Wdfw pitching license fee increase

[Bob33]

I think everybody agrees (or possibly not) that price increases are just a way of life. Everything goes up over time and that's understandable. The problem is the steep hikes in prices. When we spend more for something we expect to get value for our money. IMO we aren't getting that value so it's hard to be ok with paying these crazy increases. This state could be world class for hunting and fishing rivaled by none but our game department is holding us back from having that! Very frustrating! 

Washington is the smallest Western state with second largest population. I don't expect we ever had, or ever will have world class hunting for most species.

We don't have a Game Department in Washington. That went away in the 80s by an act of our state legislature. We have a Department of Fish and Wildlife now, which Fish getting more resources and attention.

[mdbuck5x5]

I think everybody agrees (or possibly not) that price increases are just a way of life. Everything goes up over time and that's understandable. The problem is the steep hikes in prices. When we spend more for something we expect to get value for our money. IMO we aren't getting that value so it's hard to be ok with paying these crazy increases. This state could be world class for hunting and fishing rivaled by none but our game department is holding us back from having that! Very frustrating! 

Washington is the smallest Western state with second largest population. I don't expect we ever had, or ever will have world class hunting for most species.

We don't have a Game Department in Washington. That went away in the 80s by an act of our state legislature. We have a Department of Fish and Wildlife now, which Fish getting more resources and attention.

You're absolutely right. Being that we are the smallest western state with the 2nd highest population we are at a disadvantage compared to most no doubt. But I don't agree with your assessment on being world class. If we weren't at one time I think we may have been close. You look at all the animals and fish that have come out of this state and we can stack up to any. It's quality vs quantity. My opinion we have the former but not the latter. I continue to hunt and fish this state because it is what I love and all I know. Alot of it for me is getting outdoors and enjoying it. The enjoyment is being taken away because we are getting priced out of it. That's my heartburn.

[singleshot12]

We've been paying more for less for several decades now. Why would they stop the increase now? They obviously want hunting and fishing to be a rich man's sport only. This state is a joke and our license fee's are being used against us.

[chester]

our license fee's are being used against us.

That's the truth right there

[singleshot12]

If people really wanted to make a differance they would not buy a license for one whole year. Let the dept. fold, start over with a new that actually works for us.

[bearpaw]

I think everybody agrees (or possibly not) that price increases are just a way of life. Everything goes up over time and that's understandable. The problem is the steep hikes in prices. When we spend more for something we expect to get value for our money. IMO we aren't getting that value so it's hard to be ok with paying these crazy increases. This state could be world class for hunting and fishing rivaled by none but our game department is holding us back from having that! Very frustrating! 

Washington is the smallest Western state with second largest population. I don't expect we ever had, or ever will have world class hunting for most species.

We don't have a Game Department in Washington. That went away in the 80s by an act of our state legislature. We have a Department of Fish and Wildlife now, which Fish getting more resources and attention.

Actually there is world class hunting here in Washington. We killed a world record cougar and numerous other record book cougar. WA was producing the most record shiras moose of any state. WA also has good hunting for other big game species that are only available in a few states. Our bear hunting is some of the best in the lower 48. Additionally I've had turkey hunters from nearly every state, many tell me this is as good of turkey hunting as they have ever experienced.

The rest of what you said I totally agree with. We definitely no longer have a game dept! 

[bigtex]

I totally understand that prices must increase at some point for everything. WDFW needs to consider hunters a little more before I'm going to support a price increase. IDFG needed a price increase that I fully supported, however, IDFG certainly considers hunters much more than WDFW and is actively managing bear, cougar, and wolves to improve ungulate populations in impacted areas. We are slowly shifting more and more of our business into Idaho.

IDFG considers hunters more than WDFW because hunting is king in ID whereas in WA fishing in king. That's the problem when you compare inland states vs coastal states. The coastal states fish and wildlife departments are heavily focused on fish, while the inland departments are on wildlife.

