Post by: mdbuck5x5 on June 22, 2016, 01:34:43 PM
Wow $17 for a catch record card smdh!??
Post by: Gringo31 on June 22, 2016, 01:48:02 PM
Post by: bigtex on June 22, 2016, 01:49:26 PM
But remember the person who was supposed to save WDFW, Jim Unsworth, is the one leading this.....
Post by: CP on June 22, 2016, 01:49:42 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 22, 2016, 01:54:57 PM
Quote
maintain and expand certain fishing and hunting opportunitieswhich would be what?
I guess after this year's salmon snafu, it wouldn't be difficult to make next year viewed as expanded.
Post by: bobcat on June 22, 2016, 02:00:44 PM
Post by: Henrydog on June 22, 2016, 02:01:35 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 22, 2016, 02:06:53 PM
Post by: Curly on June 22, 2016, 02:16:18 PM
Quote
WDFW is also proposing an across-the-board 10 percent increase to hunting licenses.
Did anyone notice the above quote from the article?
It's a bunch of b.s. I'm just about done with this state. I can't wait to retire and I'm leaving for greener pastures. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on June 22, 2016, 02:48:01 PM
Post by: JJB11B on June 22, 2016, 03:40:25 PM
Post by: WAPatriot on June 22, 2016, 04:11:28 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on June 22, 2016, 04:20:13 PM
I understand a hunter from Kittitas is chipping in $12K to help keep price increases down.
I hope he chips in way more than that. :chuckle:
Post by: winshooter88 on June 22, 2016, 04:26:24 PM
Post by: Bigshooter on June 22, 2016, 04:38:38 PM
Get rid of Mike Cenci first, then I could support a fee increase.
:yeah:
Post by: Special T on June 22, 2016, 04:39:39 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Gringo31 on June 22, 2016, 04:40:15 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 22, 2016, 04:41:13 PM
Post by: Curly on June 22, 2016, 06:27:11 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 22, 2016, 06:42:29 PM
I have a few major issues that don't make me want to give more money to the WDFW.
1. The $850,000 they wasted.
2. The fact that there are very few places to hunt in southwest Washington due to timber companies closing all their land to the public.
3. Native Americans being able to hunt whenever, wherever, and however they want.
4. Mike Cenci hasn't been fired yet, or at the very least, demoted.
I think that about covers it.
Post by: CarbonHunter on June 22, 2016, 07:22:28 PM
Post by: CarbonHunter on June 22, 2016, 07:27:16 PM
Post by: bigtex on June 22, 2016, 09:00:10 PM
We are about one year in to the 2 year budget cycle.
Right now WDFW's Fish, Wildlife, Habitat, Business, and Capital/Asset Management programs have spent more than they projected at this time. Only Enforcement & Capital (construction) are below their projections.
Is this earth shattering breaking news? No because we still have one year in the budget to go, but obviously it's better to be in the black or just barely into the red. However, Wildlife is $1.4 million in the red, Fish is $1.3M in the red, and Habitat $2.2M in the red.
Post by: Miles on June 22, 2016, 09:07:44 PM
Same old crap.
Post by: bigtex on June 22, 2016, 09:10:37 PM
Pretty sure I said there would be more stuff like this years ago when they did their temporary increases. Once the increase takes effect there will be no decreases in the future.Why should there be a decrease? Is there anything in life that actually goes down?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 22, 2016, 09:16:08 PM
gasoline, income, plane tickets, candy after Halloween, home values, etcPretty sure I said there would be more stuff like this years ago when they did their temporary increases. Once the increase takes effect there will be no decreases in the future.Why should there be a decrease? Is there anything in life that actually goes down?
Post by: huntnphool on June 22, 2016, 10:10:57 PM
Then we get threads like this where people complain about incremental price increases, effectively, slowly (boiling frog technique) doing exactly what most agree is the only viable way of decreasing players.
Sorry but I just find this funny! :chuckle:
Post by: Limhangerslayer on June 22, 2016, 10:22:31 PM
We have another thread going where people are looking for ways to increase odds of drawing, the common belief seems the easiest method is to price people out, thereby decreasing the number of participants.nailed it. No matter what, they always want our money! But it's for more fishing opportunity! :rolleyes:
Then we get threads like this where people complain about incremental price increases, effectively, slowly (boiling frog technique) doing exactly what most agree is the only viable way of decreasing players.
