Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2019, 06:43:21 PM
So now that there will be less General Fund money where is the money that WDFW needs going to come from??
Higher hunting and fishing license fees of course! Oh and that Columbia River Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement will be back!
The exact fee increase amount has not been released, and of course this is all subject to legislature approval. It should be noted that when WDFW submitted it's budget request prior to the November election they were against license fee increases.
Post by: Ridgeratt on December 18, 2019, 07:01:32 PM
Governor Inslee announced his 2020 supplemental budget today. Of course the big topic was the passage of the car tab initiative and how the state will make up for the cost. Basically it comes down to this, money that was previously generated by car tab fees for transportation funds will now come from the General Fund (taxes.) This obviously in turn means there will be less General Fund money. With WDFW's significant budget shortfall the WDFW Commission asked the Governor and Legislature for more General Fund money...then the car tab initiative passed....
So now that there will be less General Fund money where is the money that WDFW needs going to come from??
Higher hunting and fishing license fees of course!
The exact fee increase amount has not been released, and of course this is all subject to legislature approval. It should be noted that when WDFW submitted it's budget request prior to the November election they were against license fee increases.
So what am I missing here. This is a new source of income for the state.
Washington state collected a total of $367.4 million in legal marijuana income and license fees in fiscal year 2018, all but $5.4 million of it from the state’s marijuana excise, or sales tax. The data are in the Liquor and Cannabis Control Board’s FY 2018 Annual Report (p. 15).
The report also shows that the marijuana revenues were $157 million more than that of liquor, and that the marijuana excise tax income to the state for fiscal 2018 of $367.4 million grew by almost $50 million from the prior year.
Revenues collected by the Liquor and Cannabis Board from legal cannabis taxes, license fees, and penalties are distributed as follow, according to the report:
General Fund – $198.9 million
Basic Health – $117.4 million
Cities, Counties – $15.0 million
Education, Prevention – $36.2 million
Research – $1.1 million
Other – $20.8 million This is like the commercial "Just what does the dishwasher do"
My bad that was used on his presidential campaign fund. :bash: :bash:
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2019, 07:06:08 PM
Governor Inslee announced his 2020 supplemental budget today. Of course the big topic was the passage of the car tab initiative and how the state will make up for the cost. Basically it comes down to this, money that was previously generated by car tab fees for transportation funds will now come from the General Fund (taxes.) This obviously in turn means there will be less General Fund money. With WDFW's significant budget shortfall the WDFW Commission asked the Governor and Legislature for more General Fund money...then the car tab initiative passed....
So now that there will be less General Fund money where is the money that WDFW needs going to come from??
Higher hunting and fishing license fees of course!
The exact fee increase amount has not been released, and of course this is all subject to legislature approval. It should be noted that when WDFW submitted it's budget request prior to the November election they were against license fee increases.
So what am I missing here. This is a new source of income for the state.
Washington state collected a total of $367.4 million in legal marijuana income and license fees in fiscal year 2018, all but $5.4 million of it from the state’s marijuana excise, or sales tax. The data are in the Liquor and Cannabis Control Board’s FY 2018 Annual Report (p. 15).
The report also shows that the marijuana revenues were $157 million more than that of liquor, and that the marijuana excise tax income to the state for fiscal 2018 of $367.4 million grew by almost $50 million from the prior year.
Revenues collected by the Liquor and Cannabis Board from legal cannabis taxes, license fees, and penalties are distributed as follow, according to the report:
General Fund – $198.9 million
Basic Health – $117.4 million
Cities, Counties – $15.0 million
Education, Prevention – $36.2 million
Research – $1.1 million
Other – $20.8 million
While weed may be bringing in $198.9 million to the general fund per year, the state expects to lose $320 million per year for the next 6 years due to the car tab fee reduction
Post by: ipkus on December 18, 2019, 07:06:53 PM
It should be noted that when WDFW submitted it's budget request prior to the November election they were against license fee increases.
So...are we going to be intellectually honest here, or are you just going to present WDFW’s spin on the topic?
WDFW was going into this session only asking for general fund money (and guarantees about its continuation into the future) because they are 0-3 the last three years making their case that they deserve higher license and tag fees. They continually fail in their management duties of most species, pander to those who don’t actually pay enough or any fees that support the agency, and then throw their hands up in the air like they are baffled why those of us that do foot the bill don’t bend over and look back to say “yes please!!”
The truth sounds a whole lot different than the benevolent way you presented it.
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2019, 07:08:59 PM
The truth is exactly what I stated. WDFW did not request the fee increase, yes it is because it has not passed the past couple years. But that still does not change the fact that this proposal is from Inslee and not WDFW.It should be noted that when WDFW submitted it's budget request prior to the November election they were against license fee increases.So...are we going to be intellectually honest here, or are you just going to present WDFW’s spin on the topic?
WDFW was going into this session only asking for general fund money (and guarantees about its continuation into the future) because they are 0-3 the last three years making their case that they deserve higher license and tag fees. They continually fail in their management duties of most species, pander to those who don’t actually pay enough or any fees that support the agency, and then throw their hands up in the air like they are baffled why those of us that do foot the bill don’t bend over and look back to say “yes please!!”
The truth sounds a whole lot different than the benevolent way you presented it.
Post by: ipkus on December 18, 2019, 07:16:15 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 18, 2019, 07:20:27 PM
Post by: hunter399 on December 18, 2019, 08:09:25 PM
The bottom line is charge more for less oppertunity every year has resulted in less hunters every year.WDFW care more about selling tags , than keeping sustainable populations.
Which I have said it for years ,if you have good hunting,good populations of deer and elk,tags pretty much sell them self at a higher price .But the biologists in this state don't seem to understand that counting a few deer in some ones backyard doesn't sell tags or oppertunity.
I would be willing to pay more.
With prioritys,goals,rule and reg changes starting all over the state .To include accountability if goal are not met.
But till then they can pound sand,Maybe there biologist can take a pay cut or there wolf moderater or someone down the line , not my problem.
Post by: syoungs on December 18, 2019, 08:25:47 PM
But till then they can pound sand,Maybe there biologist can take a pay cut or there wolf moderater or someone down the line , not my problem.
This is where I'm at too. They have done very little to nothing for the sportsman, wasted mass money on wolf issues, and totally neglected opportunity. Why should I worry about their budget when I get nothing in return?
