Senator Asking For Washington Hunter, Angler Input On Fee Increases

[olyguy79]

Please don't shoot the messenger...

I was very recently just at a legislative meeting and one of the topics was funding WDFW. Two republican legislators argued that WDFW should receive zero general fund (tax) funding and sportsmen should be the biggest funding source in terms of state dollars. Basically meaning WDFW would be funded by sportsmen, the Feds (which currently contribute a big portion) and other local sources. They're mindset is fish and wildlife is not a critical govt service such as public safety and education and thus the users should support it more.

Regarding endangered species funding. Some of you have mentioned looking at other states. Well Idaho for example receives zero tax dollar funding, who do you think funds endangered species funding in Idaho?? Sportsmen thru license fees, and the Feds.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigtex]

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. 

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.   

These are county issues, not state. Realistically it is up to each county prosecutors discretion to file charges in each case. That's not something that WDFW or the legislature can fix.

[olyguy79]

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. 

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.   

These are county issues, not state. Realistically it is up to each county prosecutors discretion to file charges in each case. That's not something that WDFW or the legislature can fix.

If you want better prosecutions on fish and wildlife cases start calling your county prosecutor, they're the ones in charge. Not WDFW, the legislature, governor, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Taco280AI]

Rather than increase fees for sportsmen:

1. Increase taxes (normal business tax rates) on timber companies charging access

2. Increase fines on hunting/fishing violations

3. Heavily increase fines, and prosecution enforcement, of poachers by working with counties and prosecution

4. Decrease the amount of desk jobs that provide no benefit

5. Ensure hunting/fishing sales revenue only goes towards the same

[bigtex]

2. Increase fines on hunting/fishing violations

3. Heavily increase fines, and prosecution enforcement, of poachers by working with counties and prosecution

Fines are already high. If you went out and shot a doe today your looking at a $5,000 criminal fine 364 days in jail, and a $2,000 civil fine. Problem is judges don't issue sentences to this level and prosecutors don't seek these penalties.

Fish and wildlife fine money goes to counties, not WDFW.

How are you supposed to work "with counties and prosecution" when the same prosecutor you want to prosecute your poaching case has 5 domestic assault and 10 DUI cases sitting on his desk???

I've said it a million times. If we want better prosecution on fish and wildlife cases we need to improve the funding for county prosecutor offices so they can hire more prosecutors. Anything short of that will not succeed.

[Special T]

Please don't shoot the messenger...

I was very recently just at a legislative meeting and one of the topics was funding WDFW. Two republican legislators argued that WDFW should receive zero general fund (tax) funding and sportsmen should be the biggest funding source in terms of state dollars. Basically meaning WDFW would be funded by sportsmen, the Feds (which currently contribute a big portion) and other local sources. They're mindset is fish and wildlife is not a critical govt service such as public safety and education and thus the users should support it more.

Regarding endangered species funding. Some of you have mentioned looking at other states. Well Idaho for example receives zero tax dollar funding, who do you think funds endangered species funding in Idaho?? Sportsmen thru license fees, and the Feds.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If there some corresponding shift in control over the department you may get a different responce. I forsee a department with very few hunters who grovel at the feet of the Feds for ESA scraps because they pissed off all thier hunters.

[bearpaw]

Please don't shoot the messenger...

I was very recently just at a legislative meeting and one of the topics was funding WDFW. Two republican legislators argued that WDFW should receive zero general fund (tax) funding and sportsmen should be the biggest funding source in terms of state dollars. Basically meaning WDFW would be funded by sportsmen, the Feds (which currently contribute a big portion) and other local sources. They're mindset is fish and wildlife is not a critical govt service such as public safety and education and thus the users should support it more.

Regarding endangered species funding. Some of you have mentioned looking at other states. Well Idaho for example receives zero tax dollar funding, who do you think funds endangered species funding in Idaho?? Sportsmen thru license fees, and the Feds.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for your insight, it's much appreciated. I would have no problem paying more for licenses to fully fund WDFW if hunters and fishers receive more consideration. Currently it does not appear that fishers and hunters are the top priority of WDFW, rather is seems WDFW caters more to the green groups!

[pianoman9701]

Please don't shoot the messenger...

I was very recently just at a legislative meeting and one of the topics was funding WDFW. Two republican legislators argued that WDFW should receive zero general fund (tax) funding and sportsmen should be the biggest funding source in terms of state dollars. Basically meaning WDFW would be funded by sportsmen, the Feds (which currently contribute a big portion) and other local sources. They're mindset is fish and wildlife is not a critical govt service such as public safety and education and thus the users should support it more.

Regarding endangered species funding. Some of you have mentioned looking at other states. Well Idaho for example receives zero tax dollar funding, who do you think funds endangered species funding in Idaho?? Sportsmen thru license fees, and the Feds.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd be all for this if it were strictly sportsmen on the F&W commission. The problem we have now is that we sportsmen pay a majority of the fees, either directly or indirectly, and don't get a majority voice, especially when it comes to predators. I'd rather pay more and get more than pay more and continually get squeezed by animal rights wackos who pay little.

[JLS]

Please don't shoot the messenger...

I was very recently just at a legislative meeting and one of the topics was funding WDFW. Two republican legislators argued that WDFW should receive zero general fund (tax) funding and sportsmen should be the biggest funding source in terms of state dollars. Basically meaning WDFW would be funded by sportsmen, the Feds (which currently contribute a big portion) and other local sources. They're mindset is fish and wildlife is not a critical govt service such as public safety and education and thus the users should support it more.

Regarding endangered species funding. Some of you have mentioned looking at other states. Well Idaho for example receives zero tax dollar funding, who do you think funds endangered species funding in Idaho?? Sportsmen thru license fees, and the Feds.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not going to shoot you at all, and I appreciate the input.

I am very mixed on this one for several reasons:

1)  Wildlife is owned by all the public, not just hunters.  As such, even if we foot the entire bill, the non-hunting public still has say in the way their trust resource is managed.  I worry that many folks would go into this with the assumption that because they are footing the bill, they would have exclusive say in the management decisions, and would come away sorely disillusioned to say the least.

2)  Hunters end up paying for urban/suburban wildlife issues that are a public safety/nuisance issue that they shouldn't have to.  As a hunter, I didn't create the issue with a mountain lion in a King County neighborhood.  Thus, I don't feel that I should solely foot the bill on a public safety issue.  No different than a bear in downtown Missoula or Boise.

3)  Wildlife based recreation is economically important for all of Washingtonians.  Again, I fail to see why hunters and anglers should be the ones footing the bill for something that benefits the entire state.

All this said, I also understand the benefits of not relying on general fund revenues, particularly right now with the continued push to fully fund state education in the way that the courts have mandated. 

I would agree in that wildlife and fisheries resources are not critical, but yet they are a very important factor in quality of life.

[cooltimber]

they are raising fees to help fund SAFE crack house's. What a joke, where are our fees really supposed to Go.
 This is the last year hunting in this liberal pos state.
 looking at homes in Idaho with land.

[bigtex]

they are raising fees to help fund SAFE crack house's. What a joke, where are our fees really supposed to Go.
 This is the last year hunting in this liberal pos state.
 looking at homes in Idaho with land.

? Hunting/fishing fees go directly back to WDFW nowhere else and there's not any attempt at trying to change that...

[Curly]

I sure don't want to fund wolf recovery, grizzly recovery, pocket gopher recovey, or whatever other bs crap the liberals want to protect.