FHL $150 annual fee

[Huntr Pat]

There isn't any category for veterans w/ disabilities and Cdf&g reduce license.

 

[Superduty65]

Out of everyone on the planet, the people most deserving of reduced fees are disabled veterans. The next would obviously be active duty and active reserve starting at lower ranks. Of course this is my own opinion and I understand it may be possible this is not the majority opinion but damn.

 

[cjmassari]

That's what I explained to the LtCol. in the Admin office SuperDuty. Though I have a minor disability rating, I am blessed to still have all my limb and the function properly. I think the 'Veteran's' classification was made in a misguided attempt to satisfy this. What's silly is that honorably discharged veterans (without disability) do not have MWR priveleges.

This is a bad joke.

I was contacted by MWR last Friday and the lady left me a VM. On it she noted that she received my $150 M. Order and wanted me to either send another $100 money order or she inquired, get this- "Do you want to DONATE the remaining $50 to the MWR fund?" Say again, over? I couldn't stop laughing.

They really have Effed up that program. As a retiree, I have one preference point from last year. If it takes me 4 years to get a cow tag, it will have cost me $335 for the right to 'earn' that tag, plus the $400ish for the tag. So $700 for a COW TAG? That's pretty crazy. I might just ask for my money back.

 

[ltdann]

Yep, they can't figure that out. That's some money there.

I talked to the same lady, she wanted to return my $150 money order, send her another for $100 because "processing a refund required a lot of paperwork and would take time". It would be easier on her If I did that. I chose what was easier for ME (the customer).

Those folks really don't get it.

 

[spectr17]

What a cluster.:smiley_smack_paddle

 

[mr sunset]

Dang, and I liked that place to. The older I get the more I see rules and regulations interfear with
simple activities. many public places work very well on a simple structure.
It looks like they added the conservation fee to justify the price increase?

 

[Live2hunt]

My cynical idea is that the base is trying to slant the odds to their regulars who are stationed on the base or work there as civilians because they will buy the permits and hunt anyway. By forcing us non-locals to pay up front I'm sure they are hopefull less people will apply from out of area. Greg from MWR as much as admitted that they aren't set up to handle all the apps they get anyway and they are looking for ways to decrease the admin load. I suppose if they can rake in the $$$ doing so, even better by their thinking. From what he said it also sounded like this was being driven by MWR, not the base CO or deputy.

On another note, I asked why they decreased elk tags this year. He said it wasn't due to decreased number of elk, but because they did not have enough general weapons areas available for the hunts due to training last year and they had too many complaints and too crowded areas for the rifle hunters. Seems like a better answer would be to increase the number of muzzy and archery tags, but I guess I'm not in charge. I wonder how I convince the Army to let me be the Base Commander there as an exchange officer?

Several years ago when FHL first implemented the muzzleloader only hunt on areas that used to be rifle only. That same year their revenue report showed $300k+ I sent an email telling them that it could cost them a decrease in the $300K+ revenue because I personally know about 30+ people that did not buy an annual permit after that year. I got an email reply back asking me to call the Registration office to discuss my concern and why they implemented that rule. I never did called them back as I have nothing more to discuss with them than what I already mentioned in my original email. It sounds like they now realized that their $300K+ revenue has gone south.

The issue with crowded rifle elk areas last year was a dumb and stupid idea. I was there at the time and the only activity the base had going on was some troops working in area 10 where one of the guy in that work crew was a freak. He called the registration window and had area 10 shutdown just because he saw us and some other hunters drove by. The rest of the elk areas had no military activities in them which they could have allowed rifle hunters in, yet FHL restricted them to muzzleloader only. It was just plain stupid and I think they deserved all those complaints. Heck if I was a hunter, I would have ask for a refund of my tag, re-instate my points, and go home.

 

[LongCaribine]

The only thing missing here is the football, MWR is the "monkey". This is the craziest thing I've read in a long time. I guess they, FHL MWR, are trying to get rid of hunters.

 

[myfriendis410]

I'll stick to hunting Vandenberg.

 

[mr sunset]

I'll stick to hunting Vandenberg.

+1 as a guest, that's the plan. never been there but the brochure looks nice. respectfully atiotic-wavin-flag

 

[Wild1]

+ Superduty

It's appalling to me that any veteran would have to pay any part of this. Count me out.

