Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on November 16, 2010, 08:39:23 AM
Below is what was posted on the WSAA Hunting commision forum. I'd like to get as much input as possible to get back to them.
We need your input on this ASAP!!!
Please keep your input specific and useful so we can cut and paste from this forum.
If you feel strongly start forming your thoughts, we will provide the time and place to either send a letter or testify at the commission meeting this is open to public input.
There is a Commission meeting on Dec. 2nd, 3rd, & 4th I have not been able to confirm if this is an agenda item.
Post by: fair-chase on November 16, 2010, 09:03:07 AM
Post by: Special T on November 16, 2010, 09:07:04 AM
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on November 16, 2010, 09:13:28 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on November 16, 2010, 09:16:31 AM
seriously, it seems to me the are gonna jack the prices to a point to just see how much we will pay. the revenue had to have increased with the creation of the seperate catagories. i think they would get more revenue and make the hunting public happier if they would let us buy multiple weapon tags like most of the rest of the country :dunno:
Post by: fair-chase on November 16, 2010, 09:18:04 AM
Never mind. I got it now. Just had to lower firewall for a minute.
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on November 16, 2010, 09:20:04 AM
Post by: fair-chase on November 16, 2010, 09:29:16 AM
Post by: DoubleJ on November 16, 2010, 09:29:44 AM
Post by: baldopepper on November 16, 2010, 09:32:54 AM
Post by: Tony 270 on November 16, 2010, 09:46:04 AM
Post by: DoubleJ on November 16, 2010, 09:53:16 AM
Less time to go for them, more money to go after them... not a good combo.
It's an excellent combo if you're trying to covertly abolish hunting opportunities in Washington. Less hunters killing predators = more predators. More predators = less deer/elk. Less deer/elk gives the state the right to suspend hunting of those species "For the good of the species".
Post by: croix on November 16, 2010, 10:09:43 AM
Post by: dirty24d on November 16, 2010, 10:50:41 AM
We'll see how this turns out. I went through and hid all fields that were no chnage or didnt apply to residents so this shows only resident adult fields.
We'll this makes it easier to read for me at least and shows the categories I'm,interested in as an resident adult hunter. Hope it helps enjoy.
Post by: Bob33 on November 16, 2010, 11:03:34 AM
Post by: bobcat on November 16, 2010, 11:30:00 AM
After looking at the total costs though, I may consider cutting back on what licenses I buy and how much hunting I do in this state. The money I save I will put towards a trip to Montana. Just something I've been thinking about. It's sounding better all the time.
Post by: CP on November 16, 2010, 11:39:13 AM
W. WA pheasant appears to be going down. I don’t agree with that, it should go up if anything $90 is cheap for game farm pheasants.
What is :
'WESTERN WS. PHEASANT W/SMALL GAME ???
Post by: Curly on November 16, 2010, 11:46:19 AM
I wish they would give away free cougar tags with the purchase of a deer or elk tag or at least drop the cougar tag price to around $2 and give non-residents the same price for cougar.
2nd deer tag prices are a joke. That is crazy high IMHO.
The non-resident OIL tag prices I missed seeing, but hopefully they jacked them up to the moon.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 16, 2010, 11:46:38 AM
Post by: C-Money on November 16, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 16, 2010, 12:01:48 PM
i don't understand that move at all. i assume that clerically it will be cost beneficial as far as tracking, but if i don't elk hunt then why would i want to get an elk tag just to get the benefit of a bundled package? i could actually save $2.50 if i buy the deer, bear, and cougar individually if i didn't hunt elk.
Same reason you can't pay for just the military channel and versus from your cable company. You have to get 200 other channels of crap and pre-paid programming with it and pay accordingly.
It is plainly about the money.
Post by: CP on November 16, 2010, 12:10:41 PM
How much would you pay for that?
Post by: Curly on November 16, 2010, 12:16:23 PM
Phil Anderson for example..........$10,833 per month in 2009.
