Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2016, 10:06:58 PM
Historically, WA state law said counties can either keep 100% of the fine money and do whatever they want with it, OR receive payments in lieu of taxes for the WDFW land in the county. If they took PILT then 100% of the fine money went to the General Fund which funds everything in WA. About 30 counties would take the PILT, 9 would keep the fines. However, for about the past 8 years the legislature hasn't allowed WDFW to make PILT payments because of a lack of funding. Instead, the legislature changed the law ("temporarily" for about the past 8 years) which now dictates that counties will receive 100% of the fine money.
Should WDFW get all or a portion of the fish and wildlife criminal fine money??? If you look below, WA is the only state (out of ID, CA, MT, CO, AZ, and WA) that doesn't give at least some of the fish & wildlife fine money to the Dept of Fish and Wildlife
Washington:
100% to County (Present due to WA being unable to pay Payments In Lieu of Taxes to counties)
100% to County or 100% to General Fund. (Historical) County decides where it goes, if they elect to receive PILT then the money goes to the General Fund
Idaho:
2.5% State General Fund
10% Search & Rescue Account
22.5% District Court where filed
65% Fish & Game Fund
California:
50% to the County Fish & Game Commission
50% to the State Fish & Game Preservation Fund. Law authorizes CDFW to give this money to county prosecutors to prosecute fish and wildlife offenses.
Montana:
50% State General Fund
50% Fish & Game Fund
Colorado:
50% to Wildlife Fund or Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Fund depending on the species
50% to General Fund
Arizona:
100% to the Wildlife Theft Prevention Fund
Post by: timberfaller on December 19, 2016, 06:59:48 AM
Should the department be split back again to a Game dept. and a Fisheries dept.?? :tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 19, 2016, 07:06:26 AM
Post by: Dhoey07 on December 19, 2016, 07:21:55 AM
Post by: boneaddict on December 19, 2016, 07:23:56 AM
Post by: Bob33 on December 19, 2016, 07:40:40 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 19, 2016, 07:48:25 AM
A wildlife-related fine should go into habitat improvement and LE. Fishing fines should go into hatcheries and LE:yeah:
I think that whatever animal was affected (except wolves) should benefit from the fines in such a way as to counter the damage done by the offender. Example: someone poaches an elk, the fines go to something that directly improves elk.
Post by: Humptulips on December 19, 2016, 07:57:37 AM
Post by: Badhabit on December 19, 2016, 07:59:19 AM
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2016, 08:02:22 AM
Sending the money back to F&W sets up a dangerous conflict of interest. Do we really want to see F&W officers feel they have to write tickets to make payroll? I do not.Well it's happening in a lot of other states, both liberal and conservative states... :dunno:
Personally, officers can only write so many tickets. Officers aren't machines and it's not like if this were to happen officers would be writing every single person a ticket.
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2016, 08:03:40 AM
Since the counties have to Prosecute the defendants the counties should get some of the fine money to offset their costs of prosecution. What DA/PA is going to prosecute if there is no incentive to do so? Can you imagine the costs Kitittas County is paying to prosecute Bullwinkle's killer? If they don't get a piece of the pie they have no incentive to go after him.I definitely see that view. I've always been a fan of mandating that counties that receive the $ then have to use it prosecute fish and wildlife offenders. But as of now, they can use it for anything they want. Build a park, library, art structure, etc.
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2016, 08:08:36 AM
It's not right; is there any reason to believe this could change?I mean anything could change, chances of it happening are probably slim. It would likely come from the legislature and not WDFW, just for appearance reasons.
When the legislature changed where Discover Pass fines went State Parks was against it simply because they didn't want the public to view them as "revenue generators." At that time they were handled the same way that traffic fines are split up, now it goes into the Discover Pass account so essentially WDFW gets 8% of a Discover Pass ticket.
Realistically, officers will always have that person that says their writing the ticket to generate revenue no matter where the funds go. Heck, federal citations go into a crime victims fund, I can guarantee you they get told their revenue generators all the time.
Post by: JDHasty on December 19, 2016, 08:21:53 AM
Ya need to add,
Should the department be split back again to a Game dept. and a Fisheries dept.?? :tup:
YES!
