Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2016, 08:01:49 AM
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6308.pdf
Post by: bobcat on January 14, 2016, 08:06:36 AM
Post by: Widgeondeke on January 14, 2016, 08:13:28 AM
That sounds good- so they can't spend the migratory bird money on wolves. :tup::yeah: :yeah: :tup:
Post by: CP on January 14, 2016, 08:14:07 AM
Post by: Shank on January 14, 2016, 08:22:50 AM
I've seen/heard of it way to much in this states government!
The pilfering of OHV funds to fund non/anti OHV uses.
As well as the states transportation equipment fund. money which is supposed to go directly to replacing worn out equipment for the state right aways..instead gets pilfered to fund something else.
How about instead of increasing fees and or taxes for this, that and the other thing...learning how to operate with current funds....this state is driving me crazy.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2016, 08:24:58 AM
How about instead of increasing fees and or taxes for this, that and the other thing...learning how to operate with current funds....this state is driving me crazy.It's done in every state. It's called politics.....
Post by: CP on January 14, 2016, 08:25:40 AM
(1) Beginning July 1, 2011, the department, after soliciting recommendations from the public, shall select the design for the *migratory bird stamp.
(2) All revenue derived from the sale of migratory bird license validations or stamps by the department to any person hunting waterfowl or to any stamp collector shall be deposited in the state wildlife account and shall be used only for that portion of the cost of printing and production of the stamps for migratory waterfowl hunters as determined by subsection (4) of this section, and for those migratory waterfowl projects specified by the director of the department for the acquisition and development of migratory waterfowl habitat in the state and for the enhancement, protection, and propagation of migratory waterfowl in the state.
Post by: REHJWA on January 14, 2016, 08:51:14 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2016, 09:28:15 AM
After reading RCW 77.32.350 - it appears the only change is an increase in the fee, the rest is already law:Incorrect.
(1) Beginning July 1, 2011, the department, after soliciting recommendations from the public, shall select the design for the *migratory bird stamp.
(2) All revenue derived from the sale of migratory bird license validations or stamps by the department to any person hunting waterfowl or to any stamp collector shall be deposited in the state wildlife account and shall be used only for that portion of the cost of printing and production of the stamps for migratory waterfowl hunters as determined by subsection (4) of this section, and for those migratory waterfowl projects specified by the director of the department for the acquisition and development of migratory waterfowl habitat in the state and for the enhancement, protection, and propagation of migratory waterfowl in the state.
Here is the current law:
RCW 77.32.350
Migratory birds—Supplemental permit—Fees.
In addition to a small game hunting license, a supplemental permit is required to hunt for migratory birds.
A migratory bird permit is required for all persons sixteen years of age or older to hunt migratory birds. The fee for the permit for hunters is fifteen dollars for residents and nonresidents.
Here is the proposed new law under RCW 77.32.350
(1) In addition to a small game hunting license, a supplemental permit is required to hunt for migratory birds.
(2) A migratory bird permit is required for all persons sixteen years of age or older to hunt migratory birds. The fee for the permit for hunters is twenty-five dollars for residents and nonresidents.
In addition, a new statute would be added under RCW 77.32:
The migratory bird account is created in the custody of the state treasurer. All receipts from the fees paid under RCW 77.32.350 must be deposited into the account. Expenditures from the account may be used only for purposes relating to the department's migratory game bird program as specified in RCW 77.12.670. Only the director or the director's designee may authorize expenditures from the account. The account is subject to allotment procedures under chapter 43.88 RCW, but an appropriation is not required for expenditures
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 14, 2016, 09:48:31 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2016, 09:54:35 AM
That sounds good- so they can't spend the migratory bird money on wolves. :tup::yeah:
Post by: Gringo31 on January 14, 2016, 10:24:06 AM
This quote comes to mind when asking if I'm in favor of putting up more money to such a well run professional group.