Sorry but I just find this funny! :chuckle:
Post by: Firedogg on June 22, 2016, 10:40:32 PM
Post by: Bango skank on June 22, 2016, 11:19:46 PM
Post by: csaaphill on June 22, 2016, 11:27:13 PM
Post by: Mxracer532 on June 23, 2016, 05:26:29 AM
Post by: huntingfool7 on June 23, 2016, 05:33:50 AM
“I expect some pushback,” he acknowledged. “We saw that with the game management advisory group the other day a little bit, but after we had good conversations with them, they all understand that it’s expensive to operate the kind of statewide program we do and produce the opportunities we do around the state.”
Should thank Unsworth for "producing the opportunities". :bash: Should be fired for that line of thinking alone.
Post by: jasnt on June 23, 2016, 05:43:27 AM
Maybe if they didn't waste money on wolves like the $850,000 for that consultant, it would be easier to get behind fee increases. But the way things currently are, it seems like they should be reducing the prices.:yeah: 😡
Post by: Elkrunner on June 23, 2016, 07:37:43 AM
It won't all pass. With legislation you aim high so you get something in the middle.
But remember the person who was supposed to save WDFW, Jim Unsworth, is the one leading this.....
What state do you think we live in? I bet it passes. They are always looking for more ways to screw us.
Post by: bigtex on June 23, 2016, 07:43:08 AM
I've spent a lot of time on legislation. Will 100% of this pass? In my opinion no. Will some of it? Likely.It won't all pass. With legislation you aim high so you get something in the middle.
But remember the person who was supposed to save WDFW, Jim Unsworth, is the one leading this.....
What state do you think we live in? I bet it passes. They are always looking for more ways to screw us.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2016, 07:45:15 AM
Maybe if they didn't waste money on wolves like the $850,000 for that consultant, it would be easier to get behind fee increases. But the way things currently are, it seems like they should be reducing the prices.
:yeah: I feel like they waste the money! I'm especially opposed to the automatic increase every two years!
Post by: Bob33 on June 23, 2016, 07:56:04 AM
I remember $.249/gallon gasoline, $20,000 houses in the Seattle area being only for the “wealthy”, and $2 deer tags that were good all over the state with any hunting implement.
There are some things WDFW can control, and some they can’t.
There is certainly some waste, as there is in any business and in particular any government agency. Paying $850,000 for a consultant seems excessive. What could the state have got for less: would the wolf situation be even worse?
Fishing consumes more resources at WDFW than hunting; hunting is the step child.
When it comes down to it, every individual will need to decide if the cost to hunt in Washington is worth it. There are alternatives including hunting other states, not hunting at all, or taking up bowling.
I’m deeply concerned about the future of hunting, and cost increases will make it even more challenging to attract and retain hunters.
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2016, 08:11:52 AM
Post by: Special T on June 23, 2016, 09:58:14 AM
No one likes price increases but they are a reality in most products and services.Im glad you realize that there are alternatives and wish the wdfw did also. Unsworth mentioned family activities cost money and compared hunti g to skiing. In some ways i agree, and dont feel its all about the $. No one likes to feel like they are taken for granted in any business. The wdfw hasnt done a very good job of taking care of thier customers. Not a surprise that people are sitting at home playing video games instead of supporting them.
I remember $.249/gallon gasoline, $20,000 houses in the Seattle area being only for the “wealthy”, and $2 deer tags that were good all over the state with any hunting implement.
There are some things WDFW can control, and some they can’t.
There is certainly some waste, as there is in any business and in particular any government agency. Paying $850,000 for a consultant seems excessive. What could the state have got for less: would the wolf situation be even worse?
Fishing consumes more resources at WDFW than hunting; hunting is the step child.
When it comes down to it, every individual will need to decide if the cost to hunt in Washington is worth it. There are alternatives including hunting other states, not hunting at all, or taking up bowling.
