Post by: bigtex on August 11, 2014, 07:39:58 PM
•Reduction of Enforcement Officers ($2.3 million)
•Reduction in HPA permitting ($3.0 million)
•Reduction in payments-in-lieu of taxes to counties ($700,000)
•Hatchery reductions and closures ($2.9 million)
•Close commercial salmon fisheries in Puget Sound ($570,000)
•Close commercial salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay ($290,000)
•Reduce Puget Sound shellfish fisheries ($450,000)
•Additional program reductions to reach target under development. ($720,000)
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/08/aug0814_13_presentation.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/08/aug0814_13_presentation.pdf)
Post by: bigtex on August 11, 2014, 07:47:55 PM
•Reduction of Enforcement Officers ($2.3 million)WDFW LE got $13.2 million in the 2013-15 budget from the General Fund. A 2.3M decrease would mean a 17% reduction in General Fund funding for WDFW LE.
Post by: Forks on August 11, 2014, 07:57:19 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 11, 2014, 08:01:31 PM
I'm trying to decide how I would feel if they closed commercial salmon fishing in Puget Sound/Grays/Willapa...wouldn't the unharvested by state commies just go towards tribal quota?
Post by: Bean Counter on August 11, 2014, 08:04:16 PM
:sas:
Post by: bigtex on August 11, 2014, 08:08:14 PM
My point? I wouldn't be surprised if there is a proposal for a license fee increase next year in the legislature.
According to some within WDFW there will likely be a proposal on the fishing side, with a"minor" proposal on the hunting side.
Post by: bigtex on August 11, 2014, 08:11:19 PM
So HPA is a big enough deal that they could cut it by $3M?
HPA falls under the Habitat Program which gets $13.1M from the General Fund for all of it's subprograms. However, they only get $2.9M from the Wildlife Fund. I don't know how much of that roughly $16M goes to HPA, but I think a $3M cut is a good slice of the HPA pie.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 11, 2014, 08:12:58 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 11, 2014, 08:20:41 PM
Post by: grundy53 on August 11, 2014, 08:56:33 PM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: bigtex on August 11, 2014, 09:03:37 PM
Cutting $700,000 payment in lieu of taxes? So basically the state is deciding they're not going to pay the counties their property taxes... must nice to be able to just not pay your taxes...As part of a legislative package WDFW is requesting legislation that will both unfreeze the current payments (which only authorizes payments to some E WA counties) but also increase the amount paid out to all counties. It sounds like the funding for PILT will move from the General Fund to the Wildlife Fund. WDFW wants to help the counties where they are acquiring lands.
Post by: WSU on August 11, 2014, 09:15:47 PM
So HPA is a big enough deal that they could cut it by $3M?
I'm trying to decide how I would feel if they closed commercial salmon fishing in Puget Sound/Grays/Willapa...wouldn't the unharvested by state commies just go towards tribal quota?
No. There are no tribal fisheries in willapa. Just a giant welfare system for an out dated industry. Hatcheries there will probably close. Tribes and sports will get more in grays harbor. Who knows in the sound?
Post by: idahohuntr on August 11, 2014, 09:53:51 PM
Post by: bigtex on August 11, 2014, 09:56:46 PM
Post by: Northway on August 12, 2014, 02:00:19 PM
Well the title says it all. The state is looking at a $3 Billion deficit for the upcoming budget year. In preparation for the cuts, the Governor has ordered that agencies prepare for a 15% cut. Last weekend the WDFW commission was briefed on the projected WDFW budget request for July 1, 2015 - June 30, 2017. For WDFW the 15% equates to $11,000,000. The following is the projected cuts:
•Reduction of Enforcement Officers ($2.3 million)
•Reduction in HPA permitting ($3.0 million)
•Reduction in payments-in-lieu of taxes to counties ($700,000)
•Hatchery reductions and closures ($2.9 million)
•Close commercial salmon fisheries in Puget Sound ($570,000)
•Close commercial salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay ($290,000)
•Reduce Puget Sound shellfish fisheries ($450,000)
•Additional program reductions to reach target under development. ($720,000)
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/08/aug0814_13_presentation.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/08/aug0814_13_presentation.pdf)
Bigtex,
Would you mind offering up any insight on how WDFW prioritizes cuts?
