Inslee's Hunting/Fishing License Fee Bill Introduced Contains Pros & Cons

[bigtex]

Senator Rolfes introduced SB 6166 which was requested by the Office of Financial Management. Typically hunting/fishing license bills are requested by WDFW. The fee increase is significantly less than the 10% across the board proposed by WDFW in the past and what many thought Inslee would propose...

Basically, the bill does a few things:

-Makes the "youth" age for fishing the same for hunting. Currently youth for hunting is under 16 while for fishing it's under 15, under this bill the age would be under 16.
-Reduction in the price for most resident fishing licenses while increasing the non-resident costs
-Slight increase to most resident hunting license fees (some are reduced), with a larger increase to non-resident costs

BUT

The bill allows the WDFW Commission to tack on a surcharge to these fees every other year to cover inflationary costs and budget shortfalls in the WDFW budget. Currently only the legislature can increase the price of licenses, this bill would allow the commission to control the price as long as they keep it within the parameters of offsetting costs.

So the big question of course is what are the proposed baseline fees? Here's a few

Resident:
Deer/Elk/Bear/Cougar Combo   $97.75 (currently $95.50)
Deer/Elk/Bear/Cougar Combo w/ Small Game Discount $118.64 (currently $117.50)
Small Game $40.25 (currently $40.50)
Turkey Tag #1 $16.10 (currently $15.90)
Combo Fishing $51.86 (currently $55.35)

Non-Resident:
Combo Fishing $124.78 (currently $124.65)
Small Game $189.75 (currently $183.50)
Deer: $451.95 (currently $434.30)

[Widgeondeke]

The only part I like is the part of making the "Youth" age parameters the same.  That's just common sense

on the face price changes appear to be okay(5% or less), but the unknown surcharge fee amount that can be added to makeup budget shortfalls. It needs to be spelled out as a max increase %. The way I read it below, if the commission wanted to, they could add any amount as a surcharge.
Why decrease small game and fishing licenses? The minimal amount seems trivial as to appease to the fisherman who may not agree with hunting.  Are they wanting to divide the two sides?

 

[hunter399]

The only part I like is the part of making the "Youth" age parameters the same.  That's just common sense

on the face price changes appear to be okay(5% or less), but the unknown surcharge fee amount that can be added to makeup budget shortfalls. It needs to be spelled out as a max increase %. The way I read it below, if the commission wanted to, they could add any amount as a surcharge.
Why decrease small game and fishing licenses? The minimal amount seems trivial as to appease to the fisherman who may not agree with hunting.  Are they wanting to divide the two sides?

 

I agree 
But I would never give them a blank check for surcharge fees .They way they piss money away on wolves alone , They are always at a budget shortfall.That why I voted no,Don't mind them increase a little.But a blank check every year NO WAY.

[trophyhunt]

The only part I like is the part of making the "Youth" age parameters the same.  That's just common sense

on the face price changes appear to be okay(5% or less), but the unknown surcharge fee amount that can be added to makeup budget shortfalls. It needs to be spelled out as a max increase %. The way I read it below, if the commission wanted to, they could add any amount as a surcharge.
Why decrease small game and fishing licenses? The minimal amount seems trivial as to appease to the fisherman who may not agree with hunting.  Are they wanting to divide the two sides?

 

I agree 
But I would never give them a blank check for surcharge fees .They way they piss money away on wolves alone , They are always at a budget shortfall.That why I voted no,Don't mind them increase a little.But a blank check every year NO WAY.

If they can raise the price when they want, what do you think they will do??

[Karl Blanchard]

I'm so sick and tired of paying more for less. Do better counts, issue permits accordingly (ie elk permits in central WA), make a concerted effort to increase mule deer populations instead of focusing on selling tags, provide better youth hunting opportunities,  etc, etc, etc.  Show me improvement and then ask me for money.

[grundy53]

I'm so sick and tired of paying more for less. Do better counts, issue permits accordingly (ie elk permits in central WA), make a concerted effort to increase mule deer populations instead of focusing on selling tags, provide better youth hunting opportunities,  etc, etc, etc.  Show me improvement and then ask me for money.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Special T]

This is the camel's nose under the tent. Once they get this they can force hunters to pay for all the unfunded mandates they want. Until they kill the golden goose, which the Govenor seems intent on.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[TheStovePipeKid]

We have to think more positively. Eventually there will be no fish and no game in the state and the entire department will be disbanded. The we can do whatever we want. It will be like a barren utopia of freedom.

