Free: Contests & Raffles.
WDFW needs to be dependent on hunters and fishers. They might reconsider some of the poor management policies we have seen.
Hmmm. Wa. res fees dont seem low to me, on the contrary.
Quote from: washelkhunter on March 24, 2013, 08:28:16 PMHmmm. 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.
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.
Quote from: washelkhunter on March 24, 2013, 08:28:16 PMHmmm. 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.
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.
Quote from: JLS on March 24, 2013, 09:30:23 PMQuote from: washelkhunter on March 24, 2013, 08:28:16 PMHmmm. 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.
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.
Quote from: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 08:56:40 PMPeople 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.