Senator Asking For Washington Hunter, Angler Input On Fee Increases

[bigtex]

We all know that CONSERVATION NORTHWEST controls every step of the WDFW..

I'm intrigued. Can you expound?

WDFW commissioner is employed by CNW.

There's also a Commissioner employed by the commercial fishing fleet. And people wonder why change is difficult...

[JLS]

It's a lot easier to unify those who are opposed to hunting, than those who aren't.

This is so true Bob.  It's easy to have a loud political voice when your message is unified into one consolidated goal.

I admittedly don't know much about the HHC, and will do some research into it.  It's worth noting though, that some of us on this board (myself included) support groups that have opposing goals to other groups supported by board members.  An example of this is BHA and the Blue Ribbon Coalition.  Some opposing beliefs will be difficult to reconcile, but it is possible so long as people maintain open minds and open dialogue.

I firmly believe that we all should be pressing for several things;

1)  A sound, science based approach to wildlife management.

 Agreed, however the issue is "science" is often dictated by agenda, with results ultimately leaning toward the "opinions" of those funding the studies.

However, if you have an open mind and are willing to accept what the observed data/facts are pointing to, you CAN sort through the BS. 

 There are no "open minds" on the left, EVERYTHING is agenda driven.....observed data/facts be damned!

A statement like that certainly doesn't indicate an open mind on your part, now does it?

[huntnphool]

It's a lot easier to unify those who are opposed to hunting, than those who aren't.

This is so true Bob.  It's easy to have a loud political voice when your message is unified into one consolidated goal.

I admittedly don't know much about the HHC, and will do some research into it.  It's worth noting though, that some of us on this board (myself included) support groups that have opposing goals to other groups supported by board members.  An example of this is BHA and the Blue Ribbon Coalition.  Some opposing beliefs will be difficult to reconcile, but it is possible so long as people maintain open minds and open dialogue.

I firmly believe that we all should be pressing for several things;

1)  A sound, science based approach to wildlife management.

 Agreed, however the issue is "science" is often dictated by agenda, with results ultimately leaning toward the "opinions" of those funding the studies.

However, if you have an open mind and are willing to accept what the observed data/facts are pointing to, you CAN sort through the BS. 

 There are no "open minds" on the left, EVERYTHING is agenda driven.....observed data/facts be damned!

A statement like that certainly doesn't indicate an open mind on your part, now does it?

 It's all a matter of opinion, the first time I see a example of the anti hunting, anti baiting, anti hound, anti hatchery, anti gun, pro wolf crowd exhibiting open minds I'll be the first to let you know.

[csaaphill]

Glad to see at first some people were actually writing letters to express their opinions rather than gripe.
I see a lot of issues at hand though and all make very good points. Seems like there's no easy answers and that's too bad. I do hope our voice is heard on this and not just ignored. So if your against raises in fees use the link and write the guy
And FYI Oregon's population is near 5 million. 4. something or other but close to 5 Million.

[bigtex]

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.

You bring up good points and I'll try to explain what a legislative response would be.

In regards to the non-game species, WDFW is not the Dept of Fishing and Hunting, they are the Dept of Fish and Wildlife. Are some license fee money's being spent on non-game species, obviously. But your neighbors for decades had their tax dollars pay for things like farm raised pheasants being released so hunters could hunt them, enforcement officers enforcing regulations, biologists, etc. A large majority of non-hunters could care less if you have a pheasant to shoot or if the guy just took a elk out of season, but they're tax dollars paid for it. Now that we are seeing the extreme shift from WDFW being a tax funded agency to a user funded agency we are seeing hunters complain, I don't remember the non-hunters complaining that their tax money is being spent so Bob could shoot a rooster. The agency is mandated to manage ALL wildlife, just not the ones we like to hunt.

Endangered species. WDFW is required to work with the Feds is managing these species. If WDFW starts to stall it opens them wide up to a lawsuit from the environmentalists and I guarantee you WDFW will lose and end up spending more than had they just managed it in the first place.