I have 3 cars i register every year, soon to add a 4th when my son turns 16 this spring. The money I save on regriststion fees, and not buying big game tags in the state, will go right to my out of state fund.
Post by: KFhunter on December 18, 2019, 08:43:38 PM
Most I'll probably do is buy bear and cougar.
Post by: ne kid on December 18, 2019, 08:43:50 PM
Post by: Dan-o on December 18, 2019, 08:46:19 PM
Inslee has dirt on the Clinton's, just a rumour I'm starting. :)
I heard the same rumor today!
Sounded really serious.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on December 18, 2019, 09:51:06 PM
Post by: follow maggie on December 18, 2019, 09:51:34 PM
But till then they can pound sand,Maybe there biologist can take a pay cut or there wolf moderater or someone down the line , not my problem.
This is where I'm at too. They have done very little to nothing for the sportsman, wasted mass money on wolf issues, and totally neglected opportunity. Why should I worry about their budget when I get nothing in return?
I have 3 cars i register every year, soon to add a 4th when my son turns 16 this spring. The money I save on regriststion fees, and not buying big game tags in the state, will go right to my out of state fund.
I’m with you guys. I hunted or fished in 5 states this year, and Washington wasn’t one of them.
Post by: Special T on December 18, 2019, 10:42:23 PM
Now for some questions.
Do you think this director is more accepting of predator management that past ones? Do you think all bios suck? Or is your criticism more focused?
Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on December 18, 2019, 10:48:50 PM
It’s all good until your family is affected right?
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2019, 10:50:52 PM
Perhaps you should have put yourself in the shoes of those screwed over by ST3 BT!Not sure what you're getting at. I live in the area covered by the ST3 hike..
It’s all good until your family is affected right?
Post by: huntnphool on December 18, 2019, 10:53:30 PM
But that still does not change the fact that this proposal is from Inslee and not WDFW.It should be noted that when WDFW submitted it's budget request prior to the November election they were against license fee increases.So...are we going to be intellectually honest here, or are you just going to present WDFW’s spin on the topic?
WDFW was going into this session only asking for general fund money (and guarantees about its continuation into the future) because they are 0-3 the last three years making their case that they deserve higher license and tag fees. They continually fail in their management duties of most species, pander to those who don’t actually pay enough or any fees that support the agency, and then throw their hands up in the air like they are baffled why those of us that do foot the bill don’t bend over and look back to say “yes please!!”
The truth sounds a whole lot different than the benevolent way you presented it.
Two different sides of the same ASS BT, and you know it!
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2019, 11:00:31 PM
Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency. I am old enough to remember the old Dept of Fisheries and Dept of Wildlife and their budget issues. DOF was flush with money because they were funded with general fund money because of the commercial fishing aspect, your recreational fishing license dollars went into the general fund. DOW was about as poor as could be because they were mainly user funded from hunting licenses. You would actually have Wildlife Officers using hand-me-down gear that was previously used by Fisheries Officers.
During the recession there was less general fund money so the legislature made WDFW more user funded and made it so all hunting/fishing fees went into the wildlife fund. Now the general fund has a good chunk of money in it however it's getting sucked out to fund education due to the Supreme Court McCleary decision and now to replace the loss revenue from I-976.
Post by: huntnphool on December 18, 2019, 11:08:03 PM
Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency.
They used to, so let’s hear your spin on why they can’t now!
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2019, 11:16:25 PM
They NEVER have been!They used to, so let’s hear your spin on why they can’t now!Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency.
Post by: huntnphool on December 18, 2019, 11:18:57 PM
They NEVER have been!They used to, so let’s hear your spin on why they can’t now!Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency.
User funds have NEVER been a significant part of WDFW funding?...BS!
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2019, 11:20:49 PM
User funded = solely funded by users. The old Department of Wildlife was user funded because it basically received no tax funding.User funds have NEVER been a significant part of WDFW funding?...BS!They NEVER have been!They used to, so let’s hear your spin on why they can’t now!Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency.
Post by: huntnphool on December 18, 2019, 11:24:31 PM
User funded = solely funded by users. The old Department of Wildlife was user funded because it basically received no tax funding.User funds have NEVER been a significant part of WDFW funding?...BS!They NEVER have been!They used to, so let’s hear your spin on why they can’t now!Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency.
Keep spinning your comment BT, “significant” is the determining factor, and your original point.
I never suggested “user funded = solely funded”!
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2019, 11:26:22 PM
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector
10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2019, 11:28:28 PM
User funds make up 27% of the 2017-19 budget. I don't see that as "significant". What is "significant" is that 73% of WDFW's budget is not from user fees.Keep spinning your comment BT, “significant” is the determining factor, and your original point.User funded = solely funded by users. The old Department of Wildlife was user funded because it basically received no tax funding.User funds have NEVER been a significant part of WDFW funding?...BS!They NEVER have been!They used to, so let’s hear your spin on why they can’t now!Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency.
I never suggested “user funded = solely funded”!
Post by: huntnphool on December 18, 2019, 11:29:44 PM
WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector
10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector
Thank you, I get that! :tup:
However, there are those of us that go back hunting prior to 2007. ;)
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2019, 11:32:44 PM
But the WDFW website does not. And if it did, it would show an even higher percentage of general fund funding in the years prior to 2007.WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:Thank you, I get that! :tup:
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector
10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector
However, there are those of us that go back hunting prior to 2007. ;)
Post by: huntnphool on December 18, 2019, 11:39:17 PM
But the WDFW website does not. And if it did, it would show an even higher percentage of general fund funding in the years prior to 2007.WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:Thank you, I get that! :tup:
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector
10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector
However, there are those of us that go back hunting prior to 2007. ;)
Post up a Washington State Link prior to 1995, that shows where WDFW funds came from to support the agency, and the percentage that came from each area.
On top of that, a link that shows the increase in administration, department fees for the same time periods.
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2019, 11:44:57 PM
You and I both know those links aren't availablePost up a Washington State Link prior to 1995, that shows where WDFW funds came from to support the agency, and the percentage that came from each area.But the WDFW website does not. And if it did, it would show an even higher percentage of general fund funding in the years prior to 2007.WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:Thank you, I get that! :tup:
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector
10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector
However, there are those of us that go back hunting prior to 2007. ;)
Post by: Special T on December 18, 2019, 11:45:32 PM
WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:It is unfortunate that so many folks do not link the PR funds to sportsmen especially since the payout formulation is based off it. If you link PR funds that 27 look closer to 47%.
