Senate Bill 6813 to Abolish the WDFW

[Shootmoore]

Hangfire is correct, I spoke with my father and he said that this has come up in the legislator for years now.  He advised that they change it up a little each year, but there overall goal in his opinion is to create a "super agency" for all natural resource's in the state. 

So it sounds like those that are pushing for this are using the recession as there excuse this year.  Same plan new rational.  I could probably even support the idea if it reduced the overall spending by the state. However in my opinion what it will create is a giant single entity with more red tape, people in charge of things that they don't understand (not that this is uncommon now) and end up being a giant single agency costing as much or more than the three do now.

IF the WDFW and DNR trimmed the top, trimmed the extra BS and went back to basics of management for abundance they could cut the costs and be affective.  Separate or combined without doing this they will continue to be more expensive with less affect.

Shootmoore

[Dmanmastertracker]

 2006 and 2007 were down years for license revenue, though I'll give you it's only a part of the revenue stream, not really my main point of focus but if you isalote on any given year the revenue stream is going to vary a good degree -your also forgetting the temporary surcharge that has yet to be added to all license revenue's for this year. The huge amount of funding from groups like the WWRC is there every year, I disagree that the project part of the budget should not be a concern when it makes up approximately half the overall budget on any given year. If it were a true business, modeled after other successful businesses, the first thing to be cut would be unnecessary projects, before you cut staffing and the ability to make revenue, we all know that did not happen last year. Gregoire's answer's continue to flounder in the dark for direction, this latest idea stinks for those reason's. She only want's control of the Agency to the nth degree, absolutely nothing will change for the positive for sportsmen if the DNR takes over. The DNR is a good organization, but in my dealing's with them, they are more on the conservation side in this State, the majority of Western Wa. DNR land's are not open to hunting, that tell's me a lot. My fear is this move would end up putting more land's out of reach for hunting and decrease overall opportunity, the burden is on them to prove otherwise before this move is made. Until some commitment is made to that effect I won't support it.

[bigtex]

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.

That is not part of this bill. Last year Gregoire proposed doing it but a bill was never made after numerous hunting/fishing groups, county sheriffs, and WDFW Officers went to Olympia and basically told representatives to not even think about doing it. Then when Gregoire announced the natural resource reform ideas last fall she once again proposed moving DNR and WDFW enforcement to State Patrol but once again it was shot down.

[Shootmoore]

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.

That is not part of this bill. Last year Gregoire proposed doing it but a bill was never made after numerous hunting/fishing groups, county sheriffs, and WDFW Officers went to Olympia and basically told representatives to not even think about doing it. Then when Gregoire announced the natural resource reform ideas last fall she once again proposed moving DNR and WDFW enforcement to State Patrol but once again it was shot down.

IMHO moving WDFW enforcement to State Patrol would be a horrible idea.  Two totally different mindsets in Law Enforcement.  With two totally different skillsets that do not mesh well in my opinion.

Shootmoore

[bigtex]

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.

That is not part of this bill. Last year Gregoire proposed doing it but a bill was never made after numerous hunting/fishing groups, county sheriffs, and WDFW Officers went to Olympia and basically told representatives to not even think about doing it. Then when Gregoire announced the natural resource reform ideas last fall she once again proposed moving DNR and WDFW enforcement to State Patrol but once again it was shot down.

IMHO moving WDFW enforcement to State Patrol would be a horrible idea.  Two totally different mindsets in Law Enforcement.  With two totally different skillsets that do not mesh well in my opinion.

Shootmoore

I and most others agree with you. There’s a reason why only two states (Oregon & Alaska) have it this way, and it’s soon to be only one (Alaska is considering the move of F&W enforcement back to the F&W dept)

[bobcat]

The DNR is a good organization, but in my dealing's with them, they are more on the conservation side in this State, the majority of Western Wa. DNR land's are not open to hunting, that tell's me a lot.

Do you mean to say "the majority of DNR lands ARE OPEN to hunting? Because they are. Not sure where you're getting your information. I've hunted lots of DNR land in western Washington. I don't believe I've ever seen any that wasn't open for hunting. I think there could possibly be some in King County that may not be open for hunting, but that would be the exception to the rule. But hey, go ahead and keep thinking you can't hunt DNR land, that's less competition for me, and please keep spreading the word that DNR lands are off limits. 

