FHL $150 annual fee

[acldo6390]

I sent the following to the base commander yesterday... I believe they are way out of their swim lanes in regards to the referenced items below. In accordance with, the Department of Defense INSTRUCTION NUMBER 4715.03 Dated: March 18, 2011, “Natural Resources Conservation Program”:
“An installation shall use the same fee schedule for all participants, with the exception of senior citizens, children, and the handicapped. Membership in any installation club or organization will not give members priority in participating in hunting, fishing programs, or other consumptive and non-consumptive outdoor recreation opportunities.”

The Sikes Act states: “in the case of a military installation, stipulate the issuance of special State hunting and fishing permits to individuals and require payment of nominal fees there for, which fees shall be utilized for the protection, conservation, and management of fish and wildlife, including habitat improvement and related activities in accordance with the integrated natural resources management plan; except that—
(A) the Commanding Officer of the installation or persons designated by that Officer are authorized to enforce such special hunting and fishing permits and to collect, spend, administer, and account for fees for the permits, acting as agent or agents for the State if the integrated natural resources management plan so provides, and
(B) the fees collected under this paragraph may not be expended with respect to other than the military installation on which collected, unless the military installation is subsequently closed, in which case the fees may be transferred to another military installation to be used for the same purposes.
Nominal: Definition, (of a price, consideration, etc.) named as a mere matter of form, being trifling in comparison with the actual value; minimal.


R/
Mark​

 

[Sea 2'er]

I was able to download the 2013 elk tag app before they pulled it off their site yesterday; it stated that you must attach your current permit, or attach your app for the permit to the elk tag app.

Either way, it's still $150 unless something changes.

I seem to recall from a few years back, that MWR was only allowed to profit 5%... I'd sure like to see a full accounting of where the funds are going to improve their natural resources.

 

[Sea 2'er]

Wait until you see what they've decided - check out their web.

http://www.liggett.army.mil/sites/fishhunt/hunting.asp

 

[ltdann]

It's still highway robbery and I told Rick that. $50 for an application fee is ludicrous

 

[acldo6390]

Guys,
They are in clear violation by charging a sliding fee. I will stop by the Inspector Generals (IG's) office in the morning to discuss. Do not mind an oversight but when I provide them the correct governing documentation to follow and they elect not to then WT%... 50.00 bucks to attempt to draw an elk tag is crazy and now that I've voiced my concern I know it may become even more difficult to get one of those tags...
Mark

 

[acldo6390]

All,
I get that the junior enlisted should get a break on the fees and that should be accomplished via MWR who should supplement the cost of the fee. I have always understood that the fee should not be a sliding fee except for the three allowances allotted for under INRMP, senior, handicapped and children. To break things up in order to meet the desired goal of increasing the fees is most likely legal but unfortunate. As I am writing this I am just fuming about this. This whole thing has just torqued the heck out of me. This is exactly the sort of thing that reminds me why I retired last year! Do more with less and from my view point a complete lack of both common sense and a disregard for governing instructions. You cannot charge a sliding fee. They need to look at other installations and realize this is not an MWR program, it is Natural Resource program so if they want to site the Sikes act they need to also follow governing DoD directives. They are cherry picking what rules they wish to follow. I've attached the link for the instruction for those who wish to review and see for themselves.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/471503p.pdf

I'll donate my 100.00 bucks regardless but this just feels improper. I too love the location, the hunt is fun and the staff has been so helpful on the elk hunts I have been a part of. I am just a bit surprised at the increase that in my opinion can not be considered nominal by any stretch of the word. Best of luck on the draw and hope to see you all this fall!
Mark

 

[Uncle Bambi]

Well,

As a civilian I'm still on the hook for the $150 for an annual "all access" pass. I'm not thrilled by it, but I'll pay it. I've had good success at FHL, and it is a beautiful place to have access to.

But damn..... they sure are making things harder than they have to be what with this, the stupid Gibb Hall $134/night rates, and weapons registration. Unfortunately for me, it is the only real game in town. I can't go coughing up $600 for a private ranch and a guide every time I get jonesing for a pig hunt.

 

[DAQ80]

This situation sucks all around, and we're all in a damned if we do damned if we don't predicament.
As much as we all want to complain about the base wanting to make more money, for whatever purpose, it could be worse. This is a military base, they could say screw it...no hunting at all, or military and retired only.
It definitely looks like the leadership change is not in our favor as hunters, no matter who you are. I just hope hunting continues through the new CO's tenure. If it was to get shut down it would probably take a hunter CO to get it turned back on. Anyone that's not a committed hunter will likely not want to put forth the effort.
As an active duty military member I love the fact that we have places like FHL and VAFB. My biggest fear is that they will disappear, either through closing of the hunting programs or selling of the land. How this all plays out over the next few years plays a big part on where I'll move after retirement, as a Californian I'm hoping it's in my favor.

 

[Sea 2'er]

there's a lot of inconsistencies on the apps, and website. Seems like they just threw this together....

 

[cali-carnivore]

Waaaaah! You want access to non public land for nothing? I am morbid about the fact that they charge this to active and retired military but the sense of entitlement voiced by the general public is stupid! If you do not like it hunt public land! I do not like the price at Tejon (public land trust!), so I choose to hunt other places. There are way too many hypocrites here! You post how you hate anything other than the pro right wing but want hunting welfare? I have sent emails regarding my disagreeing with the increase for military but anybody else can pound sand. I served during war time but know that I was entitled to what I earned. I chose to leave and now I can not hunt vandy or pendelton, I am ok with that. This should be about te people that are serving or retired after a career or disability. I am personally offended by the people that have a problem with the young people that are on call to protect us on a daily basis having week day access! For those of you that have an issue with my opinion you should call the base and see if they will accept your EBT!

