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.