Senate Bill 6813 to Abolish the WDFW

[PolarBear]

The WDFW more than pays for itself, that is one reason Gagwhore wants it, for revenue.  If this goes through you can kiss our hunting good bye and say hello to more big predators.

[sako223]

Reading this thread is almost comical. Th same WDFW that gets attacked daily here is now being defended.
I am not sure the DNR is a good answer. I am positive the WDFW needs at the very least a shakeup.

The WDFW more than pays for itself, that is one reason Gagwhore wants it, for revenue.

If the WDFW is showing a profit I would like to see it since about 75-80% of their budget comes from the general fund, above the 20-25% received from hunting/fishing license sales. There is some federal money, some of which has been lost recently and is shown in two license fee hikes starting last year.

[bearpaw]

sako I hear you and I am not fond of the WDFW all the time, but sometimes one has to choose the lesser of the evils, and in my opinion shootmore hit the nail on the head with his post about "DNR controlling wildlife management would put the power back in the hands of the legislators."

I would even go further to say "puts the power in the hands of the governor".

I guess it is the fact that we have a citizen commission deciding the major issues and setting WDFW policies that dictates that the WDFW is the lesser of the evils. I really don't think we want to lose our ciitizen Wildlife Commission.

[PolarBear]

sako223, I guess that I should have stated it better.  A friend of mine who just retired form the WDFW told me that they would have more than enough money to run on its own if they streamlined and cut out some crap.  This person also said that they could easily afford a few more officers if it wasn't for all the bureaucracy.  Bottom line, merging any government agencies always winds up being a huge mistake.  Look at what happened when Lowry had them combine Fisheries with the Game Dept.

[sako223]

Yes I think that is very true. WDFW is on the same spend it or lose it diet as everyone else, which promotes waste.
One small issue that has stuck in my mind is when they quit raising hay on WDFW lands to feed elk, citing it as cost prohibitive. So they moved to purchasing it from someone raising it with the same general costs. Except the state land sits off limits to hunters and off the tax roles.
Another is the repeated attempt at seeding ground in cooperation with the RMEF, it turned into one of the biggest weed patches in the state. After getting some of the new grass to take it was so oily that there were many large range fires. now it is reverting back to the native plants and grasses. Millions wasted and embarrassing to watch the poor attempts.
Another huge loss in my mind was the bird farm. Pheasant hunting has never been the same. Now they purchase birds and kick them out with little chance of surviving.
The only thing that has succeeded with little meddling has been turkeys.

[logger]

The dnr is not in the bussiness of raising animals, but let me tell you first hand from my own exp. wdfw rules over them on habitat issues hands down everytime,the trees don't get cut unless fish and wildlife sign off on it. I on the other hand am all for turning the forest service over to the state that way maybe some of the f.s. ground could be managed back to actually producing good habitat and get the elk and deer back in the hills and out the farmers fields and in packwoods case out of town.

[ICEMAN]

...I guess it is the fact that we have a citizen commission deciding the major issues and setting WDFW policies that dictates that the WDFW is the lesser of the evils. I really don't think we want to lose our ciitizen Wildlife Commission.

[Hangfire]

Legislative hot line number.

You can find out status and express what you want your legislator to do. They want a short reply and will want address, phone number, do you want a reply from your legislator.  Be polite and professional.

Legislative hot lien number 1-800-562-6000

[uplandhunter870]

Unfortunately I think the DNR is even greener than WDFW

I don't know about that.  I worked for DNR for a couple of summers in college and I didn't see any greenies working there.........(of course things have changed a lot in 21 years)  But I still suspect WDFW has a lot more tree hugging, predator loving hippies than DNR.

p.s. - I also think it would be a bad idea to combine the agencies.

what you have to remember is that the decisions arent being made by the ground troops.  true there may not be very many THDW's amongst the lower ranks but the top of the ladder is where the decisions are being made and i think that combining the agencies would have devastating results.  let DNR try and do what they do and let WDFW try and do its job.  yeah we all bash one or the other at times but hey this is washington nothing is nowhere near perfect.

i highly doubt the state is going to disban an agency like WDFW, that is somewhat profitable (arent most of our tag fees going into the general fund anyway) and that has the experience and personell.

[sako223]

i highly doubt the state is going to disban an agency like WDFW, that is somewhat profitable (arent most of our tag fees going into the general fund anyway) and that has the experience and personell.

WDFW is hardly profitable, I have heard this for years and decided to check for myself a few years ago. Much to my surprise our license and tag fees only support about 20% of the budget. In essence giving us a smaller voice than is often portrayed.