And check out the IT people's salaries.......$6,575/mo for a level 5 and $7,258/mo for a 6.
Hopefully WDFW is one of the agencies taking furlough days.
Post by: Widgeondeke on November 16, 2010, 12:35:15 PM
I like Cp's question also. An all inclusive license at a small discount.
Funny thing I was just looking at a 2 day hunting license for waterfowl in California; $62 - it would be $75 in WA today and next year even more. hmmmmm? maybe we don't have it so bad? :twocents:
Post by: croix on November 16, 2010, 01:10:04 PM
For the deer-elk-bear-cougar combination license it's a $14.30 increase. I won't complain about that. Seems fair enough.
I concur - but they are doing away with deer-bear-cougar and elk-bear-cougar and forcing people to buy deer and elk to get the combo price. That is a change from 57.20 for the current deer-bear-cougar combo to 95.50 for the whole enchilada. that's a little tougher to swallow. i guess i'm just confused as to why they couldn't keep the smaller combo packages with similar increase percentages. :dunno:
Post by: Special T on November 16, 2010, 01:55:06 PM
Post by: Gobble Gobble on November 16, 2010, 03:59:56 PM
Post by: Bob33 on November 16, 2010, 04:18:29 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on November 21, 2010, 06:28:53 PM
Format is somewhat hard to interpet at first glance, but after figuring it out, I don't think the increases are insurmountable. I could'nt see where youth fees are going up and I think this is important to continue to encourage young hunters. I think we all have to understand that if we are going to hold tax increases in check, user fees are going to have to go up and, in my opinon only, this is fair. I only wish there was a way to pass some of the game managment cost along to non hunters and fishers, as they certainly are invlovled in management issues with no way to pass on user fees to them.
[/quote]
While I agree that we need to encourage the youth, F&W needs to find a way to keep many of the older outdoorsmen involved.
With all the increases in taxes and living expenses and no cost of living increase I have to make difficult decisions on how and where to spend my money. Right now one of the casualties is fishing. In the past few years I always purchased my combo license, but I haven't fished in nearly 5 years unless you count a handful of times on a private lake (no license needed). By me not fishing, my family doesn't fish and F&W gets no money from us for this activity. This year I did not purchase my fishing combo and it is very likely that I will not in the next few years. Make the licenses cheaper, open more areas and make the regulations easier to follow and I may take it up in the future.
On to hunting. My oldest may continue to hunt if I do, but my youngest is not interested right now. My wife currently hunts and if she continues then it is likely that our youngest will grow into it. But if I quit hunting my wife will stop, our youngest will probably never start and our oldest may or may not continue.
My father can't get around as much as he used to and now everyone is locking up their land. Throw in the expense and the crappy new permit system and I see him quiting in the next couple years. No more money for F&W. The days of a couple old buddies cruising the logging roads "hunting" (purchasing licenses and spending time outdoors) are about over. If they have nowhere to go or can't afford it they will stay home.
So I hold the key to 3 current hunters and possibly 1 in the near future. If I stop, they stop. F&W needs to keep me hunting or they will lose revenue up to 4x. Cutting cougar seasons and adding hard to draw permits, a permit system that is now broken in the eyes of many, proposing to end or reduce night time predator hunting or proposing to cut 30 days out of bear season on public land, and now raising prices. Why would I want to get my kid hooked on a passion of mine that may only create anger and frustration for him like it does for me?
Think about the last 20 years and what he had versus what we have now. What will the next 20 years bring? Less for more $.
Post by: bigtex on November 21, 2010, 06:58:44 PM
Hopefully WDFW is one of the agencies taking furlough days.
WDFW does participate in the furlough days. The only WDFW employees that are exempt from the furloughs are WDFW Officers and a couple fish counters which are required to work under a federal contract. WDFW hatchery workers stagger their furlough days since it could be very bad (mechanical or other issues at the facility) to have all of the employees at a hatchery not working for a day.
Post by: Snapshot on November 23, 2010, 08:39:34 PM
Hopefully WDFW is one of the agencies taking furlough days.
