How much are you willing to pay?

[DFG_Bear]

Hey all,

I'm planning to help launch the DFG's SHARE (Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement) program off the ground by offering hog hunting on a private ranch near Lake Berryessa. I anticipate the hunt would be offered similar to our East Park Reservoir hunt, wherein only 2 or 3 hunters would be allowed per hunt period (each hunt period lasts 2 days), with access to roughly 5,000 acres and a one-hog limit. We'd hold a drawing to supply hunters. Hunters could apply for up to 6 hunt periods on one application.

That's where you all come in: what's the maximum amount you're willing to pay to apply for such a hunt? No refunds, no guaranteed success, no trespass fees at the door. This would be the only cash you'd need to shell out except for food, lodging, fuel, etc.

We're still working out some other details, and I hope to have a hunt offered by fall, 2010; but, of course, I cannot promise anything.

Marc
California Department of Fish and Game
Black Bear, Mountain Lion & Wild Pig Programs

 

[Marty]

I suppose 25 is a fair administrative fee. Although, I have qualms about hunters incurring the additional cost for a 'hunt fee' and tags. And, why only one hog? Why not two per? How big is the population in the hunt area?

 

[Rick]

What I'd be willing to pay would depend on the hog population and chance of success. I realize that nothing is guaranteed, but I'd want to know there is a decent population of hogs there. Is this a one-day hunt or a 3-day weekend deal? I'd pay $25 - $50 if there is a good chance of a shot there. AS the father of a soon-to-be 12-year old, any thought of a youth hunt?

 

[JNDEER]

Could you get drawn for more than one hunt period on the one application?

 

[DFG_Bear]

Could you get drawn for more than one hunt period on the one application?

yes

 

[559hog]

Like what everyone else said, the price of what I pay will depend on the size of the hog population. I don't mind paying 25 dollars, but I would like a rough estimate of the hog population. Lake Berryessa is realy far from me anyway, so even if it was <25, I'd still have to think about it.

 

[Huntr Pat]

Gas cost was $2.76 few days ago and now its $2.90. east park is at least 3hours from Gilroy.If its archery only and they have a decent size herd, It would attract alot of interest.

 

[hoytrdye]

guys!!!

Guys how many people do you think will APPLY for this hunt @ $25 per app!?!?!? is the DFG paying the land owner for us to hunt or are we helping the land owner control the population? I am not usually the doom and gloom kinda person but I think $5.00 is more than enough for an PIG hunting APPLICATION-- now if you get drawn and had to pay a $25.00 fee i'll go for that, i hope people's nose are not pushed outta joint--- reminder--- remember when pig tags cost just $5.00 so the DFG could attain pig population info???

 

[HOGHUNTER714]

I think $25-$50 would be fair. The area holds hogs, no doubt about that. Would like to see this program go from paper to reality....

HogHunter714

 

[jryoung]

Would all depend on what my chances were for a shot. Having never been there if I go there and see lots of sign but no hogs I'm cool with that. I'm happy to pay up to $50 if I know I'm in an area with a good chance to get a hog.

 

[bigboarstopper]

Question do we pay before the drawing? Or after we have been picked?

Regardless, im not willing to pay anything. The price of a single hog tag has gone up how many hundreds of percent up in the last few years? Wheres all that money gone?? As hunters we pay a rediculous ammount of fees for tags these days. What have we gotten return? More regulation. Bag limits reduced, season closures of certain species. Once dfg decides to be more responsible fiscally with the money we currently give them, then mabye.

 

[richracer1]

I wouldn't pay a cent. The reason being, the F&G Commission, with no real scientific evidence forced some of to use non-lead bullets to help out some stupid bird that eats anything and eveything. They are just trying to scam the hunters out of more money to make up for the lost revenue.
California: (resident fees)
$40 something for a license
$19 or so for a pig tag
$30 or so for deer tags
Almost $400 for an elk tag.

Idaho (resident fees)
License - $13
No hogs (thankfully)
Deer tag - $20 (can only get one though)
Elk - $31

Like mentioned above, where's all the money going?????????

