Post by: Elk329 on May 06, 2018, 03:08:20 AM
The Department of Fish and Wildlife’s management expenses are climbing, sales of licenses are down.
Sunday, May 6, 2018 1:30am
OLYMPIA — These are challenging times for leaders of the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife.
And they are going to get more challenging in the coming months.
Costs are rising to manage fisheries, protect endangered species, conserve habitats and compensate roughly 1,500-plus employees.
But revenues needed to pay the tab are not.
Receipts from sales of hunting and fishing licenses — a vital source of revenue — are down as fewer and fewer people engage in those activities. Federal dollars aren’t enough to cover increased regulatory responsibilities.
And though the state coffers seem flush in this economy — and already provide a fifth of the agency’s budget — lawmakers are reticent to use the general fund as a bailout.
Department leaders had to act last year to plug a $27 million hole and did so with spending cuts, reserves and a one-time boost from state coffers. They are still looking at $3 million more in reductions before this budget ends in June 2019. The moves could affect programs involving habitat monitoring, trout hatcheries and volunteer education.
At the same time, the agency faces another $30 million gap in the 2019-21 budget. This one’s got agency officials and the Fish and Wildlife Commission seriously concerned.
They figure they’re going to need to ask lawmakers to either hike license fees, provide a larger allotment from the general fund — or both — to avoid slashing programs serving hunters, anglers, and land managers.
“It’s uncomfortable to see these programs at risk. Thirty million is a significant cut,” said Nathan Pamplin, who is policy director for the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the point man for the budget planning effort. “But we’re intending to do everything we can to maintain these critical services.”
At the Legislature’s directive, the agency is undertaking a deep-dive into its operations. It reassessed its organizational structure and is crafting a long-term funding strategy.
And it’s in the midst of putting together the agency’s request for the 2019-21 budget that will be submitted to Gov. Jay Inslee in September.
Exactly what will be in it is getting developed with the help of a few outsiders.
The agency has enlisted 20 people familiar with hunting, fishing, managing resources and negotiating the state’s political process to be a sounding board regarding possible approaches to erase the $30 million gap and even enhance some programs.
This group first met in December and most recently gathered Wednesday in Ellensburg. In that time, fish-and-wildlife officials have laid bare the elements of the fiscal challenge they face.
“I’ve never seen an agency be this transparent with their budget,” said member Jason Callahan, director of government relations for the Washington Forest Protection Association. “It was like, ‘Here’s our Legos’. Then they threw them on the floor and asked us to help put them back together.”
On Wednesday, they got a clearer view of what programs might get shaved. And they continued hashing out ideas for raising revenue. Many of them require the Legislature’s approval such as increasing fees or dedicating portions of the sales tax, or business and occupation tax, to this agency.
Members of the advisory group decided to set up two subcommittees. One is going to ponder what might go into a fee increase bill should it be part of the agency’s request. The other group will consider what’s politically possible in the 2019 legislative session.
A good outcome, Callahan said, would be no reduction in service.
The department’s current budget is $437.6 million.
Its largest block of dollars is the state Wildlife Account, which is made up of 26 sources of funds. Most of the money comes from recreational fishing and hunting licenses. There’s also revenue from sale of specialty license plates, turkey tags, duck and bird stamps, and transaction fees associated with a registration system.
The department expects to bring in $118 million for this account, of which $88 million will be from license fees.
About the same sum, $118 million, is expected from federal grants and mitigation contracts. Roughly 21 percent, or $93 million, comes from the state’s general fund. The remainder comes through contracts with local government entities and other small state accounts.
Most of the concern is on the Wildlife Account, which is most directly impacted by the decline in the number of hunters and anglers.
There has been an 11 percent drop in state hunting license holders over the past 10 years. Overall, only 3 percent of the state’s population hunts compared to 4 percent a decade ago, according to figures provided by Pamplin.
The picture for fishing isn’t much brighter. The number of anglers dropped from 845,111 in 2007 to 759,325 in 2017.
Lawmakers last increased license fees in 2011. They turned down the agency’s request for a hike in 2017. They had concerns it would further erode support for fishing. They also wanted the department to focus on getting its fiscal health in order.
Advisory group members are warming to the idea of a small increase in 2019. One scenario presented to the board envisioned an increase raising about one-third of the sum.
Pamplin said there is a limit to any increase.
“We don’t want to price people out of participation,” Pamplin said. “Nor do we want the problem to be solved by hunters and fishers alone.”
A draft of the budget request is expected to be considered by the Fish and Wildlife Commission in June. There will be opportunities for the public to comment on the proposal before commissioners adopt the final version in August. Then it will go to the governor.
Post by: Rainier10 on May 06, 2018, 07:15:25 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 06, 2018, 07:41:46 AM
Post by: Bob33 on May 06, 2018, 07:42:35 AM
Post by: Timberstalker on May 06, 2018, 07:44:30 AM
It's an unfortunate situation. I expect we will see some price increases.
I agree. I don’t see them cutting programs or departments.
Post by: Oldguy on May 06, 2018, 07:46:26 AM
Post by: Timberstalker on May 06, 2018, 07:49:10 AM
They won’t though. We will get a price increase and things will keep pushing along.
The sportsmen/women will get the shaft. There won’t be a kiss afterwards either.