Bigtex is 100% correct when it comes to the budget. General fund money is being siphoned away from all agencies since the Court ruled WA is underfunding education by billions. WDFW will have to rely more on its license holders to pay for the dept. Unfortunately I think the election will make things worse. I'm a Trump supporter but I would expect the amount of federal money coming to states for natural resource issues will decline. I don't see this directly as a result of Trump but rather the congressional leadership. If this Happens WDFW will again need more help from its users.

People don't understand how much federal $ state fish and wildlife agencies get. WDFW gets $117 million from the Wildlife Fund mainly thru license fees, they get $114 million from the federal government. Each state gets a ton of federal cash and it's more than just Pittman-Robertson and Dingle-Johnson. The coastal states get more than the inland states simply because of the federal fisheries issues.

Federal dollars to state agencies are already decreasing, and I agree with Olyguy that it will probably decline even more with the incoming congress. Trump is a resource supporter, the incoming Sec. of Interior is big on hunting/fishing/public lands but the problem is the people who write and approve the actual budget (Congress) are not. The Chair of the House Natural Resource Committee, Rob Bishop of Utah, is a foe of natural resource agencies. He is one of the leading congressmen in the movement of transferring federal lands to state or private entities, he tried to kill the Land & Water Conservation Fund which is how state and federal agencies can buy lands for fish, wildlife, and habitat projects, and I could go on. So you couple decreasing federal dollars with decreasing state tax dollars it doesn't look good for WDFW.

[Hunter4Life]

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.

You bring up good points and I'll try to explain what a legislative response would be.

In regards to the non-game species, WDFW is not the Dept of Fishing and Hunting, they are the Dept of Fish and Wildlife. Are some license fee money's being spent on non-game species, obviously. But your neighbors for decades had their tax dollars pay for things like farm raised pheasants being released so hunters could hunt them, enforcement officers enforcing regulations, biologists, etc. A large majority of non-hunters could care less if you have a pheasant to shoot or if the guy just took a elk out of season, but they're tax dollars paid for it. Now that we are seeing the extreme shift from WDFW being a tax funded agency to a user funded agency we are seeing hunters complain, I don't remember the non-hunters complaining that their tax money is being spent so Bob could shoot a rooster. The agency is mandated to manage ALL wildlife, just not the ones we like to hunt.

Endangered species. WDFW is required to work with the Feds is managing these species. If WDFW starts to stall it opens them wide up to a lawsuit from the environmentalists and I guarantee you WDFW will lose and end up spending more than had they just managed it in the first place.

Bigtex is 100% correct when it comes to the budget. General fund money is being siphoned away from all agencies since the Court ruled WA is underfunding education by billions. WDFW will have to rely more on its license holders to pay for the dept. Unfortunately I think the election will make things worse. I'm a Trump supporter but I would expect the amount of federal money coming to states for natural resource issues will decline. I don't see this directly as a result of Trump but rather the congressional leadership. If this Happens WDFW will again need more help from its users.

People don't understand how much federal $ state fish and wildlife agencies get. WDFW gets $117 million from the Wildlife Fund mainly thru license fees, they get $114 million from the federal government. Each state gets a ton of federal cash and it's more than just Pittman-Robertson and Dingle-Johnson. The coastal states get more than the inland states simply because of the federal fisheries issues.

Federal dollars to state agencies are already decreasing, and I agree with Olyguy that it will probably decline even more with the incoming congress. Trump is a resource supporter, the incoming Sec. of Interior is big on hunting/fishing/public lands but the problem is the people who write and approve the actual budget (Congress) are not. The Chair of the House Natural Resource Committee, Rob Bishop of Utah, is a foe of natural resource agencies. He is one of the leading congressmen in the movement of transferring federal lands to state or private entities, he tried to kill the Land & Water Conservation Fund which is how state and federal agencies can buy lands for fish, wildlife, and habitat projects, and I could go on. So you couple decreasing federal dollars with decreasing state tax dollars it doesn't look good for WDFW.

