WDFW Looking at 15% Budget Decrease for 2015-17

[bigtex]

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

I do. A lot of people thought it was odd their money for their fishing license didn't go directly to WDFW but rather the General Fund. So realistically your license fee supported every state agency; from the Dept of Transportation to the Arts Commission.

[Elkaholic daWg]

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?

 How about one that would  propose (Oops wrong thread!) to the legislature to split the Fisheries, DFW again. Now there's a fantasy I could live with. Sure seems that that move was the one that created most of  our problems  (that did not exist previous to)

[bigtex]

How about one that would  propose (Oops wrong thread!) to the legislature to split the Fisheries, DFW again. Now there's a fantasy I could live with. Sure seems that that move was the one that created most of  our problems  (that did not exist previous to)

All it would take is the legislature to pass a bill. But it won't happen. The past legislatures in WA have been more for merging/combining agencies then splitting them up. In the past few years there's been the proposed mergers of DNR/WDFW/PARKS, moving WDFW and DNR LE to State Patrol, taking WDFW, DNR, and Parks LE out of their agencies and creating a new "natural resource police" agency, etc.

[Elkaholic daWg]

So their next move will only make things worse if we cannot stop it  before more damage is done.

[bigtex]

So their next move will only make things worse if we cannot stop it  before more damage is done.

I personally think it is inevitable that one day we will see at least one of the other natural resource agencies merged with WDFW.

Colorado a couple years ago merged their Parks and Wildlife departments. Many of the midwest states have a "Parks and Wildlife" agency. Personally, I would rather see DNR merged with WDFW then Parks merged with WDFW.

But my gut feeling says it'll happen one day, especially if we continue seeing these bad budgets. 

[bobcat]

Montana has the "Fish, Wildlife, and Parks." 

[Elkaholic daWg]

But Montana is not run by liberal greenie leaning, leaf licking, wolf loving Pugetropolis  either, so it might just work great THERE And they don't have the commercial fishing industry  to loose focus on their wildlife to

[bigtex]

But Montana is not run by liberal greenie leaning, leaf licking, wolf loving Pugetropolis  either, so it might just work great THERE And they don't have the commercial fishing industry  to loose focus on their wildlife to

Here are some things most people don't know regarding WDFW and DNR.

WDFW is obviously the lead enforcement agency when it comes to shellfish. Yet, DNR is the one who owns the majority of the state tidelands/beaches, is the agency responsible for selling commercial shellfish leases for state lands, and is the agency who does most of the monitoring for commerical geoduck operations.

WDFW is the largest marine/boating enforcement agency in the state, yet DNR is responsible for derelicit vessels and live-aboards in WA.

DNR has about 12 LEOs to patrol DNR lands, but the majority of offenses on DNR lands are handled by WDFW Officers simply because there are almost 10 times as many WDFW LE personnel as DNR LE personnel.

You continue to look at things and wonder maybe not a total merger of WDFW and DNR is needed, but maybe shifting a program or two would make sense.

[Elkaholic daWg]

DNR + DFW is one thing.....It's when you throw in state parks I see the  real nightmare.

[bigtex]

DNR + DFW is one thing.....It's when you throw in state parks I see the  real nightmare.

Agreed

[snowpack]

Montana has the "Fish, Wildlife, and Parks."

Montana gets off real easy with their version of fish.  It must be a real headache for the WDFW sometimes dealing with the types of fish and different user groups that fall into their area of control.

[Curly]

Well, I guess they might as well cut some money from enforcement;  prosecutors aren't prosecuting wildlife crimes anyway,  so why bother enforcing?