Post by: NWWA Hunter on March 24, 2013, 08:15:35 PM
Commission preliminarily approves budget reductions
03/21/2013
Commission gives preliminary approval to budget reductions
Facing increasing costs and an inability to raise license fees, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department proposed a 6.5 percent reduction to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission’s fiscal year 2014 budget. At its March 20-21 meeting in Gillette, the Commission gave primarily approval to the proposed cuts, which are 10 percent below the department’s fiscal year 2013 budget but also account for some increasing costs in fiscal year 2014. The proposed cuts are in addition to a 3 percent reduction to the fiscal year 2013 budget.
The Commission will take final action on the budget at its July 8-10 meeting in Saratoga.
“Because our license-fee increase proposals failed in the legislature this year, we are proposing some significant cuts to next year’s budget, including cuts to programs and personnel,” said Game and Fish Director Scott Talbott. “At the same time, we will continue to work with the legislature, our partners, and citizens from across the state to find an adequate source of funding for this agency.”
Included in the proposed cuts to the Commission’s budget is a reduction in the number of issues of Wyoming Wildlife magazine from 12 to six annually. The department proposed eliminating the annual Wyoming Hunting and Fishing Heritage Expo, which takes place every year in Casper. Fish stocking could also be reduced by as much as 20 percent.
Other programs considered for reduction include: contributions to the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Wyoming; the department’s fund for access and conservation easements; funding for habitat and sensitive species projects; capital improvements to fish hatcheries and other department facilities; printing of the Access Atlas for sportsmen (this will still be available online); the department’s Leadership Development program; WILD Times publication for schoolchildren; the National Archery in the Schools Program; and the National Fishing in the Schools Program.
The department also proposed reducing its personnel budget by approximately $900,000 by leaving some positions vacant. Many additional cuts are proposed throughout the department, including reducing the department’s vehicle fleet, reducing out-of-state travel, and others.
The department receives a majority (80 percent) of its funding from license sales and other fees paid by hunters and anglers. Only about 5 to 6 percent of revenue comes from the general fund.
Throughout its history, the Wyoming Legislature has approved periodic license fee increases to keep pace with rising costs and increasing responsibilities. The most recent license-fee increase was in 2008. Inflation continues to increase the cost of doing business, and lower-than-desired deer and antelope productivity in many parts of the state in recent years has required issuance of fewer hunting licenses, reducing annual revenue. Without additional revenue the department will be forced to make additional cuts in fiscal year 2015.
Post by: Special T on March 24, 2013, 08:18:15 PM
Post by: NWWA Hunter on March 24, 2013, 08:18:26 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 08:19:22 PM
There are "unofficial" talks (in the legislature) about trying to make WDFW even more "user funded" meaning WDFW would have to rely more on fees. The number of licenses bought/issued really hasn't gone down thru the recent price increases in WA.
Post by: bobcat on March 24, 2013, 08:20:36 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 08:21:25 PM
Many of the wesern states, including Wyoming, have ridiculously low resident hunting license fees. They could raise those fees by a small percentage to help out the budget, but it seems all they ever want to do is stick it to the non-residents.
:yeah:
Post by: washelkhunter on March 24, 2013, 08:28:16 PM
Post by: buckfvr on March 24, 2013, 08:33:53 PM
Many of the wesern states, including Wyoming, have ridiculously low resident hunting license fees. They could raise those fees by a small percentage to help out the budget, but it seems all they ever want to do is stick it to the non-residents.
If you can find per capita income for the counties of Wyoming, you may find that fees are relative to our fees and per capita average incomes here.....with the exception of our usual poor counties, where the fees are too high for many, and pushing it for the rest. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 08:39:29 PM
Big difference between WY and WA. WY gets 80% of its funding from license fees, WA gets 27% from licenses.
There are "unofficial" talks (in the legislature) about trying to make WDFW even more "user funded" meaning WDFW would have to rely more on fees. The number of licenses bought/issued really hasn't gone down thru the recent price increases in WA.
This would be the best thing to happen for hunters and fishers in WA. :tup:
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 08:42:14 PM
Big difference between WY and WA. WY gets 80% of its funding from license fees, WA gets 27% from licenses.
There are "unofficial" talks (in the legislature) about trying to make WDFW even more "user funded" meaning WDFW would have to rely more on fees. The number of licenses bought/issued really hasn't gone down thru the recent price increases in WA.
This would be the best thing to happen for hunters and fishers in WA. :tup:
Higher fees? Because that is the only way it could work if more and more general fund $ disappear.
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 08:45:02 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on March 24, 2013, 08:54:41 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 08:56:40 PM
You can't compare WDFW to a wildlife agency that doesn't border the saltwater. Why? Because those agencies have a far fewer management load then coastal agencies.
WDFW's biggest funding expenditure is not enforcement, wildlife, habitat, or licensing, but rather the fish program. Do these inland states have to manage crab, sturgeon, shrimp, salmon, halibut, etc? No.
I am sure if you were to look at places like Wyoming or Colorado their budget would be almost all wildlife related.
Prior to the merger of WDFW, the Wildlife Dept was largely user funded, Fisheries Dept was all general fund. Merger happened and ever since the funding has shifted more and more towards the wildlife fund. About 3 years ago the legislature passed a bill directing all commerical and recreational fees to the wildlife fund since there were still some of the smaller licenses going to the general fund.
Just look at how a wildlife officer's job is different in coastal states vs inland. The inland states typically run their LE program where the officer is an LEO and biologist, why? Because once hunting season is over they can do their bio duties because there is no crab, salmon, steelhead, etc season to work. But the officers who work in coastal states have LEO duties 24/7. And in fact, prior to the merger/creatin of WDFW, a Dept of Wildlife Agent was both an LEO and a bio. Merger happened and now the wildlife officers were responsible for all fish enforceemnt, and fisheries officers responsible for wildlife enforcement.
Post by: snowpack on March 24, 2013, 08:57:33 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 08:59:10 PM
If you want license fees to skyrocket in Washington state, make the WDFW more dependant on license fees. Our WDFW has proven many times that they don't know how to cut budgets, so that will only mean higher fees.
Agencies don't cut budgets, legislators do. This article about Wyoming wouldn't work in WA.
The way it works in WA is the legislature tells agencies to cut by X%, the agencies submit their proposal. The legislature then plays with that proposal, typically changing it and then makes it law. WDFW just doesn't wake up one day and say "we need to cut."
Post by: rtspring on March 24, 2013, 09:00:47 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 09:05:17 PM
WDFW needs to be dependent on hunters and fishers. They might reconsider some of the poor management policies we have seen.
I don't agree 100%. Why? Because WDFW still has to report to their "boss" the state legislature and governor. Even if all general fund money was eliminated and the WDFW was simply funded by the local funding, federal funding, and wildlife funding they would still have to report to the legislature and governor. Who has control over how much wildlife fund $ is given to WDFW? The legislature.
Last year the legislature passed a bill on how WDFW should manage beavers. Do we want the legislature to start making decisions on how to manage wolves?
The commission can always come out and say they are going to manage a species this way, but the legislature can come out and override this rule and make their own management plan. So WDFW cannot always be 100% on the hunter/fisher side.
I haven't seen this on hear but, the only way we will have a wolf season in WA, is through legislature approval...