What Olyguy said will be an absolute fact next session.  Because of the McCleary decision, dollars will be at a premium next session, and every agency will be scrambling for every cent.  I don't think that the governor's tax increase package will be shown much love by the senate Republicans, so new sources of revenue are not likely.  This makes every dollar at even a higher premium.  I think the 2017 session will be long and bloody.

Onto Congressman Rob Bishop.  Predator control is one of my key issues.  I like Congressman Bishop.  Whereas it is true that Congressman Bishop is an opponent of the LWCF, he is not anti-sportsman.  He is a strong pro-proponent of wolf-delisting and predator control.  He is 100% behind us on wolf issues.  I mention this because the key to success in politics is that we have to know the players, especially people in key places.  As Sun Tzu said,

"Know yourself and know your enemies and you will win a thousand battles."

Where Bishop may not be an ally in some fights, Bishop can be a big help in others.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

So When this thread first came out, I wrote to Senator Pearson on Dec 15. Looks like an aide just got around to acknowledging it. I'll include my letter and the answer. I'm hoping that the delay in answering is because of the volume of responses they have received.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Pearson,

You were asking for feedback on license fee increases for hunting and fishing, so here is mine.

The State of Washington is asking for hunters to cough up more money at a time when hunters have lost access due to the State allowing timber companies to charge access fees and limit the number of hunters in the woods. If you can get an access permit, they generally run about $250 for drive in privileges. Add the new fee increases and what you have done is made it cost effective for me to hunt out of State which is my plan.  So my family of three hunters will be spending money in another State instead of Washington. We generally all hunt deer and one or two of us hunt elk. So this is a considerable loss to the State coffers instead of a gain. And we will have access to much better hunting opportunity and longer seasons, which will give us more flexibility in hunt planning.

As for fishing, I quit fishing in Washington because the fees aren't worth the experience. For one, instead of protecting habitat desperately needed for wild salmon stocks, and making a real effort to recover native runs, the State continually throws money at a hatchery system that is part of the problem for these very native runs. The State is wasting money that could be spent on restoration. Look at the success of the Elwah Dam removal for starters. I'm not interested in supporting a system that ignores the real problems like dams, bad forestry practices such as herbicidal spraying, and farming practices, and urban sprawl into once productive salmon grounds.

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but this State sucks at wildlife management. It's very good at concocting schemes to get more money from sportsmen though. Just look at that list of license, tag, and permit fees. We used to just have hunting licenses, and deer/elk tags and fishing licenses.

Rick

-------------------------------------------------

Dear Rick,


Thank you for your input regarding this matter. I will make sure that Senator Pearson gets your email in his hands today.

Sincerely,

 Amber Woods

Legislative Assistant Session Aide

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Skyvalhunter]

I got the same reply from his Aide

[bigtex]

I got the same reply from his Aide

Typical response response from any legislator. Copy and paste is their friend...

[Bob33]

I got the same reply from his Aide

And I thought I was the only one.

[pianoman9701]

I, as well.

[Henrydog]

I just got the email from his Aide as well, nothing like the speed of government workers, 3 weeks to get a 1 sentence reply 

[bearpaw]

my message to the senator:

Dear Senator Pearson,

Thank you very much for taking input from hunters and fishers. I run a successful hunting outfitter business but due to decreased predator management, increased predator numbers, and decreased hunting opportunities I continue to move more of my business to Idaho, Montana, and Utah each year. I served on the Governor Inslee’s Parks And Recreation Task Force in hopes that fishing and hunting might somehow benefit, but I cannot see how fishing and hunting has benefitted? Now, I understand there is a push to increase F&G license fees and I have some serious concerns:

