Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2010, 03:27:53 PM
Quote
Abolish WDFW?!?
By Andy Walgamott
Abolish the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife!?
To some it might seem a gift from on high, and a bill introduced in Olympia yesterday aims to do just that.
Senate Bill 6813, sponsored by a trio of central Pugetropolis Democrats — Senators Tom, Rockefeller and Shin — would abolish “the department of fish and wildlife and transfers its powers, duties, and functions to the department of natural resources.”
It would do away with State Parks Commission and move that department to DNR as well.
Reform of natural resource agencies has been brewing for awhile. Last year, Gov. Gregoire asked numerous departments to come up with ideas on how to reform management, reduce costs and improve service delivery in light of the state’s $9 billion budget shortfall.
However, in December, a panel recommended to her that WDFW, DNR and other departments not be bundled. Instead, WDFW would work to unify instate regions, smooth permitting, better coordinate fieldwork and identify redundancies between it, DNR and DOE.
The cutoff for bills to move out of Senate committees is midnight, Feb. 5. It must then be passed out of the full Senate by Feb. 16.
We’ve got calls in to learn more about the bill’s odds as well as the rationale behind it.
EDITOR’S NOTE: AN EARLIER VERSION OF THIS MISSTATED THE DEADLINE TO MOVE THIS BILL OUT OF THE SENATE’S NATURAL RESOURCES, OCEANS & RECREATION COMMITTEE.
Post by: fishcrazy on February 03, 2010, 03:36:49 PM
I've been at the Capital working on some stuff affecting unemployment. I will keep an eye out for this one and sit in on a hearing and see what up with it.
Kris
Post by: wolfbait on February 03, 2010, 04:15:59 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 03, 2010, 11:28:04 PM
Post by: washelkhntr on February 03, 2010, 11:35:05 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 04, 2010, 12:04:53 AM
Post by: Diehard0123 on February 04, 2010, 12:06:19 AM
Post by: Dean44 on February 04, 2010, 02:59:21 AM
We could get a lot worse than the WDFW.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 04, 2010, 09:28:11 AM
Post by: Snapshot on February 04, 2010, 09:38:55 AM
It is a bad, bad idea.
Post by: Curly on February 04, 2010, 09:44:44 AM
Unfortunately I think the DNR is even greener than WDFW
I don't know about that. I worked for DNR for a couple of summers in college and I didn't see any greenies working there.........(of course things have changed a lot in 21 years) :) But I still suspect WDFW has a lot more tree hugging, predator loving hippies than DNR.
p.s. - I also think it would be a bad idea to combine the agencies.
Post by: bobcat on February 04, 2010, 09:54:21 AM
Wouldn't it be wonderful to transfer the WDFWs duties to the one entity even more responsible for Colockum elk herds decimation than the indians. My .02
Which entity is that ???
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 04, 2010, 11:46:35 AM
Wouldn't it be wonderful to transfer the WDFWs duties to the one entity even more responsible for Colockum elk herds decimation than the indians. My .02
Which entity is that ???
The State of Washington Department of Natural Resources. The ones who manage the forests up there that have removed entirely too much cover for the critters. Helps the indians out too.
Post by: Shootmoore on February 04, 2010, 12:12:35 PM
While the commission is not perfect, it is better than putting it in the hands of an appointed government official who's job is dependent on the goodwill of the government. No check and balance in that.
Shootmoore
Post by: bearpaw on February 04, 2010, 04:53:41 PM
Bad idea, I imagine a hidden goal of this would be to eliminate the commission, as I believe there was already a push to do this by the Dem's and Gregoire. I think it just bugs them to know end that they KNOW better and that someone not anointed by them has any say in wildlife management. DNR controlling wildlife management would put the power back in the hands of the legislators.
While the commission is not perfect, it is better than putting it in the hands of an appointed government official who's job is dependent on the goodwill of the government. No check and balance in that.
Shootmoore
I am sure that is one of the main objectives, to eliminate the citizen commission. You are absolutely right about depending on the goodwill of the "G". :tup:
Post by: PolarBear on February 04, 2010, 05:20:49 PM
Post by: sako223 on February 04, 2010, 05:59:11 PM
I am not sure the DNR is a good answer. I am positive the WDFW needs at the very least a shakeup.
Quote
The WDFW more than pays for itself, that is one reason Gagwhore wants it, for revenue.