I’m deeply concerned about the future of hunting, and cost increases will make it even more challenging to attract and retain hunters.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 23, 2016, 10:09:34 AM
Years ago one of the sporting good store owners told me that the way this state/WDFW is headed, they basically just want you to pick one or two things for your outdoor recreation. With all the expense and overlap/concurrent start dates people kind of pick their favorites to stick with.No one likes price increases but they are a reality in most products and services.Im glad you realize that there are alternatives and wish the wdfw did also. Unsworth mentioned family activities cost money and compared hunti g to skiing. In some ways i agree, and dont feel its all about the $. No one likes to feel like they are taken for granted in any business. The wdfw hasnt done a very good job of taking care of thier customers. Not a surprise that people are sitting at home playing video games instead of supporting them.
I remember $.249/gallon gasoline, $20,000 houses in the Seattle area being only for the “wealthy”, and $2 deer tags that were good all over the state with any hunting implement.
There are some things WDFW can control, and some they can’t.
There is certainly some waste, as there is in any business and in particular any government agency. Paying $850,000 for a consultant seems excessive. What could the state have got for less: would the wolf situation be even worse?
Fishing consumes more resources at WDFW than hunting; hunting is the step child.
When it comes down to it, every individual will need to decide if the cost to hunt in Washington is worth it. There are alternatives including hunting other states, not hunting at all, or taking up bowling.
I’m deeply concerned about the future of hunting, and cost increases will make it even more challenging to attract and retain hunters.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: trophyhunt on June 23, 2016, 10:14:12 AM
I can't see where the $850,000 attempt to shush hunters and ranchers has done anything to improve wolf impacts in NE WA. Our moose numbers are continuing to decline in impacted areas. I totally understand that prices must increase at some point for everything. WDFW needs to consider hunters a little more before I'm going to support a price increase. IDFG needed a price increase that I fully supported, however, IDFG certainly considers hunters much more than WDFW and is actively managing bear, cougar, and wolves to improve ungulate populations in impacted areas. We are slowly shifting more and more of our business into Idaho.:yeah: The problem is, I bet a lot of Wdfw employees and biologist are more anti hunters than compared to Idfg.
Post by: Special T on June 23, 2016, 10:21:44 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: trophyhunt on June 23, 2016, 10:24:24 AM
JimmyH peoples recreation used to be more varied. I belive the increase in cost plays a huge role in that trend going away. A price increase wouldnt be so bad if there was value. People are willing to pay more for good experiences but feel gouged when charged a premium and get nothing to show for it.exactly! Idaho raising prices doesn't get to me that much because they offer a better product in the woods!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on June 23, 2016, 11:04:51 AM
Post by: Bob33 on June 23, 2016, 11:13:07 AM
I think everybody agrees (or possibly not) that price increases are just a way of life. Everything goes up over time and that's understandable. The problem is the steep hikes in prices. When we spend more for something we expect to get value for our money. IMO we aren't getting that value so it's hard to be ok with paying these crazy increases. This state could be world class for hunting and fishing rivaled by none but our game department is holding us back from having that! Very frustrating! :twocents:Washington is the smallest Western state with second largest population. I don't expect we ever had, or ever will have world class hunting for most species.
We don't have a Game Department in Washington. That went away in the 80s by an act of our state legislature. We have a Department of Fish and Wildlife now, which Fish getting more resources and attention.
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on June 23, 2016, 11:25:26 AM
I think everybody agrees (or possibly not) that price increases are just a way of life. Everything goes up over time and that's understandable. The problem is the steep hikes in prices. When we spend more for something we expect to get value for our money. IMO we aren't getting that value so it's hard to be ok with paying these crazy increases. This state could be world class for hunting and fishing rivaled by none but our game department is holding us back from having that! Very frustrating! :twocents:Washington is the smallest Western state with second largest population. I don't expect we ever had, or ever will have world class hunting for most species.
We don't have a Game Department in Washington. That went away in the 80s by an act of our state legislature. We have a Department of Fish and Wildlife now, which Fish getting more resources and attention.
