Senator Asking For Washington Hunter, Angler Input On Fee Increases

[Buzz2401]

Hounds and baiting are not the most effective tool. Trapping is. Period

Seeing a cougar in a trap would be pretty awesome.

[bigtex]

@bigtex the biggest gripe I have, and many others, is the fact that wdfw seems less accountable to sportsmen. In your opinion how do we make them more accountable to sportsmen?  Are there other states we should emulate ?

I think the only way would be if the agency was significantly more user (hunting/fishing license fee) funded, but I think the only way to get there would only mean significant license fee increases.

Like I posted, even with Pittman-Robertson, Dingle, etc. WDFW still gets 68% of their funding from outside sources other than sportsman. The agency has to listen to the entities that give them money. So that means the feds, the county governments, the hunters/fishermen, every taxpayers in WA, etc.

Idaho F&G gets no state general fund (tax) money, yet license fees make up just 40% of their budget. 60% of IDFG comes from outside sources, mainly the federal government.

I think another thing is kind of like what I just posted regarding the lawsuits. Nearly every salmon run in the Puget Sound is protected under the ESA to some extent, and with that comes regulations, restrictions, and expectations. Puget sound steelhead are protected under the ESA. Halibut is federally regulated. Migratory birds are federally regulated. I think a good majority of hunters/fisherman think that WDFW has total control over fish and wildlife in WA, but between the aforementioned federal protections, and to top it working with the "co-managers" WDFW is really restricted, especially on the fishery side. I just had a hunter ask me a couple days ago why WA doesn't have a crane season but other states do and it's BS that WDFW wont let him shoot cranes, I told him well it's a federal matter and not really WDFW.

When the state tries to do something most of us see as "right", someone jumps in with a lawsuit (such as one the one with hatchery steelhead) and screws it up. WDFW increased the cougar quota, well some non-hunters (who happen to fund WDFW with their tax money) sent some letters, Inslee got involved and the commission had to repeal the increased quota.

[fireweed]

Screw that, start issuing tickets to all the Subarus parked at trail heads without the required permits/passes, that should more than make up for the difference in revenue if this doesn't go through.

A good way to help STATE PARKS, which as a rule, do not allow hunting.  Remember WDFW only gets something like 8% of Discover Pass money and fines are fought over too.

[Bob33]

@bigtex the biggest gripe I have, and many others, is the fact that wdfw seems less accountable to sportsmen. In your opinion how do we make them more accountable to sportsmen?  Are there other states we should emulate ?

I think the only way would be if the agency was significantly more user (hunting/fishing license fee) funded, but I think the only way to get there would only mean significant license fee increases.

Like I posted, even with Pittman-Robertson, Dingle, etc. WDFW still gets 68% of their funding from outside sources other than sportsman. The agency has to listen to the entities that give them money. So that means the feds, the county governments, the hunters/fishermen, every taxpayers in WA, etc.

Idaho F&G gets no state general fund (tax) money, yet license fees make up just 40% of their budget. 60% of IDFG comes from outside sources, mainly the federal government.

I think another thing is kind of like what I just posted regarding the lawsuits. Nearly every salmon run in the Puget Sound is protected under the ESA to some extent, and with that comes regulations, restrictions, and expectations. Puget sound steelhead are protected under the ESA. Halibut is federally regulated. Migratory birds are federally regulated. I think a good majority of hunters/fisherman think that WDFW has total control over fish and wildlife in WA, but between the aforementioned federal protections, and to top it working with the "co-managers" WDFW is really restricted, especially on the fishery side. I just had a hunter ask me a couple days ago why WA doesn't have a crane season but other states do and it's BS that WDFW wont let him shoot cranes, I told him well it's a federal matter and not really WDFW.

When the state tries to do something most of us see as "right", someone jumps in with a lawsuit (such as one the one with hatchery steelhead) and screws it up. WDFW increased the cougar quota, well some non-hunters (who happen to fund WDFW with their tax money) sent some letters, Inslee got involved and the commission had to repeal the increased quota.

I take it you are advocating we accept paying more because WDFW has no control over the issues important to hunters.