 

[mr sunset]

I sent yet another e-mail to Rick on Friday evening explaining that no one in their right mind would pay $50 to enter a draw that they had virtually no chance of winning without the prefrence points. I also asked what MWR is doing for hunters other than processing our applications for $100-150. He claims that the fees were based on Soldier and Hunter surveys and input and the "fee structure committe" voted the new fee schedule based on input. Did anyone out there participate in a survey? I certainly didn't.

So the "Fee structure committee" voted in the new fee structure. Isn't that like the government voting themselves a pay raise ??? Who is on the committee ? Are the survey results available and what kind of tree huggers did survey? the anti hunting type id guess. again..I call BS. I was good with the 25 dollar pig only weekend or the 100 dollar yearly permit. there is no way im paying 50 bucks for a no chance draw. for a civilian like me, I will run up two Oregon or Colorado.

 

[Huntr Pat]

I need to contact LTDan myfriends410, and others for a hunt at vandenburg. The last time I hunted there was back in 2003.

 

[ltdann]

As a military retiree, the fee is $100 to apply for the elk draw (with pts). The retiree starts with 15 pts and needs a minimum of 18-19 to draw, or about 4 years. When we are successful, we'll have spent $800 in fee's and tag's, before we even show up at FHL. Now on the civilian side, the application fee is $8 and it takes about 11-12 years to draw. The successful civilian applicant will have spent $496 for exactly the same tag and hunt. I spoke to a woman last that went on a fully guided Red Stag hunt in Scotland for $2000, and that included room and board. I submit, that FHL's current prices are not cost competitive.I really don't think those guys know how badly they screwed up. MWR, the organization created to provide recreational activities for active duty and retiree's is fleecing the very customers their charter is supposed to support.

 

[Sea 2'er]

Well, after much thought and procrastination, think I'm going to save my money and purchase an OTC elk tag out of state. At least my chances are 100% there, as to throwing money into a lottery with bad odds in getting drawn.

Would rather travel with a tag in hand, then wait several years for a one in 3000 chance.

Good luck to all.

 

[mr sunset]

Well, after much thought and procrastination, think I'm going to save my money and purchase an OTC elk tag out of state. At least my chances are 100% there, as to throwing money into a lottery with bad odds in getting drawn.

Would rather travel with a tag in hand, then wait several years for a one in 3000 chance.

Good luck to all.

+1

 

[Huntr Pat]

Just talk to a guy today at Black mtn Archery range , San jose who sent in his FHL permit application and $100 for his annual permit. I told him that its $150 not $100 he insisted I was wrong and said he put in as a group. His in for a big surprise.

 

[radonsport]

As a civilian, it concerns me the way the new fee structure at FHL adversely affects our veterans. I have bounced several emails off of Rick Bosch with little information to show in return. Getting Rick Bosch to answer a direct question is problematic…akin to pulling teeth. I’ve yet to receive any accounting information to explain the need for a 50% increase in the annual FHL hunting permit fee. What happened to “transparency of government”? I fear the future of the FHL hunting program is heading the same direction as the dodo bird.

 

[cjmassari]

The "transparency of motherment?" Surely you jest. Look no farther than our fearless 'leader' Barry Soetero for the answer to that question. While I'm certainly not blaming the Kenyan occupier for the mismanagement at FHL, I couldn't help but make the comparison.

MWR is really what's wrong with the program. They treat it as a commodity for commercial gain and not a natural resource for military members to enjoy. It's sad.

 

[Navy SWO]

As a civilian, it concerns me the way the new fee structure at FHL adversely affects our veterans. I have bounced several emails off of Rick Bosch with little information to show in return. Getting Rick Bosch to answer a direct question is problematic…akin to pulling teeth. I’ve yet to receive any accounting information to explain the need for a 50% increase in the annual FHL hunting permit fee. What happened to “transparency of government”? I fear the future of the FHL hunting program is heading the same direction as the dodo bird.

I've had similar experience in getting a direct answer to a question, but here is what I do have from him that explains a little, especially the fact that hunting and fishing permit fees are the entire source of funding for the conservation and hunt/fish program budget. The following is a series of emails between me and Mr. Bosch regarding the fee structure.


Thank you once again. Although this year, we are locked in and coursing ahead,
we are already working with Command, the Environmental Division, DES and Range
Control to implement cost savings measures which will help us reduce operating
costs, to include piloting a new computerized system for hunters to check into
hunting areas through just calling in and typing in their pass number
(checking out same way as well). It is our hope to identify areas that we can
reduce costs over the course of the season so the costs of the permits can be
reduced next year.

Thanks again.