You're absolutely right. Being that we are the smallest western state with the 2nd highest population we are at a disadvantage compared to most no doubt. But I don't agree with your assessment on being world class. If we weren't at one time I think we may have been close. You look at all the animals and fish that have come out of this state and we can stack up to any. It's quality vs quantity. My opinion we have the former but not the latter. I continue to hunt and fish this state because it is what I love and all I know. Alot of it for me is getting outdoors and enjoying it. The enjoyment is being taken away because we are getting priced out of it. That's my heartburn.
Post by: singleshot12 on June 23, 2016, 01:46:37 PM
Post by: chester on June 23, 2016, 01:50:37 PM
That's the truth right there
our license fee's are being used against us.
Post by: singleshot12 on June 23, 2016, 02:00:08 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2016, 07:00:14 PM
I think everybody agrees (or possibly not) that price increases are just a way of life. Everything goes up over time and that's understandable. The problem is the steep hikes in prices. When we spend more for something we expect to get value for our money. IMO we aren't getting that value so it's hard to be ok with paying these crazy increases. This state could be world class for hunting and fishing rivaled by none but our game department is holding us back from having that! Very frustrating! :twocents:Washington is the smallest Western state with second largest population. I don't expect we ever had, or ever will have world class hunting for most species.
We don't have a Game Department in Washington. That went away in the 80s by an act of our state legislature. We have a Department of Fish and Wildlife now, which Fish getting more resources and attention.
Actually there is world class hunting here in Washington. We killed a world record cougar and numerous other record book cougar. WA was producing the most record shiras moose of any state. WA also has good hunting for other big game species that are only available in a few states. Our bear hunting is some of the best in the lower 48. Additionally I've had turkey hunters from nearly every state, many tell me this is as good of turkey hunting as they have ever experienced.
The rest of what you said I totally agree with. We definitely no longer have a game dept! :(
Post by: bigtex on June 23, 2016, 08:00:53 PM
I totally understand that prices must increase at some point for everything. WDFW needs to consider hunters a little more before I'm going to support a price increase. IDFG needed a price increase that I fully supported, however, IDFG certainly considers hunters much more than WDFW and is actively managing bear, cougar, and wolves to improve ungulate populations in impacted areas. We are slowly shifting more and more of our business into Idaho.IDFG considers hunters more than WDFW because hunting is king in ID whereas in WA fishing in king. That's the problem when you compare inland states vs coastal states. The coastal states fish and wildlife departments are heavily focused on fish, while the inland departments are on wildlife.
Oregon's wildlife program gets only 33% of the budget that their fish program gets. What's WDFW's fish vs. wildlife comparison? The exact same. Idaho's wildlife program gets about 65% of the budget their fish program gets. Wyoming's wildlife program gets 200% of the budget their fish program gets. The further you get from the ocean the less the state spends on fishing and quite honestly the less the care about fishermen, thus the more they spend on wildlife and hunters.
Another thing to consider in WA vs ID is where does the money come from. IDFG is funded solely by license fees and federal grants and contracts, there is no state tax money funneled to IDFG, they are essentially a user funded agency. WDFW on the other hand gets about 19% of their budget from state taxes, in fact only about 28% of WDFW's budget comes from licenses. As part of WDFW's budget proposal they are also asking for more general fund (tax) funding.
Post by: Skyhigh on June 24, 2016, 09:10:58 AM
Post by: jasnt on June 24, 2016, 06:43:40 PM
:yeah:no kidding why in the hell are we supporting theses........I'm loosing it. So sick of all the 🐂💩!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have a few major issues that don't make me want to give more money to the WDFW.
1. The $850,000 they wasted.
2. The fact that there are very few places to hunt in southwest Washington due to timber companies closing all their land to the public.
3. Native Americans being able to hunt whenever, wherever, and however they want.
4. Mike Cenci hasn't been fired yet, or at the very least, demoted.
I think that about covers it.
Post by: winshooter88 on June 24, 2016, 07:49:51 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 24, 2016, 08:01:46 PM
I totally understand that prices must increase at some point for everything. WDFW needs to consider hunters a little more before I'm going to support a price increase. IDFG needed a price increase that I fully supported, however, IDFG certainly considers hunters much more than WDFW and is actively managing bear, cougar, and wolves to improve ungulate populations in impacted areas. We are slowly shifting more and more of our business into Idaho.IDFG considers hunters more than WDFW because hunting is king in ID whereas in WA fishing in king. That's the problem when you compare inland states vs coastal states. The coastal states fish and wildlife departments are heavily focused on fish, while the inland departments are on wildlife.