WDFW does participate in the furlough days.
...and they did lay off a number of people a year or so ago.
Post by: wence5 on November 23, 2010, 08:52:56 PM
Since I moved to Washington in 1992 (Oregon transplant) the opportunities have been downsized rather quickly. For example I'll use GMU 564 (Battleground). When I purchased a modern rifle tag for deer I could hunt in this unit with bow, muzzle loader, shotgun, or handgun on my modern rifle tag through the end of December. This was a wonderful opportunity to be in the field longer. Now that is not the case. The 564 is closed to modern rifle tag holders at the end of late buck season. I used to like to go to GMU 578 (West Klickitat) and 388 (Greyback) for modern rifle late buck, can't do that any more, it has gone to a draw only and last year GMU 578 had 40 tags with 998 applicants, and GMU 388 had 40 tags with 1448 applicants. $2436 that was generated from these two hunts alone, that used to be general season late buck.
I guess that I see this move as a total money grab, with little for me as a consumer to get excited about, except less money in my pocket if I want to go hunting. :twocents:
Post by: norsepeak on November 23, 2010, 09:03:17 PM
Post by: bigtex on November 23, 2010, 09:07:34 PM
my paycheck didn't go up, I just have to tighten my budget and live within my means, so the game dept. should do the same. They can take their increases and shove them in their.........
So in 15 years your paycheck hasn't gone up??? Because the last significant increase in licenses was about 15 years ago.
Post by: Wea300mag on November 23, 2010, 09:10:00 PM
Quote
So in 15 years your paycheck hasn't gone up??? Because the last significant increase in licenses was about 15 years ago.
Come on now!!! Post up some numbers if you are going to make a ridiculous statement like that.
Post by: gadwall on November 23, 2010, 09:18:21 PM
:twocents:
Gadwall
Post by: TheHunt on November 23, 2010, 09:49:34 PM
1. Increase poaching, a lot... Most good old boys will turn their head.
2. Make individuals think more serously about hunting out of state and not even put in for a WA hunt.
3. Big game hunters will buy licenses just to put in for a good hunt. If they are not drawn they hunt out of state. The state will collect the money, but that is what the WDFW are after any way. But they will only put in for an OIL tag or just deer and elk.
4. Most will not buy the hunting license as they will go for the fishing. They will be meat fishing and screw the rules bring the kids down to collect their four salmon, poach a deer or two with a bow and they just fed their family.
This should be a good experiment to watch the results.
Post by: Bob33 on November 23, 2010, 10:06:01 PM
[smg id=10045]
Post by: Kain on November 23, 2010, 10:06:43 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,60946.msg755337.html#msg755337 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,60946.msg755337.html#msg755337)
Couple of other threads on the subject. Feel free to use any of my posts.
Post by: bigtex on November 23, 2010, 10:26:29 PM
It would be interesting if you were to list all of the purchases you made for hunting season (ammo, gas, food, gear, butcher, etc) and see how that compares to your license. I am willing to bet the license would make up maybe 25% of your total spending.
Post by: bigtex on November 23, 2010, 10:29:31 PM
I agree these prices will
1. Increase poaching, a lot... Most good old boys will turn their head.
I worked many years in enforcement and there is no connection between an increase in fees and poaching. People who want to break the laws will do so, no matter if the license is $5 or $500. Besides a lot of the "thrill killing" poaching we are seeing now are drunk/high high school/college kids. Most do not hunt, they are shooters who just want a live target.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on November 23, 2010, 10:32:56 PM
Here's a table showing 2000 prices compared to 2010 prices, with the CPI also listed for reference.
[smg id=10045]
Thanks Bob33 for bringing some reality to this forum.
Post by: bigtex on November 23, 2010, 10:37:10 PM
Here's a table showing 2000 prices compared to 2010 prices, with the CPI also listed for reference.
[smg id=10045]
You also forgot to add in that the 10% surcharge on all licenses goes away after this year....
