65 and older license exemption

[kingfish387]

I do think the vets and kids should fish for free!

What exactly are you crying about? is it because a retired individual should be "Entitled" to a free liscense? ot is it because you don't know exactly where the money is going?

For me it's a retired person 65 and older should be entitled to a free liscense.I don't think there are that many that take up fishing only after they turn 65.My Dad and uncles payed every year.They earned it!And I expect my children to stand up and say no my Dad paid his dues every year.He earned it.

[kingfish387]

if they need an influx of money start requiring a lic for anyone 5 and older that group is not on a fixed income see to many fishers out there with 2 or 3 kids fisning and hauling away the fishes not a lic in the bunch thats a big free ride your talking bout leave us guys on a fixed income alone

Come On Man!

[Kansasoutdoorsman]

I understand your point even though your example is an extreme. Cost of living will always go up, its just a fact of life. I believe in fair and equal treatment, if I go to a movie I know there is a senior discount and I don't complain. Your example does not take into account a fair example, I don't think anyone is asking to raise the rates above what everyone else has to pay nor are they asking you to pay more, heck it might even be less. I respect your opinion and understand were you are coming from but in this case I think even ground is fair for all of us. Now if they asked seniors to pay more then I would have a problem with it. For me the number of hours of hunting and fishing that I get out of an annual combo license equals out to pennies on the hour, even if they did triple the cost like your slippery slope example I would still be having fun for pennies on the hour. You can't buy that cheap of entertainment.

At the root of it, I guess I see it as I am supporting the outdoors by buying my permits, stamps and licenses not getting taxed. I don't see public land as my right I see it as a privilage. I guess the outdoors has given me so much I don't feel bad when I have to give something back. Thats why I try and support outdoors groups like DU, QU, PFE and I donate my time to kids fishing derby's and give back what I can.

Again, undetstand that bigger goverment is bad and I 100% cuss it almost daily when I see what comes out of my paycheck, but in this case it makes sense to me for all of us to support the the sports we love and help make it better even if we are only supporting the parks with a fraction of what we give.

[Blackdog40]

I also support DU chickadee check off and Quail unlimited. We need to stop this money grab without sound evidence that it is needed. Of course if you use the usual gov accounting then who the hell knows what is needed. If I am going to pay more I need a bigger voice in the process.

[Blackdog40]

This is our voice to not waste the chance to make yourself heard. Use this forum, facebook, twitter and anything else that is available to get the word out the we make a difference and we can control what happens. Go on KDWP web site on Dock Squawk post your ideas and thoughts we can take control of this if we want do not set back and let them run over us.

[Blackdog40]

If someone would tell me this extra money would be going to increase the pay for our game enforcement officers and area biologist not into the pockets of the travel agency supervisors then I would write them a check today. This is not what we see only they need more money. Is that money going to make the big ball of twine more attractive? Nothing against the big ball to twine but not what I want my fishing hunting license to go to.

[wheels70]

This is getting good!

[kscrappeye]

Great points by all. I am new to this site but have been a resident of kansas my entire life. I purchased a lifetime combo license 20+ years ago. As an avid hunter/fisherman it was a great deal, but it was (is) not a good deal for the state of kansas long term since I have already recouped the intial initial investment. I agree with SD that when you take the $20 and divide it by a couple of outings to your favorite fishing spot you won't find any other activity/entertainment that is as economical as fishing. As with almost anything you can make things as expensive as you want (add a boat, tons of tackle, equipement, etc.) I personally don't have a problem with veterens and kansas residents over 65 not having to pay for a fishing or hunting license. I fish in several states, and to be honest that facilities (boat ramps, camping areas, showers, bathrooms, fishing cleaning stations, etc.) are fair at best when compared to other states I have visited (for example South Dakota) that really cater to the sportman/women.

So if funding is really the issue, what can the State of Kansas do to increase user fees?

1. Recruit more users. Introduce someone new to the sport. Be a mentor.
2. Quit selling lifetime fishing and hunting licenses.
3. Increase the cost of out of state licenses and increase fees for out of state residents for state park passes. (However, this may go against Governor Brownback push to promote that great natural resources that the reside in the state of kansas.
4. Increase the cost of the state park permit back to where it was a couple of years ago. Use that money for running the state parks and improve the existing facilities at the parks. Or they could eliminate the state park permit entirely and increase the cost of camping permits for the people who utilize the camp grounds.
5. What about us boaters that utilize the boat ramps how many times a year? Take the cost of the annual park permit and divide it by how many times you launch your boat? Seems like the $20 we spend for the permit is pretty reasonable. What if KDWP&T went to a boat launch fee? How much would that cost us that fish (or would like to) 2-3 times a week?

My main point is that if we as kansas residents want to continue to be able to enjoy these great natural resources of this great state and have them protected for future generations then we will have to in one way or the other provide the necessary support (funding). User fees in one form or the other seem to be the fairest approach to the funding issue. You have to pay to play.

I think that the state has to look at ways to maximize the federal dollars that are allocated to the State of Kansas (It is our tax money that we pay for anyway). So if Kansas decides to eliminate the lifetime licenses and charge sportsman/women over 65 for hunting and fishing licenses and we gain 3 federal dollars for each 1 state dollar, aren't we all better off as caretakers/users of our public lands and waters? Could that State then provide additional reductions in fees (parking, camping, etc.) that would offset the $20 in license fees?

I am all about transparency. I do know that the state has to account for how the federal funding is spent. If it is not spent within the limits as defined by the federal regulations, then the monies have to be repaid back to the feds. I have not problem supporting the fact that we as sportman should know how our dollars are being spent.

All I know is that if it weren't for a mentor of my own when I was in my youth, I would have never developed the passion that I have for the outdoors. That mentor is now over 65, and I personally would buy his license for him if needed. It would be a drop in the bucket in comparison for what the sport has given back to me.

[Fish Taxi]

I hear a lot more agreement than disagreement. Sounds to me like most people would be willing to pay if they felt their money was being well spent.

Does anybody have a breakdown of where the license money is currently going? It sounds like some people believe the money is currently being squandered and misappropriated. I would be curious to see how much is currently being collected and where it's going. And I think it's fair to ask where any additional money would go if they change the law. If anybody has found information on this, please post a link.

I was one of the first people to jump in and say that we should all expect to pay. But if somebody can show clear evidence that fishing license money is being used for things unrelated to wildlife and parks, then I would tend to agree that charging seniors for fishing licenses is not a good way to pay for those things. Heck, I don't want MY fishing license money going anywhere but the budget of wildlife and parks. That's what has me so ticked off about the "luxury" taxes on my boat!

My whole arguement in the first place was that if you are USING the natural resources, then you should expect and want to help SUPPORT the ones who are working to manage those resources for the future. But if the license fees are going to something else, then buying a fishing license doesn't really help the future of fishing, and then it would be just another tax... And I would say that the money should come from somewhere else.

[springhillwantabe]

great thread bd40 agree with you 100 percent my last thought that i can post without it getting deleted is the Lord giveth don't let the gov't take it away Amen nuff said