Post by: Maverick on August 12, 2014, 04:49:10 PM
No more price increases!
Post by: bigtex on August 12, 2014, 05:53:38 PM
That's all closed door/management decisions.Well the title says it all. The state is looking at a $3 Billion deficit for the upcoming budget year. In preparation for the cuts, the Governor has ordered that agencies prepare for a 15% cut. Last weekend the WDFW commission was briefed on the projected WDFW budget request for July 1, 2015 - June 30, 2017. For WDFW the 15% equates to $11,000,000. The following is the projected cuts:Bigtex,
•Reduction of Enforcement Officers ($2.3 million)
•Reduction in HPA permitting ($3.0 million)
•Reduction in payments-in-lieu of taxes to counties ($700,000)
•Hatchery reductions and closures ($2.9 million)
•Close commercial salmon fisheries in Puget Sound ($570,000)
•Close commercial salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay ($290,000)
•Reduce Puget Sound shellfish fisheries ($450,000)
•Additional program reductions to reach target under development. ($720,000)
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/08/aug0814_13_presentation.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/08/aug0814_13_presentation.pdf)
Would you mind offering up any insight on how WDFW prioritizes cuts?
I think the reason why LE is subjected to a big hit is because they basically were saved of any cuts during the 2007-11 recession years. For the most part LE didn't suffer any cuts, and actually many new officers were hired and some new positions were funded. So I think for LE it's basically the time has come for them to get their share, all the other programs got hit hard during 07-11. Those that remember the bad budget years of the mid to late 90s may remember that many WDFW Officers were actually laid off, that didn't happen from 07-11.
Post by: Stein on August 12, 2014, 08:19:09 PM
Wasn't the whole point of wdfw joining the state was to get general funds? Now they're slowly cutting it away? Wdfw needs to go solo again like other states are.
No more price increases!
If WDFW didn't receive general funds, I would really hate to see what my licenses would cost every year. This is the same song and dance going on in Montana, huge cuts leading to huge increases for sportsmen.
Post by: stuckalot on August 12, 2014, 08:49:07 PM
Post by: bigtex on August 12, 2014, 09:15:25 PM
:yeah: I agree with Stein. Unless we want to see astronomical license fees we better hope we continue to get general fund money into WDFW.Wasn't the whole point of wdfw joining the state was to get general funds? Now they're slowly cutting it away? Wdfw needs to go solo again like other states are.If WDFW didn't receive general funds, I would really hate to see what my licenses would cost every year. This is the same song and dance going on in Montana, huge cuts leading to huge increases for sportsmen.
No more price increases!
Maverick,
WDFW didn't "join the state" it's always been a state agency.
When it comes to funding it comes down to the old Dept of Fisheries and the Dept of Wildlife before the merger which created WDFW in 1994. Fisheries was funded by taxes (General Fund), so your fishing licenses went into the General Fund. Wildlife was funded by licenses fees (Wildlife Fund.) When WDFW was created the two funding sources basically merged together. Through the years more and more fishing license fees were moved from the going to the General Fund to the Wildlife Fund, as this happened the amount of $ got from the General Fund decreased. As of about 3 years ago ALL fishing and hunting fees now go to the Wildlife Fund, and as a result WDFW now gets the smallest % of General Fund funding it has ever received. While it would be nice if WDFW was solely funded by user fees so we (sportsmen) could essentially run the agency, the actuality of that happen simply couldn't happen unless you want to see your license fees shoot through the roof. Just to see the picture, in the current budget WDFW gets $60M from the General Fund and $102M from the Wildlife Fund. How would you make up that $60M if you eliminated the General Fund and made WDFW a user based agency?
