Senator Asking For Washington Hunter, Angler Input On Fee Increases

[huntnphool]

3. The refusal of the department to pressure large private timber companies to stop charging outrageous fees to access their land for hunting while these companies pay a fraction in real estate taxes based on tax law passed in the 70's (which assumed they would continue to allow unfettered public access), is a slap in the face to families who've hunted those woods for generations and can ill-afford to pay many hundreds of dollars extra to hunt. Many subsistence hunters are unable to feed their families on wild game because of these fees.

I agree with all of your statements except this one.

Realistically WDFW can do nothing regards to the timberland fees. All WDFW can do is call up Weyerhauser, Hancock, etc. and say "please, please, please!" WDFW has nothing to do with the real estate taxes on timberlands.

Who can change this??? The legislature, but it seems like there isn't much support for this outside of a couple legislators.

Realistically, WDFW is trying to do something on this matter. In the 2017-19 budget request submitted in September WDFW asked for $2.6 million to work on establishing and maintaining public access on private timberlands. Part of WDFW's plan is to approach timber companies and say they will provide for increased WDFW LE coverage in exchange for public access. It will now be up to the legislature to fund this package.....

As it is, the hunters of the state lost a valuable resource and the end result is a sum loss for hunter numbers and satisfaction in this state.

 Which I believe has been their agenda from the start.

[Band]

Over the years I have eliminated my participation in the following activities due to higher fees and lower opportunity:
- Small game hunting
- Bird hunting
- Bear & cougar hunting
- Saltwater fishing & shellfishing
- Fishing in the Columbia & tributaries
- Putting in for special permits (with the exception of elk)
- All activity on public lands that require a Discover Pass

I was very upset when the Puyallup River was closed to all non-natives after I bought my fresh water fishing license, and that may make me quit fishing all together beginning next year as well.

All I have left is deer and elk hunting.  If the fees keep going up and opportunity down I'll likely stop doing those as well.  I'm sick and tired of paying more for less and I don't like the feeling like I'm playing the lottery just to be an outdoorsman in Washington! 

[Buzz2401]

People feel it is mismanaged but when asked to come up with real solutions they come up with ideas that are unfeasible in our Liberal state.

 What solutions would you suggest?

I don't feel the WDFW is mismanaged.  I would like to see better predator control but until we change the law and allow baiting and dogs that isn't gonna happen.  For fishing I would like to see our senators fight the IPHC so that we could get more halibut quota.  Get sportsman to come together to try and overturn the Boldt decision. As far as funding their budget I would ultimately like to see the state tighten up the free hand-outs to welfare but that isn't gonna happen in our lifetime.  Until we as sportsman come together and fight to remove the handcuffs that are placed on WDFW by the laws that are in place then there will be no change.

 Hounds and baiting are the only solutions for predator control? Does WDFW have authority to change the seasons and quota's?

 What does the Boldt decision have to do with current wolf plan, or our current cougar plan, or hoof rot, or increased late tags, or increased doe tags?

 Curious what "handcuffs" you are referring to?

Hounds and baiting are the most effective forms of predator control.  We already have half the year to hunt cougars and they are the biggest issue.  We have tons of game just to many people trying to kill it.  The handcuffs are current laws, a liberal leaning majority and crazy laws governing native resource allocations.  No matter what people may think WDFW has no way to change the fact that we live in a liberal state.

[bigtex]

License fees make up about 28% of WDFWs budget. The rest consists of state tax funding, federal taxes, grants, etc. WDFW isn't like some states where they don't get any state tax money.

As a result of the McCleary decision (education lawsuit that said WA needs to spend billions more on schools) WDFW will be getting less state tax funding in the future.

I knew you would bring up the 28%. That however does not include dingle Johnson or pitman Roberson funds.

The simple fact is that as they raise prices they will get less people buying licenses and associated gear. I don't  buy fishing gear anymore not lic so what does that get the state?

Raising prices isn't static  I can and do buy less because of what the wdfw does. So should others.

Pittman-Roberson & Dingle-Johnson funds bring in about $20M a year to WDFW, so about $40M on a 2-year WDFW budget. WDFW's two-year budget is $415.6 million so those two funds make up about 9.5% of WDFW's budget. Add that to the 28% from state licenses and your at about 38%.

So your still looking at 62% of the agency's budget coming from outside of license fees or sportsman related taxes...

[bigtex]

We have to pay for a state migratory bird permit.  Migratory birds are FEDERAL and we pay for Duck Stamps already.

Migratory birds are managed at both the state and federal level. That's why every state has their version of a state permit/stamp/validation.

[Oh Mah]

I guess they need to find a way to save more money.Trim some fat from somewhere.
How many are employed through the WDFW?
Where does all that money go?

[bigtex]

I guess they need to find a way to save more money.Trim some fat from somewhere.
How many are employed through the WDFW?
Where does all that money go?

The following shows the allocation WDFW receives from the General Fund (State tax dollars):


The following shows the allocation WDFW receives from the Wildlife Fund (fishing & hunting license fees):


Where does WDFW funds come from???:

[Oh Mah]

Sorry,I am having difficulties accepting the costs associated with the WDFW.I also feel that it would be cheaper and more advantageous to all involved if they split the 2 (land and water) into 2 different dept.

[bigtex]

As of October 2016 the Wildlife Fund is nearly $1.2M behind projections in term of revenue. Not a significant number considering the budget doesn't end till June 30, 2017.