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2010, 10:38:50 PM
It would be interesting if you were to list all of the purchases you made for hunting season (ammo, gas, food, gear, butcher, etc) and see how that compares to your license. I am willing to bet the license would make up maybe 25% of your total spending.
25%? No way, that is way too high. For me it would be somewhere between 1% and 5%. I spend money on gas and other things related to hunting all year 'round. The license fee is a very, very small part of the total cost. Actually if you include the cost of a truck, and RV, rifles, optics, etc.-- even the 1% to 5% guess might be too high. If I didn't hunt, I wouldn't have spent $40,000 on a truck and I probably would not have spent $10,000 on an RV.
Spending around $100 for a hunting license and all the tags for a year's hunting is nothing.
Post by: bigtex on November 23, 2010, 10:43:10 PM
It would be interesting if you were to list all of the purchases you made for hunting season (ammo, gas, food, gear, butcher, etc) and see how that compares to your license. I am willing to bet the license would make up maybe 25% of your total spending.
25%? No way, that is way too high. For me it would be somewhere between 1% and 5%. I spend money on gas and other things related to hunting all year 'round. The license fee is a very, very small part of the total cost. Actually if you include the cost of a truck, and RV, rifles, optics, etc.-- even the 1% to 5% guess might be too high. If I didn't hunt, I wouldn't have spent $40,000 on a truck and I probably would not have spent $10,000 on an RV.
Spending around $100 for a hunting license and all the tags for a year's hunting is nothing.
:yeah:
Totally agree
Post by: chester on November 23, 2010, 10:59:00 PM
truck- cummuter and only rig. used for work and everything else. dont figure it into hunting costs
box of 270 ammo- $30
tank of gas-45 dollars give or take x3 (one to the eastside for deer,one back, and one for a week of elk)
case of steel-$98.70
big game-$81.20
small game-$21.80
state migratory bird-$ 12.50
fed migratory bird-$15.00
snow goose, area 2 goose, seaduck,brant-$2.00
hunting costs-$260 ish( rounded off)
license costs-$132.50
i might be the odd one out. but licenses out of the total are about a third of my costs. :dunno:
Post by: Kain on November 23, 2010, 11:06:15 PM
It is also not just about the cost. It is about what we are getting for the money. Each year it is less and less for more money. Constant tweaking and reductions of seasons by the a department that sees us as nothing but cash machines. We get NO support from them against the animal rights crowd. They spend more time looking for new ways to bleed us than making it a quality experience. They threaten us with closures and cutting of enforcement officers if we dont bow down. Then they go spend a ton of money on wildlife viewing areas and land purchases they have no budget to maintain.
I could probably swing another $25ish a year if I felt my hunting opportunities would be a priority or saw an increase in officers in the field but we will not. We are going to get an increase just to maintain what is already there. :bash:
If we can make some sort of deal to get a constitutional amendment to make hunting, fishing and trapping a right in exchange for an increase I might go along. An increase just to get the same old crap....NO WAY!
Post by: krout81 on November 23, 2010, 11:11:32 PM
$155 to hunt for any animal if my math is correct. If you can kill at least a deer or elk and some ducks you could pay for that.
Even if you didnt have to pay the state you still have to buy gas, food, and essentials. Me personally I don't hold the stuff I have to buy against the state. It sucks that the costs go up, but if I have to pay more to do something I love then so be it.
Post by: bigtex on November 23, 2010, 11:15:19 PM
$100 bucks for all licenses seems fair to me. Toss in small game and the stamps for ducks $95.50 for all big game, and $41 for migratory permit, and federal stamp. If you hunt turkey another $16
$155 to hunt for any animal if my math is correct. If you can kill at least a deer or elk and some ducks you could pay for that.
Even if you didnt have to pay the state you still have to buy gas, food, and essentials. Me personally I don't hold the stuff I have to buy against the state. It sucks that the costs go up, but if I have to pay more to do something I love then so be it.