 

[RIFLEMAN]

This topic seems to have touched a raw nerve, so I would like to address some common questions and concerns several folks raised:

1. The SHARE (Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement) Program was originally established as a pilot program about three years ago via the passage of AB 396, and was the result of a lot of hard work by California's pre-eminent hunting advocacy organization, COHA (California Outdoor Heritage Alliance) and CWA. This year, COHA and CADFG partnered together to put forth AB1423, which formalized the program and expanded the scope to include big game species as well. In a nut shell, SHARE provides incentives for private landowners to open up their properties to hunters in California in a manner similar to other states' highly successful Block Management programs. During the pilot period, there were about 18 landowners participating in the program, resulting in 7000 acres being opened up to waterfowl hunters. With the passage of AB1423, SHARE will be eligible for federal monies and can have the shackles taken off, thereby providing you and me with an unprecedented ability to enjoy more hunting opportunities on pristine private property at a price that is next to nothing. This program is a victory in the constant battle to keep hunting from being returned to a status as the Sport of Kings where only the rich or privileged can hunt. Hog hunters are especially benefited by the passage of this bill, given what we all know is the less than ideal hog hunting opportunities on public property in this state. As a houndsman, I am fortunate enough to be solicited by ranchers to help mitigate hog depredation and am blessed to have exclusive access to thousands of acres, but for those without dogs or access to private property, this program is a tremendous victory for you. Get behind it. As to the question of what the fees are for and where they would go, note that per the stipulations included in the bill, CADFG is authorized to establish user fees to help fund the program, and unless otherwise provided, all monies generated from the SHARE program go back into the SHARE program.
2. Regarding the permanent establishment and continued cost increase of hog tags, trust me when I say that I definitely feel your pain. I, too, remember hog hunting before this invasive and not-formally-introduced-by-an-authorized-agency species were managed to the extent they are today, I remember when they made the tags a permanent part of the program, and I painfully remember the modification to the fee structure; the +/-900% increase to the cost of tags (when they went from a book of five to just one) was especially painful to us guys who use dogs given the numbers of hogs we catch annually. When one considers that this went into effect at the time Schwarzenegger was addressing a $40 billion deficit, the timing is very fishy. When one considers the fact that Fish and Game Code required that the monies generated from the sale of hog tags go into hog management, the +/-900% increase is especially grievous given the lack of a +/-900% increase in the cost of managing hogs.
3. With respect to accounting for how license and tag fees are used, you have every right to be skeptical. Per CADFG's own data, less than 66% of hog or deer tag revenues are actually used for hog or deer-related projects. But please keep in mind that CADFG is not a mom and pop shop where the same folks collecting the data are the same as those collecting your money. As a Biologist, Marc is not to blame for the situation regarding how our money is being spent. Also, while there are those in CADFG who obviously decide or otherwise have influence upon where our money is directed, please note that the CADFG coffers are the target of the Governor and Legislature. As an example, Schwarzenegger wanted to take $30 million from the Fish and Game Preservation Fund this past year. Thankfully, COHA was able to help fend off the governor and keep the money where it belonged. To permanently address this, COHA sponsored SB 589, which would have mandated that all revenues from the sale of big game and upland game bird tags and stamps be put into two funds specifically set aside for hunting opportunities and conservation programs specifically for the species in question. Furthermore, CADFG would have been required to consult with non-profit sportsmen’s organizations before spending the funds on proposed projects and then publish the details of each project on its website, thereby providing hunters with influence over, and visibility to, how their money is being spent. Despite support from CADFG and near-unanimous support in the Legislature (something difficult to do for a subject such as this), the governor vetoed it due to some perceived introduction of complexity to fund management...really, he didn't want to be formally prevented from another attempt at a raid.
4. Something that I hope we all keep in mind is the opportunity that Marc has provided us with. Here, we have a CADFG Biologist regularly participating on JHO though he is certainly not obligated to do so. He has provided very insightful information regarding bear management and the status of the bear quota this year, and is once again trying to provide the California members of JHO with a very valuable service by asking us hog hunters what our opinion is regarding what will be a fundamental aspect of the SHARE program...the cost to us. Can you tell me of a better or more direct opportunity to influence how CADFG manages hunting opportunities? I surely can't. CADFG is not a perfect agency by any means, but let's not lose sight of the opportunity we have been presented with to improve the hunting experience in California, and equally important, foster a closer and more effective partnership with the agency that manages the wildlife we all care so much for. In the interest of accounting for public sentiment regarding access to private property for hog hunting, Marc has taken it upon himself to ask us for input and I am sure he will take that information we provide seriously. Let's make sure we respect him and the purpose of his poll by providing constructive and relevant feedback. CADFG is an under-funded and under-appreciated agency that has far too large a scope of responsibility and far too few resources. I vote for helping whenever and however we can, especially when our honest and respectful opinion costs us nothing.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

richracer1

I wouldn't pay a cent. The reason being, the F&G Commission, with no real scientific evidence forced some of to use non-lead bullets to help out some stupid bird that eats anything and eveything.

