SB 6308: Migratory bird hunting fee

[bigtex]

SB 6308 will increase the migratory bird permit from $15 to $25. In addition, this $25 will go to a new account known as the migratory bird permit account which WDFW can only use for migratory bird program. Currently the $15 goes to the wildlife fund which funds most WDFW programs.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6308.pdf

[bobcat]

That sounds good- so they can't spend the migratory bird money on wolves. 

[Widgeondeke]

That sounds good- so they can't spend the migratory bird money on wolves. 

               

[CP]

Sounds good, unless all the money goes to swans and plovers

[Shank]

That all sounds good till some jack wagon sees an account with X amount of money and questions it to fund something else...which usually is the exact opposite of the intended funds.
I've seen/heard of it way to much in this states government!
The pilfering of OHV funds to fund non/anti OHV uses.
 As well as the states transportation equipment fund. money which is supposed to go directly to replacing worn out equipment for the state right aways..instead gets pilfered to fund something else.
How about instead of increasing fees and or taxes  for this, that and the other thing...learning how to operate with current funds....this state is driving me crazy.


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[bigtex]

How about instead of increasing fees and or taxes  for this, that and the other thing...learning how to operate with current funds....this state is driving me crazy.

It's done in every state. It's called politics.....

[CP]

After reading RCW 77.32.350 - it appears the only change is an increase in the fee, the rest is already law:

(1) Beginning July 1, 2011, the department, after soliciting recommendations from the public, shall select the design for the *migratory bird stamp.
(2) All revenue derived from the sale of migratory bird license validations or stamps by the department to any person hunting waterfowl or to any stamp collector shall be deposited in the state wildlife account and shall be used only for that portion of the cost of printing and production of the stamps for migratory waterfowl hunters as determined by subsection (4) of this section, and for those migratory waterfowl projects specified by the director of the department for the acquisition and development of migratory waterfowl habitat in the state and for the enhancement, protection, and propagation of migratory waterfowl in the state.

[REHJWA]

If they use it to benefit waterfowl I have no problem with a ten dollar increase.

[bigtex]

After reading RCW 77.32.350 - it appears the only change is an increase in the fee, the rest is already law:

(1) Beginning July 1, 2011, the department, after soliciting recommendations from the public, shall select the design for the *migratory bird stamp.
(2) All revenue derived from the sale of migratory bird license validations or stamps by the department to any person hunting waterfowl or to any stamp collector shall be deposited in the state wildlife account and shall be used only for that portion of the cost of printing and production of the stamps for migratory waterfowl hunters as determined by subsection (4) of this section, and for those migratory waterfowl projects specified by the director of the department for the acquisition and development of migratory waterfowl habitat in the state and for the enhancement, protection, and propagation of migratory waterfowl in the state.

Incorrect.

Here is the current law:

RCW 77.32.350

Migratory birds—Supplemental permit—Fees.
In addition to a small game hunting license, a supplemental permit is required to hunt for migratory birds.
A migratory bird permit is required for all persons sixteen years of age or older to hunt migratory birds. The fee for the permit for hunters is fifteen dollars for residents and nonresidents.

Here is the proposed new law under RCW 77.32.350
(1)  In addition to a small game hunting license, a supplemental permit is required to hunt for migratory birds.
(2)  A migratory bird permit is required for all persons sixteen years of age or older to hunt migratory birds. The fee for the permit for hunters is twenty-five  dollars for residents and nonresidents.

In addition, a new statute would be added under RCW 77.32:
The migratory bird account is created in the custody of the state treasurer. All receipts from the fees paid under RCW  77.32.350  must be deposited into the account. Expenditures from the account may be used only for purposes relating to the department's migratory game bird program as specified in RCW  77.12.670. Only the director or the director's designee may authorize expenditures from the account. The account is subject to allotment procedures under  chapter  43.88  RCW, but an appropriation is not required for expenditures

[Dhoey07]

I would assume that this bill was born out of the overwhelming acceptance of the Federal Bird stamp increase last year. 

[bigtex]

That sounds good- so they can't spend the migratory bird money on wolves. 

[Gringo31]

Why would I want to pay another dime when I have zero trust in it being used wisely or in a way that I felt would be beneficial. 

This quote comes to mind when asking if I'm in favor of putting up more money to such a well run professional group.

