Do you want to pay more for your Federal Duck Stamp?

The 2011 Federal Waterfowl Stamp.

Do you want to pay more for your Federal Duck Stamp? We probably know the answer to that. But, it looks like the Obama administration is looking to raise the price from $15 to $25 for the 2013 season. This isn’t a new concept. George W. Bush tried to do the same in 2008, but with the economy in real trouble, it was shot down.

Wildfowl has broached this subject before in Chris Madson’s 2010 article “Upping the Ante.”

Delta Waterfowl and Ducks Unlimited have both come out in favor of the price hike. It makes sense if the money goes towards conservation and securing habitats, like the potential purchase of 201 acres to expand Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge in Washington state. Nisqually is a natural habitat for waterfowl.

But consider the fact the Interior Department will cut 218 National Park Service jobs in an effort to trim its budget and “do more with less,” according to Secretary Ken Salazar. Doc Hastings, the chairman of the House of Natural Resources Committee, has come out and said the government is already burdened with too much land management. Hastings believes it would make more sense for the Interior Department to improve its current lands before buying more.

Jesse

I find it disturbing that as the "premiere" waterfowl magazine in the country you would oppose this price increase. You more than anyone should know how important the money raised by the sale of the stamps is to our beloved sport. I am now glad that I haven't renewed my subscription to your magazine and will not do so in the future. What a disappointment.
- John
  
  If a Duck Stamp goes up I'll willingly pay the price, but I read this article 3 times and I'm not sure how someone concludes WILDFOWL opposes the price increase. I never read that…did I miss something? In fact, they say, "it makes sense if the money goes toward conservation and securing habitats." WILDFOWL's previous article mentioned, "Upping the Ante," clearly endorses the Dingell Bill and encourages hunters to contact Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo with a few friendly inquiries get H.R.1916 off the shelf and put more duck stamp money on the ground.
  
  What may have offended Mr. Thin Skin are the stated facts regarding the cuts within the National Parks Service and Doc Hastings comments on the burdens of land management. All good information considering most folks want to hear all pertinent facts. Most hunters would willingly pay the increase as long as it supports the issues: the ongoing loss of waterfowl habitat and the growing demand for places to hunt.
  
  I am not disappointed in WILDFOWL. I subscribe and enjoy the magazine. Don't make excuses for not fronting the dime when you obviously read FREE online.
wildfowl

Jesse, there is nothing editorializing one way or the other about what Genzel wrote. First off, he put in that both Delta and DU support it, and why. They got first mention and are two fine organizations that nearly all duck hunters support. Out of 13 comments and counting, (on facebook mostly) yours is the sole one to take the stand that this news blurb is negative. In any news blurb you should mention both supporters and detractors, and Genzel did talk about Salazar and Hastings opposing it. When you're reading a story about a federal decision, don't you want to know who's opposing it?
wildfowl

Jesse, in fact if you read the link to Chris Madsen's article, which IS a wildfowl editorial, it BEGINS with the statement "federal duck stamp prices should increase over time".
Jesse

If your keeping up with the comments on the Facebook post, the only opposition is coming from the "younger" hunters that don't understand how important these funds are.

The wording in the above article reads like Mr. Grenzel disagrees with the effort to increase the price of the stamp.

"Do you want to pay more for your Federal Duck Stamp? We probably know the answer to that. But, it looks like the Obama administration is looking to raise the price from $15 to $25 for the 2013 season."

He may as well have said, "We know you don't want to pay more, but Obama is pushing for an increase."
If you believe the above article is neutral in it's opinion you are kidding yourself. Grenzel all but says "If the money goes to wetlands preservation great, but due to cutbacks it most likely will not." Re-read the last paragraph.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000619033593 Cody Ellsworth
  
  there is nothing in the last paragraph that says "if the money goes to wetlands than great, but due to cutbacks it most likely wont" Your obviously putting words in the authors mouth
Darrel

Hunting is rapidly becoming a rich man's sport. Fees are going up like crazy and new ones added. This and the closure of lands for hunting (e.g. archery access in SW WA is tremendously reduced) made me to not get a license at all last year for the first time in decades. Screw you who want higher fees. Effete snobs
Darrell

And also in WA State you must get a $30 permit to step foot on state land. Another permit is required to pick a mushroom — anywhere, even your front yard — because are mushrooms are classified as forest products that come under UN Agenda 21 sustainability guidelines.
John

Enjoyed the words of our once VP, Spiro Theodore Agnew… Effete snobs! I get it, an increase is not for everyone and 10 bucks here and 10 bucks there really adds up. Those who praise the increase may have the extra money. Hunting is getting quite pricey and bunches of folks are getting wealthy as a result of products that support the HUNT. Moreover, yes, we keep spending. That is the real issue. Ever thought about how much each harvested duck costs you per year after all the equipment is purchased and the fees are paid. Makes you scratch your head. NEVERTHELESS, somehow, we have to sustain our resources or our days afield will be no more. I don't want higher fees, but I do want to hunt the rest of my life. I'd rather wear the same jacket for years, repaint my own decoys, save a few bucks on beer, and sustain the sport. Screw the new acrylic duck call, another must have shotgun, latest and greatest flocked decoys and the ridiculously overpriced 1700 ft per second Steel Shot and get back to the basics. I'll save money my way and if the stamp cost 10 more dollars I'll pay it……..because the hunt is what I'm here for.
dj conaway

nope it is wrong . i bought a bow going to deer hunt prices are out of control
dakotashooter2

While I never like price increases this is one I don't mind spending my money on. Even at $25 It's not much more that a box of premium shells, cheaper than a single game admission to most sporting events, less than 1 night at the bar and definately less than a night of gambling……………… The stamp is far from the highest cost in waterfowl hunting. Assuming a 75 day waterfowl season thats only 33 cents a day…less than the cost of a shotgun shell and twice the cost of a cigarette…………
zeekupp

The increase is probably overdue. However, I would have preferred $ 2.00 last year, $2.00 this year, etc… rather than $10.00 all at once. I believe the the some states could be more reasonable on their license fees though.
BacBayRoamer

The increase is way overdue since this has been an issue for over 10 years. I have no problem with the increase as duck hunting is all i do and prep for 12 months out of the year. I have 2 dogs i work with and am in the marsh constantly. Whether its 10,20 or 30 i will support it as long as it supports wetlands. My wife looks at it as a good investment because she knows i am not at the bar or running around. I will find a way to pay for it one way or another. You could easily spend that much going to the movies one time. I'd worry more about our gun rights than the stamp.
greg k

Nothing wrong with the increase,go shoot some more ducks !!!!!!!! Just buy one less case of beer for the year and that will cover the cost!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fran Rich

Ducks Unlimited is encouraging all waterfowl hunters to "Double Up for the Ducks." Buy a second stamp and send it to your Senator or Congressman!
John Wiles

I'm not the sure the argument here is opposing the price hike — it's what the money will be used for. If officials will use it to improve what we're already doing, I'm all for it. If it's to get more land that'll be handled in a half-arssed manner, then I'm agin it.

J.W.
http:theinternationalwingshooter.com, http://bestwingshooting.com

Wildfowl

Duck Stamp Debate

Conservation Partners