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2016, 08:23:37 AM
Ya need to add,It'll never happen.
Should the department be split back again to a Game dept. and a Fisheries dept.?? :tup:
Post by: Humptulips on December 19, 2016, 08:28:20 AM
It might happen in other States, doesn't mean I want it to happen here.
And it could very well backfire for F&W enforcement with agents spending more time on non-F&W enforcement because they can write more tickets.
If the Department received all the fines I can guarantee you there would be pressure to write more tickets.
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2016, 08:31:30 AM
And it could very well backfire for F&W enforcement with agents spending more time on non-F&W enforcement because they can write more tickets.Non-F&W offenses are allocated differently then fish & wildlife offenses, that wouldn't even be an issue. Fish & Wildlife fines (of the actual fish and wildlife code) and Discover Pass fines are the only tickets in the state that don't follow the statewide law as to where fines go.
Traffic, boating, etc. all fall under the statewide model where a portion goes to the general fund and a portion goes to the county. Yet fish and wildlife code fines all go the county. And Discover Pass all go to the Discover Pass account.
Post by: JDHasty on December 19, 2016, 08:32:00 AM
If you can't see revenue generators in LE you have your eyes closed. I don't believe I want to see the equivalent of stop light cameras in F&W.
It might happen in other States, doesn't mean I want it to happen here.
And it could very well backfire for F&W enforcement with agents spending more time on non-F&W enforcement because they can write more tickets.
If the Department received all the fines I can guarantee you there would be pressure to write more tickets.
I didn't think of that and it is 100% true.
Post by: olyguy79 on December 19, 2016, 08:46:52 AM
As we go into the future and WDFW has to rely less on the general fund I think some type of proposal like this will happen. It may be a 100% shift to WDFW or a split with the county.
In terms of revenue generators, cops here it everyday so whatever. The true revenue generating agencies are cities and counties since the $ goes right back into that city/county coffers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: boneaddict on December 19, 2016, 09:15:20 AM
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2016, 09:27:43 AM
Speeding tickets, written by state or county or city....where do their funds go?So funds from ALL other tickets (other then fish and wildlife offenses, Discover Pass, and specialized forest products) written under the RCW/WAC are distributed the following way no matter which agency writes the ticket:
32% State General Fund
68% County Fund
Now where cities and counties can really profit is by enacting their own city and county codes. Some cities/ounties have enacted their own traffic codes by simply saying if you violate a state traffic law your a violating the city/county traffic code, if the officer cites under the city/county code then it's distributed as follows:
32% General Fund
68% City or County Fund depending who wrote the ticket
Traffic tickets cited under the RCW have special fees associated with them. For example $10 goes to the auto theft prevention fund, $5 to EMS fund, etc.
Post by: RB on December 19, 2016, 10:17:45 AM
Reson for the question is this type of situation seems to happen every year and these types of situations make the hunting community as a whole look bad and give antis more fuel. It would be nice to see those that commit the crime pay for enforcement and better habitat. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2016, 10:41:53 AM
So hypothetical situation, four people in a vehicle in the forest during modern firearm. A WDFW officer does a stop three of the four have loaded rifles in the vehicle, an open container of alcohol is with the same three, and one has shot an illegal Buck for the area. How much would the ticket fines be for this? I would imagine there would be quite a hefty fine for this situation.The only "ticket" that would be issued would be for the open container which is a traffic offense and $134 so since it's a traffic violation WDFW wouldn't get the funds since it's not a wildlife offense.
Reson for the question is this type of situation seems to happen every year and these types of situations make the hunting community as a whole look bad and give antis more fuel. It would be nice to see those that commit the crime pay for enforcement and better habitat. :twocents:
Beginning in 2012 officers could no longer write tickets with fines on them for criminal offenses, only for infractions. All crimes require a court date now.
For the loaded rifles it's a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail. Prior to 2012 it was a $271 ticket.
The illegal buck (lets say a 2pt in a 3pt minimum area) its a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to a $5,000 criminal fine, 364 days in jail and a mandatory $2,000 civil penalty. Prior to 2012 this was a $2,540 ticket.