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector
10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector
I am.befuddled that sportsmen can contribute so little according to the department and yet they can do so much more for us than if we merged parks, dnr and Wildlife.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on December 18, 2019, 11:47:09 PM
You and I both know those links aren't availablePost up a Washington State Link prior to 1995, that shows where WDFW funds came from to support the agency, and the percentage that came from each area.But the WDFW website does not. And if it did, it would show an even higher percentage of general fund funding in the years prior to 2007.WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:Thank you, I get that! :tup:
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector
10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector
However, there are those of us that go back hunting prior to 2007. ;)
Well doesn’t that make your comments convenient! ;)
Post by: bbarnes on December 18, 2019, 11:50:09 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2019, 11:54:05 PM
Not based off my math, more like 37%. PR and DJ funds are funded annually, the WDFW budget is biannually. In 2018 WDFW got $22 million in PR and DJ funds, so if you double that to $44M and add that to the $118M WDFW got from the Wildlife fund in 2017-19 you're actually sitting at around 37% funded from PR, DJ, and license fees (total budget was $437M). Also need to remember that there are a lot of non-hunters who do contribute to PR based off the items they buy.WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:It is unfortunate that so many folks do not link the PR funds to sportsmen especially since the payout formulation is based off it. If you link PR funds that 27 look closer to 47%.
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector
10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector
I am.befuddled that sportsmen can contribute so little according to the department and yet they can do so much more for us than if we merged parks, dnr and Wildlife.
Nobody in DNR, Parks or WDFW want the agencies to merge. That was a Gregoire push back in the recession.
Post by: huntnphool on December 18, 2019, 11:55:36 PM
Why would any law maker give WDFW any more money? They mananagment and lack of customer service has lead to there demise!!!!!!Thing need to change or hunters will continue to leave the state.NO MORE FEES until the quality of hunt improves.
This is my point!
You get WDFW swamp dwellers post up misleading info, knowing full well nobody can look up the history, while they claim they need MORE money to make things the way they should be. All the while increasing their salaries while focusing on predators!
Post by: huntnphool on December 18, 2019, 11:57:35 PM
Not based off my math, more like 37%. PR and DJ funds are funded annually, the WDFW budget is biannually. In 2018 WDFW got $22 million in PR and DJ funds, so if you double that to $44M and add that to the $118M WDFW got from the Wildlife fund in 2017-19 you're actually sitting at around 37% funded from PR, DJ, and license fees (total budget was $437M). Also need to remember that there are a lot of non-hunters who do contribute to PR based off the items they buy.WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:It is unfortunate that so many folks do not link the PR funds to sportsmen especially since the payout formulation is based off it. If you link PR funds that 27 look closer to 47%.
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector
10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector
I am.befuddled that sportsmen can contribute so little according to the department and yet they can do so much more for us than if we merged parks, dnr and Wildlife.
Nobody in DNR, Parks or WDFW want the agencies to merge. That was a Gregoire push back in the recession.
Again, can you share figures prior to the landslide downfall after 1995?
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2019, 12:00:30 AM
Again, can you? I highly doubt you were an expert in the two agencies budget prior to the merger, so if I have to backup my claims, why don't you?Again, can you share figures prior to the landslide downfall after 1995?Not based off my math, more like 37%. PR and DJ funds are funded annually, the WDFW budget is biannually. In 2018 WDFW got $22 million in PR and DJ funds, so if you double that to $44M and add that to the $118M WDFW got from the Wildlife fund in 2017-19 you're actually sitting at around 37% funded from PR, DJ, and license fees (total budget was $437M). Also need to remember that there are a lot of non-hunters who do contribute to PR based off the items they buy.WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:It is unfortunate that so many folks do not link the PR funds to sportsmen especially since the payout formulation is based off it. If you link PR funds that 27 look closer to 47%.
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector
10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector
I am.befuddled that sportsmen can contribute so little according to the department and yet they can do so much more for us than if we merged parks, dnr and Wildlife.
Nobody in DNR, Parks or WDFW want the agencies to merge. That was a Gregoire push back in the recession.
Post by: huntnphool on December 19, 2019, 12:12:43 AM
Again, can you? I highly doubt you were an expert in the two agencies budget prior to the merger, so if I have to backup my claims, why don't you?Again, can you share figures prior to the landslide downfall after 1995?Not based off my math, more like 37%. PR and DJ funds are funded annually, the WDFW budget is biannually. In 2018 WDFW got $22 million in PR and DJ funds, so if you double that to $44M and add that to the $118M WDFW got from the Wildlife fund in 2017-19 you're actually sitting at around 37% funded from PR, DJ, and license fees (total budget was $437M). Also need to remember that there are a lot of non-hunters who do contribute to PR based off the items they buy.WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:It is unfortunate that so many folks do not link the PR funds to sportsmen especially since the payout formulation is based off it. If you link PR funds that 27 look closer to 47%.
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector
10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector
I am.befuddled that sportsmen can contribute so little according to the department and yet they can do so much more for us than if we merged parks, dnr and Wildlife.
Nobody in DNR, Parks or WDFW want the agencies to merge. That was a Gregoire push back in the recession.
I’ve gone back through your posts. Its amazing that not once have you acknowledged anything negative about WDFW...even though there are countless examples. This suggests you have zero fair-minded or unbiased opinion regarding this issue.
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2019, 12:15:36 AM
Nice subject change there. If you actually knew me or read some of the 9,000 posts I've done on here you would know I consistently call WDFW out. Sorry I am not like you and others where 100% of my posts are anti-WDFW.I’ve gone back through your posts. Its amazing that not once have you acknowledged anything negative about WDFW...even though there are countless examples. This suggests you have zero fair-minded or unbiased opinion regarding this issue.Again, can you? I highly doubt you were an expert in the two agencies budget prior to the merger, so if I have to backup my claims, why don't you?Again, can you share figures prior to the landslide downfall after 1995?Not based off my math, more like 37%. PR and DJ funds are funded annually, the WDFW budget is biannually. In 2018 WDFW got $22 million in PR and DJ funds, so if you double that to $44M and add that to the $118M WDFW got from the Wildlife fund in 2017-19 you're actually sitting at around 37% funded from PR, DJ, and license fees (total budget was $437M). Also need to remember that there are a lot of non-hunters who do contribute to PR based off the items they buy.WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:It is unfortunate that so many folks do not link the PR funds to sportsmen especially since the payout formulation is based off it. If you link PR funds that 27 look closer to 47%.
