Post by: Redmist on December 14, 2009, 05:04:41 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on December 14, 2009, 05:10:21 PM
Post by: PolarBear on December 14, 2009, 05:16:50 PM
Post by: Woodchuck on December 14, 2009, 05:18:49 PM
Post by: shoot-em-dead on December 14, 2009, 05:20:26 PM
Post by: Woodchuck on December 14, 2009, 05:24:20 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on December 14, 2009, 05:27:30 PM
Post by: Redmist on December 14, 2009, 05:52:46 PM
Post by: toe-jam on December 14, 2009, 05:59:06 PM
If that happens, mine will come off >:(:yeah:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 15, 2009, 09:37:23 AM
Post by: yelp on December 15, 2009, 06:38:31 PM
License-plate fees eyed in budget woes
WILDLIFE – The extra fees Washington motorists pay for vehicle license plates with custom messages or wildlife backgrounds may be shifted from wildlife agency accounts to help balance the state’s budget.
On Wednesday, Gov. Chris Gregoire asked Fish and Wildlife Department officials to shift $1.5 million from the agency’s 17 dedicated accounts that hold $8 million for services such as improving habitat, managing game, protecting wildlife diversity, and maintaining site access.
Among those accounts are four with funds generated by vehicle license plates and dedicated to certain wildlife management priorities.
For example, more than $875,000 is in the account funded by people who buy plates with bear, deer or elk backgrounds, agency officials said.
Eagle and orca background plates accounts hold about $900,000 earmarked for wildlife diversity programs.
The Legislature will have the final word on how much if any of the license plate accounts can be spent on their intended programs.
Rich Landers
Post by: washelkhntr on December 15, 2009, 06:40:36 PM
Guess I am gonna have to think about getting rid of mine.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on December 15, 2009, 06:41:47 PM
Post by: gasman on December 15, 2009, 06:49:27 PM
She needs to ___________________. (you fill in the blank)
Post by: Wea300mag on December 15, 2009, 06:53:14 PM
She is a very evil person.
Post by: Jethro on December 15, 2009, 07:10:24 PM
sorry, off topic....
what do I think of our Gov? :puke: :stup:
jeff
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on December 15, 2009, 08:05:26 PM
Post by: buckhorn2 on December 15, 2009, 08:09:12 PM
Post by: timberghost72 on December 15, 2009, 09:22:11 PM
Post by: yelp on December 15, 2009, 09:29:21 PM
Does anyone else think she looks like Mr. Burns off of the Simpsons? :yike:
sorry, off topic....
what do I think of our Gov? :puke: :stup:
jeff
Yep :puke: :puke:
Post by: woodswalker on December 16, 2009, 12:35:06 PM
fooking idiots who RE-elected her should have to cough up the funds out of pocket.
GAWDS this pisses me off...
Post by: WDFW-SUX on December 16, 2009, 12:40:48 PM
Post by: woodswalker on December 16, 2009, 12:45:38 PM
Im worried that they are going to jack up fee's on hunting licences to make up for the loses in revenue... This is really horrible.
Probably so.
Post by: boneaddict on December 16, 2009, 12:48:46 PM
Post by: Axle on December 16, 2009, 12:53:06 PM
Do you remember when slick willie stole millions from hunters? I can't remember the name of the fund.
Then they couldn't account for any of it when asked.
Post by: Woodchuck on December 16, 2009, 01:02:14 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on December 16, 2009, 01:03:37 PM
The really disappointing thing is that higher fee's are more like to go to herpes prevention than wildlife enhancement....and thats what sucks the most about whats happening.
Post by: Woodchuck on December 16, 2009, 01:19:15 PM
Post by: bearhunter59 on December 16, 2009, 01:50:45 PM
Post by: Houndhunter on December 16, 2009, 01:58:44 PM
I take my shots at WDFW and there are members that think thats all I do but I thinks its fairly hard for anyone to argue that we have a serious lack of quality big game hunting available and there management practices more closely resemble govt work program than a scientifically based effort to improve the resources for all sportsmen ..