Oregon's wildlife program gets only 33% of the budget that their fish program gets. What's WDFW's fish vs. wildlife comparison? The exact same. Idaho's wildlife program gets about 65% of the budget their fish program gets. Wyoming's wildlife program gets 200% of the budget their fish program gets. The further you get from the ocean the less the state spends on fishing and quite honestly the less the care about fishermen, thus the more they spend on wildlife and hunters.

Another thing to consider in WA vs ID is where does the money come from. IDFG is funded solely by license fees and federal grants and contracts, there is no state tax money funneled to IDFG, they are essentially a user funded agency. WDFW on the other hand gets about 19% of their budget from state taxes, in fact only about 28% of WDFW's budget comes from licenses. As part of WDFW's budget proposal they are also asking for more general fund (tax) funding.

[Skyhigh]

I bet ya that they will try to get that 850k wolf consultant to become a license fee increase consultant.

[jasnt]

I have a few major issues that don't make me want to give more money to the WDFW.

1.  The $850,000 they wasted.

2.  The fact that there are very few places to hunt in southwest Washington due to timber companies closing all their land to the public.

3.  Native Americans being able to hunt whenever, wherever, and however they want.

4. Mike Cenci hasn't been fired yet, or at the very least, demoted.

I think that about covers it.

no kidding why in the hell are we supporting theses........I'm loosing it. So sick of all the 🐂💩!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[winshooter88]

I was at that GMAC meeting that Unsworth said that the increases were talked about and I did not see the supposed change in attitude that he seems to think happened at the end of the day the majority still opposed the increases, you can't change the facts just by making a comment that misrepresents what actually went on.

[bearpaw]

I totally understand that prices must increase at some point for everything. WDFW needs to consider hunters a little more before I'm going to support a price increase. IDFG needed a price increase that I fully supported, however, IDFG certainly considers hunters much more than WDFW and is actively managing bear, cougar, and wolves to improve ungulate populations in impacted areas. We are slowly shifting more and more of our business into Idaho.

IDFG considers hunters more than WDFW because hunting is king in ID whereas in WA fishing in king. That's the problem when you compare inland states vs coastal states. The coastal states fish and wildlife departments are heavily focused on fish, while the inland departments are on wildlife.

Oregon's wildlife program gets only 33% of the budget that their fish program gets. What's WDFW's fish vs. wildlife comparison? The exact same. Idaho's wildlife program gets about 65% of the budget their fish program gets. Wyoming's wildlife program gets 200% of the budget their fish program gets. The further you get from the ocean the less the state spends on fishing and quite honestly the less the care about fishermen, thus the more they spend on wildlife and hunters.

Another thing to consider in WA vs ID is where does the money come from. IDFG is funded solely by license fees and federal grants and contracts, there is no state tax money funneled to IDFG, they are essentially a user funded agency. WDFW on the other hand gets about 19% of their budget from state taxes, in fact only about 28% of WDFW's budget comes from licenses. As part of WDFW's budget proposal they are also asking for more general fund (tax) funding.

  Yep, I understand, guess there's not much we can do about it?

[bigtex]

I totally understand that prices must increase at some point for everything. WDFW needs to consider hunters a little more before I'm going to support a price increase. IDFG needed a price increase that I fully supported, however, IDFG certainly considers hunters much more than WDFW and is actively managing bear, cougar, and wolves to improve ungulate populations in impacted areas. We are slowly shifting more and more of our business into Idaho.

IDFG considers hunters more than WDFW because hunting is king in ID whereas in WA fishing in king. That's the problem when you compare inland states vs coastal states. The coastal states fish and wildlife departments are heavily focused on fish, while the inland departments are on wildlife.

Oregon's wildlife program gets only 33% of the budget that their fish program gets. What's WDFW's fish vs. wildlife comparison? The exact same. Idaho's wildlife program gets about 65% of the budget their fish program gets. Wyoming's wildlife program gets 200% of the budget their fish program gets. The further you get from the ocean the less the state spends on fishing and quite honestly the less the care about fishermen, thus the more they spend on wildlife and hunters.