Post by: winshooter88 on March 24, 2013, 09:09:02 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 24, 2013, 09:14:48 PM
Hmmm. Wa. res fees dont seem low to me, on the contrary.
I wasn't talking about Washington. I'm talking about the western states that rely on non resident fees to support their wildlife departments. States like Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Those states try to raise a resident hunting license by $2.00 and an elk tag by $1.00, and the residents throw a major fit. So instead, they raise a NR deer tag $200 and a NR elk tag $300.
Post by: JLS on March 24, 2013, 09:20:28 PM
Hmmm. Wa. res fees dont seem low to me, on the contrary.
I wasn't talking about Washington. I'm talking about the western states that rely on non resident fees to support their wildlife departments. States like Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Those states try to raise a resident hunting license by $2.00 and an elk tag by $1.00, and the residents throw a major fit. So instead, they raise a NR deer tag $200 and a NR elk tag $300.
WY is actually one of the better states in keeping some sanity in the disparity between res and non-res pricing. MT's is ridiculous.
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 09:22:47 PM
Bigtex, even when the legislature tells them to cut they resist and then cut mostly the guys working in the field, then they increase the upper management. The first time I was at a meeting with the then new director, Phil Anderson he told us how bad the budget was and then said he was adding a new assistant director so he could do his job better. That made a whole lot of sense.
Not disagreeing with you. In many of the programs management positions have not been cut.
Enforcement has been praised because they have cut management positions. They have merged a lot of management duties.
We have all heard the budget crisis for WDFW and other state agencies. But in that entire time NO WDFW Officer was laid off, in fact WDFW actually secured funding for about 10 new positions through the past three years. Now WDFW enforcement did have some decreases (but were vacant positions) in the beginning of the crisis so the net gain is not 10. But WDFW obtained these officers through funding of the Discover Pass, the Columbia River Endorsement, and a Geoduck funding bill.
And that is something people need to realize, a budget is not black and white. Every WDFW employee is not paid by general fund or wildlife fund. Like i've already mentioned, you have officers funded by the Discover Pass, Columbia Endorsement, Geoduck funding, but as well as a State Parks Boating grant, half an officer is funded through the US Bureau of Reclamation, 2 officers are funded through NOAA/NMFS.
You have people counting fish at Columbia River dams being paid by WDFW but the funding who actually comes from the Bonnevile Power Admin. And the list continues. My point is, yes there have been cuts, but that doesn't mean new positions created from new funding doesn't occur.
Post by: JLS on March 24, 2013, 09:30:23 PM
Hmmm. Wa. res fees dont seem low to me, on the contrary.
That's because we don't have the non-resident demand that many western states do. The ones that do can subidize artficially low resident prices while charging exorbitant prices from the non-residents.
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 09:37:00 PM
I would pay more $ for better management and quality of hunting. The problem is that WDFW is on legislative welfare, they do not have to produce a good product, take away the welfare and we will see better management. They either manage better or they take some pay cuts or unemployment like the rest of Americans.
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 09:38:13 PM
Hmmm. Wa. res fees dont seem low to me, on the contrary.
That's because we don't have the non-resident demand that many western states do. The ones that do can subidize artficially low resident prices while charging exorbitant prices from the non-residents.
The only reason there isn't more NR demand is because WDFW produces a poor product.
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 09:41:11 PM
I created this poll/thread last year so check it out: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,113472.msg1488722.html#msg1488722 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,113472.msg1488722.html#msg1488722)
It could also increase the amount in the wildlife fund
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 09:41:45 PM
People need to consider the states they compare WDFW to when they look at who is "better."
You can't compare WDFW to a wildlife agency that doesn't border the saltwater. Why? Because those agencies have a far fewer management load then coastal agencies.
WDFW's biggest funding expenditure is not enforcement, wildlife, habitat, or licensing, but rather the fish program. Do these inland states have to manage crab, sturgeon, shrimp, salmon, halibut, etc? No.
I am sure if you were to look at places like Wyoming or Colorado their budget would be almost all wildlife related.
Prior to the merger of WDFW, the Wildlife Dept was largely user funded, Fisheries Dept was all general fund. Merger happened and ever since the funding has shifted more and more towards the wildlife fund. About 3 years ago the legislature passed a bill directing all commerical and recreational fees to the wildlife fund since there were still some of the smaller licenses going to the general fund.
Just look at how a wildlife officer's job is different in coastal states vs inland. The inland states typically run their LE program where the officer is an LEO and biologist, why? Because once hunting season is over they can do their bio duties because there is no crab, salmon, steelhead, etc season to work. But the officers who work in coastal states have LEO duties 24/7. And in fact, prior to the merger/creatin of WDFW, a Dept of Wildlife Agent was both an LEO and a bio. Merger happened and now the wildlife officers were responsible for all fish enforceemnt, and fisheries officers responsible for wildlife enforcement.
I think you are looking at this the wrong way. With all these varied resources WDFW has more types of products to sell than other F&G agencies, again manage the products well and you will have even more sales with all the diversity in WA.
Post by: JLS on March 24, 2013, 09:42:11 PM
Hmmm. Wa. res fees dont seem low to me, on the contrary.
That's because we don't have the non-resident demand that many western states do. The ones that do can subidize artficially low resident prices while charging exorbitant prices from the non-residents.
The only reason there isn't more NR demand is because WDFW produces a poor product.
However you want to look at it, there aren't the resources in this state to create that demand. How many folks are going to pony up a grand to spend nine days hunting spikes? I guess on the flip side, we could go to all elk hunting is by drawing only in hopes of producing more/bigger bulls so then we have non-res demand? It's a numbers thing. The odds suck for drawing the branch bull tags, so why waste the money when you can play the point game in NV, AZ, NM, WY and so on?
Post by: buckfvr on March 24, 2013, 09:42:44 PM
The legislature is having to legislate wolf management already because WDFW is in love with wolves. If WDFW needed to save our elk, deer, and moose so they can sell licenses to put food on their dinner table they would sure consider better management.
I would pay more $ for better management and quality of hunting. The problem is that WDFW is on legislative welfare, they do not have to produce a good product, take away the welfare and we will see better management. They either manage better or they take some pay cuts or unemployment like the rest of Americans.
:yeah: Unemployment would be the deserving end to several career wdfw pupets who are at legislators beckon call.............
Post by: bobcat on March 24, 2013, 09:43:30 PM
Hmmm. Wa. res fees dont seem low to me, on the contrary.
That's because we don't have the non-resident demand that many western states do. The ones that do can subidize artficially low resident prices while charging exorbitant prices from the non-residents.
The only reason there isn't more NR demand is because WDFW produces a poor product.
Well, not that I disagree with the "poor product," but it's not really the fault of the WDFW. They're trying to provide a product in a small state with an extremely high human population, in comparison to other western states. The only way to improve the product would be to decrease the number of deer and elk tags issued each year. And nobody wants that.
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 09:53:00 PM
People need to consider the states they compare WDFW to when they look at who is "better."
You can't compare WDFW to a wildlife agency that doesn't border the saltwater. Why? Because those agencies have a far fewer management load then coastal agencies.