So then your probably asking why does WDFW need the increase to the wildlife fund? It's because the amount they get from the General Fund (state taxes) will continue to decrease every year as the WA Supreme Court has said WA needs to spend billions more on education.

Lets look at the difference between the current (2015-17) budget cycle and the 2007-9 budget cycle:

2015-17  General Fund Contribution:    $77 Million 19% Overall    Wildlife Fund Contribution   $117.5 Million 28% Overall
2007-9    General Fund Contribution:    $110 Million 31% Overall    Wildlife Fund Contribution   $63.6 Million 18% Overall

In less than ten years WDFW saw a $33 million decline in general fund funding. As WDFW's overall tax allocation declines the amount they will rely on it's users (hunters and fisherman) will increase. WDFW is slowly going from an overall statewide every citizen funded agency to a user-based agency.

We all remember a few years ago when State Parks lost all general fund funding in one budget, well that's slowly happening to WDFW. Just as State Parks is almost entirely reliant on Discover Pass and camping fees, WDFW will be reliant on it's user base.

[bigtex]

Sorry,I am having difficulties accepting the costs associated with the WDFW.I also feel that it would be cheaper and more advantageous to all involved if they split the 2 (land and water) into 2 different dept.

It used to be that way, but in 1993 voters voted to merge the Dept. of Fisheries with the Dept. of Wildlife, one of the big reasons was to reduce the duplication in operations.

It would actually cost more. You'd have a Regional Director for the Dept of Fisheries and a different Regional Director for the Dept of Wildlife, right now they're one person. Split the agencies and now you need two people.

[Oh Mah]

wow thanks for all this info.I really didnt think it was going this way.Since your on Bigtex,What do you think of what i said as far as the chief and other higher ups in the WDFW being elected instead of picked by the Gov. ?

[bigtex]

wow thanks for all this info.I really didnt think it was going this way.Since your on Bigtex,What do you think of what i said as far as the chief and other higher ups in the WDFW being elected instead of picked by the Gov. ?

Totally against it. It would have to be a vote of all the people, the legislature would never allow it to be voted on by just outdoorsman. That means you'd likely end up with a greeny type in charge of WDFW. As far as I know there's not a state in the country where the Fish & Wildlife Director is elected. WA DNR's director is elected and that's an oddity.

As far as the Enforcement Chief being elected I'd be even more against that. You'd likely end up with someone with no natural resource law enforcement experience being Chief. Having spent my career in law enforcement I will say this about Sheriff elections. I have had deputies in counties throughout the state tell me that when their current sherriff is in a tight election that they tell their deputies to make less traffic stops and write less tickets. What does that tell you? If you don't think a Sheriff is a politician then boy do you need to open your eyes. What would a elected Chief of WDFW Enforcement say? Hey lets run less check stations? Less motorized decoys? They don't want to piss off the same people that will be voting for their job....

[Oh Mah]

Did not mean that everyone wouldnt vote.Thats why i put SOME SAY in the post.
I feel all the states should,especially the states that have opted to give the dept. more authority with non wildlife issues.

[huntnphool]

People feel it is mismanaged but when asked to come up with real solutions they come up with ideas that are unfeasible in our Liberal state.

 What solutions would you suggest?

I don't feel the WDFW is mismanaged.  I would like to see better predator control but until we change the law and allow baiting and dogs that isn't gonna happen.  For fishing I would like to see our senators fight the IPHC so that we could get more halibut quota.  Get sportsman to come together to try and overturn the Boldt decision. As far as funding their budget I would ultimately like to see the state tighten up the free hand-outs to welfare but that isn't gonna happen in our lifetime.  Until we as sportsman come together and fight to remove the handcuffs that are placed on WDFW by the laws that are in place then there will be no change.

 Hounds and baiting are the only solutions for predator control? Does WDFW have authority to change the seasons and quota's?

 What does the Boldt decision have to do with current wolf plan, or our current cougar plan, or hoof rot, or increased late tags, or increased doe tags?

 Curious what "handcuffs" you are referring to?

Hounds and baiting are the most effective forms of predator control.  We already have half the year to hunt cougars and they are the biggest issue.  We have tons of game just to many people trying to kill it.  The handcuffs are current laws, a liberal leaning majority and crazy laws governing native resource allocations.  No matter what people may think WDFW has no way to change the fact that we live in a liberal state.

 Did I say hounds and baiting were not effective?....NO!

 If hounds and baiting can no longer be used, then why not extend the seasons to attain the same results as when we could? This is entirely in WDFW's hands!

 It's not rocket science, the reason is its because WDFW are achieving exactly what they desire to achieve.

 Tons of game, just too many hunters, are you serious? We have 10's of thousands less hunters now than we did in the 80's, and our herds have continued to decline, how can that be?

 Crazy laws governing native resource allocation?...LMFAO, You clearly have not been paying attention because our laws do NOTHING regarding natives!

[bigtex]

Sorry,I am having difficulties accepting the costs associated with the WDFW.

This may surprise you.

WDFWs budget is $415.6 million. WAs population is around 7.062 million (2014). This means WDFW spends about $58.85 per citizen per budget.

Idaho Fish & Game's budget is about $95 million. IDs population is around 1.634 million. This means IDFG spends about $58.13 per citizen per budget.

Now the difference is ID is on a 1 year budget but WA is on a 2 year budget. So realistically WDFW spends about $29.42 per year whereas IDFG spends $58.13 per citizen per year.