Post by: Special T on August 12, 2014, 09:37:28 PM
Post by: bigtex on August 12, 2014, 09:48:50 PM
While i would HATE an increase in tags.... I would take a New department head and a FOCUS on sportsmen. Do you think there is a way for the WDFW to focus on its core BIGTEX and leave the unfunded mandates at the legislature ?. I would gladly support a SPORTSMEN WDFW and no some greenie bunny hugger consortium..If it's in law (mandated by the legislature) then WDFW has to follow it. What is WDFW supposed to do? "Well Mr. Chairman who oversees my agency budget, I know you passed that mandate last year, but we don't like it so we don't follow it.." For some reason I don't think that will fly.
If we want to get rid of the "greenie bunny hugger consortium" then we need to get rid of the people at the top, and not the F&W Commission, but the legislature. It's the legislature that ultimately sets the WDFW budget, that enacts laws/mandates, and ultimately to who both the F&W Commission and the agency reports to.
Post by: Special T on August 12, 2014, 09:53:10 PM
BIG TEX what do you think it would cost? I bet it woudl hurt short term but help long term....
I know a pipe dream for sure....
Post by: bigtex on August 12, 2014, 10:04:12 PM
The legislature is FULL of unfunded mandates! HOW could we get to the point where SPORTSMEN fund the department instead of catering to bunny hugging/wolf lovers?I know it's full of unfunded mandates. And it's unbelievable how many annual reports agencies (including WDFW) have to submit to the legislature to report on agency work towards the mandate, even though the legislature didn't give the agency a dime to work towards that mandate. Its not "do more with the same" but rather "do more with less."
BIG TEX what do you think it would cost? I bet it woudl hurt short term but help long term....
I know a pipe dream for sure....
But to answer your question. We would need to completely eliminate the 16% of WDFW funding that comes from the General Fund. Now will you completely eliminate the "greeny" feeling? No because WDFW's largest funding source (29%) comes from the federal government. But in order to move towards a more "user based" agency we would need to remove the "non-user" funding that goes into the agency. But like you said, such a move is a dream because fiscally it couldn't happen with this agency.
Post by: Special T on August 12, 2014, 10:05:57 PM
Post by: fastdam on August 12, 2014, 10:06:25 PM
Post by: fastdam on August 12, 2014, 10:08:34 PM
Post by: bigtex on August 12, 2014, 10:10:09 PM
Do you have any quick numbers as to what that means?For 2013-15 WDFW gets:
60.8M from General Fund
102.5M from Wildlife Fund
107.2M from the Feds
58.4M from local sources
46.9M from other sources
Post by: Forks on August 13, 2014, 01:07:19 AM
Post by: Stein on August 13, 2014, 10:10:41 AM
If the 15% atb stuck, that would be one thing. The way it works is everyone starts at -15% and then our elected representatives start getting e-mails, contributions and phone calls. Then, some departments go from -15 to +5 and others get the shaft.
It isn't about what is "right" or who deserves what.
Fishing and particularly hunting are rapidly evolving into an upper middle class and above recreation. The fewer people that participate, the bigger the cuts will be and the more money it will take to play.
Post by: bigtex on August 16, 2014, 09:23:46 PM
BigTex- do you support the decision for all fees going to the Wildlife Fund versus General Fund?I do. A lot of people thought it was odd their money for their fishing license didn't go directly to WDFW but rather the General Fund. So realistically your license fee supported every state agency; from the Dept of Transportation to the Arts Commission.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 17, 2014, 08:59:27 AM
:yeah: I agree with Stein. Unless we want to see astronomical license fees we better hope we continue to get general fund money into WDFW.Wasn't the whole point of wdfw joining the state was to get general funds? Now they're slowly cutting it away? Wdfw needs to go solo again like other states are.If WDFW didn't receive general funds, I would really hate to see what my licenses would cost every year. This is the same song and dance going on in Montana, huge cuts leading to huge increases for sportsmen.
No more price increases!
Maverick,
WDFW didn't "join the state" it's always been a state agency.