WDFW's biggest funding expenditure is not enforcement, wildlife, habitat, or licensing, but rather the fish program. Do these inland states have to manage crab, sturgeon, shrimp, salmon, halibut, etc? No.
I am sure if you were to look at places like Wyoming or Colorado their budget would be almost all wildlife related.
Prior to the merger of WDFW, the Wildlife Dept was largely user funded, Fisheries Dept was all general fund. Merger happened and ever since the funding has shifted more and more towards the wildlife fund. About 3 years ago the legislature passed a bill directing all commerical and recreational fees to the wildlife fund since there were still some of the smaller licenses going to the general fund.
Just look at how a wildlife officer's job is different in coastal states vs inland. The inland states typically run their LE program where the officer is an LEO and biologist, why? Because once hunting season is over they can do their bio duties because there is no crab, salmon, steelhead, etc season to work. But the officers who work in coastal states have LEO duties 24/7. And in fact, prior to the merger/creatin of WDFW, a Dept of Wildlife Agent was both an LEO and a bio. Merger happened and now the wildlife officers were responsible for all fish enforceemnt, and fisheries officers responsible for wildlife enforcement.
I think you are looking at this the wrong way. With all these varied resources WDFW has more types of products to sell than other F&G agencies, again manage the products well and you will have even more sales with all the diversity in WA.
I understand that completely.
But how is WDFW suppose to "sell" a federally protected salmon run (as an example) which under federal law people cannot possess/take/fish for? WDFW then has to spend money to manage and enforce the fish run but won't get any money in return because people can't fish for it. On the fish/shellfish side WDFW has a lot more problems with the "co-managers" (tribes). It can be hard to manage a run when the co-manager is managing it another way.
In comparison the Pink/Humpy salmon run is nuts and brings in huge revenues every other year to WDFW in terms of licensing. There is a very small tribal/commerical pink fishery.
WA has federally protected marine mammals, hundreds/thousands of rivers/streams that have federally protected salmon (all species except Pink), federally protect steelhead, federally protected columbia river smelt, and several federally protected puget sound rockfish species. WDFW has to manage and enforce those closures/runs but get no money in return. I highly doubt a bass population (example) in a lake in Colorado is federally protected.
It is a lot easier to sell a fishery/hunt when you can actually legally take them.
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 09:57:59 PM
Hmmm. Wa. res fees dont seem low to me, on the contrary.
That's because we don't have the non-resident demand that many western states do. The ones that do can subidize artficially low resident prices while charging exorbitant prices from the non-residents.
The only reason there isn't more NR demand is because WDFW produces a poor product.
Well, not that I disagree with the "poor product," but it's not really the fault of the WDFW. They're trying to provide a product in a small state with an extremely high human population, in comparison to other western states. The only way to improve the product would be to decrease the number of deer and elk tags issued each year. And nobody wants that.
How about a little predator management. Remember the data that Kain put together on cougar impacts. :twocents:
When Idaho wolves started impacting ungulates Idaho offered two bear tags, two cougar tags, and increased the predator seasons in the areas most impacted by wolves.
WDFW has tried to reduce cougar harvest. :bash:
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 10:02:23 PM
3000 x 25 = 75,000
3000 x 50 = 150,000
Reduce the cougar population by 50% and there will be 37,500 to 75,000 more deer per year on the landscape. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on March 24, 2013, 10:09:05 PM
I've purchased a cougar tag every year since they became OTC tags. But, I have never even seen a cougar, except in pictures from my trail camera.
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 10:12:06 PM
I agree, reducing the cougar population would be a good thing. But without hound hunting as an option, does it really matter how many cougar tags a person can buy?
I've purchased a cougar tag every year since they became OTC tags. But, I have never even seen a cougar, except in pictures from my trail camera.
:yeah:
And again, we won't have statewide cougar hound hunting without legislative approval.
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 10:13:12 PM
People need to consider the states they compare WDFW to when they look at who is "better."
You can't compare WDFW to a wildlife agency that doesn't border the saltwater. Why? Because those agencies have a far fewer management load then coastal agencies.
WDFW's biggest funding expenditure is not enforcement, wildlife, habitat, or licensing, but rather the fish program. Do these inland states have to manage crab, sturgeon, shrimp, salmon, halibut, etc? No.
I am sure if you were to look at places like Wyoming or Colorado their budget would be almost all wildlife related.
Prior to the merger of WDFW, the Wildlife Dept was largely user funded, Fisheries Dept was all general fund. Merger happened and ever since the funding has shifted more and more towards the wildlife fund. About 3 years ago the legislature passed a bill directing all commerical and recreational fees to the wildlife fund since there were still some of the smaller licenses going to the general fund.
Just look at how a wildlife officer's job is different in coastal states vs inland. The inland states typically run their LE program where the officer is an LEO and biologist, why? Because once hunting season is over they can do their bio duties because there is no crab, salmon, steelhead, etc season to work. But the officers who work in coastal states have LEO duties 24/7. And in fact, prior to the merger/creatin of WDFW, a Dept of Wildlife Agent was both an LEO and a bio. Merger happened and now the wildlife officers were responsible for all fish enforceemnt, and fisheries officers responsible for wildlife enforcement.
I think you are looking at this the wrong way. With all these varied resources WDFW has more types of products to sell than other F&G agencies, again manage the products well and you will have even more sales with all the diversity in WA.
I understand that completely.
But how is WDFW suppose to "sell" a federally protected salmon run (as an example) which under federal law people cannot possess/take/fish for? WDFW then has to spend money to manage and enforce the fish run but won't get any money in return because people can't fish for it. On the fish/shellfish side WDFW has a lot more problems with the "co-managers" (tribes). It can be hard to manage a run when the co-manager is managing it another way.
In comparison the Pink/Humpy salmon run is nuts and brings in huge revenues every other year to WDFW in terms of licensing. There is a very small tribal/commerical pink fishery.
WA has federally protected marine mammals, hundreds/thousands of rivers/streams that have federally protected salmon (all species except Pink), federally protect steelhead, federally protected columbia river smelt, and several federally protected puget sound rockfish species. WDFW has to manage and enforce those closures/runs but get no money in return. I highly doubt a bass population (example) in a lake in Colorado is federally protected.
It is a lot easier to sell a fishery/hunt when you can actually legally take them.
I think there is an easy answer to this. If WDFW can't sell the product then only monitor endangered species at a minimum as required by federal law. Unless there is a federal law forcing WDFW to monitor then let USFWS earn their keep.
Post by: Mudman on March 24, 2013, 10:14:58 PM
I agree, reducing the cougar population would be a good thing. But without hound hunting as an option, does it really matter how many cougar tags a person can buy?Hit Thompson cr and you will see em eventually. :chuckle:
I've purchased a cougar tag every year since they became OTC tags. But, I have never even seen a cougar, except in pictures from my trail camera.
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 10:15:37 PM
I agree, reducing the cougar population would be a good thing. But without hound hunting as an option, does it really matter how many cougar tags a person can buy?
I've purchased a cougar tag every year since they became OTC tags. But, I have never even seen a cougar, except in pictures from my trail camera.
:yeah:
And again, we won't have statewide cougar hound hunting without legislative approval.
If you are interested in the facts, cougar are being harvested without hounds. Numerous GMU's closed early because the quotas are so low. Even without hound hunting cougar populations could be reduced with longer seasons, even year around hunting.
