Senator Asking For Washington Hunter, Angler Input On Fee Increases

[JODakota]

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.

Don't forget trapping. This state has an infestation of coyotes that will never get under control unless you can bring back legholds and snares. I don't care who you are (and I shoot more than my fair share of coyotes) you will never get predators under control unless you can trap.

[JODakota]

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.

Wrong, North Dakota does not charge a state migratory bird stamp. All you buy is a federal duck stamp and they have ten times the amount of birds to manage.

[bb76]

In my email I provided a link to the state of FL life time license. The funds from the sale of the licenses are invested to support fish and wildlife.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Oh Mah]

So how many employed with the WDFW?How many are in the field?How many work at the capital?How many work in the marine side?

[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.

Wrong, North Dakota does not charge a state migratory bird stamp. All you buy is a federal duck stamp and they have ten times the amount of birds to manage.

I figured there had to be one state out there, just hadn't heard of one.

But North Dakota does have state licenses for early Canada goose which is obviously federal and still requires the federal stamp.

[JODakota]

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.

A quarter a billion a year budget, and the state is still asking for more. That is unacceptable.

[JODakota]

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.

Wrong, North Dakota does not charge a state migratory bird stamp. All you buy is a federal duck stamp and they have ten times the amount of birds to manage.

I figured there had to be one state out there, just hadn't heard of one.

But North Dakota does have state licenses for early Canada goose which is obviously federal and still requires the federal stamp.

Yes that is true. I do feel those are special circumstances due to the large amount of local birds and the damage inflicted. I hate to seem like I'm jumping your s#%$, but the cost here is getting out of control.

[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.

A quarter a billion a year budget, and the state is still asking for more. That is unacceptable.

WDFW's budget is on a 2 year cycle. So that's $415.6 million for 2 years not 1.

In comparison:
California Fish & Wildlife 1 year 2016 budget: $586 million
Florida Fish & Wildlife 1 year 2016 budget: $234 million
Oregon Fish & Wildlife 2 year 2015-17 budget: $371 million or about $185 million a year
WDFW 2 year budget 2015-17 budget: $415.6 million or about $208 million a year

[JimmyHoffa]

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.

Aren't Fisheries (saltwater-anadromous fish) much more expensive and take close to 2/3 of the budget?  If it did split, would Dept of wildlife/game have a budget that could be more reasonable to be supported by hunters by a bigger percentage? 

[Oh Mah]

  I can see this,Because the more antis a state has the higher the cost is.That is easy to see.



                              @post #67

[JODakota]

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.

A quarter a billion a year budget, and the state is still asking for more. That is unacceptable.

WDFW's budget is on a 2 year cycle. So that's $415.6 million for 2 years not 1.

In comparison:
California Fish & Wildlife 1 year 2016 budget: $586 million
Florida Fish & Wildlife 1 year 2016 budget: $234 million
Oregon Fish & Wildlife 2 year 2015-17 budget: $371 million or about $185 million a year
WDFW 2 year budget 2015-17 budget: $415.6 million or about $208 million a year

The population of California is 50 million +
The population of Florida is 30 million +
Oregon, I've got nothing, I have no idea how their budget is so big
Washington has a population of what 8 million?? And with 200 million dollars and they still want more?? Come on man, you've got to see the issues. Our yearly budget on 8 million people is almost half of what californias is on 50 million. I love what you guys do but, what happened to being resourceful and working with what you've got. Maybe some higher ups at wdfw should visit with the Marine corps and figure out how they do what they do with a *censored* budget.

[Oh Mah]

I dont think BIGTEX is defending the amount but more showing it to be more in line with other states. 

[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.

Aren't Fisheries (saltwater-anadromous fish) much more expensive and take close to 2/3 of the budget?  If it did split, would Dept of wildlife/game have a budget that could be more reasonable to be supported by hunters by a bigger percentage?

I don't know if "more expensive" is the best phrase. It's not like a fisheries biologist makes $100 an hour and wildlife biologist makes $50. The fishery side is just a bigger program which then pulls in more money. You have fish hatcheries, we don't have elk hatcheries.

In terms of a split I think it'd be hard to tell. Before the merger DOF was tax funded, fishing license fees went into the general fund. DOW received little to no tax funds and was largely hunter based. DOF was always the better off of the two when it came to funding. DOF had money, DOW was always looking at budget cuts.

I don't think a split will ever happen in this state, especially since the trend in WA and even nationwide is to merge agencies. There's a lot of "Fish, Wildlife & Parks" departments out there. Colorado merged around 2012. We've been fighting a WDFW/DNR/Parks merger for years.

[Miles]

Comparing budgets with other out of control states.  The minute I saw California as the first reference, all that followed was lost.

[Oh Mah]

GLAD THEY HAVE BEEN FIGHTING THOSE MERGERS.