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector
10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector
I am.befuddled that sportsmen can contribute so little according to the department and yet they can do so much more for us than if we merged parks, dnr and Wildlife.
Nobody in DNR, Parks or WDFW want the agencies to merge. That was a Gregoire push back in the recession.
Post by: huntnphool on December 19, 2019, 12:20:28 AM
Nice subject change there. If you actually knew me or read some of the 9,000 posts I've done on here you would know I consistently call WDFW out. Sorry I am not like you and others where 100% of my posts are anti-WDFW.I’ve gone back through your posts. Its amazing that not once have you acknowledged anything negative about WDFW...even though there are countless examples. This suggests you have zero fair-minded or unbiased opinion regarding this issue.Again, can you? I highly doubt you were an expert in the two agencies budget prior to the merger, so if I have to backup my claims, why don't you?Again, can you share figures prior to the landslide downfall after 1995?Not based off my math, more like 37%. PR and DJ funds are funded annually, the WDFW budget is biannually. In 2018 WDFW got $22 million in PR and DJ funds, so if you double that to $44M and add that to the $118M WDFW got from the Wildlife fund in 2017-19 you're actually sitting at around 37% funded from PR, DJ, and license fees (total budget was $437M). Also need to remember that there are a lot of non-hunters who do contribute to PR based off the items they buy.WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:It is unfortunate that so many folks do not link the PR funds to sportsmen especially since the payout formulation is based off it. If you link PR funds that 27 look closer to 47%.
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector
10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector
I am.befuddled that sportsmen can contribute so little according to the department and yet they can do so much more for us than if we merged parks, dnr and Wildlife.
Nobody in DNR, Parks or WDFW want the agencies to merge. That was a Gregoire push back in the recession.
:chuckle: Post count means nothing, at 28k myself your comment is moot.
In my 28k+ comments, you will see I give loads of credit and thanks to WDFW officers, don’t even try to twist it! ;)
Post by: huntnphool on December 19, 2019, 12:25:33 AM
Nice subject change there. If you actually knew me or read some of the 9,000 posts I've done on here you would know I consistently call WDFW out. Sorry I am not like you and others where 100% of my posts are anti-WDFW.I’ve gone back through your posts. Its amazing that not once have you acknowledged anything negative about WDFW...even though there are countless examples. This suggests you have zero fair-minded or unbiased opinion regarding this issue.Again, can you? I highly doubt you were an expert in the two agencies budget prior to the merger, so if I have to backup my claims, why don't you?Again, can you share figures prior to the landslide downfall after 1995?Not based off my math, more like 37%. PR and DJ funds are funded annually, the WDFW budget is biannually. In 2018 WDFW got $22 million in PR and DJ funds, so if you double that to $44M and add that to the $118M WDFW got from the Wildlife fund in 2017-19 you're actually sitting at around 37% funded from PR, DJ, and license fees (total budget was $437M). Also need to remember that there are a lot of non-hunters who do contribute to PR based off the items they buy.WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:It is unfortunate that so many folks do not link the PR funds to sportsmen especially since the payout formulation is based off it. If you link PR funds that 27 look closer to 47%.
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector
10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector
I am.befuddled that sportsmen can contribute so little according to the department and yet they can do so much more for us than if we merged parks, dnr and Wildlife.
Nobody in DNR, Parks or WDFW want the agencies to merge. That was a Gregoire push back in the recession.
How about you post up just “one” of your critical opinions of WDFW fees being raised, questioning why it’s necessary! ;)
I’m gong to bed so take your time, going through 9000 posts will take a while. :chuckle:
Post by: dreadi on December 19, 2019, 05:18:25 AM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on December 19, 2019, 06:36:08 AM
Every time a semi-auto rifle is transferred, the state gets $18 into the general fund.
There getting a good chunk of the pie of those sales. Seems like the general fund needs to be generally re-vamped!
Post by: ne kid on December 19, 2019, 06:42:54 AM
Post by: birddogdad on December 19, 2019, 06:59:55 AM
Post by: skeeter 20i on December 19, 2019, 07:17:12 AM
But till then they can pound sand,Maybe there biologist can take a pay cut or there wolf moderater or someone down the line , not my problem.
This is where I'm at too. They have done very little to nothing for the sportsman, wasted mass money on wolf issues, and totally neglected opportunity. Why should I worry about their budget when I get nothing in return?
I have 3 cars i register every year, soon to add a 4th when my son turns 16 this spring. The money I save on regriststion fees, and not buying big game tags in the state, will go right to my out of state fund.
+1 :tup:
Post by: ne kid on December 19, 2019, 07:51:20 AM
Post by: Special T on December 19, 2019, 07:54:30 AM
2 pointsNot based off my math, more like 37%. PR and DJ funds are funded annually, the WDFW budget is biannually. In 2018 WDFW got $22 million in PR and DJ funds, so if you double that to $44M and add that to the $118M WDFW got from the Wildlife fund in 2017-19 you're actually sitting at around 37% funded from PR, DJ, and license fees (total budget was $437M). Also need to remember that there are a lot of non-hunters who do contribute to PR based off the items they buy.WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:It is unfortunate that so many folks do not link the PR funds to sportsmen especially since the payout formulation is based off it. If you link PR funds that 27 look closer to 47%.
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector
10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector
I am.befuddled that sportsmen can contribute so little according to the department and yet they can do so much more for us than if we merged parks, dnr and Wildlife.
Nobody in DNR, Parks or WDFW want the agencies to merge. That was a Gregoire push back in the recession.
1 the archery and shooting communities that make up the taxes are not a random sprinkling across the demography. The percentage that hunt/ or used to is quite high so ppainting with the broad brush that some how everyone I has a say cause everyone is contributing to PR funds is incorrect.