Post by: Southpole on May 06, 2018, 08:48:00 AM
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2018, 08:58:55 AM
There's probably not many on here who actually have a good working knowledge of how things were when there were two departments. The Dept. of Wildlife was almost always broke as they were mainly funded by hunting fees. The Dept. of Fisheries had money because they were funded by taxpayers because of the commercial fishing aspects to the DOF. When the two departments merged it caused staff numbers to decline simply because the duplication of services was no longer needed. You had regional offices for fisheries and regional offices for wildlife, license divisions for fisheries and license divisions for wildlife, enforcement programs for wildlife and enforcement programs for wildlife, etc. 1994 came and those programs merged and the duplication went away.
Post by: Crunchy on May 06, 2018, 09:20:21 AM
Post by: Timberstalker on May 06, 2018, 09:29:56 AM
Let me get this straight. They decided to reintroduce wolves, eliminate hound hunting for predators, eliminate hunting over bait for bears, and want to reintroduce grizzlies. None of which was supported by those that typically purchase hunting and licenses. And they cant figure out why less people are buying hunting licenses. Our input wasn't a concern when they made those decisions, so now they have to live with the results. Like any business, offer something that people want or they will go elsewhere.
There’s a perfect fix for this, Crunchy!
Just raise the license fees! Problem solved.
Hunter numbers mean nothing to WDFW. Just like their ungulate numbers don’t matter.
Post by: SCRUBS on May 06, 2018, 09:37:47 AM
Let me get this straight. They decided to reintroduce wolves, eliminate hound hunting for predators, eliminate hunting over bait for bears, and want to reintroduce grizzlies. None of which was supported by those that typically purchase hunting and licenses. And they cant figure out why less people are buying hunting licenses. Our input wasn't a concern when they made those decisions, so now they have to live with the results. Like any business, offer something that people want or they will go elsewhere.
My sentiments as well. :tup:
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2018, 09:40:52 AM
Let me get this straight. They decided to reintroduce wolves, eliminate hound hunting for predators, eliminate hunting over bait for bears, and want to reintroduce grizzlies. None of which was supported by those that typically purchase hunting and licenses. And they cant figure out why less people are buying hunting licenses. Our input wasn't a concern when they made those decisions, so now they have to live with the results. Like any business, offer something that people want or they will go elsewhere."They" (I assume you mean WDFW) didn't eliminate hound hunting or baiting, the citizen voters of WA did that for us.
Post by: Bob33 on May 06, 2018, 09:48:33 AM
Let me get this straight. They decided to reintroduce wolves, eliminate hound hunting for predators, eliminate hunting over bait for bears, and want to reintroduce grizzlies. None of which was supported by those that typically purchase hunting and licenses. And they cant figure out why less people are buying hunting licenses. Our input wasn't a concern when they made those decisions, so now they have to live with the results. Like any business, offer something that people want or they will go elsewhere.WDFW didnt reintroduce wolves, and the ban on hounds was a voter initiative.
Post by: Southpole on May 06, 2018, 09:59:21 AM
No, but they should have started to aggressively manage them as soon as the feds took them off the endangered list for the northeast corner and should have kept the anti hunting groups out of the decision making.Let me get this straight. They decided to reintroduce wolves, eliminate hound hunting for predators, eliminate hunting over bait for bears, and want to reintroduce grizzlies. None of which was supported by those that typically purchase hunting and licenses. And they cant figure out why less people are buying hunting licenses. Our input wasn't a concern when they made those decisions, so now they have to live with the results. Like any business, offer something that people want or they will go elsewhere.WDFW didnt reintroduce wolves
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 06, 2018, 10:06:00 AM
But did they actively oppose either? :chuckle:Let me get this straight. They decided to reintroduce wolves, eliminate hound hunting for predators, eliminate hunting over bait for bears, and want to reintroduce grizzlies. None of which was supported by those that typically purchase hunting and licenses. And they cant figure out why less people are buying hunting licenses. Our input wasn't a concern when they made those decisions, so now they have to live with the results. Like any business, offer something that people want or they will go elsewhere.WDFW didnt reintroduce wolves, and the ban on hounds was a voter initiative.
Post by: Crunchy on May 06, 2018, 10:22:38 AM
Post by: Southpole on May 06, 2018, 10:30:21 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 06, 2018, 10:33:24 AM
Post by: Widgeondeke on May 06, 2018, 11:00:32 AM
Because everyone enjoys something that WDFW should be managing.
Hunters, fishers, hikers, bird & whale watchers, people that eat commercially caught seafood or buy flowers with wild brush in the boquets can all be happy
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 06, 2018, 12:26:08 PM
It's an unfortunate situation. I expect we will see some price increases.
Price increases won't help in my opinion. Cost is probably the biggest reason people aren't getting into hunting. Access is right there and in the case of access permits these two factors are related.
Raising the cost of hunting will be counter-productive in the long run.
Post by: Timberstalker on May 06, 2018, 12:31:56 PM
It's an unfortunate situation. I expect we will see some price increases.
Price increases won't help in my opinion. Cost is probably the biggest reason people aren't getting into hunting. Access is right there and in the case of access permits these two factors are related.
Raising the cost of hunting will be counter-productive in the long run.
I agree with you however, I’m quite positive there will Be price increases.