:yeah:
Post by: billythekidrock on November 24, 2010, 05:19:57 AM
More (expensive) permits for DNR land related activities?
Higher F&W license fees to pay for DNR employees?
I know that our hunting licenses are only a small part of the total cost, but for many any increase is too much. Take a look at the the westside pheasant costs this year. Way too much in my opinion, and now look at the proposed increase for a second deer tag. It will be a rich man's sport sooner that we want to believe.
Post by: Wacenturion on November 24, 2010, 07:47:14 AM
The first way you have people spending money going and coming, supporting local businesses and such. The second...they stay home...no license purchased, no gas bought, no ammo, lures, gear, or whatever sold......I think you get the message.
Personal expenditures for recreation are far broader than any one agency's needs. Government needs to start looking at the whole rather than an individual part. Of course that starts with the Governor, whom have all been democrats since Spellman...... a long time.
Post by: high country on November 24, 2010, 08:18:56 AM
me, I could give a rip how much this state jacks the price, I am within rifle distance of Idaho, and have no problem spending my money there instead, afterall the only thing wa has over id is coyote hunting. birds, bucks, bulls......yup better if I go 30 minutes east then anywhere else. if I can figure th cost of my in state tag is going to be removed from my NR id stuff......it is getting more reasonable in a hurry.
Post by: Mr T on November 24, 2010, 09:39:33 AM
As far as my personal aggenda, I really dislike the increase in permit applications. I have been applying for a number of hunts for years to build up points for some trophy hunts. Some years just ghost points because I now my schedule would not allow for me to accidentally get drawn! Now I need to justify to the wife some more $$$ disapperaing into a temporary invisible place.
Post by: bobcat on November 24, 2010, 09:46:48 AM
Post by: Mr T on November 24, 2010, 11:25:50 AM
Post by: huntingfool7 on November 24, 2010, 03:35:18 PM
I was told by a WDFW employee that the last increase was going to be to 70 or maybe 80 bucks. When it came out it was at $92.
I chose not to play this year and I'm not alone.
I think that the proposed decrease shows that someone up there noticed they went too far. Higher fees = less revenue
Post by: Bob33 on November 24, 2010, 03:45:01 PM
2000:
[smg id=10047]
2010:
[smg id=10048]
Post by: Tony 270 on November 24, 2010, 03:51:00 PM
Post by: bigtex on November 24, 2010, 04:24:55 PM
Seems straight forward and easy to me. Just look up your GMU and there you go. Have dates and legal restrictions. :dunno:
:yeah:
Doesnt look complicated at all.
Post by: krout81 on November 24, 2010, 09:58:30 PM
Post by: Special T on November 30, 2010, 11:51:54 AM
Post by: DBake on December 09, 2010, 02:03:50 PM
Post by: 1bugman on January 03, 2011, 02:04:09 PM
Post by: mulehunter on January 03, 2011, 02:28:47 PM
Small Game is only my Important list. Shoot all Coyotes! I cant live with out SmallGame License in my wallet.
Mulehunter ;)
Post by: wa.hunter on January 05, 2011, 03:34:49 PM
Being a hunting group and most of the comments coming in regarding the hunting fee increases and the opposion against it in general. Is fair to actually assume that wildlife side of WDFW has done an excellent job of selling off and marketing everything that floats on the water and walks on the land to raise money? We have everything from licenses, to tags, to permits, applications for special permits, raffles, multi species raffles, auction permits, etc, etc. Now it appears the only way to raise more money is to increase fees.. Is it though??? Just a thought but why are we not marketing it if it swims? Maybe fishing should be picking up the slack or maybe I should say the shortfall in the budget.. Why is for example a 40-80# sturgeon less valueable than a turkey for example at $16 0r $18 each, or for that matter a second deer or elk at $60 each when I get a 15 steelhead, 26 salmon, 3 sturgeon and 5 halibut on a report card for a very minimal amount of money. On top of that I get a license to fish that is basically for 365 days a year. Personally I think it is time to do a better job of marketing these other resources and give the hunters a break. Could you imagine what and over size sturgeon auction tag would bring? I bet it would blow any auction tag we currently have out of the water.