[buckfvr]

No open surcharge for agencies that deny transparency and accountability.........

[idahohuntr]

this bill would allow the commission to control the price as long as they keep it within the parameters of offsetting costs.

Like others - this quoted part is what concerns me the most.  I'm typically a big proponent of hunters funding game departments and often feel like Residents should be willing to shoulder increased costs to fund these departments (even though jacking up NR prices is by far the most politically convenient answer for states with a NR market!).  But this blank check of "offsetting costs" is absurd.  Bureaucrats can always come up with the calamity that will occur if they don't increase prices to "offset costs". 

I just do not see WDFW and their $400+ million dollar budget as something where they have a funding shortfall...they have a priority and focus shortfall.  WDFW is the only agency in the west where I think the agency and the sportsmen would benefit from a substantially reduced budget.  It would force them to get rid of the low priority stuff that is a constant distraction and resource drain on the agency.  With a smaller agency and budget - they can focus better on their core customers and spend money on things that matter and that they have control over.  Butterflies, gophers, and wolf facilitator programs can go away...hunter access programs, wildlife and habitat management...come to the front of the line. 

[vandeman17]

I'm so sick and tired of paying more for less. Do better counts, issue permits accordingly (ie elk permits in central WA), make a concerted effort to increase mule deer populations instead of focusing on selling tags, provide better youth hunting opportunities,  etc, etc, etc.  Show me improvement and then ask me for money.

100% agree and this is why they get less and less of my money each year

[Karl Blanchard]

this bill would allow the commission to control the price as long as they keep it within the parameters of offsetting costs.

Like others - this quoted part is what concerns me the most.  I'm typically a big proponent of hunters funding game departments and often feel like Residents should be willing to shoulder increased costs to fund these departments (even though jacking up NR prices is by far the most politically convenient answer for states with a NR market!).  But this blank check of "offsetting costs" is absurd.  Bureaucrats can always come up with the calamity that will occur if they don't increase prices to "offset costs". 

I just do not see WDFW and their $400+ million dollar budget as something where they have a funding shortfall...they have a priority and focus shortfall.  WDFW is the only agency in the west where I think the agency and the sportsmen would benefit from a substantially reduced budget.  It would force them to get rid of the low priority stuff that is a constant distraction and resource drain on the agency.  With a smaller agency and budget - they can focus better on their core customers and spend money on things that matter and that they have control over.  Butterflies, gophers, and wolf facilitator programs can go away...hunter access programs, wildlife and habitat management...come to the front of the line. 

agreed

[Old Man Yager]

Voted Hell no. They would jack it up every chance the get.

[Fl0und3rz]

No open surcharge for agencies that deny transparency and accountability.........

[KFhunter]

The surcharge thing is a deal breaker, but it looked OK up until that. 


drop the surcharge thing off and I'd vote yes. 

[KFhunter]

this bill would allow the commission to control the price as long as they keep it within the parameters of offsetting costs.

Like others - this quoted part is what concerns me the most.  I'm typically a big proponent of hunters funding game departments and often feel like Residents should be willing to shoulder increased costs to fund these departments (even though jacking up NR prices is by far the most politically convenient answer for states with a NR market!).  But this blank check of "offsetting costs" is absurd.  Bureaucrats can always come up with the calamity that will occur if they don't increase prices to "offset costs". 

I just do not see WDFW and their $400+ million dollar budget as something where they have a funding shortfall...they have a priority and focus shortfall.  WDFW is the only agency in the west where I think the agency and the sportsmen would benefit from a substantially reduced budget.  It would force them to get rid of the low priority stuff that is a constant distraction and resource drain on the agency.  With a smaller agency and budget - they can focus better on their core customers and spend money on things that matter and that they have control over.  Butterflies, gophers, and wolf facilitator programs can go away...hunter access programs, wildlife and habitat management...come to the front of the line. 

Well said,  100%

[cavemann]

Classic bait and switch, this is garbage..  Hey look, fees only went up a few bucks and non-resident will fill the shortfall..  I could be wrong, but I don't non-resident tags for WA as a big pool to draw from.  Either way, the loophole is a loophole.  I don't trust anyone with a loophole especially this state.