Post by: Special T on May 06, 2018, 12:56:46 PM
In the real world when we have declining revenue we have yo take measure of the situation. When is the last time they have done a SWOT assesment? ( Strength Weakness, Opportunity, Threat)
What have they done to address why we said no to increases in Lic fees? Whybis it that the only answer is an increase in fees or public $? Is it because they have resigned themself to reduced sales?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on May 06, 2018, 01:02:23 PM
I disagree that cost is the issue. Raising fees or getting more general fund $ is denying what the real problems are. They are ignorant to the cause and or have no effective plant to deal with it so they are puntingIt's an unfortunate situation. I expect we will see some price increases.
Price increases won't help in my opinion. Cost is probably the biggest reason people aren't getting into hunting. Access is right there and in the case of access permits these two factors are related.
Raising the cost of hunting will be counter-productive in the long run.
I agree with you however, I’m quite positive there will Be price increases.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Humptulips on May 06, 2018, 01:58:33 PM
They want something from us now which is acceptance of a price increase. Now is the time to say OK, What are you going to give me for that?
Would you say I'm OK with an increase if you got some changes you really wanted? Let us say an increase in cougar quotas and a redo on the wolf management plan to allow the eastern third of the State to be managed with public hunting.
Might be a bridge too far but put hound hunting and trapping on the table..
Could be more stuff but tell them we'll support a price increase if we get value for our money.
Post by: bugs n bones on May 06, 2018, 02:01:26 PM
I think everyone is looking at this wrong. This could be an opportunity.👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍I agree with bruce
They want something from us now which is acceptance of a price increase. Now is the time to say OK, What are you going to give me for that?
Would you say I'm OK with an increase if you got some changes you really wanted? Let us say an increase in cougar quotas and a redo on the wolf management plan to allow the eastern third of the State to be managed with public hunting.
Might be a bridge too far but put hound hunting and trapping on the table..
Could be more stuff but tell them we'll support a price increase if we get value for our money.
Post by: Southpole on May 06, 2018, 06:47:35 PM
Post by: MisplacedAlaskan on May 06, 2018, 07:08:32 PM
Post by: idaho guy on May 06, 2018, 07:59:13 PM
Hey I have a swell idea. Why doesn’t Humane Society of US, Defenders of Wildlife, Conservation NW and any other predator lovin’ group hand over their donations they get from people all over the world to “save” the (fill in the blank) to fill in WDFW financial short falls. Get the people that want all these predators to pay up too since they have so much influence on state managed departments..
I agree but I think those predator loving groups are getting exactly what they want less hunters every year and the eventual collapse of the North America wildlife management model that worked great for decades. Some people said they wanted to eliminate hunting first and then take guns because people wouldn’t need them! Ha ha sounded crazy at first but watching Washington’s story unfold might not be. At the very least promoting,protecting and introducing predators will end hunting as we have known it. Ineffective predator hunting seasons,small qoutas and outright protection of predators means less deer elk, less hunters, less money and the whole system falls apart. I think it’s exactly what those groups want and they are winning in too many states
Post by: idaho guy on May 06, 2018, 08:04:14 PM
I think everyone is looking at this wrong. This could be an opportunity.
They want something from us now which is acceptance of a price increase. Now is the time to say OK, What are you going to give me for that?
Would you say I'm OK with an increase if you got some changes you really wanted? Let us say an increase in cougar quotas and a redo on the wolf management plan to allow the eastern third of the State to be managed with public hunting.
Might be a bridge too far but put hound hunting and trapping on the table..
Could be more stuff but tell them we'll support a price increase if we get value for our money.
👍 they might actually listen to hunters instead of the predator loving groups now that they need their money! Could be an opportunity for sure
Post by: Tbar on May 06, 2018, 08:17:47 PM
Hey I have a swell idea. Why doesn’t Humane Society of US, Defenders of Wildlife, Conservation NW and any other predator lovin’ group hand over their donations they get from people all over the world to “save” the (fill in the blank) to fill in WDFW financial short falls. Get the people that want all these predators to pay up too since they have so much influence on state managed departments.Careful what you ask for! They are working on exactly that.
Post by: Special T on May 07, 2018, 06:46:08 AM
I think everyone is looking at this wrong. This could be an opportunity.I like where your head is at... but since the new 3 year package has been adopted for rules how do you think they they can/Will open the whole process back up?
They want something from us now which is acceptance of a price increase. Now is the time to say OK, What are you going to give me for that?
Would you say I'm OK with an increase if you got some changes you really wanted? Let us say an increase in cougar quotas and a redo on the wolf management plan to allow the eastern third of the State to be managed with public hunting.
Might be a bridge too far but put hound hunting and trapping on the table..
Could be more stuff but tell them we'll support a price increase if we get value for our money.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Southpole on May 07, 2018, 07:48:37 AM
I was being somewhat sarcastic...Hey I have a swell idea. Why doesn’t Humane Society of US, Defenders of Wildlife, Conservation NW and any other predator lovin’ group hand over their donations they get from people all over the world to “save” the (fill in the blank) to fill in WDFW financial short falls. Get the people that want all these predators to pay up too since they have so much influence on state managed departments.Careful what you ask for! They are working on exactly that.