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 10:19:23 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 10:20:47 PM
People need to consider the states they compare WDFW to when they look at who is "better."
You can't compare WDFW to a wildlife agency that doesn't border the saltwater. Why? Because those agencies have a far fewer management load then coastal agencies.
WDFW's biggest funding expenditure is not enforcement, wildlife, habitat, or licensing, but rather the fish program. Do these inland states have to manage crab, sturgeon, shrimp, salmon, halibut, etc? No.
I am sure if you were to look at places like Wyoming or Colorado their budget would be almost all wildlife related.
Prior to the merger of WDFW, the Wildlife Dept was largely user funded, Fisheries Dept was all general fund. Merger happened and ever since the funding has shifted more and more towards the wildlife fund. About 3 years ago the legislature passed a bill directing all commerical and recreational fees to the wildlife fund since there were still some of the smaller licenses going to the general fund.
Just look at how a wildlife officer's job is different in coastal states vs inland. The inland states typically run their LE program where the officer is an LEO and biologist, why? Because once hunting season is over they can do their bio duties because there is no crab, salmon, steelhead, etc season to work. But the officers who work in coastal states have LEO duties 24/7. And in fact, prior to the merger/creatin of WDFW, a Dept of Wildlife Agent was both an LEO and a bio. Merger happened and now the wildlife officers were responsible for all fish enforceemnt, and fisheries officers responsible for wildlife enforcement.
I think you are looking at this the wrong way. With all these varied resources WDFW has more types of products to sell than other F&G agencies, again manage the products well and you will have even more sales with all the diversity in WA.
I understand that completely.
But how is WDFW suppose to "sell" a federally protected salmon run (as an example) which under federal law people cannot possess/take/fish for? WDFW then has to spend money to manage and enforce the fish run but won't get any money in return because people can't fish for it. On the fish/shellfish side WDFW has a lot more problems with the "co-managers" (tribes). It can be hard to manage a run when the co-manager is managing it another way.
In comparison the Pink/Humpy salmon run is nuts and brings in huge revenues every other year to WDFW in terms of licensing. There is a very small tribal/commerical pink fishery.
WA has federally protected marine mammals, hundreds/thousands of rivers/streams that have federally protected salmon (all species except Pink), federally protect steelhead, federally protected columbia river smelt, and several federally protected puget sound rockfish species. WDFW has to manage and enforce those closures/runs but get no money in return. I highly doubt a bass population (example) in a lake in Colorado is federally protected.
It is a lot easier to sell a fishery/hunt when you can actually legally take them.
I think there is an easy answer to this. If WDFW can't sell the product then only monitor endangered species at a minimum as required by federal law. Unless there is a federal law forcing WDFW to monitor then let USFWS earn their keep.
The ESA does require states to manage/monitor with USFWS and NMFS. States do receive some funding, but not enough to fully fund the management of the protected species.
Post by: sled on March 24, 2013, 10:21:30 PM
Studies have shown 1 cougar eats 25 to 50 deer per year. I don't remember exactly how many cougar are estimated but I think it's about 3000.:yeah: I hunt 340. Every year I find atleast 3 to 8 cougar kills between may and November.
3000 x 25 = 75,000
3000 x 50 = 150,000
Reduce the cougar population by 50% and there will be 37,500 to 75,000 more deer per year on the landscape. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on March 24, 2013, 10:21:40 PM
Quote
If you are interested in the facts, cougar are being harvested without hounds. Numerous GMU's closed early because the quotas are so low. Even without hound hunting cougar populations could be reduced with longer seasons, even year around hunting.
Good point, there probably is more that should be done to try to increase harvest. I was thinking more of the area near me, where the season is pretty generous, yet very few cougars are killed. I don't understand why it's not a year around season.
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 10:22:09 PM
I agree, reducing the cougar population would be a good thing. But without hound hunting as an option, does it really matter how many cougar tags a person can buy?
I've purchased a cougar tag every year since they became OTC tags. But, I have never even seen a cougar, except in pictures from my trail camera.
:yeah:
And again, we won't have statewide cougar hound hunting without legislative approval.
If you are interested in the facts, cougar are being harvested without hounds. Numerous GMU's closed early because the quotas are so low. Even without hound hunting cougar populations could be reduced with longer seasons, even year around hunting.
I am not saying they aren't being harvested. But we all know the easiest/most effective way to hunt cougars is via hounds, and for bears it is bears/dogs.
Post by: JLS on March 24, 2013, 10:24:18 PM
You guys can make all the excuses for WDFW that you want, but if there were going to be 25% layoffs due to lack of welfare (general fund money), I bet WDFW could find a way to make this state's ungulate herds and other species far more productive.
Not with the crop damage payout system the state has.
Post by: Mudman on March 24, 2013, 10:27:03 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 10:27:37 PM
You guys can make all the excuses for WDFW that you want, but if there were going to be 25% layoffs due to lack of welfare (general fund money), I bet WDFW could find a way to make this state's ungulate herds and other species far more productive.
Not with the crop damage payout system the state has.
Another easy answer, if legislators want to pay for crop damage let them do it from the general fund.
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 10:33:01 PM
Currently hunters and fishers are only 27% (or whatever the budget percentage is from licenses) of importance to WDFW.
Post by: bobcat on March 24, 2013, 10:40:47 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 10:42:50 PM
You guys can make all the excuses for WDFW that you want, but if there were going to be 25% layoffs due to lack of welfare (general fund money), I bet WDFW could find a way to make this state's ungulate herds and other species far more productive.
Not with the crop damage payout system the state has.
And there is a bill cruising through the legislature to add bighorn sheep to deer and elk as the species that people can claim crop damage on. However the bill does not increase funding to WDFW to pay out for these claims even though they are adding another species to the list
Each year WDFW is capped at paying $150k in damage claims, 120k from wildlife fund, 30k from general fund.
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 10:50:42 PM
I think that's a great point Dale. It would be to our advantage if the WDFW were 100% funded by fishing and hunting licenses. I just don't know how much more we'd end up having to pay. If license and tags go up even more than they already have, there could be a significant decrease in sales of those licenses.
I understand, the realities of a free market system might prevail. If they increase prices too much people will quit buying.
Post by: mkcj on March 24, 2013, 11:08:07 PM
Wash. 6.724 MILLION people (55K) number of elk in each state, Our deer herd is less than half of all 3 states also.
Idaho, 1.56 Mil (103K)
Mont. 989K (150K)
Wyo. 563K (130K)
So with Wyoming having about 8% of the population of washington you can see why they depend on OOS license sales. (Did you see where WDFW wants to add $10 to the deer, elk and bear license plates that will go directly to a wolf fund :bash:)
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 11:12:48 PM
Populations:
Wash. 6.724 MILLION people (55K) number of elk in each state, Our deer herd is less than half of all 3 states also.
Idaho, 1.56 Mil (103K)
Mont. 989K (150K)
Wyo. 563K (130K)
So with Wyoming having about 8% of the population of washington you can see why they depend on OOS license sales. (Did you see where WDFW wants to add $10 to the deer, elk and bear license plates that will go directly to a wolf fund :bash:)
I don't have the exact numbers at hand, but I think we have smaller numbers of hunters after big game? We have a lot more fishers, but we also have more water resources. :dunno:
According to WDFW we have as much or more habitat than other states! (it's in their wolf plan)
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 11:18:54 PM
(Did you see where WDFW wants to add $10 to the deer, elk and bear license plates that will go directly to a wolf fund :bash:)
Hold it! That is partly false!