In both situations chances of getting anywhere even remotely close to the max criminal fine is extremely doubtful, even with a criminal history.
Post by: Dhoey07 on December 19, 2016, 10:53:07 AM
So 1 year probation and a 300$ fine for the 2 point and 6 months probation and court fees for the loaded rifles?So hypothetical situation, four people in a vehicle in the forest during modern firearm. A WDFW officer does a stop three of the four have loaded rifles in the vehicle, an open container of alcohol is with the same three, and one has shot an illegal Buck for the area. How much would the ticket fines be for this? I would imagine there would be quite a hefty fine for this situation.The only "ticket" that would be issued would be for the open container which is a traffic offense and $134 so since it's a traffic violation WDFW wouldn't get the funds since it's not a wildlife offense.
Reson for the question is this type of situation seems to happen every year and these types of situations make the hunting community as a whole look bad and give antis more fuel. It would be nice to see those that commit the crime pay for enforcement and better habitat. :twocents:
Beginning in 2012 officers could no longer write tickets with fines on them for criminal offenses, only for infractions. All crimes require a court date now.
For the loaded rifles it's a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail. Prior to 2012 it was a $271 ticket.
The illegal buck (lets say a 2pt in a 3pt minimum area) its a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to a $5,000 criminal fine, 364 days in jail and a mandatory $2,000 civil penalty. Prior to 2012 this was a $2,540 ticket.
In both situations chances of getting anywhere even remotely close to the max criminal fine is extremely doubtful, even with a criminal history.
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2016, 11:02:09 AM
Each county handles it differently. Your probably looking at a $250 fine and probation in most areas for the loaded gun. For the deer the plea deal is typically the mandatory civil fine, so in this case $2,000, and probation for the criminal aspect of it.So 1 year probation and a 300$ fine for the 2 point and 6 months probation and court fees for the loaded rifles?So hypothetical situation, four people in a vehicle in the forest during modern firearm. A WDFW officer does a stop three of the four have loaded rifles in the vehicle, an open container of alcohol is with the same three, and one has shot an illegal Buck for the area. How much would the ticket fines be for this? I would imagine there would be quite a hefty fine for this situation.The only "ticket" that would be issued would be for the open container which is a traffic offense and $134 so since it's a traffic violation WDFW wouldn't get the funds since it's not a wildlife offense.
Reson for the question is this type of situation seems to happen every year and these types of situations make the hunting community as a whole look bad and give antis more fuel. It would be nice to see those that commit the crime pay for enforcement and better habitat. :twocents:
Beginning in 2012 officers could no longer write tickets with fines on them for criminal offenses, only for infractions. All crimes require a court date now.
For the loaded rifles it's a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail. Prior to 2012 it was a $271 ticket.
The illegal buck (lets say a 2pt in a 3pt minimum area) its a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to a $5,000 criminal fine, 364 days in jail and a mandatory $2,000 civil penalty. Prior to 2012 this was a $2,540 ticket.
In both situations chances of getting anywhere even remotely close to the max criminal fine is extremely doubtful, even with a criminal history.
But like I said, each county handles it differently. There's some good counties on the eastside, and some bad ones, same goes for the westside. Typically speaking, the more populated the county is the less severe the penalty will be.
Post by: RB on December 19, 2016, 11:30:20 AM
Each county handles it differently. Your probably looking at a $250 fine and probation in most areas for the loaded gun. For the deer the plea deal is typically the mandatory civil fine, so in this case $2,000, and probation for the criminal aspect of it.So 1 year probation and a 300$ fine for the 2 point and 6 months probation and court fees for the loaded rifles?So hypothetical situation, four people in a vehicle in the forest during modern firearm. A WDFW officer does a stop three of the four have loaded rifles in the vehicle, an open container of alcohol is with the same three, and one has shot an illegal Buck for the area. How much would the ticket fines be for this? I would imagine there would be quite a hefty fine for this situation.