Oregon's wildlife program gets only 33% of the budget that their fish program gets. What's WDFW's fish vs. wildlife comparison? The exact same. Idaho's wildlife program gets about 65% of the budget their fish program gets. Wyoming's wildlife program gets 200% of the budget their fish program gets. The further you get from the ocean the less the state spends on fishing and quite honestly the less the care about fishermen, thus the more they spend on wildlife and hunters.
Another thing to consider in WA vs ID is where does the money come from. IDFG is funded solely by license fees and federal grants and contracts, there is no state tax money funneled to IDFG, they are essentially a user funded agency. WDFW on the other hand gets about 19% of their budget from state taxes, in fact only about 28% of WDFW's budget comes from licenses. As part of WDFW's budget proposal they are also asking for more general fund (tax) funding.
:yeah: Yep, I understand, guess there's not much we can do about it?
Post by: bigtex on June 24, 2016, 09:32:57 PM
In reality no.:yeah: Yep, I understand, guess there's not much we can do about it?I totally understand that prices must increase at some point for everything. WDFW needs to consider hunters a little more before I'm going to support a price increase. IDFG needed a price increase that I fully supported, however, IDFG certainly considers hunters much more than WDFW and is actively managing bear, cougar, and wolves to improve ungulate populations in impacted areas. We are slowly shifting more and more of our business into Idaho.IDFG considers hunters more than WDFW because hunting is king in ID whereas in WA fishing in king. That's the problem when you compare inland states vs coastal states. The coastal states fish and wildlife departments are heavily focused on fish, while the inland departments are on wildlife.
Oregon's wildlife program gets only 33% of the budget that their fish program gets. What's WDFW's fish vs. wildlife comparison? The exact same. Idaho's wildlife program gets about 65% of the budget their fish program gets. Wyoming's wildlife program gets 200% of the budget their fish program gets. The further you get from the ocean the less the state spends on fishing and quite honestly the less the care about fishermen, thus the more they spend on wildlife and hunters.
Another thing to consider in WA vs ID is where does the money come from. IDFG is funded solely by license fees and federal grants and contracts, there is no state tax money funneled to IDFG, they are essentially a user funded agency. WDFW on the other hand gets about 19% of their budget from state taxes, in fact only about 28% of WDFW's budget comes from licenses. As part of WDFW's budget proposal they are also asking for more general fund (tax) funding.
About the only thing that would help hunters is if WDFW split into the Dept of Wildlife and the Dept of Fisheries, but why would the legislature do that when just a little over twenty years ago the voters voted to combine DOW & DOF into WDFW. To top it off the past 5-10 legislators have been trying to merge WDFW with other resource agencies (Parks and DNR). The trend in WA (and other states) has been to merge agencies, not split them up.
Prior to the merger DOW was the red headed stepchild to DOF, DOF got a ton more money then DOW. One of the big reasons was that DOF was a tax funded agency and DOW was user funded.
In reality, hunters/hunting will never be #1 in the eyes of WDFW.
Post by: JJB11B on June 27, 2016, 03:34:30 PM
My vote, Fire any of them that make more than $70,000 base salary....I totally understand that prices must increase at some point for everything. WDFW needs to consider hunters a little more before I'm going to support a price increase. IDFG needed a price increase that I fully supported, however, IDFG certainly considers hunters much more than WDFW and is actively managing bear, cougar, and wolves to improve ungulate populations in impacted areas. We are slowly shifting more and more of our business into Idaho.IDFG considers hunters more than WDFW because hunting is king in ID whereas in WA fishing in king. That's the problem when you compare inland states vs coastal states. The coastal states fish and wildlife departments are heavily focused on fish, while the inland departments are on wildlife.
Oregon's wildlife program gets only 33% of the budget that their fish program gets. What's WDFW's fish vs. wildlife comparison? The exact same. Idaho's wildlife program gets about 65% of the budget their fish program gets. Wyoming's wildlife program gets 200% of the budget their fish program gets. The further you get from the ocean the less the state spends on fishing and quite honestly the less the care about fishermen, thus the more they spend on wildlife and hunters.