The really disappointing thing is that higher fee's are more like to go to herpes prevention than wildlife enhancement....and thats what sucks the most about whats happening.
they stop caring about the sportsman a long time ago
Post by: Woodchuck on December 16, 2009, 02:05:05 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on December 16, 2009, 02:06:14 PM
Post by: Shootmoore on December 16, 2009, 02:12:25 PM
just got off the phone again and the short version of the story i got is this. basically the dept was asked if they had money for these programs in it's accounts, the answer was yes, in my case, it is elk. the lovely governor then said thats wonderful, you will now get that much less money from the general fund, but the money the consumer spends for the plates will still go to those programs. so yes the dept will get less money in all, but keeps the money from the plates, i say buy more plates boys it may be our only hope
Government bait and switch.
I remember at my old agency we got a federal grant planning to use the funds to upgrade some outdated equipment. We lost that amount of money from are budget that year for a net 0 gain. In otherwords we were unable to afford any upgrades.
Shootmoore
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on December 16, 2009, 02:27:17 PM
Im worried that they are going to jack up fee's on hunting licences to make up for the loses in revenue... This is really horrible.
They've already done that, the license surcharge I mentioned went into affect this year.
Post by: Axle on December 16, 2009, 02:40:42 PM
Quote
I take my shots at WDFW and there are members that think thats all I do but I thinks its fairly hard for anyone to argue that we have a serious lack of quality big game hunting available and there management practices more closely resemble govt work program than a scientifically based effort to improve the resources for all sportsmen
Thus the reason I say 'government-trained idiots' and 'government-trained nerds'.
They know better but they screw things up anyway.
Our state has the ability to kick out tremendous numbers and high-quality big game animals but due to stupidity in our government here, that isn't happening.
I love this area but I don't like our so-called 'officials' and people in charge.
And people wonder why Ronald Reagan would swear on occasion! These people in Olympia make preachers cuss!
Post by: PolarBear on December 16, 2009, 11:07:22 PM
I hate her, and this frickin state.:yeah:
I've been wanting to move to Alaska for years because of how screwed up this state has become but I could never convince my wife. She is getting closer to changing her mind every time Gregoire and the legislature pull this kind of *censored*. Our only hope is some changing of the guards in 2010 and Rob McKenna in 2012!
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on December 17, 2009, 07:48:44 AM
just got off the phone again and the short version of the story i got is this. basically the dept was asked if they had money for these programs in it's accounts, the answer was yes, in my case, it is elk. the lovely governor then said thats wonderful, you will now get that much less money from the general fund, but the money the consumer spends for the plates will still go to those programs. so yes the dept will get less money in all, but keeps the money from the plates, i say buy more plates boys it may be our only hope
So what about the license money, including the damn surcharge that already goes into the general fund! This is how it should have worked; temporary surcharge implemented accrossed the board for all State licenses and put in a fund for only one year, with a SET time limit on the surcharge, for paying down the budget deficit. ALL regular funding from Department license and sales revenue should not have been touched, AGAIN, they laid off nearly 80 DFW employee's, saving approximately $750,000.0 alone, with the surcharge, the DFW contributes another approximate 35 million, that's an annual total of over 35 million already for the fiscal year 2010! She is squeezing blood out of turnip, she will kill wildlife management and opportunity in this State along with her other mis-management of other State programs. I've read that on one non-Government web Site that the surcharge is only supposed to be for two years, but I have not seen that Stated anywhere on the GOV Sites. In an "average year", the DFW puts more into the GF then it spends from the GF, what is interesting is they still have data from year 2002 only on the web site. Year 2002 does not reflect recent years.
Post by: bonkellekter on December 18, 2009, 09:43:13 AM
That Cant Understand Normal Thinking has stolen every dedicated fund and thrown it all in the general fund where she and her idiot legislators can piss it away any way they see fit! Damn that bitch pisses me off!!!!! :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: >:( >:( >:( >:(:yeah: All I can say is we all need to be sure to vote even if you don't think it will help.
Post by: Special T on December 18, 2009, 10:09:02 AM
This state constantly uses the fee based system(which used properly is fair) to divide and conquer taxpayers.. The "Rules" for distribution of $$ is hard to follow and leaves them with the advantage to contort the will of the people.