WDFW’s 2007-09 biennial operating budget is $348 million.  About 50 percent of the operating budget comes from federal, local and private funds for contracts and services. The state General Fund provides about 30 percent of the WDFW’s operating budget, and the state Wildlife Account makes up the remaining 20 percent of the operating budget. The Wildlife Account is comprised of recreational hunting and fishing license sale proceeds. WDFW also received about $78 million in capital funds in the 2007-09 biennium.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/

[280ackley]

I on the other hand am all for turning the forest service over to the state that way maybe some of the f.s. ground could be managed back to actually producing good habitat and get the elk and deer back in the hills and out the farmers fields and in packwoods case out of town.

I agree 100%.

[Dmanmastertracker]

 Sako, licensing and other revenues created by DFW contribute FAR more funding than the 20% you listed, the document you posted does not show funds that are "moved", or "transferred" out to the general fund, if you take those funds into account, the Deparment more than pays for itself without general fund money if you include the "donated" funding from private groups like the WWRC. Read the front page you posted and do the math, 40% of the State population participating in the outdoors times just for argument's sake, one license plus surcharge's, etc.. each at an average of $50EA = about 160 million, or about half the operating budget in license money alone. The operating budget is also subjective, in that the majority of it is project cost, projects that aren't dreamed up the the DFW in a lot of cases, they could run effectively without a lot of these pet projects thrown into their budget. If I felt Gregoire's motivation was not to cull the herd even thinner, create more budget influence for her own post and get rid of resistance to her policies, I would support the DNR managing our wildlife, unfortunately this is a political move that stinks to me.

[Hangfire]

This bill to merge Fish and Wildlife, DNR, Ecology and Parks has been floating around for several years, getting stronger each year. In talking with people at agency booths and others representing the various sports clubs, it is a real concern.

Fish and Wildlife fees do not come close to covering the cost of WDFW.  That lack of funds is the basis for the loss of the old Game Dept. Remember, the percent of hunters in this state,  the last I heard is under 10%, fisherman under 20% of the population.  The amount of money generated by hunters, fisherman and others using wildlife, through sales tax would go a long way towards paying the bills.  This of course goes into the general fund.  The hatchery division generates a lot of money, of course this is one of the first place cuts are made.

I have not read a summary of this new bill, is moving the enforcement division to the State Patroll a part of it?  That is the way Oregon operates. That has been discussed for a number of years.

The legislators only look at the number of directors and redundancy in operation and personnel. 

[sako223]

Wow talk about misreading the facts and poor math.

Sako, licensing and other revenues created by DFW contribute FAR more funding than the 20% you listed, the document you posted does not show funds that are "moved", or "transferred" out to the general fund

I listed 20% as license and tag sales, "Much to my surprise our license and tag fees only support about 20% of the budget."

the Deparment more than pays for itself without general fund money if you include the "donated" funding from private groups like the WWRC.

Local/private funding is included in the budget. Try taking the general fund portion away and see what happens.

Read the front page you posted and do the math, 40% of the State population participating in the outdoors times just for argument's sake, one license plus surcharge's, etc.. each at an average of $50EA = about 160 million, or about half the operating budget in license money alone.

It states that,

Some 40 percent of Washingtonians participate in the outdoor economy by fishing, hunting or actively observing wildlife,

Actively observing wildlife is not a license sale.

one license plus surcharge's, etc.. each at an average of $50EA = about 160 million, or about half the operating budget in license money alone.

That would be 3.2 million license sales. Talk about crowded hunting. The WDFW or state could only dream of $160 million in annual license sales. It's more like $20-30 million.
In reality the State Wildlife Account(user fees) for the 2007-09 budget is $65.8 million of a $348.5 million budget. This comes from "Commercial and recreational fishing and hunting license fees,
fines and forfeitures, and miscellaneous revenue."

Here is an example of the 2006 breakdown,
https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/wildreports/wildinternet/LicensingReport?whichReport=license&reportMethod=types&dateGrouping=licyear&yearChoice=2006&outputFormat=html&button=report&nowaitpg=yes

The operating budget is also subjective, in that the majority of it is project cost, projects that aren't dreamed up the the DFW in a lot of cases, they could run effectively without a lot of these pet projects thrown into their budget.

This is a secondary argument as Every government budget has Fat and Pet projects. I would love to take the knife to much of it but the public allows it, especially if it is their party.

[sako223]

LICENSE YEAR LICENSE SALES REPORT BY LICENSE NAME  2006

https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/wildreports/wildinternet/LicensingReport?whichReport=license&reportMethod=licItems&dateGrouping=licyear&yearChoice=2006&outputFormat=html&button=report&nowaitpg=yes

License sales transactions indicates the amount of licenses sold. Tag sales would represent some multiple purchases as some return to get tags later.
The total fishing and hunting licenses sold appear to represent hundreds of thousands and not millions sold. Of course many hunters buy fishing license so that causes a double count, again reducing the amount of actual persons represented.