[fireweed]

Everyone should peruse the "weakly wildlife report" and see where the money goes.  There's an awful lot on there about Non-game species especially endangered or rare species management that has no benefit (and in some cases like wolves) or even a negative impact on hunters.  Bats, turtles, snowy plover, Columbia White-tailed deer, pygmy rabbits etc. 

Endangered species management should is a general fund obligation, period.  Funds from hunters should not be siphoned off for endangered species management.   

Another big cost is planning--which is multi-faceted and continuous.  Each state grant requires a plan that must be updated and there are layers upon layers of plans.  They pile up on shelves and in many cases no real implementation before the next state or federal required planning cycle. 

Just one example is the Mount St. Helens wildlife area that has had a "plan" for legal public access from the beginning of ownership, but has no legal public access today after many, many planning cycles.  Take that planning money and put it on the ground.   

[whacker1]

So, I have been thinking long and hard about this over the last few days, and struggling to wrap my arms around it.

Here is my take so far:

First, hunting, camping, and to some extent fishing opportunities based on Timber companies charging for access is on the decline or the flip side costs are on the rise to the user groups that want to access the land, which is supposed to be covered by tax dollars.  So the legislature either needs to address the timber tax issue vs. charging for recreational access, if we are to increase fees.  My two cents. The timber companies should NOT be able to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak.

Second, if we agree that we are going to pay or agree that we should pay more in the way of increase fees, what can the legislature do in order to help enforcement and prosecution with wildlife infractions to give more teeth to the infractions and hold prosecuters accountable for prosecuting said crimes.  How do we get more emphasis on this piece of the puzzle.   Pipe dream on my part, perhaps?

Third, Hatcheries are under constant scrutiny as others have mentioned with the debate between native fish and hatchery fish.  Environmentalists vs sportsman.  What can the legislature do in order to support sportsmen and women

Fourth, How can the legislature play a role in minimizing the impact of commercial gill netting in the rivers?

If the legislature had the ability to tie fee increase to needed changes, then Sportsmen/women probably could get behind a modest fee increase. 

But just to increase fees to feed the bureaucracy with no change in the tools or accountability, the answer would be "no".  I am hunting out of state more and more for real opportunity and to support the State's philosophically that are capable of making needed change.  No state based Fish & Wildlife department is capable of being perfect, but we have so much room for improvement that I have to look at some of these other states as idealistically much better.

There is more to cover, but these are my thoughts as I have been able to put them on paper so far.
My draft letter in email is just that a draft.  I would like to send it next week, so I am reading others opinions to help formulate my own opinions.

[bigtex]

@bigtex the biggest gripe I have, and many others, is the fact that wdfw seems less accountable to sportsmen. In your opinion how do we make them more accountable to sportsmen?  Are there other states we should emulate ?

I think the only way would be if the agency was significantly more user (hunting/fishing license fee) funded, but I think the only way to get there would only mean significant license fee increases.

Like I posted, even with Pittman-Robertson, Dingle, etc. WDFW still gets 68% of their funding from outside sources other than sportsman. The agency has to listen to the entities that give them money. So that means the feds, the county governments, the hunters/fishermen, every taxpayers in WA, etc.

Idaho F&G gets no state general fund (tax) money, yet license fees make up just 40% of their budget. 60% of IDFG comes from outside sources, mainly the federal government.

I think another thing is kind of like what I just posted regarding the lawsuits. Nearly every salmon run in the Puget Sound is protected under the ESA to some extent, and with that comes regulations, restrictions, and expectations. Puget sound steelhead are protected under the ESA. Halibut is federally regulated. Migratory birds are federally regulated. I think a good majority of hunters/fisherman think that WDFW has total control over fish and wildlife in WA, but between the aforementioned federal protections, and to top it working with the "co-managers" WDFW is really restricted, especially on the fishery side. I just had a hunter ask me a couple days ago why WA doesn't have a crane season but other states do and it's BS that WDFW wont let him shoot cranes, I told him well it's a federal matter and not really WDFW.

When the state tries to do something most of us see as "right", someone jumps in with a lawsuit (such as one the one with hatchery steelhead) and screws it up. WDFW increased the cougar quota, well some non-hunters (who happen to fund WDFW with their tax money) sent some letters, Inslee got involved and the commission had to repeal the increased quota.

I take it you are advocating we accept paying more because WDFW has no control over the issues important to hunters.