Post by: Bob33 on May 07, 2018, 07:56:29 AM
I think everyone is looking at this wrong. This could be an opportunity.Interesting idea. WDFW attempted to increase cougar quotas but Inslee vetoed it, and the ban on hounds was due to an initiative. I don't know if WDFW could undo an initiative on their own. I do believe they could attempt to revise the wolf plan, but would certainly encounter massive resistance from several groups.
They want something from us now which is acceptance of a price increase. Now is the time to say OK, What are you going to give me for that?
Would you say I'm OK with an increase if you got some changes you really wanted? Let us say an increase in cougar quotas and a redo on the wolf management plan to allow the eastern third of the State to be managed with public hunting.
Might be a bridge too far but put hound hunting and trapping on the table..
Could be more stuff but tell them we'll support a price increase if we get value for our money.
Post by: Southpole on May 07, 2018, 07:58:25 AM
Which is what I said in my first post, WDFW got exactly what they wanted, but they’re trying to make it sound like it’s our fault for not buying licenses. They conveniently don’t mention why we’re not buying their crappy product anymore. There’s no mystery why they want all the predators, it is to eliminate hunting (for non natives), period.Hey I have a swell idea. Why doesn’t Humane Society of US, Defenders of Wildlife, Conservation NW and any other predator lovin’ group hand over their donations they get from people all over the world to “save” the (fill in the blank) to fill in WDFW financial short falls. Get the people that want all these predators to pay up too since they have so much influence on state managed departments..
I agree but I think those predator loving groups are getting exactly what they want less hunters every year and the eventual collapse of the North America wildlife management model that worked great for decades. Some people said they wanted to eliminate hunting first and then take guns because people wouldn’t need them! Ha ha sounded crazy at first but watching Washington’s story unfold might not be. At the very least promoting,protecting and introducing predators will end hunting as we have known it. Ineffective predator hunting seasons,small qoutas and outright protection of predators means less deer elk, less hunters, less money and the whole system falls apart. I think it’s exactly what those groups want and they are winning in too many states
Post by: Humptulips on May 07, 2018, 07:58:45 AM
If they really want they can change anything anytime they want however I admit they will be hesitant to make season changes. They could however commit to things like changes in the wolf plan or increased cougar quotas without changes in their printing. I think that is more likely acceptable to them. Just have to have the talk and see what you can get them to commit to.I think everyone is looking at this wrong. This could be an opportunity.I like where your head is at... but since the new 3 year package has been adopted for rules how do you think they they can/Will open the whole process back up?
They want something from us now which is acceptance of a price increase. Now is the time to say OK, What are you going to give me for that?
Would you say I'm OK with an increase if you got some changes you really wanted? Let us say an increase in cougar quotas and a redo on the wolf management plan to allow the eastern third of the State to be managed with public hunting.
Might be a bridge too far but put hound hunting and trapping on the table..
Could be more stuff but tell them we'll support a price increase if we get value for our money.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Humptulips on May 07, 2018, 08:02:48 AM
I think everyone is looking at this wrong. This could be an opportunity.Interesting idea. WDFW attempted to increase cougar quotas but Inslee vetoed it, and the ban on hounds was due to an initiative. I don't know if WDFW could undo an initiative on their own. I do believe they could attempt to revise the wolf plan, but would certainly encounter massive resistance from several groups.
They want something from us now which is acceptance of a price increase. Now is the time to say OK, What are you going to give me for that?
Would you say I'm OK with an increase if you got some changes you really wanted? Let us say an increase in cougar quotas and a redo on the wolf management plan to allow the eastern third of the State to be managed with public hunting.
Might be a bridge too far but put hound hunting and trapping on the table..
Could be more stuff but tell them we'll support a price increase if we get value for our money.
The fee increases have to go through the Legislature so any changes that required Legislative approval could be tied to fee increases in the same bill. Probably reaching for the stars I'll admit.
Post by: bobcat on May 07, 2018, 08:39:45 AM
Also I see a lot of things the WDFW is doing to help recruit new hunters. There are special youth seasons for upland bird hunting, waterfowl hunting, and deer hunting, along with special permit hunts for all species of big game. And they also have a program that provides access to private property for all hunters, but many of the properties, and often the most desirable dates, can only be reserved by a hunting party with at least one youth hunter.
None of these opportunities existed when I first began hunting 30 some years ago. So I think we need to give the WDFW credit for trying to get more young people introduced to hunting. It's not their fault that due to the increase in the human population, areas that used to be open to hunting are now developed or gated. And kids aren't being introduced to hunting as much as they were in the past, simply because the ability for people to hunt close to home has become much less.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: WSU on May 07, 2018, 08:54:22 AM
It's an election year and we need to make sure our legislators know that we oppose any fee increase without tangible improvement from WDFW.
Post by: Special T on May 07, 2018, 08:56:32 AM
2 issues are at stake. Hunter retention, and new hunter recruitment.
Recruitment is a long term solution and retention is a short term.
I will say that the WDFW has done a great thing by supporting the NASP (National Archery in Schools Program) in this state. Some forms of hunting seem to be more palatable to the broad population. Archery, bird & small game don't seem to be as offensive....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on May 07, 2018, 09:14:18 AM
I'm not so sure the decline in the number of hunters can be blamed soley on the WDFW. Our state is changing, just like the rest of the country, and becoming more developed and much less rural than it was in the past. For many people it's difficult just finding a place to shoot, let alone a place to hunt. I don't think Washington state is alone in having a declining number of hunters.There are a lot of differences between now and when I hunted as a youth.