[sako223]

2006 and 2007 were down years for license revenue, though I'll give you it's only a part of the revenue stream, not really my main point of focus but if you isalote on any given year the revenue stream is going to vary a good degree

Yes 06 07 were the most recent years easily available. previous years did net more, just not enough.

your also forgetting the temporary surcharge that has yet to be added to all license revenue's for this year.

The WDFW expects the surcharge to raise $11 million over the next two years.

DNR land's are not open to hunting, that tell's me a lot.

Both DNR & BLM offer access for recreation and hunting. Both with more land than the WDFW has.

DNR seeks to provide outdoor recreation opportunities to the public throughout Washington state. Recreation on DNR-managed lands includes hiking, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, camping, off-road vehicle (ORV) riding, mountain biking, and boating.
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/RecreationEducation/Recreation/Pages/Home.aspx
http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/

I wish there were an easy fix. There are equally many problems within the WDFW that would be very beneficial to eradicate. The WDFW generally has a mindset of "It's them against us" meaning Us hunters.

[cougkilr]

"The DNR is a good organization, but in my dealing's with them, they are more on the conservation side in this State, the majority of Western Wa. DNR land's are not open to hunting, that tell's me a lot." "Quote"


I agree with Bobcat, if you beileve this, more for the rest of us to hunt, have fun else where and I hope I dont see you on DNR land

[wolfbait]

Hangfire is correct, I spoke with my father and he said that this has come up in the legislator for years now.  He advised that they change it up a little each year, but there overall goal in his opinion is to create a "super agency" for all natural resource's in the state. 

So it sounds like those that are pushing for this are using the recession as there excuse this year.  Same plan new rational.  I could probably even support the idea if it reduced the overall spending by the state. However in my opinion what it will create is a giant single entity with more red tape, people in charge of things that they don't understand (not that this is uncommon now) and end up being a giant single agency costing as much or more than the three do now.

IF the WDFW and DNR trimmed the top, trimmed the extra BS and went back to basics of management for abundance they could cut the costs and be affective.  Separate or combined without doing this they will continue to be more expensive with less affect.

Shootmoore

  

[bigtex]

The DNR is a good organization, but in my dealing's with them, they are more on the conservation side in this State, the majority of Western Wa. DNR land's are not open to hunting, that tell's me a lot.

 I think there could possibly be some in King County that may not be open for hunting, but that would be the exception to the rule. But hey, go ahead and keep thinking you can't hunt DNR land, that's less competition for me, and please keep spreading the word that DNR lands are off limits. 

All of the DNR land in King County that I know of is OPEN for hunting. Most of the gates say "No Shooting" however right below that it says something along the lines of except open for hunting during all WDFW hunting seasons. Which basically means no target shooting.

DNR is doing a great job of buying land to protect it from development in King Co. They now own all of the land along SR 18 with the exception of one area that is owned by Hancock Forest.

[Dmanmastertracker]

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.

 Sako, since your an overnight expert on DFW budgeting, why don't you post something other than license revenue? Why don't you post something on where the priorities come from, infrastructure spending vs. projects, as a percentage? If you say that's not relevant than I would say you need to stop just Googling thing's up to debate about and actually go to a DFW related seminar or two to really understand the process. Nowhere did I say license money is all the revenue DFW, or hunting and fishing generates.

[Dmanmastertracker]

The DNR is a good organization, but in my dealing's with them, they are more on the conservation side in this State, the majority of Western Wa. DNR land's are not open to hunting, that tell's me a lot.

Do you mean to say "the majority of DNR lands ARE OPEN to hunting? Because they are. Not sure where you're getting your information. I've hunted lots of DNR land in western Washington. I don't believe I've ever seen any that wasn't open for hunting. I think there could possibly be some in King County that may not be open for hunting, but that would be the exception to the rule. But hey, go ahead and keep thinking you can't hunt DNR land, that's less competition for me, and please keep spreading the word that DNR lands are off limits. 

 You may be right about that, I was thinking all watersheds were administered by the DNR, but that may not be the case according to the latest map. If you total the acreage of conservation area's, watersheds and DNR lands with no legal public access, it's about a 50/50 split. The legal access issue I guess is also a little different, to me it's "closed", if a legal access is not granted, or in existence, then it's not open to hunting. There are some very large blocks that fall under this category.

 http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/eng_rms_mpl_7_med.pdf

[fishcrazy]

It would appear that some legislators may still have their panties in a wad over the WDFW Commission and this could be another attempt to silence them.

It is a bad, bad idea.

BINGO!!! We are just getting something good going with the commmission and the Commercial Fisherman are pissed that they no longer own the Commission. I think this is a ploy to regain control. FOLLOW THE MONEY!!

I don't buy the idea that our governor is doing this to get more control away from the commission. After all she appoints them and if they were not going to run things the way she wants she would drop the ax. Like she did with the last group owned by the commies. I know alot of people don't like her but it won't hurt to give her credit for something.

Kris

[sako223]

All of the budget info is readily available for you to find. You have posted quite a number of incorrect figures, which I have listed the correct one with reference. Maybe a seminar would help you get the facts straight.

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.

You have continued to try skewing my statements. Once again I have clearly stated that license sales(wildlife account) funds about 20% and have backed it up. You continue to add "Other Revenues" to dispute this. And you have no reference.
Even with the "Other Revenue" what is "Far" more?  The truth even by the WDFW and the state is the WDFW is not self supporting and worse hunters may not even support half.

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.

Once again this is your math which equates to 3.2 million license sales. This is 5-10 times actual license sales and clearly not half the budget. Where do you get this info out of my sources. Maybe you are getting it at one of those meetings.

If you say that's not relevant than I would say you need to stop just Googling thing's up to debate about and actually go to a DFW related seminar or two to really understand the process

Once again I have stated this is secondary. You again are trying to speak for me.
Don't you have enough trouble speaking for yourself here.
Oh and good job on googling info on the DNR of which you are an expert.

[Dmanmastertracker]

All of the budget info is readily available for you to find. You have posted quite a number of incorrect figures, which I have listed the correct one with reference. Maybe a seminar would help you get the facts straight.

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.

You have continued to try skewing my statements. Once again I have clearly stated that license sales(wildlife account) funds about 20% and have backed it up. You continue to add "Other Revenues" to dispute this. And you have no reference.
Even with the "Other Revenue" what is "Far" more?  The truth even by the WDFW and the state is the WDFW is not self supporting and worse hunters may not even support half.

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.

Once again this is your math which equates to 3.2 million license sales. This is 5-10 times actual license sales and clearly not half the budget. Where do you get this info out of my sources. Maybe you are getting it at one of those meetings.

If you say that's not relevant than I would say you need to stop just Googling thing's up to debate about and actually go to a DFW related seminar or two to really understand the process

Once again I have stated this is secondary. You again are trying to speak for me.
Don't you have enough trouble speaking for yourself here.
Oh and good job on googling info on the DNR of which you are an expert.

 What's your point other than to be divisive? What the heck do you mean "secondary", it's a primary issue if there ever was one and is my entire point you keep missing. The PROJECT budget that is added to the infrastructure cost is what's killing the DFW budget, you just keep citing the same thing over and over like a broken record, note I said for "argument's sake", you've taken that a little too literally. Other revenue can include, timber sales, camping fee's, day use permits, boat launch fee's and land swapping/ sales that achieve a net gain to name a few. My point on the revenue, which to me is "secondary" as you keep saying, is that the total revenue DFW bring's in is more than 20%, as you so eloquently point out it is not ALL license money, again I never said that at any point and my hypothetical was just that, don't read too much into a hypothetical statement. Fact's and figures are great, but if you don't have a point to use them, it's useless. Your original statement was that the DFW is far from profitable, I feel if you understood how their budget is formed and what total revenue's they bring in, given the personnel cutbacks they have had, that you would see they are actually very profitable for a public Agency, yet legislators keep them unprofitable.