Post by: fishwhackin on February 12, 2010, 02:15:39 AM
Post by: sako223 on February 12, 2010, 05:04:33 AM
Quote
"The 10 percent surcharge on hunting and fishing licenses and an endorsement stamp for
anglers in the Columbia River Basin will bring in about $10 million" said Phil Anderson, acting
Fish and Wildlife director.
Quote
In all, the new fees approved by the Legislature are expected to raise $11 million for fish and wildlife management over the next two years, Stohr said.
After reading the WDFW list of 2009-11 Budget Reductions I see programs that are in question or very costly with little benefit.
Quote
WDFW’s ability to protect eagle nests in the north Puget Sound region will be reduced. The agency will no longer have a regional biologist dedicated to working with landowners on management plans for bald eagles and technical assistance to city and county planning agenciesDo we really need a dedicated position for this?
Quote
Implementation of recovery plans for endangered species such as pygmy rabbits, sage and sharp tailed grouse, Oregon spotted frogs, leopard frogs and lynx will be severely hampered. Status reviews and recovery plans development will be reduced for species potentially in peril, such as burrowing owls, Washington ground squirrels, badgers and golden eagles.Some of these have been very costly and we still have trapping for badgers and people wanting to hunt them. So were paying for recovery plans too.
Quote
Customer service in WDFW’s Fish Program will be reduced, resulting in slower response to telephone calls, letters and email. Inland fishing regulations will be updated only once every two years.Huh, service will be slower.
Quote
Cougar research in the Blue Mountains will be curtailed, impeding the department’s efforts to get a comprehensive understanding of cougar and elk interactions, and making it more difficult to set and achieve population objectives for both species.WDFW research and seasons have not impressed me.
Quote
Loss of capital funds for building or repairing deer, elk and boundary fences will result in increased wildlife conflicts with the agricultural community and more pressure to reduce elk numbers in a number of areas around the state.Good place for master hunters to get in shape and learn the area.
Quote
Wildlife area stewardship activities will be reduced, including noxious weed control efforts important to nearby private landowners and to maintaining ecosystems. Rangeland management activities and efforts to develop partnerships with local ranchers will be cut in half
Maybe the WDFW will stop creating the biggest weed patches in the state.
Quote
The number of WDFW employees who respond to protect fish and wildlife after oil spills will be reduced, delaying preparation of rescue plans for oiled wildlife and marine mammals, and reducing WDFW participation in oil spill response drills.???
Quote
WDFW’s aviation facility, including three planes and two pilot/mechanics are scheduled to be eliminated. Fish and wildlife biologists rely on aircraft to conduct population surveys and other specialized work in order to manage fish and wildlife. WDFW enforcement officers use the aircraft to discover violations and to curb poaching.
Eliminate Aviation Facility - The Department of Fish and Wildlife's aviation facility has been consolidated with the State Patrol and the Department of Natural Resources. Funding is therefore eliminated for the Department's individual aviation activities.
Quote
The cost of a vehicle use permit issued by the the Department is increased in steps from $10 to $30. Individuals who purchase a wildlife-themed or personalized license plate are permitted to park at land access sites managed by the WDFW without having to display a vehicle use permit. (State Wildlife Account-StateI was not aware the wildlife plates acted as a vehicle permit.
Quote
WDFW business operations will be cut under the reduced budget, including key functions such as human resources, information technology services, fiscal operations and administrative support.So what does this mean.
Engineering and facilities management will be reduced.
Quote
Grizzly Bear Outreach Project - One-time funding is provided to a community-based organization to disseminate information about grizzly bears in the North CascadesI was sure WDFW confirmed tracks.
And the list goes on, these are the ones of most interest to me.
One hidden cost that never comes up is of the approximate 1 million acres under WDFW, How much of it is off the property tax roles?
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2010, 06:38:05 AM
I know we all love this sport. My hope is that when the WDFW has to lay people off they are pruning the deadwood of the office bureaucracy... I am sceptical that this is the case... Usually Government cuts police fire and teachers to punish us for not giving them enough $$$ It would be nice if the WDFW focused on its CORE objectives like managing game for those who pay their wages. Does anyone know where the income breakdown is? $$$ from licences, the state and grants?