Quote
"I don't -- well things are -- again, things are done differently at Fish & Wildlife than they're done in a professional law enforcement agency."- WDFW Chief Bruce Bjork (retired)
Post by: bobcat on January 14, 2016, 10:49:28 AM
I would think that most people who hunt waterfowl would be happy to pay an extra $10 that will likely benefit habitat and improve hunting opportunities.
$10 is nothing when you consider all the other costs of waterfowl hunting- decoys, dogs, boats, waders, shotgun shells, etc.
Post by: westsidehntr on January 14, 2016, 10:56:10 AM
Why would I want to pay another dime when I have zero trust in it being used wisely or in a way that I felt would be beneficial.
This quote comes to mind when asking if I'm in favor of putting up more money to such a well run professional group.Quote"I don't -- well things are -- again, things are done differently at Fish & Wildlife than they're done in a professional law enforcement agency."- WDFW Chief Bruce Bjork (retired)
:yeah:
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2016, 10:56:44 AM
Why would I want to pay another dime when I have zero trust in it being used wisely or in a way that I felt would be beneficial.Obviously that quote was directed to the Enforcement Program.
This quote comes to mind when asking if I'm in favor of putting up more money to such a well run professional group.Quote"I don't -- well things are -- again, things are done differently at Fish & Wildlife than they're done in a professional law enforcement agency."- WDFW Chief Bruce Bjork (retired)
As the bill moves forward a financial report will be distributed on the bill basically saying how much $ WDFW expects to receive and where they would spend it. Once that comes out I will post it. Enforcement may get no money from this bill.
Post by: Gringo31 on January 14, 2016, 11:03:33 AM
But, my problem is that I'm more fond of the enforcement side than I am the admin/biologist side!
Post by: mfswallace on January 14, 2016, 11:14:46 AM
That sounds good- so they can't spend the migratory bird money on wolves. :tup:
Right because funds have never been misappropriated for wolves before :bash:
Post by: bobcat on January 14, 2016, 11:16:32 AM
That sounds good- so they can't spend the migratory bird money on wolves. :tup:
Right because funds have never been misappropriated for wolves before :bash:
Well, you can't disagree with everything in this world just because of something wrong that MIGHT happen.
Post by: mfswallace on January 14, 2016, 11:17:38 AM
That sounds good- so they can't spend the migratory bird money on wolves. :tup:
Right because funds have never been misappropriated for wolves before :bash:
Well, you can't disagree with everything in this world just because of something wrong that MIGHT happen.
HAS Happened!!
Post by: bobcat on January 14, 2016, 11:22:03 AM
That sounds good- so they can't spend the migratory bird money on wolves. :tup:
Right because funds have never been misappropriated for wolves before :bash:
Well, you can't disagree with everything in this world just because of something wrong that MIGHT happen.
HAS Happened!!
Okay, so your position is that you're against the cost of ANYTHING increasing, because the additional revenue may be spent in a way that you don't deem appropriate?
Post by: Gringo31 on January 14, 2016, 11:57:48 AM
Quote
Okay, so your position is that you're against the cost of ANYTHING increasing, because the additional revenue may be spent in a way that you don't deem appropriate?
That's my position!
I don't like their management plan so I don't want to give them a raise. If I felt it was well used, I'd want to give them more.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 14, 2016, 12:02:42 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 14, 2016, 12:05:15 PM
Well, I guess there will be a few less waterfowl hunters. If you don't want to pay the extra $10, don't pay it and don't hunt waterfowl.
Post by: Bob33 on January 14, 2016, 12:06:46 PM
When was the last time the price was raised?
Post by: bobcat on January 14, 2016, 12:10:01 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 14, 2016, 12:10:47 PM
Otherwise, I am not in favor of increasing funds to an agency that believes, what was it? half a million dollars?, was an appropriate use of funds for a wolf management program negotiator (for lack of a better recollection or characterization).
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 14, 2016, 12:19:57 PM
That's a 67% increase. At 3% per year inflation that's 17 years.Was it changed to $15 in 2011?
When was the last time the price was raised?
