Federal Upland Stamp, is it time?
- Thread starter quail hound
- Start date
Uncle Buck
New member
The first thing they will do is consider the pheasant a non-native species. Does not mean it would not benefit from any habitat work however.
Uncle Buck
New member
Amen brother. The problem is cheap corn makes ethanol cheaper also.
wesslpointer
New member
In the management Fed Refuge plans Pheasants or listed along with noxious weeds THAT MUST BE REMOVED!!!!! Having talk to some U.S. FISH and Wildlife mangers they say there really not going to BUT WHY IS IN THE PLAN? Try bring in some new Chukar lines to help biodiversity of the one here NO WAY. I feel your better working with each state. Expand the Duck Stamp but NO Fed Upland stamp.
NC IA Tail Chaser
New member
My whole problem with this is once again conservation is on the backs of the outdoors man/woman and not the other Users! What about the bird watcher, the hiker, and the bike rider? Why are we the hunters supporting the same old funding mechanisms to create revenue? The hunter/fisherman will pay the price so we can maintain and improve habitat, water quality and hunting rights and be expected to be patient and understanding when all the other users descend on the land that was bought and paid for with our user fees. It?s about time a plan is put forth, but if one that is really fair and equitable , we need a plan that is not funded on the backs of the hunter, a plan that all the users pay for.
quail hound
Moderator
All bills have a summary that is usually 100 words or less summing up the proposal. This is how I would summarize what I would support.
"The federal upland stamp act will generate revenue to purchase, restore, and maintain quality upland habitat on public and private land open to hunting and use the success's of the federal waterfowl stamp act as a basis for fund management and implementation."
"The federal upland stamp act will generate revenue to purchase, restore, and maintain quality upland habitat on public and private land open to hunting and use the success's of the federal waterfowl stamp act as a basis for fund management and implementation."
Last edited:
good luck with this....but i agree.
mission statement, to sell the stamp........nice.
BRITTMAN
Well-known member
No.
There is no need to add this stamp to upland hunters.
Federal Duck Stamp already benefits upland hunters in many states by providing ample cover and many of these places open to hunting. Maybe they should start by simply requiring all people accessing WPAs and NWRs for any game animal to buy the Federal Duck Stamp. Those living in the PPR know that pheasants benefit on almost every acre already saved for ducks (if the property is in pheasant country).
Ducks migrate, upland do not... Thus money spent on the PPR (Prairie Pothole Region) will benefit hunters all through out the flyways. It would be nearly impossible to equitably distribute funds across all bird habitats, states, etc... States should be responsible for upland birds and their habitat.
The governing agencies should manages what they already have. Federal Grasslands can be managed for wildlife and ranchers running cattle on these lands charged the actual going rate.
National Forest land should go into an active timber management plan. Ruffed Grouse Society has often stated the worst habitat for ruffed grouse is on Federal National Forests because they are not actively manged for cuts and habitat diversity. This would actual generate revenue !
There is no need to add this stamp to upland hunters.
Federal Duck Stamp already benefits upland hunters in many states by providing ample cover and many of these places open to hunting. Maybe they should start by simply requiring all people accessing WPAs and NWRs for any game animal to buy the Federal Duck Stamp. Those living in the PPR know that pheasants benefit on almost every acre already saved for ducks (if the property is in pheasant country).
Ducks migrate, upland do not... Thus money spent on the PPR (Prairie Pothole Region) will benefit hunters all through out the flyways. It would be nearly impossible to equitably distribute funds across all bird habitats, states, etc... States should be responsible for upland birds and their habitat.
The governing agencies should manages what they already have. Federal Grasslands can be managed for wildlife and ranchers running cattle on these lands charged the actual going rate.
National Forest land should go into an active timber management plan. Ruffed Grouse Society has often stated the worst habitat for ruffed grouse is on Federal National Forests because they are not actively manged for cuts and habitat diversity. This would actual generate revenue !
Last edited:
Miforester
Well-known member
Brittman well said couldn't agree more especially about fed forest land.
BrowningCitori
Member
I like the concept, just think if matching funds were available for the last two decades for state agencies and/or PF to make some of the CRP acres perpetual or 99 leases or outright purchase (not annual payments but a one time payment). As many farmers have said "that land should never have been farmed", not true of all of it but some. Think about how many times the taxpayers have "purchased" some of these fields, they were in the soil bank and now 30 years of CRP payments...Lots of options if we think outside the box a little. You have to have willing sellers but money talks.
I don't think the Federal govt is going to start a new 50 state program unless it is department of ag (congress can't pass anything let alone this). The Prairie Pothole Region properties are managed as part of wetland management districts, those don't exist in the rest of the country. However, state agencies and/or PF could oversee the land interest (fee title or lease) and access (no sense not having hunting access).
What does upland hunting look like 20 years from now if continue the same old same old...
Mike Rossi
Banned
correct, unless tied to the esa or migratory.