This state constantly uses the fee based system(which used properly is fair) to divide and conquer taxpayers.. The "Rules" for distribution of $$ is hard to follow and leaves them with the advantage to contort the will of the people.
I am sure they will cut enforcement and fish hatcheries, that is there way of dealing with it. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: Wacenturion on February 16, 2010, 10:02:15 AM
'Wildlife area stewardship activities will be reduced, including noxious weed control efforts important to nearby private landowners and to maintaining ecosystems. Rangeland management activities and efforts to develop partnerships with local ranchers will be cut in half:
Just how much more can WDFW cut this back.....the Wildlife Area Program has been in a permanent custodial operation since the 70's. All they do now is have the managers in a continual planning mode...every 10 years....a new plan....why.......because they don't know how to manage real property for wildlife.....it's all about meetings, reports, lack of money, excuses..........whatever serves their purpose to avoid actually doing anything.
That's got to be the most uninformed comment by a Director I have ever seen.......PERIOD..........he doesn't have a clue, or apparently chooses to not educate himself to have one............same old....same old!
Post by: Special T on February 16, 2010, 10:14:07 AM
Post by: spikehunter on February 16, 2010, 07:30:32 PM
Post by: Diehard0123 on February 17, 2010, 11:24:07 AM
Post by: Axle on February 17, 2010, 01:13:52 PM
Quote
Has anyone ever been contacted by the noxious weed controll? I have... On Private4e land they said i needed to take care of the problem ore they would and then bill me for it! Nevermid the fact that the property was next to gov land with Canadian thistle and other weeds of the same kind... Their responce was I'm sorry but there is nothing i can do about it but clean YOUR property up!
I was riding around one day with a woman from the DNR (a few years ago and near Ravensdale). She saw some noxious weeds on somebodies property and arrogantly said they could get (and should get) fined for it. On the other side of the road was land managed by DNR and it was covered with the same noxious weed. I asked if the DNR did anything about getting rid of them and she said 'no, but private property owners are responsible to take care of getting rid of them'. She was extremely arrogant and impossible to work with.
Post by: Special T on February 17, 2010, 01:44:35 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 17, 2010, 03:17:36 PM
QuoteHas anyone ever been contacted by the noxious weed controll? I have... On Private4e land they said i needed to take care of the problem ore they would and then bill me for it! Nevermid the fact that the property was next to gov land with Canadian thistle and other weeds of the same kind... Their responce was I'm sorry but there is nothing i can do about it but clean YOUR property up!
I was riding around one day with a woman from the DNR (a few years ago and near Ravensdale). She saw some noxious weeds on somebodies property and arrogantly said they could get (and should get) fined for it. On the other side of the road was land managed by DNR and it was covered with the same noxious weed. I asked if the DNR did anything about getting rid of them and she said 'no, but private property owners are responsible to take care of getting rid of them'. She was extremely arrogant and impossible to work with.
I know the area you are talking about and that is actually owned by King County DNR, not the State DNR. They are two different agencies...
Post by: woodswalker on February 17, 2010, 03:39:40 PM
Im worried that they are going to jack up fee's on hunting licences to make up for the loses in revenue... This is really horrible.
too late...you lose...
Post by: Special T on February 17, 2010, 04:26:16 PM
Does this make a difference in your mind? if so how?
Post by: bigtex on February 17, 2010, 05:13:19 PM
Big Tex "I know the area you are talking about and that is actually owned by King County DNR, not the State DNR. They are two different agencies..."
Does this make a difference in your mind? if so how?
Well one is funded by the state, the other is not
WDFW is potentially going to be moving under the state agency, not the county agency
A lot of King Co DNR's program is on noxious weed control, not so much state DNR with the exception of spartina
Post by: Special T on February 18, 2010, 08:58:08 AM
Post by: buckman on February 27, 2010, 06:23:14 PM
Post by: mulehunter on February 28, 2010, 07:42:42 AM
ITS GETTING WORST!
Mulehunter :(