1.   Fishers and hunters pay a good share for fish and wildlife in Washington directly by license sales and indirectly by Federal taxes on items purchased by fishers and hunters.
2.   In return hunters seem to get last consideration in management by WDFW and state government.
3.   Hatcheries are being closed, why should anyone believe WDFW will provide any lasting hatchery increases?
4.   Our fish and game are being devastated by unregulated numbers of predators, most recently wolves are wiping out our moose herds.
5.   I do not trust anything WDFW or politicians say they will do to improve hunting in Washington, history indicates the main interest is more money.
6.   I had to expand my business into other states due to mismanagement of wildlife, predator increases, and season reductions in Washington.
7.   As hunting opportunities decline in Washington I continue to move more of my business to other states.

I supported fee increases in Idaho because hunters and fishers might get a return for the money spent and the increase wouldn’t be somehow used to reduce hunter opportunities. If all license increases proposed were for dedicated uses that would benefit opportunities for hunters and fishers I might be inclined to support increases. It’s not that I’m opposed to increasing the sportsman’s share of the WDFW budget, but I am opposed to increases that will be used for endangered species recovery or other programs that essentially decrease opportunities for hunters and fishers. Dollars for endangered species recovery should not come from licenses purchased by hunters and fishers or from federal funds garnered by sales to hunters and fishers. Endangered species recovery should be funded by endangered species advocates, state general fund money, or specialized federal money for endangered species.

I also own a forum called Hunting-Washington.com, this issue is being discussed at length in case you might want to read some of the comments: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,206044.0.html

Best Regards,
Dale Denney

[bb76]

I got my reply today. Mine was 2 sentences. Lol

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[whacker1]

sent on 12/23

Hello Senator Pearson,

We have met on a few occasions in Olympia as I have visited with various trade associations over the last 15 years.  While I am not a constituent of yours, I am fairly engaged with our Spokane Region’s 15 legislators.

I am responding to an article I saw in NW Sportsman magazine.
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/headlines/senator-asking-washington-hunter-angler-input-fee-increases/       

I have sat on this thought for a week or more to try and focus my thoughts, so here is my best effort to provide this in a concise fashion and also get my point across.

WDFW would have you believe their only alternative to funding the department is through fee increases, However, as we have witnessed in other states fee increases provide diminishing returns as costs go up purchases go down.  You get sportsman of all kinds that just boycott or quit buying licenses and tags depending on whether it is a cost driven decision or a political boycott on each person’s part.  And don’t forget those that will continue to hunt and fish without a license as that will make up a percentage of the folks that are buying licenses now, but won’t in the future.  I myself continue to buy licenses, but like this year I spent money in other states for reasons of opportunity.  I hunted a total of 3 days this year in Washington.  My hunting partner & I spent 1 week in New Mexico for an elk hunt, we spent 10 days in Colorado for another elk hunt, and I spent 6 days in Montana.  So for us it is not about the money, but rather the opportunity to hunt.  So for me fee increases requests are about 2 things: political stance and operations of WDFW and secondly opportunity.