Another thing to consider in WA vs ID is where does the money come from. IDFG is funded solely by license fees and federal grants and contracts, there is no state tax money funneled to IDFG, they are essentially a user funded agency. WDFW on the other hand gets about 19% of their budget from state taxes, in fact only about 28% of WDFW's budget comes from licenses. As part of WDFW's budget proposal they are also asking for more general fund (tax) funding.
:yeah: Yep, I understand, guess there's not much we can do about it?
Post by: bowbuild on June 28, 2016, 04:24:15 PM
It's incredible...
Funny how guys support timber companies, and whine about the state raising prices :bash: :bash: Hell, l they figure if you are able to squeeze a couple of hundred bucks for timber access....why shouldn't they have their hand out too.......people to me are incredible! :bash:
Post by: fireweed on June 29, 2016, 07:54:18 AM
The answer must include strong programs to increase participation, open lands up, and improve hunter satisfaction, not just more wishy-washy WDFW run programs.
Some examples to sweeten the pot:
Buy a hunting license, get a free full-use Discover Pass for starters. Review the "current use" timberland tax incentives that are supposed to keep lands open to the public. Youth to age 18. Special draw permits can be transferred to youth, disable or seniors. No bear 'damage' permits to timber companies that charge for entry to hunt bear. Comb the state for closed or inaccessible public lands and use all tools to get public access for hunting/fishing. Streamline regs and cut red tape to improve efficiency.
Post by: sumpnz on June 29, 2016, 08:48:08 AM
Streamline regs ...
:yeah:
You dang near need a lawyer on retainer to fish in this state. As bad as hunting regulations are fishing is much worse.
Post by: Curly on June 29, 2016, 08:57:19 AM
Is everyone familiar with the fable of the golden goose. Squeeze, squeeze, Squeeze, and pretty soon, it stops laying. Sportsmen of all stripes are the goose in this state. That's the problems with not just the licenses fee increase, but the total cost increase. With nearly half of all timberlands charging a few hundred bucks to access land that has been traditionally free, and the state adding the discover pass, the costs have skyrocketed for in-state hunting and fishing. Charging the fewer and fewer hunters more only works so long. Then hunting hits a death spiral, higher fees leads to fewer hunters, which forces costs on fewer people, and leads to even higher fees. On top of that, add in the anti-hunters gleefully supporting this negative feedback loop, the future looks grim.
The answer must include strong programs to increase participation, open lands up, and improve hunter satisfaction, not just more wishy-washy WDFW run programs.
Some examples to sweeten the pot:
Buy a hunting license, get a free full-use Discover Pass for starters. Review the "current use" timberland tax incentives that are supposed to keep lands open to the public. Youth to age 18. Special draw permits can be transferred to youth, disable or seniors. No bear 'damage' permits to timber companies that charge for entry to hunt bear. Comb the state for closed or inaccessible public lands and use all tools to get public access for hunting/fishing. Streamline regs and cut red tape to improve efficiency.
:yeah:
Post by: buckfvr on June 29, 2016, 09:11:52 AM
Do not miss an opportunity to hunt , hunt every day like its the last, and take your shot like its the last you ever get. I believe the initiative process will eventually be the end all in this state.......maybe not all at once, but piece by piece.
Post by: dreamingbig on June 29, 2016, 09:21:31 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on June 29, 2016, 09:24:23 AM
Streamline regs ...
:yeah:
You dang near need a lawyer on retainer to fish in this state. As bad as hunting regulations are fishing is much worse.
Same with the tax code!
Post by: konradcountry on June 29, 2016, 10:46:35 AM
Post by: sumpnz on June 29, 2016, 10:54:34 AM
We need an organization to fight back at the ballot. This state is addicted to taxes and King County/Olympia tolerates this culture where they can only think "more taxes" and nothing else.
Tim Eyman?