[Dhoey07]

No.

[buckfvr]

Another blatant example of the state believing theyre of far greater intelligence than the rest of us and we are clueless to the very manner in which they always attempt to manipulate us as their default.

[huntnphool]

this bill would allow the commission to control the price as long as they keep it within the parameters of offsetting costs.

Like others - this quoted part is what concerns me the most.  I'm typically a big proponent of hunters funding game departments and often feel like Residents should be willing to shoulder increased costs to fund these departments (even though jacking up NR prices is by far the most politically convenient answer for states with a NR market!).  But this blank check of "offsetting costs" is absurd.  Bureaucrats can always come up with the calamity that will occur if they don't increase prices to "offset costs". 

I just do not see WDFW and their $400+ million dollar budget as something where they have a funding shortfall...they have a priority and focus shortfall.  WDFW is the only agency in the west where I think the agency and the sportsmen would benefit from a substantially reduced budget.  It would force them to get rid of the low priority stuff that is a constant distraction and resource drain on the agency.  With a smaller agency and budget - they can focus better on their core customers and spend money on things that matter and that they have control over.  Butterflies, gophers, and wolf facilitator programs can go away...hunter access programs, wildlife and habitat management...come to the front of the line. 

 +1

[Dhoey07]

Another blatant example of the state believing theyre of far greater intelligence than the rest of us and we are clueless to the very manner in which they always attempt to manipulate us as their default.

It's like when they ask for comments on proposals.  One option is they can adjust the price every two years, and the other is every year.  When most people vote for the lesser of two evils, the State can say "Look, we were just doing what the people wanted!!" 

[follow maggie]

I was , surprisingly, liking what I read until the part of the commission adding a surcharge every other year. It doesn't take a math scientist to predict what's coming. I feel bad for the people that can't afford to fish & hunt other states & are stuck either paying more for less or quitting the outdoors altogether.

[Bango skank]

I was , surprisingly, liking what I read until the part of the commission adding a surcharge every other year. It doesn't take a math scientist to predict what's coming. I feel bad for the people that can't afford to fish & hunt other states & are stuck either paying more for less or quitting the outdoors altogether.

Or just quitting purchasing tags is more likely

[Katmai Guy]

 Not justifying, but should be no suprise if poaching continues to increase.

[SCRUBS]

I'm so sick and tired of paying more for less. Do better counts, issue permits accordingly (ie elk permits in central WA), make a concerted effort to increase mule deer populations instead of focusing on selling tags, provide better youth hunting opportunities,  etc, etc, etc.  Show me improvement and then ask me for money.

 

[bigtex]

I think the main question here is who do you want to control the price of licenses; the increasingly democrat controlled legislature or the WDFW Commission?

Let's face it prices will go up, may not be this year, may not be next year, but it will happen. The whole reason behind authorizing the commission to tack on a surcharge to cover inflation is because the legislature is sick of having to debate hunting and fishing fees every few years, they don't see it as a legislative issue but rather a commission issue.

[bigtex]

I just do not see WDFW and their $400+ million dollar budget as something where they have a funding shortfall...they have a priority and focus shortfall.  WDFW is the only agency in the west where I think the agency and the sportsmen would benefit from a substantially reduced budget.  It would force them to get rid of the low priority stuff that is a constant distraction and resource drain on the agency.  With a smaller agency and budget - they can focus better on their core customers and spend money on things that matter and that they have control over.  Butterflies, gophers, and wolf facilitator programs can go away...hunter access programs, wildlife and habitat management...come to the front of the line. 

While I certainly don't disagree with your statements the issue is what you define as the "low priority stuff that is a constant distraction and resource drain on the agency" is what WDFW is mandated under state law to manage. They don't have a choice whether to manage gophers, turtles, etc. They are mandated by state law to do so. Don't like it? Then have another state agency created to manage the gophers, turtles, etc. and turn the WDFW into the Dept of Fishing and Hunting. 

[buckfvr]

I think the main question here is who do you want to control the price of licenses; the increasingly democrat controlled legislature or the WDFW Commission?

Let's face it prices will go up, may not be this year, may not be next year, but it will happen. The whole reason behind authorizing the commission to tack on a surcharge to cover inflation is because the legislature is sick of having to debate hunting and fishing fees every few years, they don't see it as a legislative issue but rather a commission issue.