Also I see a lot of things the WDFW is doing to help recruit new hunters. There are special youth seasons for upland bird hunting, waterfowl hunting, and deer hunting, along with special permit hunts for all species of big game. And they also have a program that provides access to private property for all hunters, but many of the properties, and often the most desirable dates, can only be reserved by a hunting party with at least one youth hunter.
None of these opportunities existed when I first began hunting 30 some years ago. So I think we need to give the WDFW credit for trying to get more young people introduced to hunting. It's not their fault that due to the increase in the human population, areas that used to be open to hunting are now developed or gated. And kids aren't being introduced to hunting as much as they were in the past, simply because the ability for people to hunt close to home has become much less.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We hunted pheasants in the Badger Pocket area south of Kittitas. I’ve visited the property several times since and have never seen a pheasant anywhere.
We hunted ducks out of rubber rafters in Port Susan bay (we’re lucky to be alive after some of those experiences.) Access now would be nearly impossible.
Much of the land we freely accessed requires access fees now of several hundred dollars or more. Much of what was huntable then is developed now.
I grew up in Seattle and remember riding with my father on Friday evenings after school to Eastern Washington to hunt elk. I suspect the commute time now would be at least a couple hours longer, not to mention frustration with traffic.
We also had fewer distractions then. The electronics of today absorb far too much attention.
These trends are national. Add in the media hatred for anything gun related, and it will be more and more challenging to continue to support hunting.
Post by: bigtex on May 07, 2018, 09:56:00 AM
I agree with both of you. I think there's been significant change even in just the past 10-15 years. I remember having my son get out of school and running him out to Ravensdale to muzzleloader elk hunt. Well a couple years later and those wooded areas are now all homes. Urban sprawl has taken away our hunting lands and also wildlife habitat. I give props to King County for buying some of the last remaining wooded chunks of land in the Ravensdale area to keep it as wooded areas, unfortunately we cant hunt it.I'm not so sure the decline in the number of hunters can be blamed soley on the WDFW. Our state is changing, just like the rest of the country, and becoming more developed and much less rural than it was in the past. For many people it's difficult just finding a place to shoot, let alone a place to hunt. I don't think Washington state is alone in having a declining number of hunters.There are a lot of differences between now and when I hunted as a youth.
Also I see a lot of things the WDFW is doing to help recruit new hunters. There are special youth seasons for upland bird hunting, waterfowl hunting, and deer hunting, along with special permit hunts for all species of big game. And they also have a program that provides access to private property for all hunters, but many of the properties, and often the most desirable dates, can only be reserved by a hunting party with at least one youth hunter.
None of these opportunities existed when I first began hunting 30 some years ago. So I think we need to give the WDFW credit for trying to get more young people introduced to hunting. It's not their fault that due to the increase in the human population, areas that used to be open to hunting are now developed or gated. And kids aren't being introduced to hunting as much as they were in the past, simply because the ability for people to hunt close to home has become much less.
We hunted pheasants in the Badger Pocket area south of Kittitas. I’ve visited the property several times since and have never seen a pheasant anywhere.
We hunted ducks out of rubber rafters in Port Susan bay (we’re lucky to be alive after some of those experiences.) Access now would be nearly impossible.
Much of the land we freely accessed requires access fees now of several hundred dollars or more. Much of what was huntable then is developed now.
I grew up in Seattle and remember riding with my father on Friday evenings after school to Eastern Washington to hunt elk. I suspect the commute time now would be at least a couple hours longer, not to mention frustration with traffic.
We also had fewer distractions then. The electronics of today absorb far too much attention.
These trends are national. Add in the media hatred for anything gun related, and it will be more and more challenging to continue to support hunting.
The "recent" housing explosion has effected us in many ways, not only financially as our homes become more expensive but also as our wildlife habitat and hunting areas decrease. The fact that my son who is in his late 20s can remember the "good days" of hopping in the truck and within 45 minutes being able to hunt in King County is gone. Yet I remember the days of my younger days hunting the Kent valley, the Issaquah Plateau, etc. All those areas are industrial or mega-homes now.
Post by: NRA4LIFE on May 07, 2018, 10:18:27 AM
But I agree here. Just travel out Maple Valley highway to Enumclaw and look at how much of the woodlands are being torn down for houses. Unreal.
Post by: idaho guy on May 07, 2018, 11:12:16 AM
Which is what I said in my first post, WDFW got exactly what they wanted, but they’re trying to make it sound like it’s our fault for not buying licenses. They conveniently don’t mention why we’re not buying their crappy product anymore. There’s no mystery why they want all the predators, it is to eliminate hunting (for non natives), period.Hey I have a swell idea. Why doesn’t Humane Society of US, Defenders of Wildlife, Conservation NW and any other predator lovin’ group hand over their donations they get from people all over the world to “save” the (fill in the blank) to fill in WDFW financial short falls. Get the people that want all these predators to pay up too since they have so much influence on state managed departments..