Post by: Curly on January 05, 2011, 06:01:26 PM
This has been a very interesting post:
Being a hunting group and most of the comments coming in regarding the hunting fee increases and the opposion against it in general. Is fair to actually assume that wildlife side of WDFW has done an excellent job of selling off and marketing everything that floats on the water and walks on the land to raise money? We have everything from licenses, to tags, to permits, applications for special permits, raffles, multi species raffles, auction permits, etc, etc. Now it appears the only way to raise more money is to increase fees.. Is it though??? Just a thought but why are we not marketing it if it swims? Maybe fishing should be picking up the slack or maybe I should say the shortfall in the budget.. Why is for example a 40-80# sturgeon less valueable than a turkey for example at $16 0r $18 each, or for that matter a second deer or elk at $60 each when I get a 15 steelhead, 26 salmon, 3 sturgeon and 5 halibut on a report card for a very minimal amount of money. On top of that I get a license to fish that is basically for 365 days a year. Personally I think it is time to do a better job of marketing these other resources and give the hunters a break. Could you imagine what and over size sturgeon auction tag would bring? I bet it would blow any auction tag we currently have out of the water.
Good points. I think you just convinced me to quit hunting (at least in this state) for this year and go fishing instead.
Post by: shedcrazy on January 05, 2011, 06:04:45 PM
Post by: Special T on January 06, 2011, 07:27:43 AM
They give us the "Sales Pitch" that it helps support the bios that we sportsman cannot afford! :bash: Well we are getting swindled! When we search out bios for ESA work and their isn't enough grant money, we have a specialist in one area working in another?
Would you pay the top dollar to go to a Chevrolet dealership if you owned a Ford? Hell No!
We should be hiring great bios for fish and game that we can HUNT! and then if they can get a grant for some other stuff great... This happens to be the reverse of what is actually going on. :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: 1bugman on January 07, 2011, 08:23:57 AM
I already bought all my liscences and tags before the price increase!!:yeah:
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on January 07, 2011, 08:30:07 AM
Post by: grundy53 on January 07, 2011, 03:36:44 PM
Format is somewhat hard to interpet at first glance, but after figuring it out, I don't think the increases are insurmountable. I could'nt see where youth fees are going up and I think this is important to continue to encourage young hunters. I think we all have to understand that if we are going to hold tax increases in check, user fees are going to have to go up and, in my opinon only, this is fair. I only wish there was a way to pass some of the game managment cost along to non hunters and fishers, as they certainly are invlovled in management issues with no way to pass on user fees to them.
OR do what everybody else does when the run short of money...cynch up the belt, make sacrifices, cut their spending. It's not "fair" it's stupid. the voters chose to cut there taxes for a reason, This state is irresponcible with there money and they need to figure out enough is enough! :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: grundy53 on January 07, 2011, 03:45:12 PM
I don't get why so many people are so pissed off with license increases, the license is usually the cheapest part of my hunting season. I buy the big game combo with all 4 species for about $80. By the time I gas up my truck, buy food, gear, amo, etc I have already spent more for one trip then I do for a license! I went fishing on the Hump a couple weeks ago and it cost me $54 in gas round trip, which is more then a combo fishing license. Do you really think increasing the big game license by say $20 is really going to drop that many people off from hunting? Considering $20 is only about 7 gallons is gas these days. I know people who are unemployed who still get their combo license and hunt every weekend. Hell if they wanted to raise it by $40 if it was to go to increased enforcement I wouldnt care.
It would be interesting if you were to list all of the purchases you made for hunting season (ammo, gas, food, gear, butcher, etc) and see how that compares to your license. I am willing to bet the license would make up maybe 25% of your total spending.