If the WDFW is showing a profit I would like to see it since about 75-80% of their budget comes from the general fund, above the 20-25% received from hunting/fishing license sales. There is some federal money, some of which has been lost recently and is shown in two license fee hikes starting last year.
Post by: bearpaw on February 04, 2010, 06:08:39 PM
I would even go further to say "puts the power in the hands of the governor".
I guess it is the fact that we have a citizen commission deciding the major issues and setting WDFW policies that dictates that the WDFW is the lesser of the evils. I really don't think we want to lose our ciitizen Wildlife Commission. :twocents:
Post by: PolarBear on February 04, 2010, 06:51:39 PM
Post by: sako223 on February 04, 2010, 08:46:16 PM
One small issue that has stuck in my mind is when they quit raising hay on WDFW lands to feed elk, citing it as cost prohibitive. So they moved to purchasing it from someone raising it with the same general costs. Except the state land sits off limits to hunters and off the tax roles.
Another is the repeated attempt at seeding ground in cooperation with the RMEF, it turned into one of the biggest weed patches in the state. After getting some of the new grass to take it was so oily that there were many large range fires. now it is reverting back to the native plants and grasses. Millions wasted and embarrassing to watch the poor attempts.
Another huge loss in my mind was the bird farm. Pheasant hunting has never been the same. Now they purchase birds and kick them out with little chance of surviving.
The only thing that has succeeded with little meddling has been turkeys.
Post by: logger on February 05, 2010, 04:32:40 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 05, 2010, 05:49:58 AM
...I guess it is the fact that we have a citizen commission deciding the major issues and setting WDFW policies that dictates that the WDFW is the lesser of the evils. I really don't think we want to lose our ciitizen Wildlife Commission. :twocents:
:yeah:
Post by: Hangfire on February 05, 2010, 08:15:58 AM
You can find out status and express what you want your legislator to do. They want a short reply and will want address, phone number, do you want a reply from your legislator. Be polite and professional.
Legislative hot lien number 1-800-562-6000
Post by: uplandhunter870 on February 05, 2010, 05:55:15 PM
Unfortunately I think the DNR is even greener than WDFW
I don't know about that. I worked for DNR for a couple of summers in college and I didn't see any greenies working there.........(of course things have changed a lot in 21 years) :) But I still suspect WDFW has a lot more tree hugging, predator loving hippies than DNR.
p.s. - I also think it would be a bad idea to combine the agencies.
what you have to remember is that the decisions arent being made by the ground troops. true there may not be very many THDW's amongst the lower ranks but the top of the ladder is where the decisions are being made and i think that combining the agencies would have devastating results. let DNR try and do what they do and let WDFW try and do its job. yeah we all bash one or the other at times but hey this is washington nothing is nowhere near perfect.
i highly doubt the state is going to disban an agency like WDFW, that is somewhat profitable (arent most of our tag fees going into the general fund anyway) and that has the experience and personell.
Post by: sako223 on February 05, 2010, 08:53:29 PM
Quote
i highly doubt the state is going to disban an agency like WDFW, that is somewhat profitable (arent most of our tag fees going into the general fund anyway) and that has the experience and personell.
WDFW is hardly profitable, I have heard this for years and decided to check for myself a few years ago. Much to my surprise our license and tag fees only support about 20% of the budget. In essence giving us a smaller voice than is often portrayed.
Quote
WDFW’s 2007-09 biennial operating budget is $348 million. About 50 percent of the operating budget comes from federal, local and private funds for contracts and services. The state General Fund provides about 30 percent of the WDFW’s operating budget, and the state Wildlife Account makes up the remaining 20 percent of the operating budget. The Wildlife Account is comprised of recreational hunting and fishing license sale proceeds. WDFW also received about $78 million in capital funds in the 2007-09 biennium.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/)
Post by: 280ackley on February 05, 2010, 09:56:59 PM
I on the other hand am all for turning the forest service over to the state that way maybe some of the f.s. ground could be managed back to actually producing good habitat and get the elk and deer back in the hills and out the farmers fields and in packwoods case out of town.I agree 100%.