When it comes to funding it comes down to the old Dept of Fisheries and the Dept of Wildlife before the merger which created WDFW in 1994. Fisheries was funded by taxes (General Fund), so your fishing licenses went into the General Fund. Wildlife was funded by licenses fees (Wildlife Fund.) When WDFW was created the two funding sources basically merged together. Through the years more and more fishing license fees were moved from the going to the General Fund to the Wildlife Fund, as this happened the amount of $ got from the General Fund decreased. As of about 3 years ago ALL fishing and hunting fees now go to the Wildlife Fund, and as a result WDFW now gets the smallest % of General Fund funding it has ever received. While it would be nice if WDFW was solely funded by user fees so we (sportsmen) could essentially run the agency, the actuality of that happen simply couldn't happen unless you want to see your license fees shoot through the roof. Just to see the picture, in the current budget WDFW gets $60M from the General Fund and $102M from the Wildlife Fund. How would you make up that $60M if you eliminated the General Fund and made WDFW a user based agency?
How about one that would propose (Oops wrong thread!) to the legislature to split the Fisheries, DFW again. Now there's a fantasy I could live with. Sure seems that that move was the one that created most of our problems (that did not exist previous to)
Post by: bigtex on August 17, 2014, 09:06:59 AM
How about one that would propose (Oops wrong thread!) to the legislature to split the Fisheries, DFW again. Now there's a fantasy I could live with. Sure seems that that move was the one that created most of our problems (that did not exist previous to)
All it would take is the legislature to pass a bill. But it won't happen. The past legislatures in WA have been more for merging/combining agencies then splitting them up. In the past few years there's been the proposed mergers of DNR/WDFW/PARKS, moving WDFW and DNR LE to State Patrol, taking WDFW, DNR, and Parks LE out of their agencies and creating a new "natural resource police" agency, etc.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 17, 2014, 09:11:34 AM
Post by: bigtex on August 17, 2014, 09:14:27 AM
So their next move will only make things worse if we cannot stop it before more damage is done.I personally think it is inevitable that one day we will see at least one of the other natural resource agencies merged with WDFW.
Colorado a couple years ago merged their Parks and Wildlife departments. Many of the midwest states have a "Parks and Wildlife" agency. Personally, I would rather see DNR merged with WDFW then Parks merged with WDFW.
But my gut feeling says it'll happen one day, especially if we continue seeing these bad budgets. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on August 17, 2014, 09:16:54 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 17, 2014, 09:26:37 AM
Post by: bigtex on August 17, 2014, 09:39:21 AM
But Montana is not run by liberal greenie leaning, leaf licking, wolf loving Pugetropolis either, so it might just work great THERE And they don't have the commercial fishing industry to loose focus on their wildlife to
Here are some things most people don't know regarding WDFW and DNR.
WDFW is obviously the lead enforcement agency when it comes to shellfish. Yet, DNR is the one who owns the majority of the state tidelands/beaches, is the agency responsible for selling commercial shellfish leases for state lands, and is the agency who does most of the monitoring for commerical geoduck operations.
WDFW is the largest marine/boating enforcement agency in the state, yet DNR is responsible for derelicit vessels and live-aboards in WA.
DNR has about 12 LEOs to patrol DNR lands, but the majority of offenses on DNR lands are handled by WDFW Officers simply because there are almost 10 times as many WDFW LE personnel as DNR LE personnel.
You continue to look at things and wonder maybe not a total merger of WDFW and DNR is needed, but maybe shifting a program or two would make sense.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 17, 2014, 10:00:56 AM
Post by: bigtex on August 17, 2014, 10:02:13 AM
DNR + DFW is one thing.....It's when you throw in state parks I see the real nightmare.Agreed
Post by: snowpack on August 17, 2014, 10:13:40 AM
Montana has the "Fish, Wildlife, and Parks."Montana gets off real easy with their version of fish. It must be a real headache for the WDFW sometimes dealing with the types of fish and different user groups that fall into their area of control.
Post by: Curly on August 17, 2014, 12:55:22 PM