We as hunters wanted the $40 dollar increase on the 2nd deer tags. Read

[Elkaholic daWg]

"the omission of the price...was a mistake...".  "..the increase was recommended by hunters..."

I suspect the average hunter's perception of WDFW these days parallels the public's view of Congress.

WINNER!!!! WINNER!!!

[bobcat]

"the omission of the price...was a mistake...".  "..the increase was recommended by hunters..."

Yes I have no doubt both of those statements are lies. Just like how they said the changes to the permit system last year were supported by hunters. (when 99.9% of hunters didn't even know anything about it prior to the change!)

[DoubleJ]

I think I said this once before, but this will now be a great tag for kids, as the youth price is only $22. For this reason I am actually liking the big price increase, because it should make the tag a much easier draw, and in a few more years I will be putting my kids in for this one.

My thoughts exactly.  I'd like it better if disabled would be in there too but, that's just me being selfish.  I hope the draw odds are better for my kids now.

[BOWHUNTER45]

I agree too.. I would rather see youth hunters getting some better opportunities to harvest trophy animals ....As far as the Dept making more money they need to make this a hunter friendly state and using revenue they recieve from licensing strictly for fish & wildlife ONLY !!!!! The amounts they raise off of the raffles and permits should definately cover the issues .... not our fault they can not manage money !!!

[DoubleJ]

"the omission of the price...was a mistake...".  "..the increase was recommended by hunters..."

Yes I have no doubt both of those statements are lies. Just like how they said the changes to the permit system last year were supported by hunters. (when 99.9% of hunters didn't even know anything about it prior to the change!)

Sorry, no ill will intended.  Nothing to see here.  Move along

[bobcat]

I listened to Nate do a presentation at a DFW meeting a couple months ago, and we talked to him for a while after the meeting. He's a good guy and I believe he is on our side. So I wouldn't place the blame with him. I think it's great they have a true hunter as the Assistant Director of the Wildlife Program.

[DoubleJ]

Oh, ok.  I just lumped him in with the rest of the Dr.s and lawyers pictured in the reg book

[Camp David]

It's all about generating revenue. Take a look at the new special permit section and how it is sectioned out. We all paid additional $ for applications that were once bunched all together. Look @ how many single tags (1 bull elk, one cow, one antlerless deer) for a given area. Than look at how many people applied for that one tag. Now multiply the applicants, for that one tag, X $6 and all of sudden the WDFW made a whole lot of extra money by allowing the one animal to be hunted. On top of that charge the hunter an additional $40 to harvest a doe. Time to pack up and move to Montana.

[Biggerhammer]

I'd actually like for them to do away with most of the 2nd tag hunts they're offering. I don't believe we have the deer numbers to justify it. If the deer population in a particular area truly is overpopulated, then fine. But most of the permits I see are in areas which don't seem to have an excess of deer. As for the new price, I complained about it at first, but after mulling it over for a while, I think it's fair. For those wanting a second chance to hunt deer in a given year, it's a great opportunity to get out in the woods again. However, having said that, I will not be applying for it next year, but only because I'm on a real tight budget right now, with two kids and only one income. I could see myself putting my kids in for it in a few more years when they're old enough to hunt, simply to give them more time in the woods.

The state can pocket more cash by charging you a second tag fee rather than 6 bucks for a doe permit.

[Movemonger]

If the department of wildlife wants to increase revenue from hunters there should be a plan to increase participation in the sport and not price people out of the sport. The department of wildlife seems to want less hunters and more revenue. I would like to see first time purchasers of hunting licenses be charged half price for tags and license. We need to get people hooked and keep it affordable or hunting will fade away for most of us. The first timer that thinks he will give this hunting thing a try by taking part in the dove season will get sticker shock when he has to pay over $50 to try to shoot a couple doves. I know most of us are going to continue to go hunting as long as we can afford it, but the prices are going to deter some from joining the sport.

Your thinking too much like a business owner. (makes sense to make new customers) That's why this practice will not be adopted.

[steeleywhopper]

I'm pretty sure I did not ask for a price hike on my second Doe tag.
 My wife is a Tribal member and I think she will be learning how to shoot, her tags are only $5 a piece. I have never had her take advantage of her tags, but its getting out of control now. Screw this state and special permits. No more buying into this corrupt system for this guy! (insert picture of me flipping the state of Washinton the bird)

[spikehunter]

DON'T BLAME ME I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HER!!! (sorry)

[fremont]

If you really want to get mad, ask yourself why the general fund attributable to WDFW is going away.  I sat next to a very pregnant unwed lady the other day who told me in great detail how she is getting the state to pay for her upcoming birth.  Her second.  Both paid in full by taxpayers.

[bigtex]

If you really want to get mad, ask yourself why the general fund attributable to WDFW is going away.  I sat next to a very pregnant unwed lady the other day who told me in great detail how she is getting the state to pay for her upcoming birth.  Her second.  Both paid in full by taxpayers.

This is at the request of WDFW.

WDFW wants to be more self-reliant on their budget. They want to get a smaller portion of their budget from the General Fund and more from the Wildlife Fund. This is why this year several licenses fees were moved from going into the General Fund to the Wildlife Fund.

[fremont]

If I were running WDFW, I might do the same thing.  That's not my point, though.

These agencies are forced to think and act this way, because there's no legitimate way for them to fund their long-ago-established mission due to money being siphoned for things that 40 years ago would NEVER have been funded.

State parks, WDFW, etc. are core governmental functions for the benefit of the citizens.  Unfortunately, we taxpayers must not only pay for an unbelievably huge array of social services (a goodly portion of which goes to recent transplants), but we must also pay for these deemed nice-to-haves.

As a fourth-generation Washingtonian, this makes me very upset.