From what Ive seen at meetings, the commissioners are taxed doing nothing but listening and dont seem to have any ANY capacity for making or changing policy......they would only do as they are instructed, same as always.

[idahohuntr]

I just do not see WDFW and their $400+ million dollar budget as something where they have a funding shortfall...they have a priority and focus shortfall.  WDFW is the only agency in the west where I think the agency and the sportsmen would benefit from a substantially reduced budget.  It would force them to get rid of the low priority stuff that is a constant distraction and resource drain on the agency.  With a smaller agency and budget - they can focus better on their core customers and spend money on things that matter and that they have control over.  Butterflies, gophers, and wolf facilitator programs can go away...hunter access programs, wildlife and habitat management...come to the front of the line. 

While I certainly don't disagree with your statements the issue is what you define as the "low priority stuff that is a constant distraction and resource drain on the agency" is what WDFW is mandated under state law to manage. They don't have a choice whether to manage gophers, turtles, etc. They are mandated by state law to do so. Don't like it? Then have another state agency created to manage the gophers, turtles, etc. and turn the WDFW into the Dept of Fishing and Hunting. 

I do wish they had a different agency managing many of the distractions forced upon them - especially wolves.  However, even if we limit the discussion to areas they have discretion over - they lack appropriate priority and focus.  They spend wastefully and they are wildly ineffective with the current budget - more money won't fix the problems.  Giving the commission that oversees them (and all their pet projects) authority to raise fees is dumb-squared.

I think the main question here is who do you want to control the price of licenses; the increasingly democrat controlled legislature or the WDFW Commission?

Let's face it prices will go up, may not be this year, may not be next year, but it will happen. The whole reason behind authorizing the commission to tack on a surcharge to cover inflation is because the legislature is sick of having to debate hunting and fishing fees every few years, they don't see it as a legislative issue but rather a commission issue.

I want a legislative body of elected officials (as opposed to political appointees) debating and haggling over license fees every time they think sportsman need to pay more.  If its not worth the legislatures time - then leave the fees alone.  I can't imagine anything worse than the commission that oversees the department having their hands on the purse strings...what group of un-elected bureaucrats is ever going to show some restraint?  It won't happen and it won't force the department to prioritize and be accountable to the citizenry.     

[Southpole]

Why doesn’t the state ask for more money from the people that they’ve been bending over, cowing down for. Mainly the non hunting/environmental people. The non native sportsman/ hunting/ fishing types been paying and paying  and blatantly get less and less. The state can eat doo doo.

[KFhunter]

Why doesn’t the state ask for more money from the people that they’ve been bending over, cowing down for. Mainly the non hunting/environmental people. The non native sportsman/ hunting/ fishing types been paying and paying  and blatantly get less and less. The state can eat doo doo.

[Southpole]

 

[lokidog]

 

Though I also think youth should be just that, anyone under 18......

[ipkus]

I think the main question here is who do you want to control the price of licenses; the increasingly democrat controlled legislature or the WDFW Commission?

Let's face it prices will go up, may not be this year, may not be next year, but it will happen. The whole reason behind authorizing the commission to tack on a surcharge to cover inflation is because the legislature is sick of having to debate hunting and fishing fees every few years, they don't see it as a legislative issue but rather a commission issue.

Before long, the Commission will be full of Inslee appointees, so what exactly is better about giving them control instead of the legislature??

[Bango skank]

I think the main question here is who do you want to control the price of licenses; the increasingly democrat controlled legislature or the WDFW Commission?

Let's face it prices will go up, may not be this year, may not be next year, but it will happen. The whole reason behind authorizing the commission to tack on a surcharge to cover inflation is because the legislature is sick of having to debate hunting and fishing fees every few years, they don't see it as a legislative issue but rather a commission issue.

Before long, the Commission will be full of Inslee appointees, so what exactly is better about giving them control instead of the legislature??

It already is dude.  Every one of them.  Appointed by inslee.

Thats what were up agsinst.  The deck is stacked against us.

[bigtex]

I think the main question here is who do you want to control the price of licenses; the increasingly democrat controlled legislature or the WDFW Commission?

Let's face it prices will go up, may not be this year, may not be next year, but it will happen. The whole reason behind authorizing the commission to tack on a surcharge to cover inflation is because the legislature is sick of having to debate hunting and fishing fees every few years, they don't see it as a legislative issue but rather a commission issue.