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on February 05, 2010, 10:12:11 PM
Post by: Hangfire on February 05, 2010, 11:50:37 PM
Fish and Wildlife fees do not come close to covering the cost of WDFW. That lack of funds is the basis for the loss of the old Game Dept. Remember, the percent of hunters in this state, the last I heard is under 10%, fisherman under 20% of the population. The amount of money generated by hunters, fisherman and others using wildlife, through sales tax would go a long way towards paying the bills. This of course goes into the general fund. The hatchery division generates a lot of money, of course this is one of the first place cuts are made.
I have not read a summary of this new bill, is moving the enforcement division to the State Patroll a part of it? That is the way Oregon operates. That has been discussed for a number of years.
The legislators only look at the number of directors and redundancy in operation and personnel.
Post by: sako223 on February 05, 2010, 11:53:46 PM
Quote
Sako, licensing and other revenues created by DFW contribute FAR more funding than the 20% you listed, the document you posted does not show funds that are "moved", or "transferred" out to the general fund
I listed 20% as license and tag sales, "Much to my surprise our license and tag fees only support about 20% of the budget."
Quote
the Deparment more than pays for itself without general fund money if you include the "donated" funding from private groups like the WWRC.
Local/private funding is included in the budget. Try taking the general fund portion away and see what happens.
Quote
Read the front page you posted and do the math, 40% of the State population participating in the outdoors times just for argument's sake, one license plus surcharge's, etc.. each at an average of $50EA = about 160 million, or about half the operating budget in license money alone.
It states that,
Quote
Some 40 percent of Washingtonians participate in the outdoor economy by fishing, hunting or actively observing wildlife,
Actively observing wildlife is not a license sale.
Quote
one license plus surcharge's, etc.. each at an average of $50EA = about 160 million, or about half the operating budget in license money alone.
That would be 3.2 million license sales. Talk about crowded hunting. The WDFW or state could only dream of $160 million in annual license sales. It's more like $20-30 million.
In reality the State Wildlife Account(user fees) for the 2007-09 budget is $65.8 million of a $348.5 million budget. This comes from "Commercial and recreational fishing and hunting license fees,
fines and forfeitures, and miscellaneous revenue."
Here is an example of the 2006 breakdown,
https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/wildreports/wildinternet/LicensingReport?whichReport=license&reportMethod=types&dateGrouping=licyear&yearChoice=2006&outputFormat=html&button=report&nowaitpg=yes
Quote
The operating budget is also subjective, in that the majority of it is project cost, projects that aren't dreamed up the the DFW in a lot of cases, they could run effectively without a lot of these pet projects thrown into their budget.
This is a secondary argument as Every government budget has Fat and Pet projects. I would love to take the knife to much of it but the public allows it, especially if it is their party.
Post by: sako223 on February 06, 2010, 12:14:48 AM
https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/wildreports/wildinternet/LicensingReport?whichReport=license&reportMethod=licItems&dateGrouping=licyear&yearChoice=2006&outputFormat=html&button=report&nowaitpg=yes
License sales transactions indicates the amount of licenses sold. Tag sales would represent some multiple purchases as some return to get tags later.
The total fishing and hunting licenses sold appear to represent hundreds of thousands and not millions sold. Of course many hunters buy fishing license so that causes a double count, again reducing the amount of actual persons represented.
Post by: Shootmoore on February 06, 2010, 09:17:10 AM
So it sounds like those that are pushing for this are using the recession as there excuse this year. Same plan new rational. I could probably even support the idea if it reduced the overall spending by the state. However in my opinion what it will create is a giant single entity with more red tape, people in charge of things that they don't understand (not that this is uncommon now) and end up being a giant single agency costing as much or more than the three do now.
IF the WDFW and DNR trimmed the top, trimmed the extra BS and went back to basics of management for abundance they could cut the costs and be affective. Separate or combined without doing this they will continue to be more expensive with less affect.
Shootmoore
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on February 06, 2010, 11:36:10 AM
Post by: bigtex on February 06, 2010, 12:02:25 PM
I have not read a summary of this new bill, is moving the enforcement division to the State Patroll a part of it? That is the way Oregon operates. That has been discussed for a number of years.
That is not part of this bill. Last year Gregoire proposed doing it but a bill was never made after numerous hunting/fishing groups, county sheriffs, and WDFW Officers went to Olympia and basically told representatives to not even think about doing it. Then when Gregoire announced the natural resource reform ideas last fall she once again proposed moving DNR and WDFW enforcement to State Patrol but once again it was shot down.