I agree but I think those predator loving groups are getting exactly what they want less hunters every year and the eventual collapse of the North America wildlife management model that worked great for decades. Some people said they wanted to eliminate hunting first and then take guns because people wouldn’t need them! Ha ha sounded crazy at first but watching Washington’s story unfold might not be. At the very least promoting,protecting and introducing predators will end hunting as we have known it. Ineffective predator hunting seasons,small qoutas and outright protection of predators means less deer elk, less hunters, less money and the whole system falls apart. I think it’s exactly what those groups want and they are winning in too many states
:tup: I know just agreeing with you
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on May 07, 2018, 11:42:00 AM
Habitat loss, declining opportunities and barriers to recruiting new hunters and anglers are all part of the problem. However, I think the primary answer is here (quote from the article):I agree with both of you. I think there's been significant change even in just the past 10-15 years. I remember having my son get out of school and running him out to Ravensdale to muzzleloader elk hunt. Well a couple years later and those wooded areas are now all homes. Urban sprawl has taken away our hunting lands and also wildlife habitat. I give props to King County for buying some of the last remaining wooded chunks of land in the Ravensdale area to keep it as wooded areas, unfortunately we cant hunt it.I'm not so sure the decline in the number of hunters can be blamed soley on the WDFW. Our state is changing, just like the rest of the country, and becoming more developed and much less rural than it was in the past. For many people it's difficult just finding a place to shoot, let alone a place to hunt. I don't think Washington state is alone in having a declining number of hunters.There are a lot of differences between now and when I hunted as a youth.
Also I see a lot of things the WDFW is doing to help recruit new hunters. There are special youth seasons for upland bird hunting, waterfowl hunting, and deer hunting, along with special permit hunts for all species of big game. And they also have a program that provides access to private property for all hunters, but many of the properties, and often the most desirable dates, can only be reserved by a hunting party with at least one youth hunter.
None of these opportunities existed when I first began hunting 30 some years ago. So I think we need to give the WDFW credit for trying to get more young people introduced to hunting. It's not their fault that due to the increase in the human population, areas that used to be open to hunting are now developed or gated. And kids aren't being introduced to hunting as much as they were in the past, simply because the ability for people to hunt close to home has become much less.
We hunted pheasants in the Badger Pocket area south of Kittitas. I’ve visited the property several times since and have never seen a pheasant anywhere.
We hunted ducks out of rubber rafters in Port Susan bay (we’re lucky to be alive after some of those experiences.) Access now would be nearly impossible.
Much of the land we freely accessed requires access fees now of several hundred dollars or more. Much of what was huntable then is developed now.
I grew up in Seattle and remember riding with my father on Friday evenings after school to Eastern Washington to hunt elk. I suspect the commute time now would be at least a couple hours longer, not to mention frustration with traffic.
We also had fewer distractions then. The electronics of today absorb far too much attention.
These trends are national. Add in the media hatred for anything gun related, and it will be more and more challenging to continue to support hunting.
The "recent" housing explosion has effected us in many ways, not only financially as our homes become more expensive but also as our wildlife habitat and hunting areas decrease. The fact that my son who is in his late 20s can remember the "good days" of hopping in the truck and within 45 minutes being able to hunt in King County is gone. Yet I remember the days of my younger days hunting the Kent valley, the Issaquah Plateau, etc. All those areas are industrial or mega-homes now.
"At the Legislature’s directive, the agency is undertaking a deep-dive into its operations. It reassessed its organizational structure and is crafting a long-term funding strategy."
I was working for the Wyoming Game and Fish Dept in 1994 when they were faced with the same expanding mission/declining revenues crisis. They responded by dividing the agency's current activities into programs (79 I believe), excluded those few that had a dedicated funding source, and prioritized from 1 through X the remaining programs into basically 3 areas: legislatively required, positive revenue, and negative revenue. The programs that weren't legally required AND didn't have a dedicated funding source were put on the chopping block: in some cases the public came through and demanded general funding to keep the programs from being cut (e.g., Access YES, the private land/public access program), and others did not get enough support and were cut. It was sad that people were laid off, and some constituents had cherished programs cut (e.g., BOW Becoming an Outdoors Woman, Hunting and Fishing Heritage Expo, Whiskey Mountain youth and teachers' conservation camps), but the Department remained solvent and mission critical programs were kept and adequately staffed and funded. I hope WDFW can effectively do the same. In some cases, after programs were cut, the affected constituents stepped up and lobbied legislators to get general fund or NGO money to keep them going after a hiatus.
In my own opinion, in some cases WDFW's Olympia bureaucracy is overstaffed for the convenience and benefit of administrators, with little real benefit to the resource or public. More resources need to be allocated to field operations at the Detachment, District and Regional levels, offset by cuts at headquarters. Unfortunately, some administrations (Koenings in particular comes to mind) took the opposite approach to budget shortfalls and strategically cut field operations where the public would be most affected, with the expectation this would create grassroots demand for more funding for the Department. Others (I'll give props to Anderson for this approach) looked for how to make cuts with the least impact on the public.
I am glad outside eyes are involved in evaluating the Department's spending and priorities.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on May 07, 2018, 11:50:39 AM
Post by: WSU on May 07, 2018, 12:52:41 PM
Folks are starting to really push for commercials, or at least the general fund, paying their fair share for our public resource. The pie is getting smaller and, in a zero sum game like fisheries, someone is going to lose.
