we do. They have some good programs but are not accessible to UGUIDE camps because of the "no deal" policy.

My point being when you have $60,000 + going out (to SD GFP) and not $1 comes back in (to any of 9 UGUIDE landowners) this my friends is NOT a sustainable habitat model.
Click to expand...

Sorry Chris but with rates between $570 and $920 a gun I really do not feel sorry that the GFP is not subsidising your habitat plans. Good for you and your land owners for having a profitable operation I got no problem with that. In a way they all ready are subsiding hunting operations via CRP payments.
 
UGUIDE said:
Mike, can you elaborate? To my understanding they only subsidize the Jim River CREP which has a stipulation on open access (aka not a hunting operation).
Click to expand...

Chris, some would argue that you are getting a CRP payment from the gov that allows you to have good pheasant habitat. Creating the environment for hunting operations to have great bird numbers and charge for access. In effect subsiding pay to hunt operations. Due I subscribe to this train of thought, not really. But, I can see the argument.

Lets look at it objectively, if there was no CRP would hunting operations be able to afford to exist just on money received from hunters? I would think not, but you would know the numbers better than me.
 
moellermd said:
Chris, some would argue that you are getting a CRP payment from the gov that allows you to have good pheasant habitat. Creating the environment for hunting operations to have great bird numbers and charge for access. In effect subsiding pay to hunt operations. Due I subscribe to this train of thought, not really. But, I can see the argument.

Lets look at it objectively, if there was no CRP would hunting operations be able to afford to exist just on money received from hunters? I would think not, but you would know the numbers better than me.
Click to expand...

Mike, not the ones that charge 570-920:D

Also, it is important to note that CRP funding comes through the Federal Government and this thread is referring to State Game and Fish funds. Important to be specific here.
 
TM,
perhaps you didn't see my earlier post with a link right to the State General fund spending for Fiscal Year 2010. The GF&P recieved over $5,000,000 in general fund dollars from the state of SD. I think we should be more concerned with a GF&P employee who thinks $5,000,000 is little to nothing. Well it is a small part of GF&P budget it is still $5 million.
 
http://www.state.sd.us/bfm/budget/bib10/sdbib2010.pdf

Here is another link for you. Look to page 22-23 of the report(page 25-26 of the PDF) for the entire GF&P Budget. It tells you where the money comes from and where it goes.

The GF&P gets $5,114,128 in general fund dollars that are used as follows,
$106,975 for CREP (Jim River Valley Project)
$1,152,711 for Administration
$3,854,442 for State Parks and Rec

They also recieve $23,179,164 in Federal Funds and $46,232,376 in other funds, ie Lic Fees, Park admissions, camping and other misc revenue

Lic fees are NOT placed in the general fund and redistributed. These are not one time approprations out of the general fund. Remeber that this is the Game, Fish, and Parks. They take care of more than just wildlife. Aside from the the CREP program wildlife recieves no general fund dollars but the Game, Fish and Parks department does.
 
Last edited:
We live in a Great country but the people in office have no clue of what fee hikes mean!!!!! Everything comes free to them!!!! Free housing! Free Gas! Free Clothe! Free transportation! Free food! Free premier HEALTH CARE! FREE TAXES so by the time they increase alil here and there for me and the rest of America it adds up! California needs help wiith upland walk-in land!! well they need help with alot of things lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top