Post by: Shootmoore on February 06, 2010, 02:50:13 PM
I have not read a summary of this new bill, is moving the enforcement division to the State Patroll a part of it? That is the way Oregon operates. That has been discussed for a number of years.
That is not part of this bill. Last year Gregoire proposed doing it but a bill was never made after numerous hunting/fishing groups, county sheriffs, and WDFW Officers went to Olympia and basically told representatives to not even think about doing it. Then when Gregoire announced the natural resource reform ideas last fall she once again proposed moving DNR and WDFW enforcement to State Patrol but once again it was shot down.
IMHO moving WDFW enforcement to State Patrol would be a horrible idea. Two totally different mindsets in Law Enforcement. With two totally different skillsets that do not mesh well in my opinion.
Shootmoore
Post by: bigtex on February 06, 2010, 04:55:49 PM
I have not read a summary of this new bill, is moving the enforcement division to the State Patroll a part of it? That is the way Oregon operates. That has been discussed for a number of years.
That is not part of this bill. Last year Gregoire proposed doing it but a bill was never made after numerous hunting/fishing groups, county sheriffs, and WDFW Officers went to Olympia and basically told representatives to not even think about doing it. Then when Gregoire announced the natural resource reform ideas last fall she once again proposed moving DNR and WDFW enforcement to State Patrol but once again it was shot down.
IMHO moving WDFW enforcement to State Patrol would be a horrible idea. Two totally different mindsets in Law Enforcement. With two totally different skillsets that do not mesh well in my opinion.
Shootmoore
I and most others agree with you. There’s a reason why only two states (Oregon & Alaska) have it this way, and it’s soon to be only one (Alaska is considering the move of F&W enforcement back to the F&W dept)
Post by: bobcat on February 06, 2010, 11:42:31 PM
The DNR is a good organization, but in my dealing's with them, they are more on the conservation side in this State, the majority of Western Wa. DNR land's are not open to hunting, that tell's me a lot.
Do you mean to say "the majority of DNR lands ARE OPEN to hunting? Because they are. Not sure where you're getting your information. I've hunted lots of DNR land in western Washington. I don't believe I've ever seen any that wasn't open for hunting. I think there could possibly be some in King County that may not be open for hunting, but that would be the exception to the rule. But hey, go ahead and keep thinking you can't hunt DNR land, that's less competition for me, and please keep spreading the word that DNR lands are off limits. ;)
Post by: sako223 on February 07, 2010, 12:26:17 AM
Quote
2006 and 2007 were down years for license revenue, though I'll give you it's only a part of the revenue stream, not really my main point of focus but if you isalote on any given year the revenue stream is going to vary a good degreeYes 06 07 were the most recent years easily available. previous years did net more, just not enough.
Quote
your also forgetting the temporary surcharge that has yet to be added to all license revenue's for this year.The WDFW expects the surcharge to raise $11 million over the next two years.
Quote
DNR land's are not open to hunting, that tell's me a lot.Both DNR & BLM offer access for recreation and hunting. Both with more land than the WDFW has.
DNR seeks to provide outdoor recreation opportunities to the public throughout Washington state. Recreation on DNR-managed lands includes hiking, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, camping, off-road vehicle (ORV) riding, mountain biking, and boating.
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/RecreationEducation/Recreation/Pages/Home.aspx (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/RecreationEducation/Recreation/Pages/Home.aspx)
http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/ (http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/)
I wish there were an easy fix. There are equally many problems within the WDFW that would be very beneficial to eradicate. The WDFW generally has a mindset of "It's them against us" meaning Us hunters.
Post by: cougkilr on February 07, 2010, 12:39:40 AM
I agree with Bobcat, if you beileve this, more for the rest of us to hunt, have fun else where and I hope I dont see you on DNR land
Post by: wolfbait on February 07, 2010, 08:00:45 AM
Hangfire is correct, I spoke with my father and he said that this has come up in the legislator for years now. He advised that they change it up a little each year, but there overall goal in his opinion is to create a "super agency" for all natural resource's in the state.
So it sounds like those that are pushing for this are using the recession as there excuse this year. Same plan new rational. I could probably even support the idea if it reduced the overall spending by the state. However in my opinion what it will create is a giant single entity with more red tape, people in charge of things that they don't understand (not that this is uncommon now) and end up being a giant single agency costing as much or more than the three do now.
