Proposed Federal Budget Includes Price Increase to Federal Duck Stamp

[bigtex]

The following is an excerpt from the proposed federal budget (begins Oct 1, 2014) that was announced today. In short, the federal duck stamp will be increased by $10, an additional change is that the price control of the stamp will change from Congress to the Secretary of the Interior after approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. USFWS anticipates acquiring 7,000 acres and acquiring 10,000 acres of easement in 2015 as a result of the increase.

Duck Stamp Legislative Proposal – The budget includes a legislative proposal to increase the cost of a Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp to $25.00 per year, beginning in 2015, from its current cost of $15.00. With the additional receipts, the Department anticipates acquisition of approximately 7,000 additional acres in fee simple and approximately 10,000 additional conservation easement acres in 2015 to benefit waterfowl habitat. The legislation also proposes the price of a Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp may be increased after 2015 by the Secretary with approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission

[pianoman9701]

I don't have a problem with the stamp increasing once by about 65%, but I do have a problem with the responsibility of future increases going to the secretary of the interior without congressional oversight. When that happens, we'll have a $50 duck stamp within 5 years and the funds will be spread around the Department of Interior, not earmarked for wetlands conservation.

[bigtex]

I don't have a problem with the stamp increasing once by about 65%, but I do have a problem with the responsibility of future increases going to the secretary of the interior without congressional oversight. When that happens, we'll have a $50 duck stamp within 5 years and the funds will be spread around the Department of Interior, not earmarked for wetlands conservation.

Well in order for the duck stamp funds to be appropriated elsewhere it would require congressional legislative changes. But I agree, I would rather see congress responsible for the fee of the stamp then the department.

[Gringo31]

Find a way to charge the bird watchers.


I don't think I will be in favor of any fee increases.  Had it with all gov't asking/charging more and more money when I don't think they really care or "get it".   

[vandeman17]

I have never liked the duck stamp. Not only do we need a small game license plus migratory bird validation, then we need a stamp on top of it. What I also hate is that it is a physical stamp so if you buy it early with your other stuff, then add something new where you get a new license then technically you are breaking the law if you carry the license with the stamp on it while bird hunting. I hate those stupid 2 foot receipt licenses but that is for a different thread. 

[Elkaholic daWg]

I don't have a problem with the stamp increasing once by about 65%, but I do have a problem with the responsibility of future increases going to the secretary of the interior without congressional oversight. When that happens, we'll have a $50 duck stamp within 5 years and the funds will be spread around the Department of Interior, not earmarked for wetlands conservation.

Well in order for the duck stamp funds to be appropriated elsewhere it would require congressional legislative changes. But I agree, I would rather see congress responsible for the fee of the stamp then the department.

But do we KNOW that?    For now maybe

[Bob33]

If the same number of stamps are sold at the higher price, they could buy 7,000 acres at $2,000 per acre.

[bigtex]

I have never liked the duck stamp. Not only do we need a small game license plus migratory bird validation, then we need a stamp on top of it.

The reason for the stamp is waterfowl is a federally managed species. That stamp is essentially your federal duck hunting license. Since waterfowl are federally managed, any violation of waterfowl laws is not only a state violation but also a federal violation.

[bigtex]

I don't have a problem with the stamp increasing once by about 65%, but I do have a problem with the responsibility of future increases going to the secretary of the interior without congressional oversight. When that happens, we'll have a $50 duck stamp within 5 years and the funds will be spread around the Department of Interior, not earmarked for wetlands conservation.

Well in order for the duck stamp funds to be appropriated elsewhere it would require congressional legislative changes. But I agree, I would rather see congress responsible for the fee of the stamp then the department.

But do we KNOW that?    For now maybe

Yes we KNOW that. It is under the US Code (federal law) that the funds from the stamp must go towards conservation. The only ones that can change the USC is Congress. USFWS could want a change all they want, but until Congress changes that law the funds can only go to conservation.

[vandeman17]

I have never liked the duck stamp. Not only do we need a small game license plus migratory bird validation, then we need a stamp on top of it.

The reason for the stamp is waterfowl is a federally managed species. That stamp is essentially your federal duck hunting license. Since waterfowl are federally managed, any violation of waterfowl laws is not only a state violation but also a federal violation.

I understand that but I just think that for the state to require two licenses then a federal validation is excessive. If a guy wants to go out and just hunt ducks in wa, you are looking at $40 for small game, $17 for migratory bird and then $15 or whatever for the duck stamp. $72 to hunt ducks for a resident seems pretty ridiculous and now they want to add $10 more to it. Turning more and more into a rich man's sport every year

[deltaops]

Maybe raising prices to hunt in general is a goal for them. Meaning that if they raise prices enough, then only the wealthy can afford it and in turn that will enable for other s to call it a sport. Since it is called a sport, then we are only hunting for the sport of it and that is not ethical. No more hunting as it gets shut down do to it being only for sport now.

Guess I will not be duck hunting next season. 

We buy these stamps and don not mind the price raise, next year it goes up again. When will enough be enough?

Stop buying the stamps and licenses. Since we all know that will never happen, guess if we want to keep hunting, we will just have to continue to pay the high prices and gripe about it. 

[pianoman9701]

I don't have a problem with the stamp increasing once by about 65%, but I do have a problem with the responsibility of future increases going to the secretary of the interior without congressional oversight. When that happens, we'll have a $50 duck stamp within 5 years and the funds will be spread around the Department of Interior, not earmarked for wetlands conservation.

Well in order for the duck stamp funds to be appropriated elsewhere it would require congressional legislative changes. But I agree, I would rather see congress responsible for the fee of the stamp then the department.

But do we KNOW that?    For now maybe

Yes we KNOW that. It is under the US Code (federal law) that the funds from the stamp must go towards conservation. The only ones that can change the USC is Congress. USFWS could want a change all they want, but until Congress changes that law the funds can only go to conservation.

In the case of the waterfowl stamp, does it say that the conservation has to specifically be waterfowl, or might it be diverted to others, like for example, canus lupis conservation?

[Special T]

If its used strictly for the purchase of land then yes. I do have some problems with it however. There are a lot of "joint" projects going on lately in the salmon waterfowl department, and i must say that i don't think its doing a good job at either. Waterfowlers are under a constant barrage of taking away land  via blowing levies , at least in the NW. I'm curiouse what areas they plan on purchasing.

[bigtex]

I don't have a problem with the stamp increasing once by about 65%, but I do have a problem with the responsibility of future increases going to the secretary of the interior without congressional oversight. When that happens, we'll have a $50 duck stamp within 5 years and the funds will be spread around the Department of Interior, not earmarked for wetlands conservation.

Well in order for the duck stamp funds to be appropriated elsewhere it would require congressional legislative changes. But I agree, I would rather see congress responsible for the fee of the stamp then the department.

But do we KNOW that?    For now maybe

Yes we KNOW that. It is under the US Code (federal law) that the funds from the stamp must go towards conservation. The only ones that can change the USC is Congress. USFWS could want a change all they want, but until Congress changes that law the funds can only go to conservation.

In the case of the waterfowl stamp, does it say that the conservation has to specifically be waterfowl, or might it be diverted to others, like for example, canus lupis conservation?

MUST be waterfowl

[fireweed]

Remember the scandal during the Clinton years when Duck stamp Money went to purchase a tropical atoll--with no ducks!  Got to keep a sharp eye on that $$ or it will get diverted, law or no law.  Oh, but there were waterfowl there...