Reson for the question is this type of situation seems to happen every year and these types of situations make the hunting community as a whole look bad and give antis more fuel. It would be nice to see those that commit the crime pay for enforcement and better habitat. :twocents:
The only "ticket" that would be issued would be for the open container which is a traffic offense and $134 so since it's a traffic violation WDFW wouldn't get the funds since it's not a wildlife offense.
Beginning in 2012 officers could no longer write tickets with fines on them for criminal offenses, only for infractions. All crimes require a court date now.
For the loaded rifles it's a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail. Prior to 2012 it was a $271 ticket.
The illegal buck (lets say a 2pt in a 3pt minimum area) its a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to a $5,000 criminal fine, 364 days in jail and a mandatory $2,000 civil penalty. Prior to 2012 this was a $2,540 ticket.
In both situations chances of getting anywhere even remotely close to the max criminal fine is extremely doubtful, even with a criminal history.
But like I said, each county handles it differently. There's some good counties on the eastside, and some bad ones, same goes for the westside. Typically speaking, the more populated the county is the less severe the penalty will be.
Ok I am starting to see where the money is going (or not going) these are the types of Jacknuts that should be paying the WDFW I believe, but it appears the department does not see a penny. Yes the county should receive some funds for prosecution and the WDFW for enforcement and habitat. :twocents:
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on December 19, 2016, 12:54:12 PM
In WY, 100% of the fish and wildlife violation $ went to the county, and were specifically allocated to the school districts by statute. It was never any question that citations were NOT motivated by revenue generation. Like WA (civil fines) in WY (restitution) go to the Department.
From what I've seen the trend in WA is bad and getting worse in terms of pressure on officers to "produce", rather than focus on resource protection. As a result, you see a lot of meaningless emphasis on general authority enforcement rather than fish and wildlife resource protection - the main exception being parking tickets (excuse me, Discover Pass violations). Sure, it's productive opening days to check hunters and anglers for licenses, and ticket those without licenses or invalid licenses - license compliance is important because the Department depends on sportsmen buying licenses for funding. Considering recent disciplinary actions, including termination, for failure to produce (even if available and responding to all calls for service), this pressure is getting worse.
Considering WDFW is all about generating revenue - and hence the emphasis on license violations and parking tickets - let's make the violation system work for resource protection; the focus on revenue to the benefit of WDFW isn't going to change. I'd rather focus on legislation that induces enforcement to focus on resource protection - the illegal harvest of fish and game. Right now, they only get the $ from big game and endangered species civil fines. Let's incentivize WDFW to care about actual poaching, and implement mandatory civil fines from all illegal take: $5/illegal unclassified, $25/shrimp or razor clam, $50/crab, $50/fish (or go nuts and separate a $500 halibut from a $5 punkinseed), $100/small game, $150/forest grouse or upland game bird, $500/furbearer, etc. etc, The only way we are going to get WDFW enforcement to focus on fish and wildlife resource violations is to make those tickets financially attractive for officers to write, and hence emphasize. I have no problem with officers writing traffic, drug/alcohol, MIP, etc. INCIDENTALLY, but when the pressure is on to produce, and non-fish and wildlife resources violations are easier to find, I believe I see wildlife officers spending less and less time on resource violations. The agency loves to make big noise about major fish and wildlife resource violation arrests for PR, but they are the first to take an officer to task for devoting too much time to a major resource crime investigation.
The best I've known manage to keep a great attitude, write enough BS tickets to keep the bean counters happy with their performance, and focus on resource protection. The rest say F it, write their parking tickets for the bean counters, and phone it in - and who should blame them? The only way to get WDFW Police back into "game warden mode" is to make game wardening financially beneficial to WDFW's bottom line. If, on the other hand, they get a cut from every ticket written, it will only get worse - the pressure will increase to write as many tickets as possible, which equates to even less time on fish and wildlife which require more time per ticket.
For this reason, I voted All to the County.
