WHAM! 'Senate Leaders Reject WDFW Fee Increase'

[Dave Workman]

http://www.chinookobserver.com/co/local-news/20170322/senate-leaders-reject-wdfw-fee-increase

Ya gotta read this story! 

 

[whacker1]

senator pearson wanted feedback, and he got it from us.  good to see his response.

[Oh Mah]

I read it if its been knocked down great.Im not reading anywhere in here where they are saying that though    What was the vote numbers?The only thing i see is that Pearson is leading the effort.

[bigtex]

I read it if its been knocked down great.Im not reading anywhere in here where they are saying that though    What was the vote numbers?The only thing i see is that Pearson is leading the effort.

The bill hasn't gone to a vote, it hasn't even made it out of committee.

[Oh Mah]

Thanks that's what i was seeing,someone jumping the gun a little here

[pianoman9701]

I don't think anyone's implying their budget request has been denied. But it is good to see Pearson's got the right track. I'd much prefer to see LE admin cleaned up as a result, whether there's a fee increase or not.

[ctwiggs1]

I don't think anyone's implying their budget request has been denied. But it is good to see Pearson's got the right track. I'd much prefer to see LE admin cleaned up as a result, whether there's a fee increase or not.

Kind of.  He is acknowledging some issues it looks like but I don't see him saying anything other than "leadership problem".  Is he just calling for more fiscal responsibility?  I don't think that'll solve the issues to be honest.

[pianoman9701]

I don't think anyone's implying their budget request has been denied. But it is good to see Pearson's got the right track. I'd much prefer to see LE admin cleaned up as a result, whether there's a fee increase or not.

Kind of.  He is acknowledging some issues it looks like but I don't see him saying anything other than "leadership problem".  Is he just calling for more fiscal responsibility?  I don't think that'll solve the issues to be honest.

No, I believe that he understands there are some real leadership problems, especially in LE and the director. Dave, do you have some insight on this please?.

[Special T]

It's nice to see some one in  the legislature take notice of the problems in wdfw leadershio

[Rob]

The two best quotes from that article:

“The agency wanted to correct this by initiating a hefty increase in hunting and fishing license fees without the promise for more opportunities,”

and my favorite:

“The problem is not a money problem, it’s a leadership problem,” Pearson said.

Need to run this like a business.  There is plenty of money available.

[Dave Workman]

The two best quotes from that article:

“The agency wanted to correct this by initiating a hefty increase in hunting and fishing license fees without the promise for more opportunities,”

and my favorite:

“The problem is not a money problem, it’s a leadership problem,” Pearson said.

Need to run this like a business.  There is plenty of money available.

BINGO!
This has been a problem with WDFW since the early 1980s when it became the WDFW.  Remember it used to be the GAME Department, but that changed when they decided the title of the agency had to more greatly reflect the diversity of what they do.

For sportsmen, it became "LESS IS THE NEW MORE." 

Look at the pages and pages of special permit hunts in the game regs. The agency could reduce these considerably and simply open opportunities for people without having to apply for a permit. This appears designed to get the hunting public used to applying for permits, perhaps with the idea that one day, it will all be permit hunting. You don't get drawn, well, better luck next year.

A couple of years ago, the commission okayed an expansion of the grouse bag limit to four a day. But a year or two later, the regulation was cut back to only three birds of one species and the fourth had to be of a different species (i.e. 3 blues, 1 ruffed). It's chippy stuff like this that makes people really dislike the agency.

It's getting late in the session, but there could still be time to pass a bill out of committee.

[Dave Workman]

It's nice to see some one in  the legislature take notice of the problems in wdfw leadershio

Yeah, it's only taken what, 30 years or so?

 

[bigtex]

The two best quotes from that article:

“The agency wanted to correct this by initiating a hefty increase in hunting and fishing license fees without the promise for more opportunities,”

and my favorite:

“The problem is not a money problem, it’s a leadership problem,” Pearson said.

Need to run this like a business.  There is plenty of money available.

BINGO!
This has been a problem with WDFW since the early 1980s when it became the WDFW.  Remember it used to be the GAME Department, but that changed when they decided the title of the agency had to more greatly reflect the diversity of what they do.

For sportsmen, it became "LESS IS THE NEW MORE." 

Look at the pages and pages of special permit hunts in the game regs. The agency could reduce these considerably and simply open opportunities for people without having to apply for a permit. This appears designed to get the hunting public used to applying for permits, perhaps with the idea that one day, it will all be permit hunting. You don't get drawn, well, better luck next year.

A couple of years ago, the commission okayed an expansion of the grouse bag limit to four a day. But a year or two later, the regulation was cut back to only three birds of one species and the fourth had to be of a different species (i.e. 3 blues, 1 ruffed). It's chippy stuff like this that makes people really dislike the agency.

It's getting late in the session, but there could still be time to pass a bill out of committee.

The grouse regs change was actually closer to 5-7 years, not a year or two.

It's also well known the increase to 4 was not because the grouse population supported the increase but rather because a commissioner wanted it...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk