State proposes hunting, fishing license increase

[grandpawrichard]

State proposes hunting, fishing license increase
By ALLEN THOMAS, The Vancouver Columbian

State wildlife officials have drafted a blueprint for the first across-the-board increase in hunting and fishing license fees in 14 years.

A resident freshwater fishing license would jump from $26 to $29.50 and a combination freshwater-saltwater-shellfish resident license from $48.20 to $54.25. An elk license would increase from $45.20 to $57, while a deer license would decrease from $45.20 to $44.90.

While most licenses would cost more, fees for youth, seniors and disabled veterans would decrease.

Increases in commercial fishing fees also are proposed.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is facing a $10 million to $20 million shortfall in state General Fund money plus about a $10 million reduction in the state Wildlife Account, which mostly comes from license revenue, in the 2011-13 budget cycle.

Phil Anderson, department director, said cuts might include 20 wildlife enforcement jobs, closure of seven to 11 fish hatcheries, elimination of steelhead fishing in Puget Sound tributaries and closure of some of the agency's 700 public access areas.

Anderson is making appearances around the state explaining the potential license increases and seeking reaction. New license fees require action by the state Legislature.

"We've got to have relatively broad-base support or the Legislature isn't going to buy it and we're going to be faced with a whole bunch of cuts,'' Anderson told the Columbia River recreational and commercial advisory groups in Vancouver recently.

The department is looking at a variety of ways to increase revenue to maintain its programs status quo, he said.

Other revenue measures, besides a license fee increase, are:

* Switching the money from saltwater fishing, shellfish and razor clam licenses from the General Fund (where it can be used for any purpose) to the state Wildlife Account. That would help to the tune of $3 million a biennium.

* Switching commercial license fees from the General Fund to the department. That would add about $2 million.

* Adding a commercial fishing license "administrative fee'' of either $70 or $105 per license.

* Charging a fee for Hydraulics Permit Approvals, the environmental review required to work in state waterways. The fee would provide $3.3 million.

* Creating an "Explore Washington Pass'' with the state Department of Natural Resources.

The pass would be required to use the 5 million acres of lands managed by the departments of Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources.

Anderson said the pass would cost $5 for hunting or fishing license buyers and $40 for others age 18 and older.

One- and three-day passes would be available.

State lawmakers early this year approved a 10 percent surcharge on hunting and fishing license fees, but that ends on June 30, 2011.

An $8.75 annual Columbia River salmon-steelhead endorsement was initiated in 2010.

That would continue, but drop to $7.10 for youth under this proposal.

Anderson said the last general fee increase was in 1996.

The proposed fee increases got a mixed reaction from the advisory groups.

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/11/06/1240303/state-proposes-hunting-fishing.html#ixzz14iyeGyV6

[billythekidrock]

What a bunch of crap.

[Button Nubbs]

Wow what a suprise...

[jordano]

* Switching the money from saltwater fishing, shellfish and razor clam licenses from the General Fund (where it can be used for any purpose) to the state Wildlife Account. That would help to the tune of $3 million a biennium.

* Switching commercial license fees from the General Fund to the department. That would add about $2 million.

this is the WDFW's problem right here.. the money goes into the General Fund which Gregoire now has access to and will not use to help our wildlife and fisheries in the state.... these NEED to be switched over to the Wildlife Account so our state department can start doing their jobs when it comes to public lands and enhancing the habitat for our fish and wildlife species..

[Ihuntelk2]

I have no Problem with Rates going up for hunting as long as the money help to benefit, hunters, wild life and land management and even Enforcement. Now if my tags are 105 bucks for the whole lot of them really your only paying 9 dollars a months to hunt...thats chump change. If you think about it that way it doesnt hurt as much.

[Machias]

The pass would be required to use the 5 million acres of lands managed by the departments of Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources.

"Managed??"  Is that what they call it?   

[bobcat]

I think a pass for state lands is a great idea. It could be included with the purchase of a fishing or hunting license, but if you don't hunt or fish you would have to purchase it. This way all the recreationists who use state lands for other purposes could pay their share as well.

[billythekidrock]

I think a pass for state lands is a great idea. It could be included with the purchase of a fishing or hunting license, but if you don't hunt or fish you would have to purchase it. This way all the recreationists who use state lands for other purposes could pay their share as well.

The problem I see is that they won't be able to enforce it. F&W already has a hard time enforcing (or refuse to enforce) the recreational permit at many westside boat launches.

[bobcat]

I think a pass for state lands is a great idea. It could be included with the purchase of a fishing or hunting license, but if you don't hunt or fish you would have to purchase it. This way all the recreationists who use state lands for other purposes could pay their share as well.

The problem I see is that they won't be able to enforce it. F&W already has a hard time enforcing (or refuse to enforce) the recreational permit at many westside boat launches.

You're right about that. Although my dad did get a ticket once when he was parked at a boat launch, and forgot to put his permit up where it could be seen.

[mulehunter]

Since last four years seem everything fine. Then huge increase buyer tags than before. Last year tags sold 120,000 and they seem not complaint about funds. So this year most increase sold tags than before almost 240,000 tags sold. Later WDFW decide to increase funds. And no gamewarden down cowlitz county.
It makes me wonder...  Do they need more money for one extra office to run usfws and expanding Wolves population and more gps collars, trapper, spend more time with wolves than any other animals... I wonder if this all money they care about wolves.


where all money go

Mulehunter.   

[Blacklab]

I think a pass for state lands is a great idea. It could be included with the purchase of a fishing or hunting license, but if you don't hunt or fish you would have to purchase it. This way all the re creationists who use state lands for other purposes could pay their share as well.

The problem I see is that they won't be able to enforce it. F&W already has a hard time enforcing (or refuse to enforce) the recreational permit at many westside boat launches.

That's a understatement billy. launches around my area are loaded with vehicles that don't have the rec permit. I don't understand why no ticket writing. Maybe fear of writers cramp, corporal tunnel or just don't want to bother with it

[bobcat]

Yeah I don't understand why they don't enforce that more. It would be so easy to write multiple tickets every weekend at many boat launches and other WDFW wildlife areas. Such as the Scatter Creek Wildlife Area here in Thurston County. It's a very popular area for horseback riders. They park in the WDFW parking lot and ride across the hunting area and then onto some private timberlands. I often wonder how many of those vehicles are displaying an access permit. I never see a Fish & Wildlife officer around.

[CoryTDF]

I think a pass for state lands is a great idea. It could be included with the purchase of a fishing or hunting license, but if you don't hunt or fish you would have to purchase it. This way all the recreationists who use state lands for other purposes could pay their share as well.

Agreed! I posted a report i wrote on conservation a few months ago. In that i found that the average outdoorsman out spends the averrage American 9 to1 in moneys that are directly related to conservation and funding wildlife programs. It's time for the other people, to include antihunters, to start paying their share for the overall betterment of our wildlife.

[bobcat]

Yep, look at all the people that park and hike or mountain bike on state DNR land off highway 18 on Tiger Mountain (King County.) The state could make tons of money if there was an access fee required for that area alone.

Capitol Forest here in Thurston County also gets a LOT of use by people that don't hunt. They're up there every weekend riding mountain bikes, motorcycles, ATV's, hiking, or just driving around. It sure would be nice if some of these people contributed a little money for the use of all the state lands that they are able to use year round. Right now it's totally free, even the campgrounds in Capitol Forest are free. I think that needs to change. The state shouldn't be providing free camping. We just can't afford it anymore.

[washingtonmuley]

I think a pass for state lands is a great idea. It could be included with the purchase of a fishing or hunting license, but if you don't hunt or fish you would have to purchase it. This way all the recreationists who use state lands for other purposes could pay their share as well.

Agreed! I posted a report i wrote on conservation a few months ago. In that i found that the average outdoorsman out spends the averrage American 9 to1 in moneys that are directly related to conservation and funding wildlife programs. It's time for the other people, to include antihunters, to start paying their share for the overall betterment of our wildlife.

Amen brother!!!!!!!!

[hawk eyes]

i don't mind paying a little more for tags it's cheap entertainment,but would also like to see the money go back into wildlife.also motorcycles and atv's pay for ohv tags where does that money go.gregoire will just keep on spending and taking from everywhere that old hag can.you would think with the columbia river endorsment added the could have got funding to keep the hatchery at ringold open

[Dmanmastertracker]

 First year in my adult life I didn't buy a fishing license in this State, I just don't go enough any more to justify the cost, though I'll likely buy one this year (pink run). It's asinine that a fishing license cost's as much as a big game license, no other State to my knowledge is that fubar in fisheries management. The slight deer license deduction is a "feel good" move that is offset by the State lands permit proposed at $5, for those of us that hunt State lands.

[Ripper]

Ditto whats already been said. More take, less give. 

[cohoho]

But what are your options, quit fishing???  The price of everything has increased for sure, but will that really stop you from doing the activities you like? Doubtful - if it does then so be it...  

[winshooter88]

First year in my adult life I didn't buy a fishing license in this State, I just don't go enough any more to justify the cost, though I'll likely buy one this year (pink run). It's asinine that a fishing license cost's as much as a big game license, no other State to my knowledge is that fubar in fisheries management. The slight deer license deduction is a "feel good" move that is offset by the State lands permit proposed at $5, for those of us that hunt State lands.

Most of the money spent by WDFW is spent on fisheries, (Hatcheries, endangered salmon and steelhead, shellfish and habitat enhancement), so it seems right to me that people who fish should pay a proportionate percentage of the whole of the bill. I do fish and also hunt so I'll have to pay more too. Increases are never fun to deal with, but if you want to play, you have to pay. Just my opinion.

[fisheral87]

I had no idea that so much of the revenue went to the general fund.

They can't be dumb enough to have structured it that way without purpose. That is legalized skimming.

[Dmanmastertracker]

First year in my adult life I didn't buy a fishing license in this State, I just don't go enough any more to justify the cost, though I'll likely buy one this year (pink run). It's asinine that a fishing license cost's as much as a big game license, no other State to my knowledge is that fubar in fisheries management. The slight deer license deduction is a "feel good" move that is offset by the State lands permit proposed at $5, for those of us that hunt State lands.

Most of the money spent by WDFW is spent on fisheries, (Hatcheries, endangered salmon and steelhead, shellfish and habitat enhancement), so it seems right to me that people who fish should pay a proportionate percentage of the whole of the bill. I do fish and also hunt so I'll have to pay more too. Increases are never fun to deal with, but if you want to play, you have to pay. Just my opinion.

 This is true, but research for yourself what fishing licenses cost in other Western State's, you'll be amazed. We get badly hosed here, in large part due to tribal over-harvest, YES, I know they have some hatcheries as well but it doesn't off-set their ability to harvest wild fish that we have to pay for,, or the huge amount of gil-netted fish throughout the State.

[Huntbear]

If the money grubbers in Olympia would leave the money alone for wildlife habitat, and actual law enforcement of the regs.. then yes.

However, knowing how they handle money.

HELL NO!

[Elite1]

put all the sports money in a private account where the LEECHES cant get it.

[hawk eyes]

my license cost 24 not 26 i read 26 in the paper also are they trying to make the jump seem smaller than it actually is?