Rick Bosch


Mr. Bosch,
Thank you again for your reply and additional information. If you are really
interested in understanding how many of the people (both military and
civilian) feel about the fee structure, I suggest you visit what is probably
the most popular CA hunting forum, Jesse's Hunting and Outdoors. This link
will take you to the topic on this year's fee schedule.
http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/showthread.php/241138-FHL-150-annual-fee

Engaging here would likely go a long way towards getting your information out
to a large number of interested hunters.


Thank you for your continued feedback on the FHL Hunting program. We truly
appreciate as much feedback as we can get from our Soldiers and customers. I
will ensure that the FHL Hunting Fee Structure Committee receives this
feedback and all of the associated information in order to make the most
informed decisions.

The entire hunting and fishing program operation is covered by fees
collected (activity)and are retained at Fort Hunter Liggett. In addition to
covering the conservation fees are used for the protection, conservation,
and management of fish and wildlife on the installation's more than 160,000
acres, including habitat restoration and improvement, biologist staff
support, and related activities, as required in the federally approved Fish
and Wildlife Cooperative Plan. The Hunting fees are established though
determination from the Fee Committee on actual costs for the requirements
which will need to be covered over the course of the next year. The increase
in fees was determined because over the past few years costs were not being
covered and with the Fiscal Uncertainty, unless costs are covered to operate
this program in full, it will risk being closed down.

For the Elk Only Application, there is a non-refundable $50 fee and there
are no points carried over to the following year. This was a new fee
category that was developed from the feedback of many Soldiers and hunters
and was voted in unanimously by the Hunting Fee Structure Committee as is.
In the past, the requirement was purchase of a full FHL Hunting Permit to
enter the Elk Lottery, if not drawn one point would be added to the next
year. Many have said they would prefer to just enter the Elk Draw without
purchasing a full permit and just an additional fee, forfeiting the
advantage of a carryover point if not drawn, so this was voted in as a pilot
for the conning hunt year and will be revisited by the committee for the
following season.

Rick Bosch


Mr. Bosch,

Thank you for your reply and information. Based on your information, I have
a couple of other questions. If I read your comments correctly, the entire
operating budget for both the NAF funded Hunting and Fishing program and the
conservation budget for managing the elk, deer, wild pig and upland game as
well as any other conservation efforts comes from hunting and fishing fees.
Is this correct? Did fees go up so much this year due to sequestration, or
did the costs of the program go up significantly. Does FHL receive any
federal or state money to carry out the various conservation duties?

My second question is regarding the cost to apply for an elk tag. What is
the justification to charge a full hunting permit fee just to apply? Even
the reduced elk application only fee is very high and no preference points
accrue to unsuccessful applicants. The administrative costs to process
applications can not be that high. It appears that fees FHL is charging to
apply for elk tags is being used to fund the overall operation of the
Hunting and Fishing program vice simply covering the cost of application
processing. I am very curious as to how many elk applications you will
ultimately receive this year compared to the past.

FHL is a gem of the central coast and a great place to visit and hunt. I
think you are frustrating a lot of people with what appear to be arbitrary
and poorly explained changes to the fee structure. More transparency to the
hunting community would go a long way to mending some fences with the
hunters who support the program.


I apologize for any confusion, Officers are in the reduced fee with

E7+ and Retirees, I have clarified on attached and will reflect this
clarification on the website today. Essentially fees are established annually for the Fort Hunter Liggett
Hunting Program by the Hunting Fee Structure Committee, based on program requirements and regulated conservation efforts. The program is designed to cover all associated costs, once we make the determination of the operational and regulated conservation expenses we will incur through the year, we use the historical data to
calculate Fee Structure designed to cover all costs, then benchmark to ensure our costs are within the acceptable parameters of other comparable services.
Thanks,

Rick Bosch



Mr. Bosch,
I understand FHL has made some changes to the fee structure for hunting permits this year. I am still confused as to why there is no fee category for officers separate from the general public. The sliding scale you have for the various military ranks, retirees and veterans seems fairly standard (albeit extremely high compared to
other bases) but you are missing a category or two. Is that by design or oversight?
Also, I understand the new fee structure is based on a sampling you took of other "similar operations" within 250 miles. What other places did you look at? Only Camp Roberts, Camp Pendelton and VAFB are similar operations. Any private ranches or guided hunts are a completely different type of operation and not a valid comparison.

If the logic you use to set fees is similar operations, then why did you not use this when setting your elk application only fee? The state of California charges $8 to apply for a tag, and unsuccessful applicants receive a preference point. This is not the case for FHL and the 625% more expensive application.
Thank you for any information you can provide in this matter.