In the original bills that WDFW signed off on your $10 statement was not included.
In the House bill the $10 is not directed to wolves. This bill did not advance past committee.
HOWEVER the bill that passed the Senate included an amendment which does divert $10 to the wolf account.
Both of the original bills said to create a new Wolf Plate. The House Bill still says this. The Senate Bill was changed by the Ways and Means Committee and they said don't create a new plate, but increase the new plate and renewal fee for the wildlife plates by $10 and have it go to wolves!
But this is NOT WDFW's idea but rather SENATORS!
The Senate Bill passed the Senate and is in the house.
Post by: mkcj on March 24, 2013, 11:30:01 PM
"The agency wants legislators to pass a bill, ESSB 5193, which will help fund management activities. Part of it raises the cost of a wildlife plate from $40 to $50. The extra $10 will go straight to wolf management, whether you buy an endangered species plate, wildlife viewing plate or deer and elk plate."
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 11:33:28 PM
All I know is what Dave Ware said the other day in Olympia
"The agency wants legislators to pass a bill, ESSB 5193, which will help fund management activities. Part of it raises the cost of a wildlife plate from $40 to $50. The extra $10 will go straight to wolf management, whether you buy an endangered species plate, wildlife viewing plate or deer and elk plate."
Ya WDFW wants to pass the bill. Because the license plate is just one component of a bill which is essentially WDFW's Wolf management bill. But like I said, the original bill that WDFW moved on to legislators did not include the $10, but rather an entire new plate. The Senate did not want another wildlife plate but would rather just raise the fee on the current plates. WDFW simply can't afford to have this bill die because it provides funding to landowners who lose animals to wolves as well as other funding sources.
Do you want WDFW to try and kill this bill simply because of the $10 component and go another year of poor laws between landowners and WDFW?
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 11:44:17 PM
(Did you see where WDFW wants to add $10 to the deer, elk and bear license plates that will go directly to a wolf fund :bash:)
Hold it! That is partly false!
In the original bills that WDFW signed off on your $10 statement was not included.
In the House bill the $10 is not directed to wolves. This bill did not advance past committee.
HOWEVER the bill that passed the Senate included an amendment which does divert $10 to the wolf account.
Both of the original bills said to create a new Wolf Plate. The House Bill still says this. The Senate Bill was changed by the Ways and Means Committee and they said don't create a new plate, but increase the new plate and renewal fee for the wildlife plates by $10 and have it go to wolves!
But this is NOT WDFW's idea but rather SENATORS!
The Senate Bill passed the Senate and is in the house.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/5193-S2.E%20HBA%20AGNR%2013.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/5193-S2.E%20HBA%20AGNR%2013.pdf)
E2SSB 5193
Brief Description: Concerning gray wolf conflict management.
Sponsors: Senate Committee on Ways & Means (originally sponsored by Senators Smith, Roach, Honeyford and Delvin; by request of Department of Fish and Wildlife).
Brief Summary of Engrossed Second Substitute Bill
Allows the State Wildlife Account to be used for compensating the owners of livestock for damage caused by wolves.
Creates a new account to be used for the mitigation, assessment, and payment of claims for livestock losses due to wolf predation.
Removes the condition that a livestock owner must raise livestock for sale in order to qualify for wildlife damage compensation.
Removes the specific compensation dollar amounts available for lost livestock and replaces them with current market value.
Removes the limitation relating to only offering non-cash compensation to the owners of wildlife-damaged property other than crops or livestock.
Increases the cost of the existing wildlife-themed special license plates from $40 to $50 and designates the additional revenue for wolf management and livestock compensation.
Hearing Date: 3/20/13
Staff: Jason Callahan (786-7117).
Background:
Wildlife Damage Compensation.
––––––––––––––––––––––
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent.
House Bill Analysis - 1 - E2SSB 5193
The Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is directed to, subject to funding limits, monetarily compensate the owners of commercial crops damaged by deer or elk and the owners of commercial livestock that are killed or significantly injured by bears, cougars, or wolves.
Each individual claim by a crop or livestock owner is eligible to be paid the value of the lost crop less any payments received by a nonprofit organization up to a maximum of $10,000. For livestock, the compensation is $200 for each lost sheep and $1,500 for each lost head of cattle or
horse.
Total compensation for the owners of commercial crops generally may not exceed $150,000 per year, and total compensation for the owners of commercial livestock may not exceed the amounts specifically appropriated for the purpose. To date, no funding has been provided for compensation to the owners of commercial livestock.
Landowners who experience damage to property other than commercial crops or livestock as a result of the activity of avian or mammalian species may receive non-cash compensation from the WDFW directed to offset the damage. Non-cash support is considered on a case-by-case basis.
Property owners may not receive compensation from the WDFW if they have insurance that provides compensation for the crop loss. Also, they must first exhaust any available compensation offers from nonprofit organizations and utilize all applicable legal and practicable self-help preventative measures. Self-help measures include nonlethal methods of damage prevention and materials and services provided by the WDFW.
Wildlife License Plates.
The Department of Licensing offers a number of wildlife-themed license plates. These include a license plate to recognize endangered species featuring an orca, a three-plate wildlife collection series (featuring a bear, elk, and deer), and a "Wild on Washington" plate featuring the state's species of watchable wildlife. Each of these license plates may be chosen by a Washington motorist in lieu of the standard license plate featuring Mount Rainier.
Motorists choosing this option must pay an additional $40 each year for the use of the special plate. Proceeds are used by the WDFW for specified purposes generally relating to the subject of the license plate.
Summary of Bill:
Wildlife Damage Compensation.
The WDFW is authorized to spend up to $50,000 per fiscal year from the State Wildlife Account to pay claims and assessment costs for injuries and losses to commercial livestock from wolves.
This authority is additive to the WDFW's authority to use State Wildlife Account funding for ungulate damage to crops. Any portions of the authorized $50,000 that are unspent at the end of any biennium must be transferred to the newly created Wolf-Livestock Conflict Account (Account).
The Account is created as an unappropriated account. In addition to the transfer of any unspent State Wildlife Account money that was appropriated for paying wolf predation claims, the Account may also receive grants, gifts, or donations.
House Bill Analysis - 2 - E2SSB 5193
Expenditures from the Account are to be used for the mitigation, assessment, and payment of claims for livestock losses due to wolf predation. The WDFW must pay wolf compensation claims in the chronological order they were confirmed. Confirmed claims in one fiscal biennium may be paid from the Account in a future biennium.
The animal-specific compensation limits are removed for livestock killed by wolves, bears, or cougars. Instead of a fixed amount of compensation, compensation is available in an amount that equals the market value of the animal that was lost. Related to this, the condition that a livestock owner must raise livestock for sale in order to qualify for wildlife damage compensation is removed. Any owner of cattle, sheep, or horses may qualify for compensation from losses caused by bears, cougars, or wolves.