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2016, 01:15:03 PM
Considering WDFW is all about generating revenue - and hence the emphasis on license violations and parking tickets - let's make the violation system work for resource protection; the focus on revenue to the benefit of WDFW isn't going to change. I'd rather focus on legislation that induces enforcement to focus on resource protection - the illegal harvest of fish and game. Right now, they only get the $ from big game and endangered species civil fines. Let's incentivize WDFW to care about actual poaching, and implement mandatory civil fines from all illegal take: $5/illegal unclassified, $25/shrimp or razor clam, $50/crab, $50/fish (or go nuts and separate a $500 halibut from a $5 punkinseed), $100/small game, $150/forest grouse or upland game bird, $500/furbearer, etc. etc, The only way we are going to get WDFW enforcement to focus on fish and wildlife resource violations is to make those tickets financially attractive for officers to write, and hence emphasize. I have no problem with officers writing traffic, drug/alcohol, MIP, etc. INCIDENTALLY, but when the pressure is on to produce, and non-fish and wildlife resources violations are easier to find, I believe I see wildlife officers spending less and less time on resource violations. The agency loves to make big noise about major fish and wildlife resource violation arrests for PR, but they are the first to take an officer to task for devoting too much time to a major resource crime investigation.I like it. I know many other states have similar statutes. Many years ago WA kind of had this. It was set up by the courts in the bail schedule where they assessed a fine for each overlimit fish/shellfish (can't remember if they had it for birds). But that was a criminal fine, not a civil one and like I said, that was the Supreme Court putting it in the bail schedule. Now a guy with 10 crabs overlimit in King County may get a $500 fine but a $100 fine in Pierce County even if they have the exact same criminal history. It's left completely up to judges to decide.
Post by: Special T on December 19, 2016, 02:49:54 PM
Having worked for both WA and WY wildlife agencies, I'll weigh in with my opinions.This is such a good insiders perspective. Please share this idea With Kirk Pearson before the opening of the legislative session.
In WY, 100% of the fish and wildlife violation $ went to the county, and were specifically allocated to the school districts by statute. It was never any question that citations were NOT motivated by revenue generation. Like WA (civil fines) in WY (restitution) go to the Department.
From what I've seen the trend in WA is bad and getting worse in terms of pressure on officers to "produce", rather than focus on resource protection. As a result, you see a lot of meaningless emphasis on general authority enforcement rather than fish and wildlife resource protection - the main exception being parking tickets (excuse me, Discover Pass violations). Sure, it's productive opening days to check hunters and anglers for licenses, and ticket those without licenses or invalid licenses - license compliance is important because the Department depends on sportsmen buying licenses for funding. Considering recent disciplinary actions, including termination, for failure to produce (even if available and responding to all calls for service), this pressure is getting worse.
Considering WDFW is all about generating revenue - and hence the emphasis on license violations and parking tickets - let's make the violation system work for resource protection; the focus on revenue to the benefit of WDFW isn't going to change. I'd rather focus on legislation that induces enforcement to focus on resource protection - the illegal harvest of fish and game. Right now, they only get the $ from big game and endangered species civil fines. Let's incentivize WDFW to care about actual poaching, and implement mandatory civil fines from all illegal take: $5/illegal unclassified, $25/shrimp or razor clam, $50/crab, $50/fish (or go nuts and separate a $500 halibut from a $5 punkinseed), $100/small game, $150/forest grouse or upland game bird, $500/furbearer, etc. etc, The only way we are going to get WDFW enforcement to focus on fish and wildlife resource violations is to make those tickets financially attractive for officers to write, and hence emphasize. I have no problem with officers writing traffic, drug/alcohol, MIP, etc. INCIDENTALLY, but when the pressure is on to produce, and non-fish and wildlife resources violations are easier to find, I believe I see wildlife officers spending less and less time on resource violations. The agency loves to make big noise about major fish and wildlife resource violation arrests for PR, but they are the first to take an officer to task for devoting too much time to a major resource crime investigation.
The best I've known manage to keep a great attitude, write enough BS tickets to keep the bean counters happy with their performance, and focus on resource protection. The rest say F it, write their parking tickets for the bean counters, and phone it in - and who should blame them? The only way to get WDFW Police back into "game warden mode" is to make game wardening financially beneficial to WDFW's bottom line. If, on the other hand, they get a cut from every ticket written, it will only get worse - the pressure will increase to write as many tickets as possible, which equates to even less time on fish and wildlife which require more time per ticket.