2 lumping the fish side with the hunting side is a side step. I know it makes for quicker easier math. But it's not an honest comparison.
You answered my question that more $ is what would un clog the problem with WDFW. While it may $ is just a stand in proxy for a solution. With enough $ all problems are solved, be it temporary.
I brought up the merger because the department acts like it doesnt have a clear vision. I would like to think that sportsmen are, but from most of the conversation sportsmen disagree.
Thank you for taking the arrows slung at you, and elevating the conversation. I wish the department did a better job of it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: hunter399 on December 19, 2019, 08:11:38 AM
Something no one considers going into the future PR funds will be a thing of the past.New gun laws have drove up sales in recent users,but as gun laws get more and more retarded PR funds will go down.Background checks for ammo ,people that don't want to buy new guns, it's coming.More funds will come out of general funds as years go on,cry about it.Law maker like to make laws but cry when they have to pay for them.2 pointsNot based off my math, more like 37%. PR and DJ funds are funded annually, the WDFW budget is biannually. In 2018 WDFW got $22 million in PR and DJ funds, so if you double that to $44M and add that to the $118M WDFW got from the Wildlife fund in 2017-19 you're actually sitting at around 37% funded from PR, DJ, and license fees (total budget was $437M). Also need to remember that there are a lot of non-hunters who do contribute to PR based off the items they buy.WDFW 2017-19 budget which ended July 1:It is unfortunate that so many folks do not link the PR funds to sportsmen especially since the payout formulation is based off it. If you link PR funds that 27 look closer to 47%.
27% came from license fees
21% came from state general fund/taxes
62% came from the feds, local government or private sector
10 years earlier in 2007-09:
31% came from state general fund/taxes
18% came from license fees
61% came from the feds, local government or private sector
I am.befuddled that sportsmen can contribute so little according to the department and yet they can do so much more for us than if we merged parks, dnr and Wildlife.
Nobody in DNR, Parks or WDFW want the agencies to merge. That was a Gregoire push back in the recession.
1 the archery and shooting communities that make up the taxes are not a random sprinkling across the demography. The percentage that hunt/ or used to is quite high so ppainting with the broad brush that some how everyone I has a say cause everyone is contributing to PR funds is incorrect.
2 lumping the fish side with the hunting side is a side step. I know it makes for quicker easier math. But it's not an honest comparison.
You answered my question that more $ is what would un clog the problem with WDFW. While it may $ is just a stand in proxy for a solution. With enough $ all problems are solved, be it temporary.
I brought up the merger because the department acts like it doesnt have a clear vision. I would like to think that sportsmen are, but from most of the conversation sportsmen disagree.
Thank you for taking the arrows slung at you, and elevating the conversation. I wish the department did a better job of it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
You make your bed ,now lay in it.
No new taxes,or rate hikes.
Bigtex I do support enforcement side of WDFW, but everyone eles can pound sand.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 19, 2019, 08:28:42 AM
Governor Inslee announced his 2020 supplemental budget today. Of course the big topic was the passage of the car tab initiative and how the state will make up for the cost. Basically it comes down to this, money that was previously generated by car tab fees for transportation funds will now come from the General Fund (taxes.) This obviously in turn means there will be less General Fund money. With WDFW's significant budget shortfall the WDFW Commission asked the Governor and Legislature for more General Fund money...then the car tab initiative passed....
So now that there will be less General Fund money where is the money that WDFW needs going to come from??
Higher hunting and fishing license fees of course!
The exact fee increase amount has not been released, and of course this is all subject to legislature approval. It should be noted that when WDFW submitted it's budget request prior to the November election they were against license fee increases.
So what am I missing here. This is a new source of income for the state.
Washington state collected a total of $367.4 million in legal marijuana income and license fees in fiscal year 2018, all but $5.4 million of it from the state’s marijuana excise, or sales tax. The data are in the Liquor and Cannabis Control Board’s FY 2018 Annual Report (p. 15).
The report also shows that the marijuana revenues were $157 million more than that of liquor, and that the marijuana excise tax income to the state for fiscal 2018 of $367.4 million grew by almost $50 million from the prior year.
Revenues collected by the Liquor and Cannabis Board from legal cannabis taxes, license fees, and penalties are distributed as follow, according to the report:
General Fund – $198.9 million
Basic Health – $117.4 million
Cities, Counties – $15.0 million
Education, Prevention – $36.2 million
Research – $1.1 million
Other – $20.8 million
While weed may be bringing in $198.9 million to the general fund per year, the state expects to lose $320 million per year for the next 6 years due to the car tab fee reduction
So, that leaves a difference of $122m deficit from tab revenues just considering only the new marijuana revenues accounted for. Why would that mean that the whole shortfall should fall to the WDFW budget money needed from the general fund? Why wouldn't all programs be cut to make up the deficit? It makes no sense that it would all come from only one of the thousands of state government budgets. The bigger problem we have is that the state keeps creating more money pits. Aside from hiring trans strippers to entertain state employees with money slated for homeless relief, we're wasting money on a bevy of social programs which have shown limited or any benefit to our state and citizens overall.
Sportsmen and women have been carrying a disproportionate amount of the burden for WDFW and DNR/State park funding through our license fees and the Discover Pass, now $35, I believe. As we've seen, non-sporting citizens who pay nothing into these fees are being given an equal or larger say in how the WDFW operates. This is painfully evident with the outrageous wolf program. It'd be one thing to pay higher fees if the state gave our end of the funding more consideration. But they give less each year and those who pay no fees are given more.
Post by: Pegasus on December 19, 2019, 08:31:28 AM
Post by: Henrydog on December 19, 2019, 08:45:42 AM
When any of us have suffered a layoff or the like we just tighten our belt. Not this State, more is never enough. Remember Inslee and Side show Bob believe they are smarter and more morally correct that you. Please just sign over your paycheck to them, move into apartment were they can keep an eye on you, and please turn in your guns.
Remember when the Lotto would fund education (circa 1985ish?) Remember when the #_)$#_$L Discover Pass was only for the Recession? Remember when this State has a "Rainy Day fund" There will never been enough money given to these down right socialist.
Post by: Bob33 on December 19, 2019, 09:35:03 AM
It’s hard not to conclude they care about wolf lovers and hunters to an equivalent degree. If so, then go after an equivalent amount of funding from the wolf lovers and leave hunting license fees alone.