The limitation on the WDFW relating to only offering non-cash compensation to the owners of wildlife-damaged property other than crops or livestock is removed. This allows the WDFW to offer cash, and well as non-cash, compensation to these property owners. The Fish and Wildlife Commission is provided with specific rulemaking authority that allows it to set limits and conditions for expenditures on claims and assessments for all wildlife damage to crops, livestock, other property, and mitigating actions.
Special License Plates.
The cost of the existing wildlife-themed special license plates is increased, as of the start of 2014, from $40 to $50. The price increase applies to the endangered species plate, the bear/deer/ elk wildlife collection, and the Wild on Washington plate. The additional $10 is to be used by the WDFW for wolf management efforts and to compensation livestock owners for losses due to wolves.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Requested on March 14, 2013.
Effective Date: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of the session in which the bill is passed, except for sections 7 and 8, relating to the price increase in wildlife-themed license plates, which takes effect on January 1, 2014.
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 11:46:50 PM
If you look at the original Senate bill it was to create a new Wolf Plate. But the Ways and Means Committee eliminated that section and just increased the fee for new and current wildlife plates.
Post by: mkcj on March 24, 2013, 11:47:19 PM
Let me get this straight, They want me to pay more for a plate that is suppose to help the intended wildlife on said plate and now charge more so they can help build a population of wolves destine to eat the animals I'm trying to help?
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 11:51:57 PM
Wait till wolves multiply several more years before the WDFW gets around to confirming enough BP's to delist. It's going to get ugly.
Post by: bobcat on March 24, 2013, 11:53:13 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 11:55:06 PM
What will it change between landowner and WDFW besides me paying $10 more?
You're not getting my point. There are 6 components of this bill, 5 have to do with damage done to landowner property, the other has to do with the license plate.
WDFW did not want the current bill as it passed the Senate. WDFW wanted a completely new wolf plate, not simply increase the fee for the current plates. But they are not going to try and kill it simply because one of the 6 components were modified.
Post by: mkcj on March 24, 2013, 11:56:26 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2013, 11:56:49 PM
What will it change between landowner and WDFW besides me paying $10 more?
You're not getting my point. There are 6 components of this bill, 5 have to do with damage done to landowner property, the other has to do with the license plate.
WDFW did not want the current bill as it passed the Senate. WDFW wanted a completely new wolf plate, not simply increase the fee for the current plates. But they are not going to try and kill it simply because one of the 6 components were modified.
You are correct, it was written to create a new wolf plate.
Post by: bobcat on March 24, 2013, 11:58:10 PM
They will be getting my deer plate back that I have had since year 1 of availability
I don't blame you. Let the wolf huggers buy the plates and support the wolves they love so much.
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2013, 11:58:54 PM
In favor: Bailey, Baumgartner, Becker, Benton, Billig, Braun, Brown, Carrell, Dammeier, Eide, Ericksen, Hargrove, Hatfield, Hewitt, Hobbs, Holmquist Newbry, Honeyford, King, Mullet, Padden, Parlette, Pearson, Rivers, Roach, Schoesler, Sheldon, Shin, and Smith
Opposed: Chase, Cleveland, Conway, Darneille, Fain, Fraser, Frockt, Harper, Hasegawa, Hill, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Litzow, McAuliffe, Murray, Nelson, Ranker, Rolfes, Schlicher, and Tom
Post by: bigtex on March 25, 2013, 12:00:19 AM
What will it change between landowner and WDFW besides me paying $10 more?
You're not getting my point. There are 6 components of this bill, 5 have to do with damage done to landowner property, the other has to do with the license plate.
WDFW did not want the current bill as it passed the Senate. WDFW wanted a completely new wolf plate, not simply increase the fee for the current plates. But they are not going to try and kill it simply because one of the 6 components were modified.
You are correct, it was written to create a new wolf plate.
And for that reason you can't say WDFW wants to add the $10 for wolves. Because it was the Senate Ways and Means Committee which scrapped the new wolf plate and added the fee.
Post by: bearpaw on March 25, 2013, 12:04:24 AM
Post by: mkcj on March 25, 2013, 12:08:13 AM
They want me to pay more for a plate that is suppose to help the intended wildlife on said plate and now charge more so they can help build a population of wolves destine to eat the animals I'm trying to help?
Post by: bobcat on March 25, 2013, 12:12:20 AM
Like I said above
They want me to pay more for a plate that is suppose to help the intended wildlife on said plate and now charge more so they can help build a population of wolves destine to eat the animals I'm trying to help?
That's the nice thing about this "tax" - it's voluntary. If you don't want to pay for wolf damage, don't pay for the plates. My wife has the Orca plate on her car. I'm going to try to convince her to get rid of them. Let the wolf huggers pay for the wolves.
Post by: GUHunter on March 25, 2013, 01:24:42 AM
Many of the wesern states, including Wyoming, have ridiculously low resident hunting license fees. They could raise those fees by a small percentage to help out the budget, but it seems all they ever want to do is stick it to the non-residents.
I just looked up fees for comparison. WY RES Deer - $38 (WA $44.90), WY RES Elk - $52 (WA - $50.40), WY RES Black Bear $45 (WA - $24). WY residents also do not receive a package price discount for buying several species at once. I do know that MT does have very low rates for residents while having ridiculous prices for Non-Res.
Post by: huntnphool on March 25, 2013, 01:29:30 AM
I agree, reducing the cougar population would be a good thing. But without hound hunting as an option, does it really matter how many cougar tags a person can buy?This is not directed at you Bob but just quoting you as a example. What you guys again fail to remember is that WDFW now have a brand new cougar plan, one that is based on their belief (WSU professor study) that the cougar population in this state is being OVER HARVESTED so you can forget about them even thinking about increasing tags/seasons.
I've purchased a cougar tag every year since they became OTC tags. But, I have never even seen a cougar, except in pictures from my trail camera.
Post by: huntnphool on March 25, 2013, 01:36:21 AM
They will be getting my deer plate back that I have had since year 1 of availabilityIf this goes through they will lose my $40 as well.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 25, 2013, 06:06:54 AM
What will it change between landowner and WDFW besides me paying $10 more?
You're not getting my point. There are 6 components of this bill, 5 have to do with damage done to landowner property, the other has to do with the license plate.
WDFW did not want the current bill as it passed the Senate. WDFW wanted a completely new wolf plate, not simply increase the fee for the current plates. But they are not going to try and kill it simply because one of the 6 components were modified.
You are correct, it was written to create a new wolf plate.
And for that reason you can't say WDFW wants to add the $10 for wolves. Because it was the Senate Ways and Means Committee which scrapped the new wolf plate and added the fee.
Okay...So where did this come from?.......
"All I know is what Dave Ware said the other day in Olympia
"The agency wants legislators to pass a bill, ESSB 5193, which will help fund management activities. Part of it raises the cost of a wildlife plate from $40 to $50. The extra $10 will go straight to wolf management, whether you buy an endangered species plate, wildlife viewing plate or deer and elk plate.""
Post by: bigtex on March 25, 2013, 09:42:02 AM
What will it change between landowner and WDFW besides me paying $10 more?
You're not getting my point. There are 6 components of this bill, 5 have to do with damage done to landowner property, the other has to do with the license plate.