So to address the Opportunity first, our State has drifted into a spot where everything requires an access pass.  Discover Pass to be on WDFW land or DNR land, a timber farm permit from Weyerhaeuser and other tree farm owners in each of their regions.  And now Reservation to hunt programs through WDFW, which WDFW would have you believe provides more opportunity, but it really is a clumsy way to work with landowners that would provide access in any other fashion…….so, what does that cost in time management for the department, web-site costs, and such for some exclusive opportunities.  While the program looks and feels good on the surface, it comes at a steep cost.  Don’t get me wrong, all of these things we mentioned provides more exclusive opportunities for folks like me that can afford to do so, but it also decreases the number of people willing to participate in the sport as a whole. It divides sportsmen, and hurts hunter recruitment.  People from Grays Harbor, Pacific County, Lewis County, Cowlitz County that say: “nope, I am not giving any more money to Weyerhaeuser”.  Or folks like me that would hunt Western Washington Weyerhaeuser lands that are adjacent to my family’s homestead that have discontinued doing so, because I don’t want to spend another $300 to hunt my home state for 1 week elk hunt.  I would apply that same money to an out of state tag or landowner tag in another state with higher success rates and longer seasons, which I equate to better opportunity.  There is no incentive for the timber companies to allow access going forward other than on a pay to hunt formula.   How does Washington change that trend? Timber companies’ property taxes are extremely low, and they resorted to cost recovery on these permits for enforcement of vandalism, trespass, timber theft, etc..  How can the legislature intervene to not only help the timber companies, but more importantly provide opportunity for sportmsan?  Tax rates?  2 tax rates for timber land owners.  Those that provide free recreational access a lower rate than those that charge for access?  I am not sure the right answer, but I think the legislature has to be aware of the narrowing of access and opportunity over the last 10-15 years.  It equates to the simple question:  WDFW wants us to pay more to hunt half the amount of land that was available over the last 10 years?  This trend will continue with costs going up and opportunity going down with the current leadership within WDFW.

So then comes the political, we have a WDFW that refuses to deal with internal strife because of repetition of ineffective leadership at the top.  You have a record low number of enforcement officers.  You have folks that are leaving the department early, because the leadership at the top only concerns themselves with fish/shellfish biology, management, and enforcement, while game enforcement takes a back seat.  You have a hostile work environment between the Deputy Chief’s and the rest of the layers of employment on down.

You have an open federal lawsuit, civil rights lawsuit, filed against Director Unsworth, Retired Director Anderson, and a litany of folks underneath them due to retaliation, conspiring to violate first amendment rights, hostile work environment, wrongful termination, and more.  In said case: WDFW was ordered to reinstate and pay back wages that WDFW refused to pay.   Rather than admit wrongdoing, and correcting the situation, WDFW took the opposite approach and sat on the order from the judge and officer Jones had to get an additional judge order to get WDFW to finally institute the back pay.  Rather than deal with the problem at the top, WDFW begins a witch hunt investigation on new claims that the Officer Dave Jones violated policy.  This is the 3rd time in less than 5 years that Deputy Chief Cenci has been sued at the federal level.  Hopefully you are picking up at my obvious finger pointing at the Deputy Chief’s layer of management that seems to be the problem.

……..And still 6 months has gone by with the Chief position unfilled and 9 funded, but yet vacant positions in field enforcement according to the Director Unsworth’s report to the commission on November 4th, which would equate to 10% roughly vacancy of the enforcement.  However, he did disclose that they are hiring another Headquarters position for aquatic invasive species enforcement.  It seems to me that you have some people at the top attempting to protect their fiefdom with more Headquarters positions and fewer enforcement positions.

Furthermore, you have a statewide Prosecution that almost refuses to prosecute wildlife crimes and sitting judges that when prosecuted and found guilty provide a slap on the wrist.  It is hard to get behind a state that wants more money, but refuses to protect their resources, and enforce their own policies. 

So, what can you do to help?

Is there a way to apply pressure to WDFW to rectify their internal problems?  I assume it is difficult for the legislature to have much emphasis on the internal problems, but is there a way to hold them accountable for the litigation they are creating, as those are wasted taxpayer dollars?  Is there a way to apply pressure to County Prosecution to get enforcement and cost recovery up for those that violate the laws in poaching, trespass, etc? Compare to other states that have a rigid formula for fish and wildlife violators.   Is there a way to hold WDFW accountable to division of funding/spending, such that, if fees are increased, that WDFW isn’t allowed to apply to more shellfish programs? 

I don’t really know what tools the Legislature has at its disposal to hold WDFW accountable, but the culture needs to change within WDFW. 

I have written far more than I intended, but I hope I was clear enough that sportsman grow tired of increased costs for “business as usual”.

Feel free to write or call if you have questions.

Regards,