"I don't -- well things are -- again, things are done differently at Fish & Wildlife than they're done in a professional law enforcement agency."-    WDFW Chief Bruce Bjork (retired)

[bobcat]

It's up to each individual to decide if the cost is worth it or not. If you feel the cost is too high, simply don't buy it.

I would think that most people who hunt waterfowl would be happy to pay an extra $10 that will likely benefit habitat and improve hunting opportunities.

$10 is nothing when you consider all the other costs of waterfowl hunting- decoys, dogs, boats, waders, shotgun shells, etc.

[westsidehntr]

Why would I want to pay another dime when I have zero trust in it being used wisely or in a way that I felt would be beneficial. 

This quote comes to mind when asking if I'm in favor of putting up more money to such a well run professional group.

"I don't -- well things are -- again, things are done differently at Fish & Wildlife than they're done in a professional law enforcement agency."-    WDFW Chief Bruce Bjork (retired)

 

[bigtex]

Why would I want to pay another dime when I have zero trust in it being used wisely or in a way that I felt would be beneficial. 

This quote comes to mind when asking if I'm in favor of putting up more money to such a well run professional group.

"I don't -- well things are -- again, things are done differently at Fish & Wildlife than they're done in a professional law enforcement agency."-    WDFW Chief Bruce Bjork (retired)

Obviously that quote was directed to the Enforcement Program.

As the bill moves forward a financial report will be distributed on the bill basically saying how much $ WDFW expects to receive and where they would spend it. Once that comes out I will post it. Enforcement may get no money from this bill.

[Gringo31]

You are right bigtex!


But, my problem is that I'm more fond of the enforcement side than I am the admin/biologist side!

[mfswallace]

That sounds good- so they can't spend the migratory bird money on wolves. 

Right because funds have never been misappropriated for wolves before 

[bobcat]

That sounds good- so they can't spend the migratory bird money on wolves. 

Right because funds have never been misappropriated for wolves before 

Well, you can't disagree with everything in this world just because of something wrong that MIGHT happen.

[mfswallace]

That sounds good- so they can't spend the migratory bird money on wolves. 

Right because funds have never been misappropriated for wolves before 

Well, you can't disagree with everything in this world just because of something wrong that MIGHT happen.

HAS Happened!!

[bobcat]

That sounds good- so they can't spend the migratory bird money on wolves. 

Right because funds have never been misappropriated for wolves before 

Well, you can't disagree with everything in this world just because of something wrong that MIGHT happen.

HAS Happened!!

Okay, so your position is that you're against the cost of ANYTHING increasing, because the additional revenue may be spent in a way that you don't deem appropriate?

[Gringo31]

Okay, so your position is that you're against the cost of ANYTHING increasing, because the additional revenue may be spent in a way that you don't deem appropriate?

That's my position!

I don't like their management plan so I don't want to give them a raise.  If I felt it was well used, I'd want to give them more.

[JimmyHoffa]

yeah, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

[bobcat]

If only we could stop inflation!

Well, I guess there will be a few less waterfowl hunters. If you don't want to pay the extra $10, don't pay it and don't hunt waterfowl.

[Bob33]

That's a 67% increase.  At 3% per year inflation that's 17 years.

When was the last time the price was raised?

[bobcat]

It was $6.00 in 2000. Does that help?

[Fl0und3rz]

If the bill only redirected the funds to the appropriate use (migratory bird programs), I would have voted yes. 

Otherwise, I am not in favor of increasing funds to an agency that believes, what was it? half a million dollars?, was an appropriate use of funds for a wolf management program negotiator (for lack of a better recollection or characterization).

[JimmyHoffa]

That's a 67% increase.  At 3% per year inflation that's 17 years.

When was the last time the price was raised?

Was it changed to $15 in 2011?

[bobcat]

2011-2012 reg's show $13.20 for migratory bird authorization.

[bobcat]

Was looking at the wrong thing- migratory bird permit was $16.50.

[Bob33]

By any measure this increase appears to be much greater than inflation would support. $50 in extras now just to hunt ducks. Personally I think that's completely unjustified.

Why only waterfowl? Should we start tacking on an extra fee for elk, deer, pheasants, and bear?

I'd much rather give my money to organizations like RMEF and DU.

