State game departments may start to figure it out

[NWWA Hunter]

Commission preliminarily approves budget reductions
03/21/2013
Commission gives preliminary 
approval to budget reductions

Facing increasing costs and an inability to raise license fees, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department proposed a 6.5 percent reduction to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission’s fiscal year 2014 budget. At its March 20-21 meeting in Gillette, the Commission gave primarily approval to the proposed cuts, which are 10 percent below the department’s fiscal year 2013 budget but also account for some increasing costs in fiscal year 2014. The proposed cuts are in addition to a 3 percent reduction to the fiscal year 2013 budget.


The Commission will take final action on the budget at its July 8-10 meeting in Saratoga.


“Because our license-fee increase proposals failed in the legislature this year, we are proposing some significant cuts to next year’s budget, including cuts to programs and personnel,” said Game and Fish Director Scott Talbott. “At the same time, we will continue to work with the legislature, our partners, and citizens from across the state to find an adequate source of funding for this agency.”


Included in the proposed cuts to the Commission’s budget is a reduction in the number of issues of Wyoming Wildlife magazine from 12 to six annually. The department proposed eliminating the annual Wyoming Hunting and Fishing Heritage Expo, which takes place every year in Casper. Fish stocking could also be reduced by as much as 20 percent.


Other programs considered for reduction include: contributions to the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Wyoming; the department’s fund for access and conservation easements; funding for habitat and sensitive species projects; capital improvements to fish hatcheries and other department facilities; printing of the Access Atlas for sportsmen (this will still be available online); the department’s Leadership Development program; WILD Times publication for schoolchildren; the National Archery in the Schools Program; and the National Fishing in the Schools Program.


The department also proposed reducing its personnel budget by approximately $900,000 by leaving some positions vacant. Many additional cuts are proposed throughout the department, including reducing the department’s vehicle fleet, reducing out-of-state travel, and others.


The department receives a majority (80 percent) of its funding from license sales and other fees paid by hunters and anglers. Only about 5 to 6 percent of revenue comes from the general fund.


Throughout its history, the Wyoming Legislature has approved periodic license fee increases to keep pace with rising costs and increasing responsibilities. The most recent license-fee increase was in 2008. Inflation continues to increase the cost of doing business, and lower-than-desired deer and antelope productivity in many parts of the state in recent years has required issuance of fewer hunting licenses, reducing annual revenue. Without additional revenue the department will be forced to make additional cuts in fiscal year 2015.

[Special T]

HMMM Gov agencies tightening their belt.... Guess it makes sense that WY is the first to realize this basic fact.!

[NWWA Hunter]

They try to pay so much of their budget with non resident fees but allow residents preferential treatment. Non residents can't access wilderness without a resident and residents can hunt all general areas with a deer tag. They are starting to realize that non residents will not fund them forever and there is a cap on poor management.

[bigtex]

Big difference between WY and WA. WY gets 80% of its funding from license fees, WA gets 27% from licenses.

There are "unofficial" talks (in the legislature) about trying to make WDFW even more "user funded" meaning WDFW would have to rely more on fees. The number of licenses bought/issued really hasn't gone down thru the recent price increases in WA.

[bobcat]

Many of the wesern states, including Wyoming, have ridiculously low resident hunting license fees. They could raise those fees by a small percentage to help out the budget, but it seems all they ever want to do is stick it to the non-residents.

[bigtex]

Many of the wesern states, including Wyoming, have ridiculously low resident hunting license fees. They could raise those fees by a small percentage to help out the budget, but it seems all they ever want to do is stick it to the non-residents.

 

[washelkhunter]

Hmmm. Wa. res fees dont seem low to me, on the contrary.

[buckfvr]

Many of the wesern states, including Wyoming, have ridiculously low resident hunting license fees. They could raise those fees by a small percentage to help out the budget, but it seems all they ever want to do is stick it to the non-residents.

If you can find per capita income for the counties of Wyoming, you may find that fees are relative to our fees and per capita average incomes here.....with the exception of our usual poor counties,  where the fees are too high for many, and pushing it for the rest.   

[bearpaw]

Big difference between WY and WA. WY gets 80% of its funding from license fees, WA gets 27% from licenses.

There are "unofficial" talks (in the legislature) about trying to make WDFW even more "user funded" meaning WDFW would have to rely more on fees. The number of licenses bought/issued really hasn't gone down thru the recent price increases in WA.

This would be the best thing to happen for hunters and fishers in WA. 

[bigtex]

Big difference between WY and WA. WY gets 80% of its funding from license fees, WA gets 27% from licenses.

There are "unofficial" talks (in the legislature) about trying to make WDFW even more "user funded" meaning WDFW would have to rely more on fees. The number of licenses bought/issued really hasn't gone down thru the recent price increases in WA.

This would be the best thing to happen for hunters and fishers in WA. 

Higher fees? Because that is the only way it could work if more and more general fund $ disappear.

[bearpaw]

WDFW needs to be dependent on hunters and fishers. They might reconsider some of the poor management policies we have seen.

[winshooter88]

If you want license fees to skyrocket in Washington state, make the WDFW more dependant on license fees. Our WDFW has proven many times that they don't know how to cut budgets, so that will only mean higher fees. In the last fee proposal they wanted originally to cut nonresident fees for OIL tags and raise them for residents. How does something like that sound to everyone?

[bigtex]

People need to consider the states they compare WDFW to when they look at who is "better."

You can't compare WDFW to a wildlife agency that doesn't border the saltwater. Why? Because those agencies have a far fewer management load then coastal agencies.

WDFW's biggest funding expenditure is not enforcement, wildlife, habitat, or licensing, but rather the fish program. Do these inland states have to manage crab, sturgeon, shrimp, salmon, halibut, etc? No.

I am sure if you were to look at places like Wyoming or Colorado their budget would be almost all wildlife related.

Prior to the merger of WDFW, the Wildlife Dept was largely user funded, Fisheries Dept was all general fund. Merger happened and ever since the funding has shifted more and more towards the wildlife fund. About 3 years ago the legislature passed a bill directing all commerical and recreational fees to the wildlife fund since there were still some of the smaller licenses going to the general fund.

Just look at how a wildlife officer's job is different in coastal states vs inland. The inland states typically run their LE program where the officer is an LEO and biologist, why? Because once hunting season is over they can do their bio duties because there is no crab, salmon, steelhead, etc season to work. But the officers who work in coastal states have LEO duties 24/7. And in fact, prior to the merger/creatin of WDFW, a Dept of Wildlife Agent was both an LEO and a bio. Merger happened and now the wildlife officers were responsible for all fish enforceemnt, and fisheries officers responsible for wildlife enforcement.

[snowpack]

You can either sell the same number for an increase in price or sell more licenses at the same price.  Provide a better product and you can do the second.

[bigtex]

If you want license fees to skyrocket in Washington state, make the WDFW more dependant on license fees. Our WDFW has proven many times that they don't know how to cut budgets, so that will only mean higher fees.

Agencies don't cut budgets, legislators do. This article about Wyoming wouldn't work in WA.

The way it works in WA is the legislature tells agencies to cut by X%, the agencies submit their proposal. The legislature then plays with that proposal, typically changing it and then makes it law. WDFW just doesn't wake up one day and say "we need to cut."