Another thing to consider in WA vs ID is where does the money come from. IDFG is funded solely by license fees and federal grants and contracts, there is no state tax money funneled to IDFG, they are essentially a user funded agency. WDFW on the other hand gets about 19% of their budget from state taxes, in fact only about 28% of WDFW's budget comes from licenses. As part of WDFW's budget proposal they are also asking for more general fund (tax) funding.

Yep, I understand, guess there's not much we can do about it?

In reality no.

About the only thing that would help hunters is if WDFW split into the Dept of Wildlife and the Dept of Fisheries, but why would the legislature do that when just a little over twenty years ago the voters voted to combine DOW & DOF into WDFW. To top it off the past 5-10 legislators have been trying to merge WDFW with other resource agencies (Parks and DNR). The trend in WA (and other states) has been to merge agencies, not split them up.

Prior to the merger DOW was the red headed stepchild to DOF, DOF got a ton more money then DOW. One of the big reasons was that DOF was a tax funded agency and DOW was user funded.

In reality, hunters/hunting will never be #1 in the eyes of WDFW.

[JJB11B]

I totally understand that prices must increase at some point for everything. WDFW needs to consider hunters a little more before I'm going to support a price increase. IDFG needed a price increase that I fully supported, however, IDFG certainly considers hunters much more than WDFW and is actively managing bear, cougar, and wolves to improve ungulate populations in impacted areas. We are slowly shifting more and more of our business into Idaho.

IDFG considers hunters more than WDFW because hunting is king in ID whereas in WA fishing in king. That's the problem when you compare inland states vs coastal states. The coastal states fish and wildlife departments are heavily focused on fish, while the inland departments are on wildlife.

Oregon's wildlife program gets only 33% of the budget that their fish program gets. What's WDFW's fish vs. wildlife comparison? The exact same. Idaho's wildlife program gets about 65% of the budget their fish program gets. Wyoming's wildlife program gets 200% of the budget their fish program gets. The further you get from the ocean the less the state spends on fishing and quite honestly the less the care about fishermen, thus the more they spend on wildlife and hunters.

Another thing to consider in WA vs ID is where does the money come from. IDFG is funded solely by license fees and federal grants and contracts, there is no state tax money funneled to IDFG, they are essentially a user funded agency. WDFW on the other hand gets about 19% of their budget from state taxes, in fact only about 28% of WDFW's budget comes from licenses. As part of WDFW's budget proposal they are also asking for more general fund (tax) funding.

  Yep, I understand, guess there's not much we can do about it?

My vote, Fire any of them that make more than $70,000 base salary....

[bowbuild]

It's incredible...

Funny how guys support timber companies, and whine about the state raising prices Hell, l they figure if you are able to squeeze a couple of hundred bucks for timber access....why shouldn't they have their hand out too.......people to me are incredible!

[fireweed]

Is everyone familiar with the fable of the golden goose.  Squeeze, squeeze, Squeeze, and pretty soon, it stops laying.  Sportsmen of all stripes are the goose in this state.  That's the problems with not just the licenses fee increase, but the total cost increase.  With nearly half of all timberlands charging a few hundred bucks to access land that has been traditionally free, and the state adding the discover pass, the costs have skyrocketed for in-state hunting and fishing.  Charging the fewer and fewer hunters more only works so long.  Then hunting hits a death spiral, higher fees leads to fewer hunters, which forces costs on fewer people, and leads to even higher fees.  On top of that, add in the anti-hunters gleefully supporting this negative feedback loop, the future looks grim.

The answer must include strong programs to increase participation, open lands up,  and improve hunter satisfaction, not just more wishy-washy WDFW run programs.

Some examples to sweeten the pot:
Buy a hunting license, get a free full-use Discover Pass for starters.   Review the "current use" timberland tax incentives that are supposed to keep lands open to the public.  Youth to age 18.  Special draw permits can be transferred to youth, disable or seniors.   No bear 'damage' permits to timber companies that charge for entry to hunt bear.  Comb the state for closed or inaccessible public lands and use all tools to get public access for hunting/fishing.  Streamline regs and cut red tape to improve efficiency.