State game departments may start to figure it out

[rtspring]

Not enough animals per numbers of hunters! This will always be a battle in this state...  Hunt with what we have and be happy you can still get outdoors and chase them animals around......

[bigtex]

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

I don't agree 100%. Why? Because WDFW still has to report to their "boss" the state legislature and governor. Even if all general fund money was eliminated and the WDFW was simply funded by the local funding, federal funding, and wildlife funding they would still have to report to the legislature and governor. Who has control over how much wildlife fund $ is given to WDFW? The legislature.

Last year the legislature passed a bill on how WDFW should manage beavers. Do we want the legislature to start making decisions on how to manage wolves?

The commission can always come out and say they are going to manage a species this way, but the legislature can come out and override this rule and make their own management plan. So WDFW cannot always be 100% on the hunter/fisher side.

I haven't seen this on hear but, the only way we will have a wolf season in WA, is through legislature approval...

[winshooter88]

Bigtex, even when the legislature tells them to cut they resist and then cut mostly the guys working in the field, then they increase the upper management. The first time I was at a meeting with the then new director, Phil Anderson he told us how bad the budget was and then said he was adding a new assistant director so he could do his job better. That made a whole lot of sense.

[bobcat]

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

I wasn't talking about Washington. I'm talking about the western states that rely on non resident fees to support their wildlife departments. States like Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Those states try to raise a resident hunting license by $2.00 and an elk tag by $1.00, and the residents throw a major fit. So instead, they raise a NR deer tag $200 and a NR elk tag $300.

[JLS]

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

I wasn't talking about Washington. I'm talking about the western states that rely on non resident fees to support their wildlife departments. States like Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Those states try to raise a resident hunting license by $2.00 and an elk tag by $1.00, and the residents throw a major fit. So instead, they raise a NR deer tag $200 and a NR elk tag $300.

WY is actually one of the better states in keeping some sanity in the disparity between res and non-res pricing.  MT's is ridiculous.

[bigtex]

Bigtex, even when the legislature tells them to cut they resist and then cut mostly the guys working in the field, then they increase the upper management. The first time I was at a meeting with the then new director, Phil Anderson he told us how bad the budget was and then said he was adding a new assistant director so he could do his job better. That made a whole lot of sense.

Not disagreeing with you. In many of the programs management positions have not been cut.

Enforcement has been praised because they have cut management positions. They have merged a lot of management duties.

We have all heard the budget crisis for WDFW and other state agencies. But in that entire time NO WDFW Officer was laid off, in fact WDFW actually secured funding for about 10 new positions through the past three years. Now WDFW enforcement did have some decreases (but were vacant positions) in the beginning of the crisis so the net gain is not 10. But WDFW obtained these officers through funding of the Discover Pass, the Columbia River Endorsement, and a Geoduck funding bill.

And that is something people need to realize, a budget is not black and white. Every WDFW employee is not paid by general fund or wildlife fund. Like i've already mentioned, you have officers funded by the Discover Pass, Columbia Endorsement, Geoduck funding, but as well as a State Parks Boating grant, half an officer is funded through the US Bureau of Reclamation, 2 officers are funded through NOAA/NMFS.

You have people counting fish at Columbia River dams being paid by WDFW but the funding who actually comes from the Bonnevile Power Admin. And the list continues. My point is, yes there have been cuts, but that doesn't mean new positions created from new funding doesn't occur.

[JLS]

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

That's because we don't have the non-resident demand that many western states do.  The ones that do can subidize artficially low resident prices while charging exorbitant prices from the non-residents.

[bearpaw]

The legislature is having to legislate wolf management already because WDFW is in love with wolves. If WDFW needed to save our elk, deer, and moose so they can sell licenses to put food on their dinner table they would sure consider better management.

I would pay more $ for better management and quality of hunting. The problem is that WDFW is on legislative welfare, they do not have to produce a good product, take away the welfare and we will see better management. They either manage better or they take some pay cuts or unemployment like the rest of Americans.

[bearpaw]

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

That's because we don't have the non-resident demand that many western states do.  The ones that do can subidize artficially low resident prices while charging exorbitant prices from the non-residents.

The only reason there isn't more NR demand is because WDFW produces a poor product.

[bigtex]

I've always said that fish and wildlife fine money should go to the wildlife fund, as of right now 0% goes to the wildlife fund. Kind of the mentality of having fish and wildlife violators paying to help protect/manage the resource.

I created this poll/thread last year so check it out: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,113472.msg1488722.html#msg1488722

It could also increase the amount in the wildlife fund

[bearpaw]

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.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. With all these varied resources WDFW has more types of products to sell than other F&G agencies, again manage the products well and you will have even more sales with all the diversity in WA.

[JLS]

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

That's because we don't have the non-resident demand that many western states do.  The ones that do can subidize artficially low resident prices while charging exorbitant prices from the non-residents.

The only reason there isn't more NR demand is because WDFW produces a poor product.

However you want to look at it, there aren't the resources in this state to create that demand.  How many folks are going to pony up a grand to spend nine days hunting spikes?  I guess on the flip side, we could go to all elk hunting is by drawing only in hopes of producing more/bigger bulls so then we have non-res demand?  It's a numbers thing.  The odds suck for drawing the branch bull tags, so why waste the money when you can play the point game in NV, AZ, NM, WY and so on?

[buckfvr]

The legislature is having to legislate wolf management already because WDFW is in love with wolves. If WDFW needed to save our elk, deer, and moose so they can sell licenses to put food on their dinner table they would sure consider better management.

I would pay more $ for better management and quality of hunting. The problem is that WDFW is on legislative welfare, they do not have to produce a good product, take away the welfare and we will see better management. They either manage better or they take some pay cuts or unemployment like the rest of Americans.

     Unemployment would be the deserving end to several career wdfw pupets who are at legislators beckon call.............

[bobcat]

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

That's because we don't have the non-resident demand that many western states do.  The ones that do can subidize artficially low resident prices while charging exorbitant prices from the non-residents.

The only reason there isn't more NR demand is because WDFW produces a poor product.

Well, not that I disagree with the "poor product," but it's not really the fault of the WDFW. They're trying to provide a product in a small state with an extremely high human population, in comparison to other western states. The only way to improve the product would be to decrease the number of deer and elk tags issued each year. And nobody wants that.

[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.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. With all these varied resources WDFW has more types of products to sell than other F&G agencies, again manage the products well and you will have even more sales with all the diversity in WA.

I understand that completely.

But how is WDFW suppose to "sell" a federally protected salmon run (as an example) which under federal law people cannot possess/take/fish for? WDFW then has to spend money to manage and enforce the fish run but won't get any money in return because people can't fish for it. On the fish/shellfish side WDFW has a lot more problems with the "co-managers" (tribes). It can be hard to manage a run when the co-manager is managing it another way.

In comparison the Pink/Humpy salmon run is nuts and brings in huge revenues every other year to WDFW in terms of licensing. There is a very small tribal/commerical pink fishery.

WA has federally protected marine mammals, hundreds/thousands of rivers/streams that have federally protected salmon (all species except Pink), federally protect steelhead, federally protected columbia river smelt, and several federally protected puget sound rockfish species. WDFW has to manage and enforce those closures/runs but get no money in return. I highly doubt a bass population (example) in a lake in Colorado is federally protected.

It is a lot easier to sell a fishery/hunt when you can actually legally take them.