WDFW Looking at 15% Budget Decrease for 2015-17

[Maverick]

Wasn't the whole point of wdfw joining the state was to get general funds? Now they're slowly cutting it away? Wdfw needs to go solo again like other states are.

No more price increases!

[bigtex]

Well the title says it all. The state is looking at a $3 Billion deficit for the upcoming budget year. In preparation for the cuts, the Governor has ordered that agencies prepare for a 15% cut. Last weekend the WDFW commission was briefed on the projected WDFW budget request for July 1, 2015 - June 30, 2017. For WDFW the 15% equates to $11,000,000. The following is the projected cuts:

•Reduction of Enforcement Officers ($2.3 million)
•Reduction in HPA permitting ($3.0 million)
•Reduction in payments-in-lieu of taxes to counties ($700,000)
•Hatchery reductions and closures ($2.9 million)
•Close commercial salmon fisheries in Puget Sound ($570,000)
•Close commercial salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay ($290,000)
•Reduce Puget Sound shellfish fisheries ($450,000)
•Additional program reductions to reach target under development. ($720,000)

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/08/aug0814_13_presentation.pdf

Bigtex,

Would you mind offering up any insight on how WDFW prioritizes cuts?

That's all closed door/management decisions.

I think the reason why LE is subjected to a big hit is because they basically were saved of any cuts during the 2007-11 recession years. For the most part LE didn't suffer any cuts, and actually many new officers were hired and some new positions were funded. So I think for LE it's basically the time has come for them to get their share, all the other programs got hit hard during 07-11. Those that remember the bad budget years of the mid to late 90s may remember that many WDFW Officers were actually laid off, that didn't happen from 07-11.

[Stein]

Wasn't the whole point of wdfw joining the state was to get general funds? Now they're slowly cutting it away? Wdfw needs to go solo again like other states are.

No more price increases!

If WDFW didn't receive general funds, I would really hate to see what my licenses would cost every year.  This is the same song and dance going on in Montana, huge cuts leading to huge increases for sportsmen.

[stuckalot]

But we have the Discover Pass! That was supposed to fix everything! State lottery should have avoided McLeary too....

[bigtex]

Wasn't the whole point of wdfw joining the state was to get general funds? Now they're slowly cutting it away? Wdfw needs to go solo again like other states are.

No more price increases!

If WDFW didn't receive general funds, I would really hate to see what my licenses would cost every year.  This is the same song and dance going on in Montana, huge cuts leading to huge increases for sportsmen.

I agree with Stein. Unless we want to see astronomical license fees we better hope we continue to get general fund money into WDFW.

Maverick,
WDFW didn't "join the state" it's always been a state agency.

When it comes to funding it comes down to the old Dept of Fisheries and the Dept of Wildlife before the merger which created WDFW in 1994. Fisheries was funded by taxes (General Fund), so your fishing licenses went into the General Fund. Wildlife was funded by licenses fees (Wildlife Fund.) When WDFW was created the two funding sources basically merged together. Through the years more and more fishing license fees were moved from the going to the General Fund to the Wildlife Fund, as this happened the amount of $ got from the General Fund decreased. As of about 3 years ago ALL fishing and hunting fees now go to the Wildlife Fund, and as a result WDFW now gets the smallest % of General Fund funding it has ever received. While it would be nice if WDFW was solely funded by user fees so we (sportsmen) could essentially run the agency, the actuality of that happen simply couldn't happen unless you want to see your license fees shoot through the roof. Just to see the picture, in the current budget WDFW gets $60M from the General Fund and $102M from the Wildlife Fund. How would you make up that $60M if you eliminated the General Fund and made WDFW a user based agency?

[Special T]

While i would HATE an increase in tags.... I would take a New department head and a FOCUS on sportsmen.  Do you think there is a way for the WDFW to focus on its core BIGTEX  and leave the unfunded mandates at the legislature ?. I would gladly support a  SPORTSMEN  WDFW and no some greenie bunny hugger consortium..

[bigtex]

While i would HATE an increase in tags.... I would take a New department head and a FOCUS on sportsmen.  Do you think there is a way for the WDFW to focus on its core BIGTEX  and leave the unfunded mandates at the legislature ?. I would gladly support a  SPORTSMEN  WDFW and no some greenie bunny hugger consortium..

If it's in law (mandated by the legislature) then WDFW has to follow it. What is WDFW supposed to do? "Well Mr. Chairman who oversees my agency budget, I know you passed that mandate last year, but we don't like it so we don't follow it.." For some reason I don't think that will fly.

If we want to get rid of the "greenie bunny hugger consortium" then we need to get rid of the people at the top, and not the F&W Commission, but the legislature. It's the legislature that ultimately sets the WDFW budget, that enacts laws/mandates, and ultimately to who both the F&W Commission and the agency reports to.

[Special T]

The legislature is FULL of unfunded mandates! HOW could we get to the point where SPORTSMEN fund the department instead of catering to bunny hugging/wolf lovers?

BIG TEX what do you think it would cost? I bet it woudl hurt short term but help long term....

I know a pipe dream for sure....

[bigtex]

The legislature is FULL of unfunded mandates! HOW could we get to the point where SPORTSMEN fund the department instead of catering to bunny hugging/wolf lovers?

BIG TEX what do you think it would cost? I bet it woudl hurt short term but help long term....

I know a pipe dream for sure....

I know it's full of unfunded mandates. And it's unbelievable how many annual reports agencies (including WDFW) have to submit to the legislature to report on agency work towards the mandate, even though the legislature didn't give the agency a dime to work towards that mandate. Its not "do more with the same" but rather "do more with less."

But to answer your question. We would need to completely eliminate the 16% of WDFW funding that comes from the General Fund. Now will you completely eliminate the "greeny" feeling? No because WDFW's largest funding source (29%) comes from the federal government. But in order to move towards a more "user based" agency we would need to remove the "non-user" funding that goes into the agency. But like you said, such a move is a dream because fiscally it couldn't happen with this agency.

[Special T]

Do you have any quick numbers as to what that means?

[fastdam]

Government is wastefull and squanders our hard earned money. They will NEVER have enough.  As they continue to mismanage public resources, increase fees, and reduce opportunity,.....the are making themselves irrelevant.  People will only play the game so long.

[fastdam]

I would like to see ALL state agencies make 15% cuts.  Government is a big bloated tick.

[bigtex]

Do you have any quick numbers as to what that means?

For 2013-15 WDFW gets:

60.8M from General Fund
102.5M from Wildlife Fund
107.2M from the Feds
58.4M from local sources
46.9M from other sources

[Forks]

BigTex- do you support the decision for all fees going to the Wildlife Fund versus General Fund?

[Stein]

The group that is loudest, most well funded and has the most amount of vocal voters gets the general fund money.  Unfortunately, it looks like sportsmen are not part of that group.

If the 15% atb stuck, that would be one thing.  The way it works is everyone starts at -15% and then our elected representatives start getting e-mails, contributions and phone calls.  Then, some departments go from -15 to +5 and others get the shaft.

It isn't about what is "right" or who deserves what.

Fishing and particularly hunting are rapidly evolving into an upper middle class and above recreation.  The fewer people that participate, the bigger the cuts will be and the more money it will take to play.