Post by: Ridgeratt on December 19, 2019, 09:43:43 AM
It would make me think the revenue should increase some?
What happened to having to live within a budget? Seems I only get a set amount of money and when its gone I wait until the next payday.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 19, 2019, 09:47:21 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 19, 2019, 09:59:24 AM
Am I to believe that the Pot revenues are going to stay a constant or go down? There's a new business on almost every corner in Spokane.Tough to say, the price has fallen quite a bit since it started. Something like half of the farms/processors each year go out of business. The remaining ones are increasingly efficient and can sell at lower prices to the retail stores. So, the increase in demand will have to offset the price reductions.
It would make me think the revenue should increase some?
Post by: Buckhunter24 on December 19, 2019, 10:05:49 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on December 19, 2019, 10:07:59 AM
Must be nice to be able to always return to mommy and daddy for an increase in your allowance.
What is the loss in revenue from car tabs as a percentage of total revenue? How about a same percentage cut in budgets across the board to fund this initiative?
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 19, 2019, 10:13:36 AM
Post by: Cougartail on December 19, 2019, 10:35:34 AM
" auditing programs for waste, "
Government management will never audit programs for waste because they know they are the waste. :twocents:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on December 19, 2019, 10:49:53 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 19, 2019, 11:06:59 AM
Post by: KFhunter on December 19, 2019, 11:09:16 AM
Because then, there's be no room for trans stripper expenses. Get with it!
can you provide a link or verifiable source that WDFW funded trans stripper expenses?
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 19, 2019, 11:21:52 AM
Post by: Pegasus on December 19, 2019, 01:34:31 PM
Because then, there's be no room for trans stripper expenses. Get with it!
can you provide a link or verifiable source that WDFW funded trans stripper expenses?
I don't have the link but they certainly funded a lot of parties that turned into lawsuits for deviant behavior.
Post by: Dhoey07 on December 19, 2019, 02:25:11 PM
Because then, there's be no room for trans stripper expenses. Get with it!
can you provide a link or verifiable source that WDFW funded trans stripper expenses?
I don't have the link but they certainly funded a lot of parties that turned into lawsuits for deviant behavior.
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2019/12/15/seattle-hires-transgender-stripper-to-perform-at-conference-to-solve-homelessness/
Post by: avidnwoutdoorsman on December 19, 2019, 05:02:28 PM
I would suggest a call to action? We all need to write our Reps in support of HB 2122. I'm not as good as many of you on here looking up new legislation and such but HB 2122 would be monumental IMO for Hunters and Anglers. If you don't know HB 2122 - "Imposing a sales and use tax on recreational equipment and apparel to provide funding to the state wildlife account." would act similar to Pittman-Robertson on guns, ammo, etc, but instead on backpacks, tents, and what have you (bikes, items less than $200 and a few other things were exempt). Yes us hunters buy all these things too but so do a lot of the anti's. This would also pave the way for other states to adopt similar legislation and help wildlife all over the nation.
Sure this might not make up the shortfall in $$$ we are talking about here but it's something and every dollar counts in my mind at this point.
(What research I have found suggest its "In the House - In Committee".)
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2019, 05:07:58 PM
I think this fits into the thread since we are talking about where WDFW is going to get money, maybe we need a new thread, I couldn't find one on this yet but....The bill essentially died this year. It had it's hearing but the committee didn't vote on it. The bills from 2019 will still be considered active for 2020, so legislators can try to push the same bill through or they can trash it and try again with a new bill.
I would suggest a call to action? We all need to write our Reps in support of HB 2122. I'm not as good as many of you on here looking up new legislation and such but HB 2122 would be monumental IMO for Hunters and Anglers. If you don't know HB 2122 - "Imposing a sales and use tax on recreational equipment and apparel to provide funding to the state wildlife account." would act similar to Pittman-Robertson on guns, ammo, etc, but instead on backpacks, tents, and what have you (bikes, items less than $200 and a few other things were exempt). Yes us hunters buy all these things too but so do a lot of the anti's. This would also pave the way for other states to adopt similar legislation and help wildlife all over the nation.
Sure this might not make up the shortfall in $$$ we are talking about here but it's something and every dollar counts in my mind at this point.
(What research I have found suggest its "In the House - In Committee".)
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 19, 2019, 05:21:57 PM
It was the Seattle homeless commission. It's an example for rampant government waste in our state. Our government is totally out of touch with the realities of our needs.When I first read about that, it reminded me of some of the crazy, wasteful spending of the EU groups. Didn't think even Seattle or San Fran progs were quite down to that level yet. If they felt comfortable doing that in this state, who knows what other state agencies are doing. All a bunch of smelly swamp critters.
Post by: dreadi on December 19, 2019, 08:20:58 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 19, 2019, 09:27:01 PM
I have no doubt that costs to run WDFW have increased since 2011. I would be willing to pay more in license fees, but it would be easier to stomach if there was an indication that the department cares about hunters. If they do care about hunters (and I’m sure many of their employees do), they need to do a better job in demonstrating and communicating that they do.Well said.
It’s hard not to conclude they care about wolf lovers and hunters to an equivalent degree. If so, then go after an equivalent amount of funding from the wolf lovers and leave hunting license fees alone.
And so they always peddle the whole, "see we have to cut your favorite programs" BS. How about tightening your belt and reducing government expenditures? Leeches.Agreed. I could cut millions from WDFW and not impact hunters or anglers in the slightest...every time WDFW comes out in a budget shortfall and threatens to cut programs that are most critical to hunters and anglers I'm never amused. It's also why I laugh when people try to justify auction tags by describing the revenue from those tags as "critical" or "important" or "needed" for conservation...golly gee, sure glad we got that $50k...otherwise we couldn't do that critical project because in our $437 million budget we just never would have found 50k... :chuckle:
Post by: Bango skank on December 20, 2019, 02:38:27 AM
I have no doubt that costs to run WDFW have increased since 2011. I would be willing to pay more in license fees, but it would be easier to stomach if there was an indication that the department cares about hunters. If they do care about hunters (and I’m sure many of their employees do), they need to do a better job in demonstrating and communicating that they do.Well said.
