Inslee: No New Taxes after Car Tab Initiative Passes, Hello Higher User Fees!

[huntnphool]

 Perhaps you should have put yourself in the shoes of those screwed over by ST3 BT!


 It’s all good until your family is affected right?
 

[bigtex]

Perhaps you should have put yourself in the shoes of those screwed over by ST3 BT!


 It’s all good until your family is affected right?

Not sure what you're getting at. I live in the area covered by the ST3 hike..

[huntnphool]

It should be noted that when WDFW submitted it's budget request prior to the November election they were against license fee increases.

So...are we going to be intellectually honest here, or are you just going to present WDFW’s spin on the topic?

WDFW was going into this session only asking for general fund money (and guarantees about its continuation into the future) because they are 0-3 the last three years making their case that they deserve higher license and tag fees.  They continually fail in their management duties of most species, pander to those who don’t actually pay enough or any fees that support the agency, and then throw their hands up in the air like they are baffled why those of us that do foot the bill don’t bend over and look back to say “yes please!!”

The truth sounds a whole lot different than the benevolent way you presented it.

But that still does not change the fact that this proposal is from Inslee and not WDFW.

 Two different sides of the same ASS BT, and you know it!

[bigtex]

Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?

The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency. I am old enough to remember the old Dept of Fisheries and Dept of Wildlife and their budget issues. DOF was flush with money because they were funded with general fund money because of the commercial fishing aspect, your recreational fishing license dollars went into the general fund. DOW was about as poor as could be because they were mainly user funded from hunting licenses. You would actually have Wildlife Officers using hand-me-down gear that was previously used by Fisheries Officers.

During the recession there was less general fund money so the legislature made WDFW more user funded and made it so all hunting/fishing fees went into the wildlife fund. Now the general fund has a good chunk of money in it however it's getting sucked out to fund education due to the Supreme Court McCleary decision and now to replace the loss revenue from I-976.

[huntnphool]

Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?

The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency.

 They used to, so let’s hear your spin on why they can’t now!

[bigtex]

Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?

The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency.

They used to, so let’s hear your spin on why they can’t now!

They NEVER have been!

[huntnphool]

Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?

The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency.

They used to, so let’s hear your spin on why they can’t now!

They NEVER have been!

 User funds have NEVER been a significant part of WDFW funding?...BS!

[bigtex]

Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?

The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency.

They used to, so let’s hear your spin on why they can’t now!

They NEVER have been!

User funds have NEVER been a significant part of WDFW funding?...BS!

User funded = solely funded by users. The old Department of Wildlife was user funded because it basically received no tax funding.

[huntnphool]

Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?

The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency.

They used to, so let’s hear your spin on why they can’t now!

They NEVER have been!

User funds have NEVER been a significant part of WDFW funding?...BS!

User funded = solely funded by users. The old Department of Wildlife was user funded because it basically received no tax funding.

 Keep spinning your comment BT, “significant” is the determining factor, and your original point.

 I never suggested “user funded = solely funded”!

[bigtex]

WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector

10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector

[bigtex]

Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?

The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency.

They used to, so let’s hear your spin on why they can’t now!

They NEVER have been!

User funds have NEVER been a significant part of WDFW funding?...BS!

User funded = solely funded by users. The old Department of Wildlife was user funded because it basically received no tax funding.

Keep spinning your comment BT, “significant” is the determining factor, and your original point.

 I never suggested “user funded = solely funded”!

User funds make up 27% of the 2017-19 budget. I don't see that as "significant". What is "significant" is that 73% of WDFW's budget is not from user fees.

[huntnphool]

WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector

10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector

 Thank you, I get that!

 However, there are those of us that go back hunting prior to 2007.

[bigtex]

WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector

10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector

Thank you, I get that!

 However, there are those of us that go back hunting prior to 2007.

But the WDFW website does not. And if it did, it would show an even higher percentage of general fund funding in the years prior to 2007.

[huntnphool]

WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector

10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector

Thank you, I get that!

 However, there are those of us that go back hunting prior to 2007.

But the WDFW website does not. And if it did, it would show an even higher percentage of general fund funding in the years prior to 2007.

 Post up a Washington State Link prior to 1995, that shows where WDFW funds came from to support the agency, and the percentage that came from each area.

 On top of that, a link that shows the increase in administration, department fees for the same time periods.

[bigtex]

WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector

10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector

Thank you, I get that!

 However, there are those of us that go back hunting prior to 2007.

But the WDFW website does not. And if it did, it would show an even higher percentage of general fund funding in the years prior to 2007.

Post up a Washington State Link prior to 1995, that shows where WDFW funds came from to support the agency, and the percentage that came from each area.

You and I both know those links aren't available