Post by: 4fletch on June 30, 2016, 10:53:27 PM
Post by: Eric M on June 30, 2016, 11:43:35 PM
Post by: Miles on July 01, 2016, 02:21:04 AM
Post by: SpringerFan on July 01, 2016, 05:52:24 AM
No salmon season and an increase from free to $17 for a catch record. Sounds reasonable :bash:
Crazy huh? They are dilusional. Out of touch and plain ole just ignorant of what we want and what their job is......fire them all and get some folks who aren't sitting on their brain. :tung:
Post by: krout81 on July 01, 2016, 06:47:24 AM
Post by: Bob33 on July 01, 2016, 08:04:04 AM
During the same period of time, the CPI increased by an average of 2.07%. If license costs has increased at the same rate as the CPI, the license would cost $98.29 this year.
Post by: bigtex on July 01, 2016, 09:42:22 AM
In 2001 an adult resident Washington Deer-Elk-Bear-Cougar license cost $72.27. This year the cost is $95.50. The average per year increase over the 15 year period was 1.88%.Oh be quiet Bob people don't like facts on Hunt-Wa. License fees should be the same price as they were in the 60s!
During the same period of time, the CPI increased by an average of 2.07%. If license costs has increased at the same rate as the CPI, the license would cost $98.29 this year.
Post by: Curly on July 01, 2016, 10:02:29 AM
Post by: Eric M on July 01, 2016, 10:05:03 AM
In 2001 an adult resident Washington Deer-Elk-Bear-Cougar license cost $72.27. This year the cost is $95.50. The average per year increase over the 15 year period was 1.88%.You are right, except I usually get small game with it so I'll pay $117.50 plus anything else I apply for (just spring bear probably), plus my $30 Discover Pass, plus my $30 NW Forest Pass. The reason I thought the fees were ridiculous was when my brother in law was considering coming out here to hunt. While my non resident for NY is $100-150, his for the same license you mentioned, would be $860.00 in Washington. I was flabbergasted. Maybe Bearpaw is right, and the quality of hunting is right up there, but I think if I was paying that kind of money I mine as well hold out for New Mexico's draw. A lot of you guys know a lot more than me about western hunting, but why would someone pay that to come here and shoot a spike when they can spend the same in several other states for better chances at better animals? I'm thinking of New Mexico and Idaho's lottery system or maybe Colorado's OTC licenses for some good areas. Why does a company like GoHunt service all these other states, and when you ask about Wa., it's next right after they finish the research on Oregon and Pennsylvania. So they do all the good western states, then Penn. and then Washington?!?! Sorry for the rant. I guess I'm talking apples and oranges compared to most of the guys complaining here about the fees.
During the same period of time, the CPI increased by an average of 2.07%. If license costs has increased at the same rate as the CPI, the license would cost $98.29 this year.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on July 01, 2016, 10:20:16 AM
Post by: Dhoey07 on July 01, 2016, 10:41:44 AM
In 2001 an adult resident Washington Deer-Elk-Bear-Cougar license cost $72.27. This year the cost is $95.50. The average per year increase over the 15 year period was 1.88%.
During the same period of time, the CPI increased by an average of 2.07%. If license costs has increased at the same rate as the CPI, the license would cost $98.29 this year.
I'm pretty sure the CPI is a westside thing.
Post by: bigtex on July 01, 2016, 10:48:40 AM
It's a national statistic.In 2001 an adult resident Washington Deer-Elk-Bear-Cougar license cost $72.27. This year the cost is $95.50. The average per year increase over the 15 year period was 1.88%.I'm pretty sure the CPI is a westside thing.
During the same period of time, the CPI increased by an average of 2.07%. If license costs has increased at the same rate as the CPI, the license would cost $98.29 this year.
Post by: Dhoey07 on July 01, 2016, 10:55:05 AM
It's a national statistic.In 2001 an adult resident Washington Deer-Elk-Bear-Cougar license cost $72.27. This year the cost is $95.50. The average per year increase over the 15 year period was 1.88%.I'm pretty sure the CPI is a westside thing.
During the same period of time, the CPI increased by an average of 2.07%. If license costs has increased at the same rate as the CPI, the license would cost $98.29 this year.
It's a statistic based on metropolitan areas, which is why if you compare tag costs to CPI, it isn't apples to apples.