It’s hard not to conclude they care about wolf lovers and hunters to an equivalent degree. If so, then go after an equivalent amount of funding from the wolf lovers and leave hunting license fees alone.And so they always peddle the whole, "see we have to cut your favorite programs" BS. How about tightening your belt and reducing government expenditures? Leeches.It's also why I laugh when people try to justify auction tags by describing the revenue from those tags as "critical" or "important" or "needed" for conservation...golly gee, sure glad we got that $50k...otherwise we couldn't do that critical project because in our $437 million budget we just never would have found 50k... :chuckle:
Hey, that 50k pays francine maddens salary for 2 months! That poor woman is probably driving around in a 2 year old bentley like some sort of destitute third worlder right now.
Post by: Bigshooter on December 20, 2019, 04:13:14 AM
Post by: opdinkslayer on December 20, 2019, 06:24:45 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on December 20, 2019, 06:31:53 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 20, 2019, 06:36:09 AM
I am willing to bet the number 1 spending issue with WDFW is feeding the giant bureaucracy at the top of the agency. Need to let the knowledgeable men & women with boots on the ground make all the decisions & feed the bureaucrats to the wolves! :twocents:
This may account for a few million, certainly not the whole shortfall. I'm personally unsure on how top-heavy the department is, so I can't comment on that. But there's a lot of spending going on somewhere. I'd like to see a breakdown of the budget request.
Post by: Special T on December 20, 2019, 07:13:18 AM
Can we just get some champions for the hunting and fishing community voted into high offices?There are some sportsmen champions. Are there enough? Does your local state rep of senator know your a sportsmen? Have you told them what sportsmen org you belonged to? Have you given $ to that person?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on December 20, 2019, 08:46:13 AM
Other states seem to manage being funded solely by license sales...Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency. I am old enough to remember the old Dept of Fisheries and Dept of Wildlife and their budget issues. DOF was flush with money because they were funded with general fund money because of the commercial fishing aspect, your recreational fishing license dollars went into the general fund. DOW was about as poor as could be because they were mainly user funded from hunting licenses. You would actually have Wildlife Officers using hand-me-down gear that was previously used by Fisheries Officers.
During the recession there was less general fund money so the legislature made WDFW more user funded and made it so all hunting/fishing fees went into the wildlife fund. Now the general fund has a good chunk of money in it however it's getting sucked out to fund education due to the Supreme Court McCleary decision and now to replace the loss revenue from I-976.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on December 20, 2019, 09:11:38 AM
I have no doubt that costs to run WDFW have increased since 2011. I would be willing to pay more in license fees, but it would be easier to stomach if there was an indication that the department cares about hunters. If they do care about hunters (and I’m sure many of their employees do), they need to do a better job in demonstrating and communicating that they do.Well said.
It’s hard not to conclude they care about wolf lovers and hunters to an equivalent degree. If so, then go after an equivalent amount of funding from the wolf lovers and leave hunting license fees alone.And so they always peddle the whole, "see we have to cut your favorite programs" BS. How about tightening your belt and reducing government expenditures? Leeches.It's also why I laugh when people try to justify auction tags by describing the revenue from those tags as "critical" or "important" or "needed" for conservation...golly gee, sure glad we got that $50k...otherwise we couldn't do that critical project because in our $437 million budget we just never would have found 50k... :chuckle:
Hey, that 50k pays francine maddens salary for 2 months! That poor woman is probably driving around in a 2 year old bentley like some sort of destitute third worlder right now.
:chuckle: touché
Post by: jstone on December 20, 2019, 09:46:15 AM
I would like to know how much gas is used a year in this state compared to other years? Any ideas on how to find that information
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 20, 2019, 09:54:30 AM
Motor Gasoline consumption by State in 2017 (Thousands of barrels)
https://ipsr.ku.edu/ksdata/ksah/energy/18ener6a.pdf
It's not clear if this is based on 42 gallons per barrel of crude, which equals 19 gallons of gasoline, or on 55 gallons of gasoline per barrel.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 20, 2019, 10:00:36 AM
Post by: ribka on December 20, 2019, 12:54:45 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 20, 2019, 01:22:37 PM
Every Tesla owner should pay a yearly $5000 wolf tax fee or registration tabsLOL. How much for Subaru owners?
Post by: syoungs on December 20, 2019, 01:42:48 PM
Every Tesla owner should pay a yearly $5000 wolf tax fee or registration tabsLOL. How much for Subaru owners?
Woah there, I take my subaru predator hunting, is there going to be some sort of exchange rate for turned in coyotes!!
Post by: Bob33 on December 20, 2019, 01:54:43 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 20, 2019, 02:27:21 PM
:chuckle:I have no doubt that costs to run WDFW have increased since 2011. I would be willing to pay more in license fees, but it would be easier to stomach if there was an indication that the department cares about hunters. If they do care about hunters (and I’m sure many of their employees do), they need to do a better job in demonstrating and communicating that they do.Well said.
It’s hard not to conclude they care about wolf lovers and hunters to an equivalent degree. If so, then go after an equivalent amount of funding from the wolf lovers and leave hunting license fees alone.And so they always peddle the whole, "see we have to cut your favorite programs" BS. How about tightening your belt and reducing government expenditures? Leeches.It's also why I laugh when people try to justify auction tags by describing the revenue from those tags as "critical" or "important" or "needed" for conservation...golly gee, sure glad we got that $50k...otherwise we couldn't do that critical project because in our $437 million budget we just never would have found 50k... :chuckle:
Hey, that 50k pays francine maddens salary for 2 months! That poor woman is probably driving around in a 2 year old bentley like some sort of destitute third worlder right now.
Exactly!
Post by: bigtex on December 20, 2019, 08:05:33 PM
Very few do. And the ones that do are inland states that don't have to deal with the myriad and costly fisheries issues. Just from the few random states that I could find:Other states seem to manage being funded solely by license sales...Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency. I am old enough to remember the old Dept of Fisheries and Dept of Wildlife and their budget issues. DOF was flush with money because they were funded with general fund money because of the commercial fishing aspect, your recreational fishing license dollars went into the general fund. DOW was about as poor as could be because they were mainly user funded from hunting licenses. You would actually have Wildlife Officers using hand-me-down gear that was previously used by Fisheries Officers.
During the recession there was less general fund money so the legislature made WDFW more user funded and made it so all hunting/fishing fees went into the wildlife fund. Now the general fund has a good chunk of money in it however it's getting sucked out to fund education due to the Supreme Court McCleary decision and now to replace the loss revenue from I-976.
Idaho Fish & Game: 34% of their budget funded by license fees
Texas Parks & Wildlife: 30% of their budget funded by license fees (not including park passes)
Colorado Parks & Wildlife: 54% of their budget funded by license fees however this includes Park passes since Colorado Parks merged with CO Wildlife
Oregon Fish & Wildlife: 26% of their budget funded by license fees
South Dakota Wildlife & Parks: 50% of their wildlife/fisheries budget funded by license fees
California Fish & Wildlife: 21% of their budget funded by license fees
Nevada Wildlife: 45% of their budget funded by license fees
Post by: hunter399 on December 20, 2019, 08:37:30 PM
You mean francine maddens 1.2 million to her conservation group.coexist for animals .:chuckle:I have no doubt that costs to run WDFW have increased since 2011. I would be willing to pay more in license fees, but it would be easier to stomach if there was an indication that the department cares about hunters. If they do care about hunters (and I’m sure many of their employees do), they need to do a better job in demonstrating and communicating that they do.Well said.
It’s hard not to conclude they care about wolf lovers and hunters to an equivalent degree. If so, then go after an equivalent amount of funding from the wolf lovers and leave hunting license fees alone.And so they always peddle the whole, "see we have to cut your favorite programs" BS. How about tightening your belt and reducing government expenditures? Leeches.It's also why I laugh when people try to justify auction tags by describing the revenue from those tags as "critical" or "important" or "needed" for conservation...golly gee, sure glad we got that $50k...otherwise we couldn't do that critical project because in our $437 million budget we just never would have found 50k... :chuckle:
Hey, that 50k pays francine maddens salary for 2 months! That poor woman is probably driving around in a 2 year old bentley like some sort of destitute third worlder right now.
Exactly!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
https://www.capitalpress.com/state/washington/washington-s-wolf-peacemaker-ends-her-tenure/article_5faa8418-9961-5af3-85e3-525d3eabdc70.html
The department signed the Washington, D.C.-based Madden to a nearly $1.2 million contract in 2015 and to a $425,000 extension last year. Her in-person services cost $8,000 a day, plus travel expenses. She previously had an $82,000 contract to write a report for the department on social conflicts over wolves.
Pretty spendy that for sure.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 20, 2019, 09:14:18 PM
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on December 20, 2019, 09:32:04 PM
“For more than 20 years, Francine has successfully intervened in controversial fish and wildlife conflicts using these issues as entry points to target the deeper-rooted, systemic conflicts that underpin natural resource challenges. By reconciling identity-based conflict and transforming dialogue and decision-making processes, Francine enables stakeholders to collaboratively target the underlying psychological, social, political, structural, and cultural issues that make these wildlife conflicts seem intractable. Her work through CPeace has resulted in long-term, positive, creative solutions for government agencies, diverse stakeholders, and interest groups around some of the world’s most controversial, polarizing, and complex conservation challenges.”
https://cpeace.ngo/
This is how the world is being subverted. NGOs run by leftist women pushing “identity based politics.” If this is what WDFW wants to spend money on their pleas to sportsmen will fall on deaf ears. It is well passed time for the WDFW to remove their heads from their own rectums.
Post by: KFhunter on December 20, 2019, 10:23:37 PM
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on December 20, 2019, 10:53:33 PM
Very few do. And the ones that do are inland states that don't have to deal with the myriad and costly fisheries issues. Just from the few random states that I could find:Other states seem to manage being funded solely by license sales...Where do you think the choke point is? Who can unclog it? How?The only fix is significant general fund (taxes) money. WDFW can't operate as a user funded agency. I am old enough to remember the old Dept of Fisheries and Dept of Wildlife and their budget issues. DOF was flush with money because they were funded with general fund money because of the commercial fishing aspect, your recreational fishing license dollars went into the general fund. DOW was about as poor as could be because they were mainly user funded from hunting licenses. You would actually have Wildlife Officers using hand-me-down gear that was previously used by Fisheries Officers.
During the recession there was less general fund money so the legislature made WDFW more user funded and made it so all hunting/fishing fees went into the wildlife fund. Now the general fund has a good chunk of money in it however it's getting sucked out to fund education due to the Supreme Court McCleary decision and now to replace the loss revenue from I-976.
Idaho Fish & Game: 34% of their budget funded by license fees
Texas Parks & Wildlife: 30% of their budget funded by license fees (not including park passes)
Colorado Parks & Wildlife: 54% of their budget funded by license fees however this includes Park passes since Colorado Parks merged with CO Wildlife
Oregon Fish & Wildlife: 26% of their budget funded by license fees
South Dakota Wildlife & Parks: 50% of their wildlife/fisheries budget funded by license fees
California Fish & Wildlife: 21% of their budget funded by license fees
Nevada Wildlife: 45% of their budget funded by license fees
What % goes into WDFW budget?
Post by: opdinkslayer on December 21, 2019, 06:16:02 AM
1.6 million for this:
“For more than 20 years, Francine has successfully intervened in controversial fish and wildlife conflicts using these issues as entry points to target the deeper-rooted, systemic conflicts that underpin natural resource challenges. By reconciling identity-based conflict and transforming dialogue and decision-making processes, Francine enables stakeholders to collaboratively target the underlying psychological, social, political, structural, and cultural issues that make these wildlife conflicts seem intractable. Her work through CPeace has resulted in long-term, positive, creative solutions for government agencies, diverse stakeholders, and interest groups around some of the world’s most controversial, polarizing, and complex conservation challenges.”
https://cpeace.ngo/
This is how the world is being subverted. NGOs run by leftist women pushing “identity based politics.” If this is what WDFW wants to spend money on their pleas to sportsmen will fall on deaf ears. It is well passed time for the WDFW to remove their heads from their own rectums.
:chuckle: like I said feed the bureaucrats to the wolves. Radical environmentalists have no place in fish & game management.
Post by: wags on December 21, 2019, 08:28:51 AM
I bought tags for nearly 40 years in WA, I'm pretty much done.I was done two years ago; feels good.
Most I'll probably do is buy bear and cougar.