StructureSpot

StructureSpot

Day: January 29, 2012

Kansas Seniors expected to pay for fish habitat improvements

Posted on by david

Outdoors: Older outdoorsmen may face fee

KDWPT wants to do away with ‘fish, hunt for free’

Posted: January 28, 2012 – 8:39pm
 Back | Next 

The Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism will ask the Kansas Legislature to remove the exemptions that allow Kansas residents 65 years and older to fish and hunt for free. These free licenses were implemented in 1971 and the KDWPT is looking at broadening its funding base as a growing number of Kansas baby boomers, like Gene Brehm, are nearing this age. PHOTOGRAPH BY MARC MURRELL

PHOTOGRAPH BY MARC MURRELL
The Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism will ask the Kansas Legislature to remove the exemptions that allow Kansas residents 65 years and older to fish and hunt for free. These free licenses were implemented in 1971 and the KDWPT is looking at broadening its funding base as a growing number of Kansas baby boomers, like Gene Brehm, are nearing this age.
SPECIAL TO THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

Since 1971, Kansas residents who are 65 years of age or older haven’t had to purchase a Kansas hunting or fishing license. The Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism (KDWPT) is asking the 2012 session of the Kansas Legislature to consider removing these license exemptions for people 65 years of age or older.

According to KDWPT officials there are several reasons for this request. The KDWPT operates its fisheries and wildlife programs without the aid of Kansas state general fund tax money. These programs are paid for by licenses and permit fees charged for various hunting and fishing activities. In addition, for each license sold in Kansas the state receives federal money as a match from excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment.

This money is allotted to each state based on the number of licenses sold and divided accordingly. Fifteen percent of the KDWPT budget for fisheries and wildlife programs comes from the federal funding matching money.

Fishing and hunting programs in Kansas are supported by license and permit sales. According to the KDWPT, removing the senior exemptions will assist the agency to continue providing a variety of outdoor opportunities. One popular example includes the Kansas Walk-In Hunting Area program which has opened more than a million acres of private land for public access. Another is the Community Fisheries Assistance Program which has opened more than 200 community lakes for fishing.

Additionally, license money is used to pay for fisheries management and fish stockings in 24 federal reservoirs and 40 state fishing lakes. In addition, license fees aid wildlife-related law enforcement, wildlife management on 100 public wildlife areas, boating access, fish habitat programs, research, education and wildlife population and health monitoring.

The KDWPT recognizes the changing demographics of Kansas residents. More people in the Baby Boomer generation will be reaching their 65th birthdays in the coming years. For example, the number of deer hunters 65 years of age and older that purchased deer permits has increased 25 percent in the last five years. Concern is that without a broadened funding base when many of these users leave the system others still paying for annual licenses will have to carry a heavier burden for fish and wildlife programs. The KDWPT said the elimination of the senior license exemptions will spread the cost among those that use the resources, keeping them equal and affordable for all.

Individual hunting or fishing licenses cost $20.50 for the calendar year. A combination hunting/fishing license is $38.50 which amounts to 11 cents per day. The KDWPT points out that the cost of a yearly license is a bargain compared to other forms of entertainment like dining in a restaurant, watching a movie or playing a round of golf. In addition, they point to the cost of the license as but a small percentage of the overall cost of other expenses relating to a hunting or fishing experience.

The KDWPT estimates the lost revenue from the senior license exemptions are considerable. Calculations used based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) 2006 National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife-related Recreation in Kansas (survey results from the most recent USFWS survey will be available this summer) estimates that 20,000 Kansas residents 65 years of age and older hunted in Kansas that year.

The KDWPT receives $18 from each license (after vendor and convenience fees) which would amount to $360,000. Matching federal money for each hunting license is $16.15. Subtracting 7,696 (the number of seniors who purchased a deer or turkey permit which can be counted for federal aid matching funds) that amounts to $198,709 in federal matching money for hunting licenses for a total of $558,709.

Using similar formulas and information, the KDWPT estimates lost revenue from annual fishing license exemptions for seniors amounts to $847,289. This is based on 33,000 anglers 65 or older at $18 for a total of $594,000. Federal aid ($8.31 is available as a match for each fishing license) from the sales of these licenses would amount to $253,289 (subtracting 2,520 anglers who purchased third pole or trout permits which can be used for federal aid reimbursement).

The KDWPT says it doesn’t want to unfairly target seniors who enjoy hunting and fishing. However, more than $1.4 million in lost revenue is substantial. They believe the elimination of the exemptions will make the license fee structure more equitable for all hunters and anglers and help to continue programs and services they enjoy.

Individuals wishing to express their concerns or questions are encouraged to contact their elected officials, or they can contact the KDWPT Office of the Secretary, 1020 S. Kansas Ave., Ste. 200, Topeka, KS 66612, or call (785) 296-2281.

HEARING SET FOR WATERCRAFT TAX

House Concurrent Resolution 5017 will have a hearing at 10:30 a.m. on Feb. 2 in Room 152 S in the State Capital. This addresses the current rate of taxation on watercraft in Kansas.

Currently, watercraft are taxed at 30 percent of assessed value which is considerably higher than cars, trucks, recreational vehicles and motor homes. The House of Representatives passed HCR 5017 in 2011 by a vote of 121 yea, 2 nay. It now must be approved by the Senate before it can be voted on by the public as a change in the Constitution.

The Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism (KDWPT) estimates as many as 10,000 boats and other watercraft are registered in other states to avoid paying Kansas property taxes. As a result, counties lose considerable revenue and the KDWPT loses revenue as well as federal aid reimbursable matching monies for improvements in boat ramps, safety markers and buoys, boating access, boater education and enforcement. The KDWPT supports this resolution.

If passed by the Senate, the resolution will go on the ballot to be voted on by the public as a change to the Constitution in the November 2012 election. If approved by the public, the 2013 session of the Kansas Legislature will determine how much to lower the current rate of taxation on watercraft personal property. This process already has been completed for vehicles, camping trailers and other recreational vehicles.

Anyone wishing to participate in the hearing and provide comments can contact Mary Jane Brueck, Committee Assistant at (785) 296-2713.

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the leader in  science based, proven, fish protection.

Marc Murrell can be reached
at mmoutdoors@cox.net.

Pot Grows Destroy Fish Habitat

Posted on by david

Brad Job: Rapacious Grows Destroy Habitat, Undo Restoration Work – January 29, 2012

Saturday, January 28, 2012
Nightmare mosaic photo from a raid in the King Range National Conservation Area. Photo courtesy Brad Job

I’ve been fascinated by water and the organisms that live in it since I was a child. When three years of sea duty made me fall in love with the ocean, I decided to pursue a degree from HSU in Environmental Resources Engineering, which I completed in 1993.

Since then, my career has focused on water quality and water resources. For the past 10 years I have had the honor and privilege of being part of a team of professionals that steward some of our nations’ most spectacular public land. In this occupation I have also been witness to many environmental sins that have occurred as a result of marijuana cultivation.

As a pragmatic environmentalist, it is not my job to deride marijuana or its use. But, similar to the environmental effects of logging, the problem is not necessarily that one grows pot, it’s about how one grows pot.

Regardless of how one feels about marijuana and its legal status, anybody that understands just a little about aquatic ecosystems has to admit that widespread cultivation has bad consequences for fish. It degrades the quality of our rivers and streams, which to me, are the core of what makes northwest California special. See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the leader in  science based, proven, fish protection.

In reference to one of last week’s cover stories about illegal excavation and un-engineered fill(‘Shocking’ environmental damage from outdoor grows, Eye, Jan. 18) I can attest that the additional input of sediment eroded from grow-related excavations permanently damages habitat for imperiled salmon and trout populations and undoes the benefits of millions of dollars’ worth of watershed restoration work.

However, increased sedimentation is not the only or necessarily the worst environmental consequence of rapacious pot growing out in the hills.

The giant hunk of failing fill is located right above Bear Creek where it exits the King Range NCA could not be in a worse spot as far as fish habitat goes (notice the clear creek in the upper right corner).

Recent research has shown that 80 to 90 percent of the nitrogen in coastal watersheds historically came from the ocean, much of it in the form of return runs of salmon and steelhead. However, dwindling fish populations and environmentally oblivious pot growers have turned that dynamic on its head.

Now, growers dump hundreds of tons of excess fertilizer into these watersheds annually. The most obvious consequence of fertilizer overuse is increased algal growth, which is most likely why toxic concentrations of blue-green algae have been observed in the Eel River in recent summers. Excessive algal growth kills fish and the organisms that they feed upon.

In addition, outdoor grows frequently discharge rodenticides, insecticides and fungicides into the environment; divert springs and creeks for long distances; and leave vast quantities of trash and black poly-pipe behind.

And then there are the diesel dope grows. These operations often improperly and illegally store large quantities of diesel in plastic tanks that are prone to failure. And those that do use metal tanks almost never have secondary containment and often have leaks and spills.

A pile of dumped cannabis root balls, surely laden with fertilizers and other soil amendments, cascades down the banks of Liscom Slough into sensitive marine habitat last week. Photo courtesy Ted Halstead

It is worth noting that fuel distributors that dispense fuel into such tanks are also committing a felony. If anyone wants to observe the environmental consequences of petroleum spills in aquatic ecosystems, they need only to travel to an urban stream to witness the reduced abundance and diversity of invertebrate species, which are the base of most aquatic food webs.

Then consider the water diversions, air and noise pollution from inefficient generators, and the random dumping of fertilizer-laden potting soil. And I can hardly bear to ponder the sad irony of burning fossil fuel to make light to grow plants in a manner that is literally 99 percent inefficient, all while it is warm and sunny outside.

As long as the marijuana status quo and large profit margins remain, it appears inevitable that some of the worst crimes at marijuana gardens will be environmental ones.

The citizen’s suit provision in the Clean Water Act might be a big enough hammer to change some landowners’ behavior if a motivated team of attorneys and environmental scientists were to respond to a specific incident.

However, the sad fact remains that the underground economy is creating really bad consequences for the increasingly fragile ecology of our rivers and streams. But, if this letter makes only one grower reduce their fertilizer and agricultural chemical use or cause less erosion, the time it took to write it will have been well spent.

Sincerely,

Brad Job, P.E.

Environmental Engineer

Arcata

Scroll to Top