Before long, the Commission will be full of Inslee appointees, so what exactly is better about giving them control instead of the legislature??

I can see a time in the future (10+ years out, Inslee will be long gone) where the legislature has gone so liberal that their way of reducing the animal killing hunters is by increasing license fees significantly, if we keep it in the hands of the legislature that could happen. The commission is actually mandated to maximize hunting, fishing, etc. opportunities, the legislature is not.

[Bango skank]

I think the main question here is who do you want to control the price of licenses; the increasingly democrat controlled legislature or the WDFW Commission?

Let's face it prices will go up, may not be this year, may not be next year, but it will happen. The whole reason behind authorizing the commission to tack on a surcharge to cover inflation is because the legislature is sick of having to debate hunting and fishing fees every few years, they don't see it as a legislative issue but rather a commission issue.

Before long, the Commission will be full of Inslee appointees, so what exactly is better about giving them control instead of the legislature??

I can see a time in the future (10+ years out, Inslee will be long gone) where the legislature has gone so liberal that their way of reducing the animal killing hunters is by increasing license fees significantly, if we keep it in the hands of the legislature that could happen. The commission is actually mandated to maximize hunting, fishing, etc. opportunities, the legislature is not.

Well theyre not holding up to that mandate at all.  Theyre failing miserably.  The commission needs to be comprised of people who know sonething about wildlife.  Not women living on houseboats in seattle.

[idahohuntr]

I think the main question here is who do you want to control the price of licenses; the increasingly democrat controlled legislature or the WDFW Commission?

Let's face it prices will go up, may not be this year, may not be next year, but it will happen. The whole reason behind authorizing the commission to tack on a surcharge to cover inflation is because the legislature is sick of having to debate hunting and fishing fees every few years, they don't see it as a legislative issue but rather a commission issue.

Before long, the Commission will be full of Inslee appointees, so what exactly is better about giving them control instead of the legislature??

I can see a time in the future (10+ years out, Inslee will be long gone) where the legislature has gone so liberal that their way of reducing the animal killing hunters is by increasing license fees significantly, if we keep it in the hands of the legislature that could happen. The commission is actually mandated to maximize hunting, fishing, etc. opportunities, the legislature is not.

I understand the point you are trying to make - but a group of ultra liberal anti hunting appointees with no accountability in the electorate process is not better than having the legislature set and debate fee bills...at least the east side will still have representation and some political diversity in the legislature. 

Also - the legislature has to look at all sorts of funding and fee issues across the state - and can balance/prioritize as every agency clamors for more $$.  An unelected commission is NEVER going to reduce the budget for the agency/mission they are charged with overseeing...but even a liberal legislature might not be so inclined...or at least they will be more concerned with raising other fees to pay for homeless shelters and not even take up hunting/license fee bills. 

[Fl0und3rz]

I think the main question here is who do you want to control the price of licenses; the increasingly democrat controlled legislature or the WDFW Commission?

Let's face it prices will go up, may not be this year, may not be next year, but it will happen. The whole reason behind authorizing the commission to tack on a surcharge to cover inflation is because the legislature is sick of having to debate hunting and fishing fees every few years, they don't see it as a legislative issue but rather a commission issue.

Lazy legislators is not a compelling argument for giving a commission authority to charge more to feather their nests.

[Ghost Hunter]

The surcharge red flagged it for me.  The rest is smoke & mirrors.

[Special T]

I think the main question here is who do you want to control the price of licenses; the increasingly democrat controlled legislature or the WDFW Commission?

Let's face it prices will go up, may not be this year, may not be next year, but it will happen. The whole reason behind authorizing the commission to tack on a surcharge to cover inflation is because the legislature is sick of having to debate hunting and fishing fees every few years, they don't see it as a legislative issue but rather a commission issue.

Before long, the Commission will be full of Inslee appointees, so what exactly is better about giving them control instead of the legislature??

We never know what the future holds but we have a pretty good commission right now.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[ipkus]

I think the main question here is who do you want to control the price of licenses; the increasingly democrat controlled legislature or the WDFW Commission?

Let's face it prices will go up, may not be this year, may not be next year, but it will happen. The whole reason behind authorizing the commission to tack on a surcharge to cover inflation is because the legislature is sick of having to debate hunting and fishing fees every few years, they don't see it as a legislative issue but rather a commission issue.