Post by: bobcat on January 14, 2016, 12:23:27 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 14, 2016, 12:25:30 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 14, 2016, 12:35:34 PM
Why only waterfowl? Should we start tacking on an extra fee for elk, deer, pheasants, and bear?
I'd much rather give my money to organizations like RMEF and DU.
Post by: bobcat on January 14, 2016, 12:45:30 PM
bigtex, is there anywhere we can go to see the justification for this? Are they planning on buying up a lot of wetland areas for waterfowl habitat which would mean more hunting opportunities for us?
I gave up on duck hunting a long time ago due to the lack of places to hunt.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 14, 2016, 12:54:27 PM
By any measure this increase appears to be much greater than inflation would support. $50 in extras now just to hunt ducks. Personally I think that's completely unjustified.I stopped for pheasant a few years back once that permit shot up in price. And quite a few people I knew did too.
Why only waterfowl? Should we start tacking on an extra fee for elk, deer, pheasants, and bear?
I'd much rather give my money to organizations like RMEF and DU.
Post by: Bob33 on January 14, 2016, 01:05:24 PM
You don't need an extra permit to hunt pheasants in Eastern Washington.By any measure this increase appears to be much greater than inflation would support. $50 in extras now just to hunt ducks. Personally I think that's completely unjustified.I stopped for pheasant a few years back once that permit shot up in price. And quite a few people I knew did too.
Why only waterfowl? Should we start tacking on an extra fee for elk, deer, pheasants, and bear?
I'd much rather give my money to organizations like RMEF and DU.
I took my son duck hunting last year for the first time in many years. It cost nearly $100 just in stamps and permits. That's ridiculous. More than likely they'll get $0 from me now.
Post by: bobcat on January 14, 2016, 01:13:25 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 14, 2016, 01:15:00 PM
I think what is needed is a lower priced license for waterfowl hunting for the person who only wants to hunt one weekend per year. Most of the people I know that waterfowl hunt have access to private land and they hunt nearly every weekend for 4 months. For that kind of dedicated waterfowl hunter, $100 for licenses shouldn't be a big deal. But for someone like me who may only hunt one or two days, it would be nice if there was another option.That would be a good idea. You can buy a 3 day fishing license, for example. Dividing $50 in stamps over 10 hunts is $5/hunt: not bad. Dividing $50 in stamps over one hunt is $50/hunt: bad.
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2016, 01:15:32 PM
bigtex, is there anywhere we can go to see the justification for this? Are they planning on buying up a lot of wetland areas for waterfowl habitat which would mean more hunting opportunities for us?This isn't WDFW sponsored/requested legislation, but that doesn't mean WDFW wouldn't support it.
I gave up on duck hunting a long time ago due to the lack of places to hunt.
So because of that we don't have any information yet as to what they will do with the money. Once the fiscal note of the bill comes out we will see where WDFW will spend the money on. The fiscal notes are issued prior to the first committee hearing.
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2016, 01:17:15 PM
I think what is needed is a lower priced license for waterfowl hunting for the person who only wants to hunt one weekend per year. Most of the people I know that waterfowl hunt have access to private land and they hunt nearly every weekend for 4 months. For that kind of dedicated waterfowl hunter, $100 for licenses shouldn't be a big deal. But for someone like me who may only hunt one or two days, it would be nice if there was another option.Just don't expect the feds/congress to institute a separate Duck Stamp. They wont reduce the $25.
Post by: Bob33 on January 14, 2016, 01:19:57 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 14, 2016, 01:22:44 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 14, 2016, 02:14:38 PM
I'd like to hunt ducks one day a year but I don't because the fees are too much for just one day. I bet there are a lot of others who feel the same way. If I hunted only waterfowl for 4 months straight the fees wouldn't matter at all. But for a one day hunt it's too much.
I would like to give duck hunting a try, at some point, and the amount of the taxes are certainly a disincentive to even try at certain levels.
Post by: timberfaller on January 14, 2016, 10:08:43 PM
Post by: REHJWA on January 15, 2016, 02:23:36 AM
Divide and conquer...
Maybe and five-year dollar three day permits.
At some point they're going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.