WDFW did not want the current bill as it passed the Senate. WDFW wanted a completely new wolf plate, not simply increase the fee for the current plates. But they are not going to try and kill it simply because one of the 6 components were modified.
You are correct, it was written to create a new wolf plate.
And for that reason you can't say WDFW wants to add the $10 for wolves. Because it was the Senate Ways and Means Committee which scrapped the new wolf plate and added the fee.
Okay...So where did this come from?.......
"All I know is what Dave Ware said the other day in Olympia
"The agency wants legislators to pass a bill, ESSB 5193, which will help fund management activities. Part of it raises the cost of a wildlife plate from $40 to $50. The extra $10 will go straight to wolf management, whether you buy an endangered species plate, wildlife viewing plate or deer and elk plate.""
Read my prior posts, which Bearpaw agrees with. WDFW wanted a new wolf plate in the original, the senate said no, just add $10 to the current plate.
Post by: huntnphool on March 25, 2013, 09:45:43 AM
The $10 fee is still the WDFW's idea, regardless where the $10 is imposed. ;)What will it change between landowner and WDFW besides me paying $10 more?
You're not getting my point. There are 6 components of this bill, 5 have to do with damage done to landowner property, the other has to do with the license plate.
WDFW did not want the current bill as it passed the Senate. WDFW wanted a completely new wolf plate, not simply increase the fee for the current plates. But they are not going to try and kill it simply because one of the 6 components were modified.
You are correct, it was written to create a new wolf plate.
And for that reason you can't say WDFW wants to add the $10 for wolves. Because it was the Senate Ways and Means Committee which scrapped the new wolf plate and added the fee.
Okay...So where did this come from?.......
"All I know is what Dave Ware said the other day in Olympia
"The agency wants legislators to pass a bill, ESSB 5193, which will help fund management activities. Part of it raises the cost of a wildlife plate from $40 to $50. The extra $10 will go straight to wolf management, whether you buy an endangered species plate, wildlife viewing plate or deer and elk plate.""
Read my prior posts, which Bearpaw agrees with. WDFW wanted a new wolf plate in the original, the senate said no, just add $10 to the current plate.
Post by: bigtex on March 25, 2013, 09:47:42 AM
The $10 fee is still the WDFW's idea, regardless where the $10 is imposed. ;)What will it change between landowner and WDFW besides me paying $10 more?
You're not getting my point. There are 6 components of this bill, 5 have to do with damage done to landowner property, the other has to do with the license plate.
WDFW did not want the current bill as it passed the Senate. WDFW wanted a completely new wolf plate, not simply increase the fee for the current plates. But they are not going to try and kill it simply because one of the 6 components were modified.
You are correct, it was written to create a new wolf plate.
And for that reason you can't say WDFW wants to add the $10 for wolves. Because it was the Senate Ways and Means Committee which scrapped the new wolf plate and added the fee.
Okay...So where did this come from?.......
"All I know is what Dave Ware said the other day in Olympia
"The agency wants legislators to pass a bill, ESSB 5193, which will help fund management activities. Part of it raises the cost of a wildlife plate from $40 to $50. The extra $10 will go straight to wolf management, whether you buy an endangered species plate, wildlife viewing plate or deer and elk plate.""
Read my prior posts, which Bearpaw agrees with. WDFW wanted a new wolf plate in the original, the senate said no, just add $10 to the current plate.
No it is not. WDFW wanted the new wolf plate so people who want to support wolves can have their money go to wolves. Now people who wanted their money going to wildlife management, endangered species management, etc are going to have to pay $10 extra just because Senators didnt want to make a new plate!
Post by: huntnphool on March 25, 2013, 09:51:07 AM
:chuckle: Come on BT, you are more intelligent than that.The $10 fee is still the WDFW's idea, regardless where the $10 is imposed. ;)What will it change between landowner and WDFW besides me paying $10 more?
You're not getting my point. There are 6 components of this bill, 5 have to do with damage done to landowner property, the other has to do with the license plate.
WDFW did not want the current bill as it passed the Senate. WDFW wanted a completely new wolf plate, not simply increase the fee for the current plates. But they are not going to try and kill it simply because one of the 6 components were modified.
You are correct, it was written to create a new wolf plate.
And for that reason you can't say WDFW wants to add the $10 for wolves. Because it was the Senate Ways and Means Committee which scrapped the new wolf plate and added the fee.
Okay...So where did this come from?.......
"All I know is what Dave Ware said the other day in Olympia
"The agency wants legislators to pass a bill, ESSB 5193, which will help fund management activities. Part of it raises the cost of a wildlife plate from $40 to $50. The extra $10 will go straight to wolf management, whether you buy an endangered species plate, wildlife viewing plate or deer and elk plate.""
Read my prior posts, which Bearpaw agrees with. WDFW wanted a new wolf plate in the original, the senate said no, just add $10 to the current plate.
No it is not. WDFW wanted the new wolf plate so people who want to support wolves can have their money go to wolves. Now people who wanted their money going to wildlife management, endangered species management, etc are going to have to pay $10 extra just because Senators didnt want to make a new plate!
Post by: bearpaw on March 25, 2013, 10:14:08 AM
Knowing somewhat how my local legislators think I am confident Smith intended for the wolf lovers to pay more of their share in wolf management. I have not reviewed who amended the bill but I am suspect that it may have been wolf loving Senators who refused to create a new wolf plate. No doubt the WDFW wants money, we all know they will take whatever money they can get. If people quit buying the existing license plates then the legislature will see how they messed that up.
While the people would be better served by creating a new wolf license plate rather than raising fees on existing license plates, this bill needs to pass because it still creates a funding mechanism to pay for wolf losses and it still designates the wolf as a big game animal.
You can read the substitute bill here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5193-S2.E%20SBR%20APS%2013.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5193-S2.E%20SBR%20APS%2013.pdf)
Post by: bigtex on March 25, 2013, 10:19:08 AM
Senator Smith's original bill created a wolf license plate to help pay wolf damages and changed the designation of the wolf to a game animal. To their credit, WDFW supported this bill. I read the original bill, it's posted online: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5193.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5193.pdf)
Knowing somewhat how my local legislators think I am confident Smith intended for the wolf lovers to pay more of their share in wolf management. I have not reviewed who amended the bill but I am suspect that it may have been wolf loving Senators who refused to create a new wolf plate. No doubt the WDFW wants money, we all know they will take whatever money they can get. If people quit buying the existing license plates then the legislature will see how they messed that up.
While the people would be better served by creating a new wolf license plate rather than raising fees on existing license plates, this bill needs to pass because it still creates a funding mechanism to pay for wolf losses and it still designates the wolf as a big game animal.
You can read the substitute bill here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5193-S2.E%20SBR%20APS%2013.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5193-S2.E%20SBR%20APS%2013.pdf)
Thank you Bearpaw. The bill was amended by the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
Post by: huntnphool on March 25, 2013, 10:28:02 AM
Senator Smith's original bill created a wolf license plate to help pay wolf damages and changed the designation of the wolf to a game animal. To their credit, WDFW supported this bill. I read the original bill, it's posted online: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5193.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5193.pdf)To my point addressed to BT, I believe that it is more about the short sighted, money hungry politicians seeing more revenue generated by imposing the $10 fee on the numerous existing plates, rather than the newly produced "Wolf" plate.