Post by: Bob33 on July 01, 2016, 10:57:48 AM
What percentage increase per year have prices in your "non metropolitan" area increased in the last 15 years?It's a national statistic.In 2001 an adult resident Washington Deer-Elk-Bear-Cougar license cost $72.27. This year the cost is $95.50. The average per year increase over the 15 year period was 1.88%.I'm pretty sure the CPI is a westside thing.
During the same period of time, the CPI increased by an average of 2.07%. If license costs has increased at the same rate as the CPI, the license would cost $98.29 this year.
It's a statistic based on metropolitan areas, which is why if you compare tag costs to CPI, it isn't apples to apples.
Post by: Dhoey07 on July 01, 2016, 11:02:05 AM
What percentage increase per year have prices in your "non metropolitan" area increased in the last 15 years?It's a national statistic.In 2001 an adult resident Washington Deer-Elk-Bear-Cougar license cost $72.27. This year the cost is $95.50. The average per year increase over the 15 year period was 1.88%.I'm pretty sure the CPI is a westside thing.
During the same period of time, the CPI increased by an average of 2.07%. If license costs has increased at the same rate as the CPI, the license would cost $98.29 this year.
It's a statistic based on metropolitan areas, which is why if you compare tag costs to CPI, it isn't apples to apples.
I don't know if this is a reputable source or not but googled popped up with this
https://inlandnw.wordpress.com/category/income/
https://inlandnw.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/spokanebirthsbymedicaid.png
Post by: bobcat on July 01, 2016, 11:27:44 AM
They wasted $850,000 just on a referee for the wolf advisory group. I don't want my hunting license dollars used on something like that. Wolf money should be from the general fund, or anywhere besides hunters. Why should we be the group responsible for supporting wolves?
I don't know, it's just hard to support an increase in hunting fees when there are so many things making hunting worse in this state, or at least more expensive.
I expect to see a decrease in hunting license sales this year. Last year they propped sales up by moving the archery elk season back, adding many more GMUs to the early muzzleloader season, changing the Margaret GMU from a permit only elk hunt to general season, etc.
There was a lot of excitement last year because of that, in my opinion. This year, not so much. The timber company fees have increased yet again, and the number of access permits have become even more limited.
Personally, a small increase won't affect me much, I may just continue to buy only a deer license like I did this year. It was only $45 so if it goes up to $50 it's not a big deal.
Post by: singleshot12 on July 01, 2016, 01:23:47 PM
No salmon season and an increase from free to $17 for a catch record. Sounds reasonable :bash:
Crazy huh? They are dilusional. Out of touch and plain ole just ignorant of what we want and what their job is......fire them all and get some folks who aren't sitting on their brain. :tung:
:yeah: nuff said!
Post by: Special T on July 01, 2016, 02:09:01 PM
Post by: Dhoey07 on July 22, 2016, 01:04:11 PM
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2016/jul/22/increased-hunting-fishing-fees-explored-washington/
Post by: huntingfool7 on July 22, 2016, 01:57:27 PM
I think the simple solution is to just change your buying habbits. Your $ is the only real imput they care about. Last year i only purchased a cougar tag to go along with my waterfowl stuff... didnt even get out for that... perhaps its just time for a bunch of traditionally deer and elk hunters to turn i to bear or cougar and small game hunters. 2c you can do more "hunting" & give them a lot less.I'm going this route. Bear tag and small game this year. The bear tag was included because of the reduced pricing for small game with that tag. Otherwise, I'd have gone without it. +No special permit apps for elk/deer.
There are two other states that will get higher license revenues from me.
Post by: Special T on July 22, 2016, 02:13:15 PM
It's what I've done the last few years.I think the simple solution is to just change your buying habbits. Your $ is the only real imput they care about. Last year i only purchased a cougar tag to go along with my waterfowl stuff... didnt even get out for that... perhaps its just time for a bunch of traditionally deer and elk hunters to turn i to bear or cougar and small game hunters. 2c you can do more "hunting" & give them a lot less.I'm going this route. Bear tag and small game this year. The bear tag was included because of the reduced pricing for small game with that tag. Otherwise, I'd have gone without it. +No special permit apps for elk/deer.
There are two other states that will get higher license revenues from me.