Please note that it was AB821, the Ridley-Tree Condor Preservation Act, that mandates non-lead ammunition be used within the condor's range. This bill was written by Assemblyman Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara) and signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger...the Fish and Game Commission reviewed the language of the provision and complied accordingly. The one exception the Commission made to the bill was in opting not to allow .22 rimfire ammunition to be exempted from the lead ban as was provided for within the bill. This is certainly a controversial subject that I don't wish to get into, but I did want to clarify the origins of the lead ban.

 

[richracer1]

Ok, I stand corrected on the origin of the non-lead issue. The basis it's built on is still crap IMO. No surprise it came from Santa Barbara legislator.

As for the special hunt, I still wouldn't pay a cent, but I do wish them well in getting this up and running.

 

[RoosterKiller]

All I gotta say is Ca needs to use the permit fees and license fees for game management and quit using the money for pet projects.I say no to any fees until Ca resinds it's law that DFG funds can be used as general funds.
until this happens I would have a hard time getting behind anything that requires more money going to the Goverment. The DFG can have all the good intentions they want,but the monies they collect are subject to the administration of the general fund.So it may start out looking great for the hunter but it will not last.This is the reality.We need to guarantee that hunting fees go for hunting oppurtunities.
I now pay more car fees,more state taxes not to mention the state is helping itself to an interest free loan at my expense.The ferrel pigs are not the only hogs in this state
just my 2 cents.
Anyway it would be cheaper for me to pay for a private hunt in SO.Cal than to drive up to Berryessa

 

[hunterdoug]

wow! I agree with hunter fees should stay with hunter ops not general fund control. I think that the fees charged for applying should reflect administration costs and cost to run the hunt, check in check out personell etc. not population of animals those numbers would be ambiguous and someone will cry foul. I vote for $10 TEN!ig-laughing: and thats my .02

 

[larrysogla]

Camp Roberts hunting fee is $30 for 2 days($15 per day) and Fort Hunter Liggett hunting fee is $35 for 2 days. IMHO $25 to $35 for 2 days is reasonable for a hunting fee in Lake Berryessa..........IF the hog DENSITY is equal to Camp Roberts or Fort Hunter Liggett. 5,000(approximate) acres is around 7.6 square miles. This is an area comparable to the Training(hunting area) Area in Fort Hunter Liggett. Whereas FHL allows up to 25? hunters per Training Area.......Lake Berryessa will allow 2-3 hunters. A very "uncrowded" setup which is very favorable to the drawn up hunters. It is definitely a BIG PLUS for California hog hunters that are starved for hog productive public land areas. It is a win-win situation for California hog hunters that want access to hog productive public lands. Count me in.
'Nuff said
larrysogla

 

[easymoney]

the maximum amount you're willing to pay to apply for such a hunt? No refunds, no guaranteed success, no trespass fees at the door.

I too, think it is rediculous to pay anything to "apply" for a possible draw for a feral species hunt. I have paid untold amounts of money over the years, to apply for elk, deer and other native species tag drawings yet have drawn only these premium tags a few times. In fact for elk, I have never drawn.
My money would be better spent on a private land owner or guided hunt, where the odds of success at taking an actual animal is near 100% on many ranches. And it would be a hunt limited in number, with a guide doing all guide services including processing not just book keeping or administration.
I have watched our DFG move the pea under the shell in the name of administration or management over the years and the cost for this continues to rise yet the actual proof of this being done in the name of the game for which these fees are collected is lacking even by DFGs statistics.
Is this feral species hunting going to move into the arena of governors tags?

 

[XDHUNTER]

I'am with hoytrdye this time.Pay $5 for the application and if you get drawn pay the X amount. I would say 25 is reasonable fee for 5000 acres two day hunt.