For this reason, I voted All to the County.
Post by: Ridgeratt on December 19, 2016, 05:33:51 PM
So hypothetical situation, four people in a vehicle in the forest during modern firearm. A WDFW officer does a stop three of the four have loaded rifles in the vehicle, an open container of alcohol is with the same three, and one has shot an illegal Buck for the area. How much would the ticket fines be for this? I would imagine there would be quite a hefty fine for this situation.
Reson for the question is this type of situation seems to happen every year and these types of situations make the hunting community as a whole look bad and give antis more fuel. It would be nice to see those that commit the crime pay for enforcement and better habitat. :twocents:
I believe the part of the equation you forgot to include is they are Either undocumented foreign nationals / or when brought before the magistrate they claim that they don't understand the laws of this country and this is the way we hunted in there native country/
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2016, 05:54:54 PM
I've stated this a lot of times. I have a higher percentage of unpaid citations/cases from actual Americans than illegal immigrants. I think the reason is because they want that fine paid ASAP so there isn't any "issues" It's not uncommon for me for an illegal immigrant to pay a fine before the court even processes the ticket.So hypothetical situation, four people in a vehicle in the forest during modern firearm. A WDFW officer does a stop three of the four have loaded rifles in the vehicle, an open container of alcohol is with the same three, and one has shot an illegal Buck for the area. How much would the ticket fines be for this? I would imagine there would be quite a hefty fine for this situation.I believe the part of the equation you forgot to include is they are Either undocumented foreign nationals / or when brought before the magistrate they claim that they don't understand the laws of this country and this is the way we hunted in there native country/
Reson for the question is this type of situation seems to happen every year and these types of situations make the hunting community as a whole look bad and give antis more fuel. It would be nice to see those that commit the crime pay for enforcement and better habitat. :twocents:
Post by: RB on December 19, 2016, 11:14:09 PM
I've stated this a lot of times. I have a higher percentage of unpaid citations/cases from actual Americans than illegal immigrants. I think the reason is because they want that fine paid ASAP so there isn't any "issues" It's not uncommon for me for an illegal immigrant to pay a fine before the court even processes the ticket.So hypothetical situation, four people in a vehicle in the forest during modern firearm. A WDFW officer does a stop three of the four have loaded rifles in the vehicle, an open container of alcohol is with the same three, and one has shot an illegal Buck for the area. How much would the ticket fines be for this? I would imagine there would be quite a hefty fine for this situation.I believe the part of the equation you forgot to include is they are Either undocumented foreign nationals / or when brought before the magistrate they claim that they don't understand the laws of this country and this is the way we hunted in there native country/
Reson for the question is this type of situation seems to happen every year and these types of situations make the hunting community as a whole look bad and give antis more fuel. It would be nice to see those that commit the crime pay for enforcement and better habitat. :twocents:
My assumption was these monies went back to the state and would help fund the WDFW some how, but I see now that it really does not. I find it disheartening that in this situation Bubba, Cooter, Leroy, and Billy Joe don't put squat back into the WDFW for blatantly breaking several laws that could carry some hefty fines and taking game away from law abiding hunters of all weapon choice.
Post by: fireweed on December 23, 2016, 10:45:44 AM
Post by: olyguy79 on December 26, 2016, 08:47:20 PM
We looked more in depth with a comparison between WDFW and California DFW. 100% of CDFW fines go back to fish and wildlife in some manner. At the time period we looked at CDFW had about 200 more officers than WDFW yet WDFW and CDFW contacted about the same number of violators and wrote about the same number of tickets.
So you have WDFW who gets no money from their tickets writing about the same amount of tickets as an agency which gets 100% of their tickets. So take that however you want.
Agencies are always reluctant to ask for fine money because of how it can look to the public. But I will say that officers can only write so many tickets, we can't setup some type of red light camera equivalent for fish and wildlife offenses.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Oh Mah on December 26, 2016, 08:50:10 PM
The homeless clean up fund.
Post by: boneaddict on December 27, 2016, 01:42:27 PM
You forgot the new choice:
The homeless clean up fund.
how about the wolf cleanout fund.