IF the WDFW and DNR trimmed the top, trimmed the extra BS and went back to basics of management for abundance they could cut the costs and be affective. Separate or combined without doing this they will continue to be more expensive with less affect.
Shootmoore
:yeah:
Post by: bigtex on February 07, 2010, 09:59:05 AM
The DNR is a good organization, but in my dealing's with them, they are more on the conservation side in this State, the majority of Western Wa. DNR land's are not open to hunting, that tell's me a lot.
I think there could possibly be some in King County that may not be open for hunting, but that would be the exception to the rule. But hey, go ahead and keep thinking you can't hunt DNR land, that's less competition for me, and please keep spreading the word that DNR lands are off limits. ;)
All of the DNR land in King County that I know of is OPEN for hunting. Most of the gates say "No Shooting" however right below that it says something along the lines of except open for hunting during all WDFW hunting seasons. Which basically means no target shooting.
DNR is doing a great job of buying land to protect it from development in King Co. They now own all of the land along SR 18 with the exception of one area that is owned by Hancock Forest.
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on February 09, 2010, 08:51:09 AM
Wow talk about misreading the facts and poor math.QuoteSako, licensing and other revenues created by DFW contribute FAR more funding than the 20% you listed, the document you posted does not show funds that are "moved", or "transferred" out to the general fund
I listed 20% as license and tag sales, "Much to my surprise our license and tag fees only support about 20% of the budget."Quotethe Deparment more than pays for itself without general fund money if you include the "donated" funding from private groups like the WWRC.
Local/private funding is included in the budget. Try taking the general fund portion away and see what happens.QuoteRead the front page you posted and do the math, 40% of the State population participating in the outdoors times just for argument's sake, one license plus surcharge's, etc.. each at an average of $50EA = about 160 million, or about half the operating budget in license money alone.
It states that,QuoteSome 40 percent of Washingtonians participate in the outdoor economy by fishing, hunting or actively observing wildlife,
Actively observing wildlife is not a license sale.Quoteone license plus surcharge's, etc.. each at an average of $50EA = about 160 million, or about half the operating budget in license money alone.
That would be 3.2 million license sales. Talk about crowded hunting. The WDFW or state could only dream of $160 million in annual license sales. It's more like $20-30 million.
In reality the State Wildlife Account(user fees) for the 2007-09 budget is $65.8 million of a $348.5 million budget. This comes from "Commercial and recreational fishing and hunting license fees,
fines and forfeitures, and miscellaneous revenue."
Here is an example of the 2006 breakdown,
https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/wildreports/wildinternet/LicensingReport?whichReport=license&reportMethod=types&dateGrouping=licyear&yearChoice=2006&outputFormat=html&button=report&nowaitpg=yesQuoteThe operating budget is also subjective, in that the majority of it is project cost, projects that aren't dreamed up the the DFW in a lot of cases, they could run effectively without a lot of these pet projects thrown into their budget.
This is a secondary argument as Every government budget has Fat and Pet projects. I would love to take the knife to much of it but the public allows it, especially if it is their party.
Sako, since your an overnight expert on DFW budgeting, why don't you post something other than license revenue? Why don't you post something on where the priorities come from, infrastructure spending vs. projects, as a percentage? If you say that's not relevant than I would say you need to stop just Googling thing's up to debate about and actually go to a DFW related seminar or two to really understand the process. Nowhere did I say license money is all the revenue DFW, or hunting and fishing generates.
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on February 09, 2010, 09:04:24 AM
The DNR is a good organization, but in my dealing's with them, they are more on the conservation side in this State, the majority of Western Wa. DNR land's are not open to hunting, that tell's me a lot.
Do you mean to say "the majority of DNR lands ARE OPEN to hunting? Because they are. Not sure where you're getting your information. I've hunted lots of DNR land in western Washington. I don't believe I've ever seen any that wasn't open for hunting. I think there could possibly be some in King County that may not be open for hunting, but that would be the exception to the rule. But hey, go ahead and keep thinking you can't hunt DNR land, that's less competition for me, and please keep spreading the word that DNR lands are off limits. ;)
You may be right about that, I was thinking all watersheds were administered by the DNR, but that may not be the case according to the latest map. If you total the acreage of conservation area's, watersheds and DNR lands with no legal public access, it's about a 50/50 split. The legal access issue I guess is also a little different, to me it's "closed", if a legal access is not granted, or in existence, then it's not open to hunting. There are some very large blocks that fall under this category.
