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

[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.