I'm just saying that in my opinion the only way we (hunters/fisherman) had a bigger role/say in WDFW is if we played a bigger part of the budget.

On the hunting side there isn't a activity-wide group advocating for us like fishermen do with the CCA. The CCA has forced WDFW to do a lot of things and it's because they have a big support base statewide and nationwide. But hunters don't have that. You have 50 different elk, deer, duck groups but no overall hunter advocacy group like fishermen do with CCA.

[Oh Mah]

Everyone should peruse the "weakly wildlife report" and see where the money goes.  There's an awful lot on there about Non-game species especially endangered or rare species management that has no benefit (and in some cases like wolves) or even a negative impact on hunters.  Bats, turtles, snowy plover, Columbia White-tailed deer, pygmy rabbits etc. 

Endangered species management should is a general fund obligation, period.  Funds from hunters should not be siphoned off for endangered species management.   

Another big cost is planning--which is multi-faceted and continuous.  Each state grant requires a plan that must be updated and there are layers upon layers of plans.  They pile up on shelves and in many cases no real implementation before the next state or federal required planning cycle. 

Just one example is the Mount St. Helens wildlife area that has had a "plan" for legal public access from the beginning of ownership, but has no legal public access today after many, many planning cycles.  Take that planning money and put it on the ground.

This is inline with what i've been saying,The more anti a state is the higher the cost.It is expensive to close areas from the people that pay for its use in the name of some bs groups agenda.STOP ALL HUNTING AND FISHING FOR ANY REASON.

[Oh Mah]

Mule deer foundation elk foundation turkey foundation NRA GOA,these are all groups advocating for us.Nobody is listening though.

[bigtex]

Mule deer foundation elk foundation turkey foundation NRA GOA,these are all groups advocating for us.Nobody is listening though.

No those are groups that widely focus on one thing. Mule deer foundation advocates for mule deer, Turkey federation for turkeys. There is no overall hunter advocacy group. CCA advocates for every type of fishermen in WA.

[Oh Mah]

The sportsman of this state need to rally and boycott everything that has a scent of anti to it and i mean truly boycott it.Yes that includes the Seahawks.Hit this state and all the liberals where it counts.

[Oh Mah]

Mule deer foundation elk foundation turkey foundation NRA GOA,these are all groups advocating for us.Nobody is listening though.

No those are groups that widely focus on one thing. Mule deer foundation advocates for mule deer, Turkey federation for turkeys. There is no overall hunter advocacy group. CCA advocates for every type of fishermen in WA.

Semantics,they are all advocating for sportsman period.That cant be argued come on.

[Bob33]

Mule deer foundation elk foundation turkey foundation NRA GOA,these are all groups advocating for us.Nobody is listening though.

No those are groups that widely focus on one thing. Mule deer foundation advocates for mule deer, Turkey federation for turkeys. There is no overall hunter advocacy group. CCA advocates for every type of fishermen in WA.

Safari Club advocates for hunting.

[bigtex]

Mule deer foundation elk foundation turkey foundation NRA GOA,these are all groups advocating for us.Nobody is listening though.

No those are groups that widely focus on one thing. Mule deer foundation advocates for mule deer, Turkey federation for turkeys. There is no overall hunter advocacy group. CCA advocates for every type of fishermen in WA.

Semantics,they are all advocating for sportsman period.That cant be argued come on.

But it is! There is no one hunter group in WA that advocates for every type of hunter.

Until CCA came to WA it was the same thing for fishing. You had trout, bass, salmon, etc groups. CCA is essentially all of those combined. CCA is really WDFWs biggest policy changer when it comes to recreational and commercial fishing.

[bigtex]

Mule deer foundation elk foundation turkey foundation NRA GOA,these are all groups advocating for us.Nobody is listening though.

No those are groups that widely focus on one thing. Mule deer foundation advocates for mule deer, Turkey federation for turkeys. There is no overall hunter advocacy group. CCA advocates for every type of fishermen in WA.

Safari Club advocates for hunting.

I know a lot of hunters who see the Safari Club as a rich guys club. May not be true but I can honestly say I hear that from hunters more than I do "I just joined the safari club"

Does SCI have a full time lobbyist in Olympia? CCA does. CCA has very close ties with Sen. Pearson as well.