 

[Hikingwithguns]

Cali I disagree, once again you are the frog sitting happily in the pot as it is being brought to a boil. No one wants access to FHL for free, they want access for a nominal fee, read peoples posts. Others have already explained the situation with the elk apps. As for the increase, well lets see, the pig tags the dfg sells went up about 2.5% for their cost of living increase and the FHL permit went up by 50%! What changed that it costs so much more to run the program? If they keep doing this each year they will be more expensive than tejon lol. And like I said, this won't hurt me at all, just the retired folks and some of the military guys.

 

[RodeoFlyer]

Waaaaah! You want access to non public land for nothing?

Actually, it is public land in the sense that it belongs to the taxpaying citizens of this country. By most of your posts I can't figure out if you're just an ass or if you just like winding people up.

 

[acldo6390]

So you think FHL is non public land? Having served for over 26 years I'll assure you that a military installation is about as public as a chunk of real estate can get. Your $$$ money pays for the up keep and the payment of those employees entrusted with properly manging that land. With that management comes a responsibility to do so in a manner that supports the mission and in the same manner also supports the laws and regulations placed upon them. My chief complaint is that the FHL staff is managing "our" resource outside the lines of governing regulations and "we" as the tax payer have a "right" to expect a better service. What is hypacritical is stating that the general public is stupid for being upset. They (I am a segment of that public but am dissabled and a retiree) have an issue and valid concern in this case. I think it is important to remember we are all hunters with a similar like or have a passion for the outdoors and this form of recreation. I view it as a same team same fight mentality, before too long if the poor management of our resource is allowed to continue it will hinder access for a segment of our group. Shortly thereafter you can assume another fee change will be forthcoming and so on. Then it will impact all users and we will be left w/out access to our resource through denial or by becoming too costly to participate in.

Mark

Waaaaah! You want access to non public land for nothing? I am morbid about the fact that they charge this to active and retired military but the sense of entitlement voiced by the general public is stupid! If you do not like it hunt public land! I do not like the price at Tejon (public land trust!), so I choose to hunt other places. There are way too many hypocrites here! You post how you hate anything other than the pro right wing but want hunting welfare? I have sent emails regarding my disagreeing with the increase for military but anybody else can pound sand. I served during war time but know that I was entitled to what I earned. I chose to leave and now I can not hunt vandy or pendelton, I am ok with that. This should be about te people that are serving or retired after a career or disability. I am personally offended by the people that have a problem with the young people that are on call to protect us on a daily basis having week day access! For those of you that have an issue with my opinion you should call the base and see if they will accept your EBT!

 

[acldo6390]

+1

 

[ltdann]

What will the increased "activitiy fee" get us. What benefit will be derived from the price increase? Will the camp ground soundly have working toilets? or water spigots that don't freeze in the winter? Does it include a free skinning service or some other perk that will benefit the hunters? When it went up to $60 bucks I didn't see anything different in the service provided. And exactly what "service" is MWR providing the hunter for these crazy fee's. You still pay seperately for the camp ground, gibb hall. What EXACTLY? Nothing.

 

[cali-carnivore]

A base is no more public land than an Abrams tank is public transportation or the White house is public housing! When I was active duty there were many weekends that we could not fish certain pond or hunt certain areas because the public beat us to it. They would show up Friday to get the pass while we were still on duty. My point is that active and retired military should have low fees and first choice of TA's. It is nice of them to allow access to the public but the public does not appreciate it and feel they are entitled to it. Your "taxes" will never allow you access to government business facilities. Try taking your return to Quanico and demand a full access tour!

 

[ltdann]

I wonder if the activity fee's for the bowling alley or the rec center went up? I doubt it. The MWR director is using hunters as his CASH COW and primary source of his budget without giving us anything in return. The fact is, the hunting fee's at FHL are 5-10 times higher than any other Army base in the US.

 

[mr sunset]

Actually, it is public land in the sense that it belongs to the taxpaying citizens of this country. By most of your posts I can't figure out if you're just an ass or if you just like winding people up.

+1 Rodeoflyer, If you haven't figured it out yet..it's both. spector 17 has deleted his posts in other areas for the same crap, I have damn near had to threaten to spot and stalk his high horse if he didn't stop posting his BS on my thread.

 

[mr sunset]

So you think FHL is non public land? Having served for over 26 years I'll assure you that a military installation is about as public as a chunk of real estate can get. Your $$$ money pays for the up keep and the payment of those employees entrusted with properly manging that land. With that management comes a responsibility to do so in a manner that supports the mission and in the same manner also supports the laws and regulations placed upon them. My chief complaint is that the FHL staff is managing "our" resource outside the lines of governing regulations and "we" as the tax payer have a "right" to expect a better service. What is hypacritical is stating that the general public is stupid for being upset. They (I am a segment of that public but am dissabled and a retiree) have an issue and valid concern in this case. I think it is important to remember we are all hunters with a similar like or have a passion for the outdoors and this form of recreation. I view it as a same team same fight mentality, before too long if the poor management of our resource is allowed to continue it will hinder access for a segment of our group. Shortly thereafter you can assume another fee change will be forthcoming and so on. Then it will impact all users and we will be left w/out access to our resource through denial or by becoming too costly to participate in.

Mark

atiotic-wavin-flag+1 Well said.

 

[lmjpsl]

As a person who, professionally, reads papers for thoroughness and accuracy, I see that on FHL's website there's a discrepancy in the tabulation for fees for E-5's and E-6's. It, therefore, throws doubt on much of whatever else is written there.