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/eng_rms_mpl_7_med.pdf (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/eng_rms_mpl_7_med.pdf)
Post by: fishcrazy on February 09, 2010, 09:30:48 AM
It would appear that some legislators may still have their panties in a wad over the WDFW Commission and this could be another attempt to silence them.
It is a bad, bad idea.
BINGO!!! We are just getting something good going with the commmission and the Commercial Fisherman are pissed that they no longer own the Commission. I think this is a ploy to regain control. FOLLOW THE MONEY!!
I don't buy the idea that our governor is doing this to get more control away from the commission. After all she appoints them and if they were not going to run things the way she wants she would drop the ax. Like she did with the last group owned by the commies. I know alot of people don't like her but it won't hurt to give her credit for something. :'(
Kris
Post by: sako223 on February 09, 2010, 09:44:19 AM
All of the budget info is readily available for you to find. You have posted quite a number of incorrect figures, which I have listed the correct one with reference. Maybe a seminar would help you get the facts straight.
Quote
Sako, licensing and other revenues created by DFW contribute FAR more funding than the 20% you listed, the document you posted does not show funds that are "moved", or "transferred" out to the general fund, if you take those funds into account, the Deparment more than pays for itself without general fund money if you include the "donated" funding from private groups like the WWRC.
You have continued to try skewing my statements. Once again I have clearly stated that license sales(wildlife account) funds about 20% and have backed it up. You continue to add "Other Revenues" to dispute this. And you have no reference.
Even with the "Other Revenue" what is "Far" more? The truth even by the WDFW and the state is the WDFW is not self supporting and worse hunters may not even support half.
Quote
Read the front page you posted and do the math, 40% of the State population participating in the outdoors times just for argument's sake, one license plus surcharge's, etc.. each at an average of $50EA = about 160 million, or about half the operating budget in license money alone.
Once again this is your math which equates to 3.2 million license sales. This is 5-10 times actual license sales and clearly not half the budget. Where do you get this info out of my sources. Maybe you are getting it at one of those meetings.
Quote
If you say that's not relevant than I would say you need to stop just Googling thing's up to debate about and actually go to a DFW related seminar or two to really understand the process
Once again I have stated this is secondary. You again are trying to speak for me.
Don't you have enough trouble speaking for yourself here.
Oh and good job on googling info on the DNR of which you are an expert.
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on February 09, 2010, 10:15:03 AM
(http://Sako, since your an overnight expert on DFW budgeting, why don't you post something other than license revenue? Why don't you post something on where the priorities come from, infrastructure spending vs. projects, as a percentage? If you say that's not relevant than I would say you need to stop just Googling thing's up to debate about and actually go to a DFW related seminar or two to really understand the process. Nowhere did I say license money is all the revenue DFW, or hunting and fishing generates.)
All of the budget info is readily available for you to find. You have posted quite a number of incorrect figures, which I have listed the correct one with reference. Maybe a seminar would help you get the facts straight.QuoteSako, licensing and other revenues created by DFW contribute FAR more funding than the 20% you listed, the document you posted does not show funds that are "moved", or "transferred" out to the general fund, if you take those funds into account, the Deparment more than pays for itself without general fund money if you include the "donated" funding from private groups like the WWRC.
You have continued to try skewing my statements. Once again I have clearly stated that license sales(wildlife account) funds about 20% and have backed it up. You continue to add "Other Revenues" to dispute this. And you have no reference.
Even with the "Other Revenue" what is "Far" more? The truth even by the WDFW and the state is the WDFW is not self supporting and worse hunters may not even support half.QuoteRead the front page you posted and do the math, 40% of the State population participating in the outdoors times just for argument's sake, one license plus surcharge's, etc.. each at an average of $50EA = about 160 million, or about half the operating budget in license money alone.
Once again this is your math which equates to 3.2 million license sales. This is 5-10 times actual license sales and clearly not half the budget. Where do you get this info out of my sources. Maybe you are getting it at one of those meetings.QuoteIf you say that's not relevant than I would say you need to stop just Googling thing's up to debate about and actually go to a DFW related seminar or two to really understand the process
Once again I have stated this is secondary. You again are trying to speak for me.
Don't you have enough trouble speaking for yourself here.
Oh and good job on googling info on the DNR of which you are an expert.