[bobcat]

I guess I only support it because I don't hunt ducks anymore! 

bigtex, is there anywhere we can go to see the justification for this? Are they planning on buying up a lot of wetland areas for waterfowl habitat which would mean more hunting opportunities for us?

I gave up on duck hunting a long time ago due to the lack of places to hunt.

[JimmyHoffa]

By any measure this increase appears to be much greater than inflation would support. $50 in extras now just to hunt ducks. Personally I think that's completely unjustified.

Why only waterfowl? Should we start tacking on an extra fee for elk, deer, pheasants, and bear?

I'd much rather give my money to organizations like RMEF and DU.

I stopped for pheasant a few years back once that permit shot up in price.  And quite a few people I knew did too. 

[Bob33]

By any measure this increase appears to be much greater than inflation would support. $50 in extras now just to hunt ducks. Personally I think that's completely unjustified.

Why only waterfowl? Should we start tacking on an extra fee for elk, deer, pheasants, and bear?

I'd much rather give my money to organizations like RMEF and DU.

I stopped for pheasant a few years back once that permit shot up in price.  And quite a few people I knew did too.

You don't need an extra permit to hunt pheasants in Eastern Washington.

I took my son duck hunting last year for the first time in many years. It cost nearly $100 just in stamps and permits. That's ridiculous. More than likely they'll get $0 from me now.

[bobcat]

I think what is needed is a lower priced license for waterfowl hunting for the person who only wants to hunt one weekend per year. Most of the people I know that waterfowl hunt have access to private land and they hunt nearly every weekend for 4 months. For that kind of dedicated waterfowl hunter, $100 for licenses shouldn't be a big deal. But for someone like me who may only hunt one or two days, it would be nice if there was another option.

[Bob33]

I think what is needed is a lower priced license for waterfowl hunting for the person who only wants to hunt one weekend per year. Most of the people I know that waterfowl hunt have access to private land and they hunt nearly every weekend for 4 months. For that kind of dedicated waterfowl hunter, $100 for licenses shouldn't be a big deal. But for someone like me who may only hunt one or two days, it would be nice if there was another option.

That would be a good idea. You can buy a 3 day fishing license, for example. Dividing $50 in stamps over 10 hunts is $5/hunt: not bad. Dividing $50 in stamps over one hunt is $50/hunt: bad.

[bigtex]

bigtex, is there anywhere we can go to see the justification for this? Are they planning on buying up a lot of wetland areas for waterfowl habitat which would mean more hunting opportunities for us?

I gave up on duck hunting a long time ago due to the lack of places to hunt.

This isn't WDFW sponsored/requested legislation, but that doesn't mean WDFW wouldn't support it.

So because of that we don't have any information yet as to what they will do with the money. Once the fiscal note of the bill comes out we will see where WDFW will spend the money on. The fiscal notes are issued prior to the first committee hearing.

[bigtex]

I think what is needed is a lower priced license for waterfowl hunting for the person who only wants to hunt one weekend per year. Most of the people I know that waterfowl hunt have access to private land and they hunt nearly every weekend for 4 months. For that kind of dedicated waterfowl hunter, $100 for licenses shouldn't be a big deal. But for someone like me who may only hunt one or two days, it would be nice if there was another option.

Just don't expect the feds/congress to institute a separate Duck Stamp. They wont reduce the $25.

[Bob33]

At some point they're going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

[bobcat]

I'd like to hunt ducks one day a year but I don't because the fees are too much for just one day. I bet there are a lot of others who feel the same way. If I hunted only waterfowl for 4 months straight the fees wouldn't matter at all. But for a one day hunt it's too much.

[Fl0und3rz]

I'd like to hunt ducks one day a year but I don't because the fees are too much for just one day. I bet there are a lot of others who feel the same way. If I hunted only waterfowl for 4 months straight the fees wouldn't matter at all. But for a one day hunt it's too much.

I would like to give duck hunting a try, at some point, and the amount of the taxes are certainly a disincentive to even try at certain levels. 

[timberfaller]

If you have a employee making $8000 a day,  YOU'VE got OTHER real and serious problems! 

[REHJWA]

That is what some of them want.

Divide and conquer...

Maybe and five-year dollar three day permits.

At some point they're going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.