Post by: Skillet on May 07, 2018, 03:11:58 PM
Commercials are a user group just like recreational, and both haul water out of our 50% of the resource to support nearly 100% of the resource.
Post by: WSU on May 07, 2018, 03:28:41 PM
That's not a fair characterization of the burden we commercials bear. Between licenses, admin fees, and a Salmon Enhancement Tax, I know the WDFW wrings my wallet pretty dry for what I gross down here. What they do with my money I don't know, but I dang sure don't get a free ride.
Commercials are a user group just like recreational, and both haul water out of our 50% of the resource to support nearly 100% of the resource.
Agreed on both paying far more than the general population. I'm basing my statement on details I've seen from WDFW. How much does it cost you for licenses, admin fees and the enhancement tax?
Post by: Skillet on May 07, 2018, 03:42:35 PM
Just discovered the enhancement tax that the entire commercial fleet pays goes into the General Fund... :bash:
In AK, that tax supports the hatcheries that both the commercials and recreational user groups benefit from. There is effectively no dedicated tribal fishery in AK; outside of Annette Island, they have to play by the same rules we do.
Post by: WSU on May 07, 2018, 04:01:57 PM
As an out of state resident that leases a license, it's a bit more than most commercials. Between renewal, alternate operator, fish seller's license and fisheries business license, it was over $1700. That's basically for two months of fishing before I head north to AK. Add the enhancement tax of 6.7% of gross reciepts, which can vary widely based on my success and prices.
Just discovered the enhancement tax that the entire commercial fleet pays goes into the General Fund... :bash:
In AK, that tax supports the hatcheries that both the commercials and recreational user groups benefit from. There is effectively no dedicated tribal fishery in AK; outside of Annette Island, they have to play by the same rules we do.
I wonder what the total enhancement tax amount that the commercials paid last year is? You should give Rep Blake a call and tell him to put the enhancement tax into WDFW's pocket for use on fisheries. He's a big friend of the commercial industry and is a proponent of $ to support commercial fishing.
Out of curiousity, how many fish does that $1,700 potentially buy you? Can you then fish tuna, halibut, etc. on the same license? I'm genuinely curious how that works out and how much goes to the state vs. the person whose license you lease. PM is fine if you don't want to make all that business info public.
Post by: DeerThug on May 07, 2018, 04:39:57 PM
Post by: Skillet on May 07, 2018, 06:49:04 PM
As an out of state resident that leases a license, it's a bit more than most commercials. Between renewal, alternate operator, fish seller's license and fisheries business license, it was over $1700. That's basically for two months of fishing before I head north to AK. Add the enhancement tax of 6.7% of gross reciepts, which can vary widely based on my success and prices.
Just discovered the enhancement tax that the entire commercial fleet pays goes into the General Fund... :bash:
In AK, that tax supports the hatcheries that both the commercials and recreational user groups benefit from. There is effectively no dedicated tribal fishery in AK; outside of Annette Island, they have to play by the same rules we do.
I wonder what the total enhancement tax amount that the commercials paid last year is? You should give Rep Blake a call and tell him to put the enhancement tax into WDFW's pocket for use on fisheries. He's a big friend of the commercial industry and is a proponent of $ to support commercial fishing.
Out of curiousity, how many fish does that $1,700 potentially buy you? Can you then fish tuna, halibut, etc. on the same license? I'm genuinely curious how that works out and how much goes to the state vs. the person whose license you lease. PM is fine if you don't want to make all that business info public.
As irritating as it is to me that those dollars aren't going directly back to hatcheries, I don't think I'll be suggesting that idea to Blake until I first know why it ended up in the GF to begin with. The cynic in me suspects it was a trade for votes supporting some fishery or another... might have been mine :dunno:
I'll give you the skinny on my personal program when we have that barley pop. :tup:
Post by: bigtex on May 07, 2018, 06:52:00 PM
Salmon hatcheries are funded by the general fund. 43% of WDFW's portion of the general fund go to fisheries. Non-salmon hatcheries are funded by the wildlife fund.As irritating as it is to me that those dollars aren't going directly back to hatcheries, I don't think I'll be suggesting that idea to Blake until I first know why it ended up in the GF to begin with. The cynic in me suspects it was a trade for votes supporting some fishery or another... might have been mine :dunno:As an out of state resident that leases a license, it's a bit more than most commercials. Between renewal, alternate operator, fish seller's license and fisheries business license, it was over $1700. That's basically for two months of fishing before I head north to AK. Add the enhancement tax of 6.7% of gross reciepts, which can vary widely based on my success and prices.
Just discovered the enhancement tax that the entire commercial fleet pays goes into the General Fund... :bash:
In AK, that tax supports the hatcheries that both the commercials and recreational user groups benefit from. There is effectively no dedicated tribal fishery in AK; outside of Annette Island, they have to play by the same rules we do.
I wonder what the total enhancement tax amount that the commercials paid last year is? You should give Rep Blake a call and tell him to put the enhancement tax into WDFW's pocket for use on fisheries. He's a big friend of the commercial industry and is a proponent of $ to support commercial fishing.
Out of curiousity, how many fish does that $1,700 potentially buy you? Can you then fish tuna, halibut, etc. on the same license? I'm genuinely curious how that works out and how much goes to the state vs. the person whose license you lease. PM is fine if you don't want to make all that business info public.