What's your point other than to be divisive? What the heck do you mean "secondary", it's a primary issue if there ever was one and is my entire point you keep missing. The PROJECT budget that is added to the infrastructure cost is what's killing the DFW budget, you just keep citing the same thing over and over like a broken record, note I said for "argument's sake", you've taken that a little too literally. Other revenue can include, timber sales, camping fee's, day use permits, boat launch fee's and land swapping/ sales that achieve a net gain to name a few. My point on the revenue, which to me is "secondary" as you keep saying, is that the total revenue DFW bring's in is more than 20%, as you so eloquently point out it is not ALL license money, again I never said that at any point and my hypothetical was just that, don't read too much into a hypothetical statement. Fact's and figures are great, but if you don't have a point to use them, it's useless. Your original statement was that the DFW is far from profitable, I feel if you understood how their budget is formed and what total revenue's they bring in, given the personnel cutbacks they have had, that you would see they are actually very profitable for a public Agency, yet legislators keep them unprofitable.
Post by: sako223 on February 09, 2010, 11:09:36 AM
Quote
I feel if you understood how their budget is formed and what total revenue's they bring in, given the personnel cutbacks they have had, that you would see they are actually very profitable for a public Agency, yet legislators keep them unprofitable.
Please show us where they are "Very Profitable" I'm sure a lot of people would love to see it including the state legislators who could spend that 30% of the WDFW budget somewhere else. I would like to know when the last time the WDFW was "Truly Profitable" if ever. From 2007-9 they received $110 million from the state general fund.
I am all for cutting fat, but as it stands that won't happen easily.
Post by: bigtex on February 09, 2010, 11:47:26 AM
The DNR is a good organization, but in my dealing's with them, they are more on the conservation side in this State, the majority of Western Wa. DNR land's are not open to hunting, that tell's me a lot.
Do you mean to say "the majority of DNR lands ARE OPEN to hunting? Because they are. Not sure where you're getting your information. I've hunted lots of DNR land in western Washington. I don't believe I've ever seen any that wasn't open for hunting. I think there could possibly be some in King County that may not be open for hunting, but that would be the exception to the rule. But hey, go ahead and keep thinking you can't hunt DNR land, that's less competition for me, and please keep spreading the word that DNR lands are off limits. ;)
You may be right about that, I was thinking all watersheds were administered by the DNR, but that may not be the case according to the latest map. If you total the acreage of conservation area's, watersheds and DNR lands with no legal public access, it's about a 50/50 split. The legal access issue I guess is also a little different, to me it's "closed", if a legal access is not granted, or in existence, then it's not open to hunting. There are some very large blocks that fall under this category.
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/eng_rms_mpl_7_med.pdf (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/eng_rms_mpl_7_med.pdf)
Watersheds are administered by the individual county/city/water district not the DNR. DNR might simply own land that is in a watershed however it does not own the watershed. For example last year DNR bought up a lot of land in the Cedar River watershed, so they can continue to use it as a working forest and use the timber however the watershed itself is administered by the city of Seattle. There is a lot of land that DNR owns and is legally open but is surrounded by private property so access to it is basically impossible. The same goes with BLM (US Bureau of Land Management) land up in NE WA, BLM is currently working with other agencies for a land swap/purchase so that BLM can actually own some land in NE WA that is accessible.
Post by: bigtex on February 09, 2010, 11:54:27 AM
Both DNR & BLM offer access for recreation and hunting. Both with more land than the WDFW has.
The statement about BLM is actually incorrect. In Washington State BLM owns only around 445,000 acres compared to over a million by the WDFW. Most of the BLM land in WA is in Lincoln County. BLM land is only in the western US; however WA St has the least amount of BLM lands out of the entire west. There is actually no BLM land in Western Washington with the exception of a couple of the small uninhabited San Juan Islands.
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on February 09, 2010, 12:06:17 PM
Good info. thanks.The DNR is a good organization, but in my dealing's with them, they are more on the conservation side in this State, the majority of Western Wa. DNR land's are not open to hunting, that tell's me a lot.