Knowing somewhat how my local legislators think I am confident Smith intended for the wolf lovers to pay more of their share in wolf management. I have not reviewed who amended the bill but I am suspect that it may have been wolf loving Senators who refused to create a new wolf plate. No doubt the WDFW wants money, we all know they will take whatever money they can get. If people quit buying the existing license plates then the legislature will see how they messed that up.
While the people would be better served by creating a new wolf license plate rather than raising fees on existing license plates, this bill needs to pass because it still creates a funding mechanism to pay for wolf losses and it still designates the wolf as a big game animal.
You can read the substitute bill here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5193-S2.E%20SBR%20APS%2013.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5193-S2.E%20SBR%20APS%2013.pdf)
In the end I'm betting you see a new wolf plate in the near future as well, but imposing the fee on existing plates generates revenue instantly without cost, not to mention there are potentially way more existing plates out there than will ever be wolf plates produced. If they waited for the "wolf" plate to be produced, then put on the market, it would take years before any real revenue would be seen. This is nothing more than "revenue now", yet seriously doubt they have factored in the revenue lost when people refuse to renew their deer, elk etc plates. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 25, 2013, 10:30:30 AM
Post by: huntnphool on March 25, 2013, 10:39:50 AM
That may be a good explanation huntnphool, it would be interesting to see a video of the session where they discussed the bill and made the amendment.I guess at this point I am extremely skeptical when it comes to politicians sitting around thinking up ways to generate revenue. In the end its typically which plan generates the most money in the least amount of time with the least amount of investment, I believe this plate idea is a classic example. Why create a new plate that will take years to see black when they can impose a additional fee to numerous other plates that likely will not even be noticed by the people when it comes time for them to renew, and generate revenue starting right away. :dunno:
Post by: 6x6in6 on March 25, 2013, 10:40:07 AM
And all 3 of my elk plates....They will be getting my deer plate back that I have had since year 1 of availabilityIf this goes through they will lose my $40 as well.
Post by: bigtex on March 25, 2013, 10:48:30 AM
That may be a good explanation huntnphool, it would be interesting to see a video of the session where they discussed the bill and made the amendment.Why create a new plate that will take years to see black when they can impose a additional fee to numerous other plates that likely will not even be noticed by the people when it comes time for them to renew, and generate revenue starting right away. :dunno:
Here was the projected fiscal impact of a new wolf plate which would begin sale 1/1/2014:
Cash Receipts FY 14 FY 15 13-15 Total 15-17 Total 17-19 Total
State Wildlife - - 38,810 38,810 205,060 261,350
Motor Vehicle 38,370 30,080 68,450 30,980 30,130
Total Revenue 38,370 68,890 107,260 236,040 291,480
Post by: huntnphool on March 25, 2013, 10:52:40 AM
It didn't post right BT, what am I looking at? Which part is the "wolf" plate portion?That may be a good explanation huntnphool, it would be interesting to see a video of the session where they discussed the bill and made the amendment.Why create a new plate that will take years to see black when they can impose a additional fee to numerous other plates that likely will not even be noticed by the people when it comes time for them to renew, and generate revenue starting right away. :dunno:
Here was the projected fiscal impact of a new wolf plate:
Cash Receipts FY 14 FY 15 13-15 Total 15-17 Total 17-19 Total
State Wildlife - 38,810 38,810 205,060 261,350
Motor Vehicle 38,370 30,080 68,450 30,980 30,130
Total Revenue 38,370 68,890 107,260 236,040 291,480
Post by: bigtex on March 25, 2013, 10:59:33 AM
It didn't post right BT, what am I looking at? Which part is the "wolf" plate portion?That may be a good explanation huntnphool, it would be interesting to see a video of the session where they discussed the bill and made the amendment.Why create a new plate that will take years to see black when they can impose a additional fee to numerous other plates that likely will not even be noticed by the people when it comes time for them to renew, and generate revenue starting right away. :dunno:
Here was the projected fiscal impact of a new wolf plate:
Cash Receipts FY 14 FY 15 13-15 Total 15-17 Total 17-19 Total
State Wildlife - 38,810 38,810 205,060 261,350
Motor Vehicle 38,370 30,080 68,450 30,980 30,130
Total Revenue 38,370 68,890 107,260 236,040 291,480
Did some editing to it. This is the fiscal impact from solely a new wolf plate, which obviously is no longer going to happen.
Post by: huntnphool on March 25, 2013, 11:04:33 AM
Now I'd like them to produce a chart that shows revenues generated by additional fees to the existing wildlife plates, I bet the figures are triple and the reason for the amended bill.It didn't post right BT, what am I looking at? Which part is the "wolf" plate portion?That may be a good explanation huntnphool, it would be interesting to see a video of the session where they discussed the bill and made the amendment.Why create a new plate that will take years to see black when they can impose a additional fee to numerous other plates that likely will not even be noticed by the people when it comes time for them to renew, and generate revenue starting right away. :dunno:
Here was the projected fiscal impact of a new wolf plate:
Cash Receipts FY 14 FY 15 13-15 Total 15-17 Total 17-19 Total
State Wildlife - 38,810 38,810 205,060 261,350
Motor Vehicle 38,370 30,080 68,450 30,980 30,130
Total Revenue 38,370 68,890 107,260 236,040 291,480
Did some editing to it. This is the fiscal impact from solely a new wolf plate, which obviously is no longer going to happen.
Post by: snowpack on March 25, 2013, 11:20:58 AM
Post by: mkcj on March 25, 2013, 11:56:06 AM
Post by: huntnphool on April 29, 2013, 11:32:52 AM
Post by: HUNT on April 29, 2013, 11:42:44 AM
Anyone know what the status is on this issue? My plates are going to be due in the next couple months and I'm not renewing the wildlife plates if the money is going to fund the wolf recovery.
:yeah:
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 29, 2013, 07:35:31 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on April 29, 2013, 08:01:19 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 29, 2013, 08:06:49 PM
they obviously have more power than we do
They don't have more power, they are better organized and are better funded.
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 29, 2013, 08:25:19 PM
The time has come to get new plates. The reflective junk supposedly has expired over time. So they nick you for new plates.
I think my truck cost me about $154 for a renewal this year with the new plate fee.
This fee included a cost to keep my same plate number too, just like they nick you for a keeping your personalized plates.
Bastages!!! :(
Post by: huntnphool on April 29, 2013, 08:30:48 PM
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 29, 2013, 08:54:59 PM
The elk plate I renewed for the camper that rides on my truck cost me $73 last week. It had been $32 for the prior 6 years.
At least that renewal (camper) they didn't ask me if I want to donate to the State Parks.
Yet they did on my car trailer and horse trailer.
Figure that one out!!!! :chuckle:
Post by: sakoshooter on April 30, 2013, 09:39:34 PM
The legislature is having to legislate wolf management already because WDFW is in love with wolves. If WDFW needed to save our elk, deer, and moose so they can sell licenses to put food on their dinner table they would sure consider better management.
I would pay more $ for better management and quality of hunting. The problem is that WDFW is on legislative welfare, they do not have to produce a good product, take away the welfare and we will see better management. They either manage better or they take some pay cuts or unemployment like the rest of Americans.
My thoughts exactly Bearpaw.