I'll give you the skinny on my personal program when we have that barley pop. :tup:
Post by: Skillet on May 07, 2018, 06:59:18 PM
Post by: WSU on May 07, 2018, 07:05:46 PM
As an out of state resident that leases a license, it's a bit more than most commercials. Between renewal, alternate operator, fish seller's license and fisheries business license, it was over $1700. That's basically for two months of fishing before I head north to AK. Add the enhancement tax of 6.7% of gross reciepts, which can vary widely based on my success and prices.
Just discovered the enhancement tax that the entire commercial fleet pays goes into the General Fund... :bash:
In AK, that tax supports the hatcheries that both the commercials and recreational user groups benefit from. There is effectively no dedicated tribal fishery in AK; outside of Annette Island, they have to play by the same rules we do.
I wonder what the total enhancement tax amount that the commercials paid last year is? You should give Rep Blake a call and tell him to put the enhancement tax into WDFW's pocket for use on fisheries. He's a big friend of the commercial industry and is a proponent of $ to support commercial fishing.
Out of curiousity, how many fish does that $1,700 potentially buy you? Can you then fish tuna, halibut, etc. on the same license? I'm genuinely curious how that works out and how much goes to the state vs. the person whose license you lease. PM is fine if you don't want to make all that business info public.
As irritating as it is to me that those dollars aren't going directly back to hatcheries, I don't think I'll be suggesting that idea to Blake until I first know why it ended up in the GF to begin with. The cynic in me suspects it was a trade for votes supporting some fishery or another... might have been mine :dunno:
I'll give you the skinny on my personal program when we have that barley pop. :tup:
Again, I’ll buy!
Post by: James on May 08, 2018, 10:24:49 PM
There needs to be backpack, boot, optics, etc taxes much like dingle Johnson and pitman Robertson.
Reading old department of game literature they make mission statements like "our job is to provide the maximum possible amount of game to our states hunters" Now they are being forced to spend money on things most sportsmen/women don't care about. Now, I am all for healthy intact ecosystems, and sometimes that means going off into the weeds, but all these demands that WDFW are under from non contributors needs to stop.
Pay up or shut up hippies.
Post by: Timberstalker on May 09, 2018, 04:53:13 AM
Pay up or shut up hippies.
We’ve got a winner.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on May 09, 2018, 05:08:10 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on May 09, 2018, 09:24:06 AM
Sportsmen and women have shouldered the cost of wildlife/fish, public lands, and habitat for too long, the other user groups need to stop mooching off us and put their money where their mouth is. Bird watchers, mt bikers, hikers, fake environmental groups, etc need to start paying their way. If it wasn't for our liscense fees and conservation groups like ducks unlimited their wouldn't be wood ducks too look at.
There needs to be backpack, boot, optics, etc taxes much like dingle Johnson and pitman Robertson.
Reading old department of game literature they make mission statements like "our job is to provide the maximum possible amount of game to our states hunters" Now they are being forced to spend money on things most sportsmen/women don't care about. Now, I am all for healthy intact ecosystems, and sometimes that means going off into the weeds, but all these demands that WDFW are under from non contributors needs to stop.
Pay up or shut up hippies.
Boomshockalocka!
Mic drop.
Post by: WSU on May 09, 2018, 09:37:18 AM
Post by: Special T on May 09, 2018, 09:47:33 AM
That's a double edged sword. If the hippies funded wdfw, and we only make up 4% or whatever of the population, how much do you think WDFW would care about hunters and fishers?The issue in contention revolves around the fact that sportsmen pay and the other groups don't. If love to see a breakdown of our funds, and would bet that they cover plenty that we think are not in the best interest of sportsmen.
This state has a Loong history of User pays for the services they require. It is a fair and equitable system, until there are free riders whom have opposing interest to those whom pay.... Which is why so many of us get Frustrated.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Southpole on May 09, 2018, 10:18:32 AM
That's a double edged sword. If the hippies funded wdfw, and we only make up 4% or whatever of the population, how much do you think WDFW would care about hunters and fishers?The state IS doing less and caring less already. They already bend over for the greenie groups, that’s been happening for several years now. They need to pay to play like we have been.
Post by: James on May 10, 2018, 04:49:43 PM
All that adds up to a weak organization that can’t captain the ship, but instead is adrift to the whims of others that hold the power. I want a powerful WDFW that fights for its constituents and wins, whether it’s challenging the IPHC over halibut allotments, actively hunting poachers, or commanding regulations to the betterment of fish/game management.
Hippy requests aside, while I am sure there are areas to cut waste and improve performance (ALL organizations have these), but the honest truth is it costs more to manage wildlife/fish now than 50 years ago. Urban sprawl/loss of habitat, monitoring the higher number of at risk species/population groups, the more litigious society we have become, more expensive modern tools.
I understand the concern with having hippies put in money, then actually deserve a say. I would also be perfectly fine to raise more money for them from sportsman, reducing the hippy influence to a minimum. BUT I would need an agreement that the WDFW would get their **** together, act like the leader in fish/wildlife conservation we deserve, and fight for their constituents.
There are multiple ways to fix this and they all have their risks, but I would pay a lot more money for kick *** fish and game here in Wa rather than going to Canada and other states.
I just want awesome/healthy hunting, fishing, and ecosystems. Is this too much to ask?