Do you mean to say "the majority of DNR lands ARE OPEN to hunting? Because they are. Not sure where you're getting your information. I've hunted lots of DNR land in western Washington. I don't believe I've ever seen any that wasn't open for hunting. I think there could possibly be some in King County that may not be open for hunting, but that would be the exception to the rule. But hey, go ahead and keep thinking you can't hunt DNR land, that's less competition for me, and please keep spreading the word that DNR lands are off limits. ;)
You may be right about that, I was thinking all watersheds were administered by the DNR, but that may not be the case according to the latest map. If you total the acreage of conservation area's, watersheds and DNR lands with no legal public access, it's about a 50/50 split. The legal access issue I guess is also a little different, to me it's "closed", if a legal access is not granted, or in existence, then it's not open to hunting. There are some very large blocks that fall under this category.
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/eng_rms_mpl_7_med.pdf (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/eng_rms_mpl_7_med.pdf)
Watersheds are administered by the individual county/city/water district not the DNR. DNR might simply own land that is in a watershed however it does not own the watershed. For example last year DNR bought up a lot of land in the Cedar River watershed, so they can continue to use it as a working forest and use the timber however the watershed itself is administered by the city of Seattle. There is a lot of land that DNR owns and is legally open but is surrounded by private property so access to it is basically impossible. The same goes with BLM (US Bureau of Land Management) land up in NE WA, BLM is currently working with other agencies for a land swap/purchase so that BLM can actually own some land in NE WA that is accessible.
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on February 09, 2010, 12:18:27 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 09, 2010, 12:31:52 PM
Post by: fishcrazy on February 10, 2010, 02:55:05 PM
According to the legislative report I recieved yesterday this bill is still alive and getting attention. :yike:
:bash:
Kris
Post by: haus on February 10, 2010, 03:01:23 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 10, 2010, 03:22:18 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 12, 2010, 09:53:17 AM
SB 6813 Transferring various natural resources management duties to the department of natural resources is scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Natural Resources committee next Wednesday morning (Feb 17) at 8 AM.
The general reaction to this measure from among the regulated communities when it was first introduced was universally negative. The fiscal note for the bill shows that there are no immediate financial benefits to the bill and only marginal (maybe) benefits in future years. The bill does not deal with the types of problems created by the merger years ago of the department of fish and department of game - with some unresolved problems today even after more then 10 years since the merger.
DNR is not a general authorities agency (an enforcement issue) hence the bill would create numerous wildlife enforcement issues across all elements of the regulated communities. Many of the comments forwarded when the bill focused on the measure being nothing but political "reform smoke and mirrors;" a bill "designed to eliminate citizen participation in wildlife management" and numerous, similar examples.
Members of the Senate Natural Resources Committee need to hear from groups and individuals ASAP with their opposition to the bill. The members of the Senate Natural Resources Committee are:
Senator Ken Jacobsen
237 John A. Cherberg Building
PO Box 40446
Olympia, WA 98504-0446
(360) 786-7690
Fax: (360) 786-1999
Web Email link at http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/jacobsen.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/jacobsen.aspx)
Senator Kevin Ranker
402 Legislative Building
PO Box 40440
Olympia, WA 98504-0440
(360) 786-7678
Web Email link at http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/ranker.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/ranker.aspx)
Senator Bob Morton
115D Irv Newhouse Building
PO Box 40407
Olympia, WA 98504-0407
(360) 786-7612
Fax: (360) 786-1999
Web Email link at http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/morton.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/morton.aspx)
Senator Karen Fraser
404 Legislative Building
PO Box 40422
Olympia, WA 98504-0422
(360) 786-7642
Fax: (360) 786-1999
Web Email link at http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/fraser.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/fraser.aspx)
Senator Jim Hargrove
411 Legislative Building
PO Box 40424
Olympia, WA 98504-0424
(360) 786-7646
Fax: (360) 786-1323
Web Email link at http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/hargrove.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/hargrove.aspx)
Senator Brian Hatfield
239 John A. Cherberg Building
PO Box 40419
Olympia, WA 98504-0419
(360) 786-7636
Web Email link at http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/hatfield.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/hatfield.aspx)
Senator Val Stevens
105 Irv Newhouse Building
PO Box 40439
Olympia, WA 98504-0439
(360) 786-7676
Fax: (360) 786-7819
Web Email link at http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/stevens.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/stevens.aspx)
Senator Dan Swecker
103 Irv Newhouse Building
PO Box 40420
Olympia, WA 98504-0420
(360) 786-7638
Fax: (360) 786-1999
Web Email link at http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/swecker.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/swecker.aspx)