Before long, the Commission will be full of Inslee appointees, so what exactly is better about giving them control instead of the legislature??

It already is dude.  Every one of them.  Appointed by inslee.

Thats what were up agsinst.  The deck is stacked against us.

Commissioners Carpenter and Smith were not appointed by Governor Bumblefutz.

I would rather the legislature continue to be “bothered” by WDFW’s funding issues that are primarily driven by their dismal performance.  It provides a needed layer of accountability that you lose with this proposal.  An irritated legislature may finally force some of the changes needed within WDFW.  The Commission can only do so much.

[hunter399]

The commission gets there fog gogles put on by WDFW all the time .The commission is never left to make decisions on there own .It's always blind sided by WDFW on topics all the time.Both commission and WDFW #1 job is to protect wildlife with sustainable populations ,Which they have failed and continue to fail each year.

The funny part is .
I've been telling WDFW and commission for years through emails for years that there licence increases won't be approved .Because they continue not to be able to meet there own department goals of sustainable population's.
It should stay the way it is.It provides accountability when everybody is unhappy with mangement of wildlife in the state.
The truth.
When I look at there 3 year mangement plan -number one goal is increased Hunter opportunity aka.(selling tags) and way down on the very bottom of goals is sustained populations.That's a problem for me.There so stupid that if sustainable population is at the top, tags will sell themselves.

Honestly I hope it doesn't go through .This year has been a money grab year from the state on all kinds of levels .Useing the 30 dollar car tabs as an excuse .Then not even giving 30 dollar car tabs what a joke.

[BULLBLASTER]

Not sure it’s been said in this thread but everyone should be emailing their reps about bills they either support or oppose. You can’t sit idly by and watch if you have a strong opinion.

I have emailed mine about this.

[KFhunter]

Not sure it’s been said in this thread but everyone should be emailing their reps about bills they either support or oppose. You can’t sit idly by and watch if you have a strong opinion.

I have emailed mine about this.

Great idea,  I'm going to use some of Idahohnter's words, he was spot on in this debate 

[idahohuntr]

Not sure it’s been said in this thread but everyone should be emailing their reps about bills they either support or oppose. You can’t sit idly by and watch if you have a strong opinion.

I have emailed mine about this.

Great idea,  I'm going to use some of Idahohnter's words, he was spot on in this debate 

KF - your login has been hacked! 

I jest -

[JimmyHoffa]

The commission gets there fog gogles put on by WDFW all the time .The commission is never left to make decisions on there own .It's always blind sided by WDFW on topics all the time.Both commission and WDFW #1 job is to protect wildlife with sustainable populations ,Which they have failed and continue to fail each year.

The funny part is .
I've been telling WDFW and commission for years through emails for years that there licence increases won't be approved .Because they continue not to be able to meet there own department goals of sustainable population's.
It should stay the way it is.It provides accountability when everybody is unhappy with mangement of wildlife in the state.
The truth.
When I look at there 3 year mangement plan -number one goal is increased Hunter opportunity aka.(selling tags) and way down on the very bottom of goals is sustained populations.That's a problem for me.There so stupid that if sustainable population is at the top, tags will sell themselves.

Honestly I hope it doesn't go through .This year has been a money grab year from the state on all kinds of levels .Useing the 30 dollar car tabs as an excuse .Then not even giving 30 dollar car tabs what a joke.

Yeah, I remember one of the commission meetings about wolves.  WDFW was telling them how great wolves were and how harvests in Montana and Idaho went up after wolf introduction.  One commissioner asked, "If wolves and grizzlies are so great, then why were they removed?"  WDFW said they didn't know and would have to look into that and get back to them.   

[follow maggie]

Why doesn’t the state ask for more money from the people that they’ve been bending over, cowing down for. Mainly the non hunting/environmental people. The non native sportsman/ hunting/ fishing types been paying and paying  and blatantly get less and less. The state can eat doo doo.

 

[Bango skank]

Why doesn’t the state ask for more money from the people that they’ve been bending over, cowing down for. Mainly the non hunting/environmental people. The non native sportsman/ hunting/ fishing types been paying and paying  and blatantly get less and less. The state can eat doo doo.

 

and choke on it.  you forgot that part.  that is very important, you don't want to leave that out.  east doodoo, AND CHOKE ON IT