You got to be freaking kidding! Yes it might not be the most expensive part but it adds up and with these increases it's getting to be one of the more expensive parts. And after spending all of that money on all the other stuff that you need for hunting season why would you want to pay even more? How about they use what they already get(which is enough) and don't waste it? It's not just $20 that your talking about it's $20 on top of what they are already charging. it's freaking ridiculous and state sponsored extortion. :bash: :bash:
Post by: billythekidrock on January 08, 2011, 06:15:50 AM
I don't get why so many people are so pissed off with license increases, the license is usually the cheapest part of my hunting season. I buy the big game combo with all 4 species for about $80. By the time I gas up my truck, buy food, gear, amo, etc I have already spent more for one trip then I do for a license! I went fishing on the Hump a couple weeks ago and it cost me $54 in gas round trip, which is more then a combo fishing license. Do you really think increasing the big game license by say $20 is really going to drop that many people off from hunting? Considering $20 is only about 7 gallons is gas these days. I know people who are unemployed who still get their combo license and hunt every weekend. Hell if they wanted to raise it by $40 if it was to go to increased enforcement I wouldnt care.
It would be interesting if you were to list all of the purchases you made for hunting season (ammo, gas, food, gear, butcher, etc) and see how that compares to your license. I am willing to bet the license would make up maybe 25% of your total spending.
You got to be freaking kidding! Yes it might not be the most expensive part but it adds up and with these increases it's getting to be one of the more expensive parts. And after spending all of that money on all the other stuff that you need for hunting season why would you want to pay even more? How about they use what they already get(which is enough) and don't waste it? It's not just $20 that your talking about it's $20 on top of what they are already charging. it's freaking ridiculous and state sponsored extortion. :bash: :bash:
It is also the most important part.
Post by: Smokepole on January 08, 2011, 08:12:03 AM
Clearly, this bureaucracy is a monster gobbling up funds. Selling game to wealthy headhunters.
If you must generate funds, let developers pay some of the cost of habitat management. Hunters are the solution to balancing the game population/habitat ratio. Don't punish us at harvest time. Save our contributions for enforcement and conservation education & get rid of your pet programs. We're trying to provide for our families.
I do know how these bureaucracies work, since my wife work for a federal agency. If money goes unspent, it is considered unneeded. So, if there is money left in the kitty at the end of the year, there is a big panic in the office to spend it quick, before the budget is cut and programs eliminated. If they spend it all, there are no questions asked, and next year they can keep their jobs, and get a nice fat budget to piss away.
I've been a law abiding sportsman since 1970, but you are pushing me too far. If you can't create better ways to generate revenue, then I will not be able to keep you on. At least, I will not be able to do what you say.
I don't know how you can sleep at night.
Post by: wa.hunter on January 12, 2011, 12:04:09 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on January 12, 2011, 11:54:38 PM
I see the same thing with the big increase on the second deer tag, however why is there no increase for the second elk tag.. my guess is that the master hunter user groups that get these tags have been speaking up. If deer goes up so should elk with no favortisum to other user groups.
wa.hunter, If you look at the spreadsheet linked to on the first post you will see that second elk tags have the same price increase as second deer tags.
Dave
Post by: villageidiot on January 13, 2011, 06:56:08 AM
Post by: Smokepole on January 13, 2011, 08:16:02 AM
Post by: Special T on January 13, 2011, 07:47:57 PM
Post by: Smokepole on January 13, 2011, 09:37:34 PM
Smokepole as a fellow business man I take umbrage with the fact you say "If you must generate funds, let developers pay some of the cost of habitat management." This is the same kind of let the other guy pay the cost mentality... Some pink slips that are non game related sound better to me.. Let us not forget that as a user group if we want to fight at the trough like swine then we need to be better organized... If we want to pay our own way, and demand better management, we need to be willing to foot the bill. :twocents: IF they made a good argument for what they were doing and why I'd pay DOUBLE what i do now... But they seem more interested in treating us like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed BS! :bash:
In all due respect, Special T., allow me to clarify. I believe the WDFW should focus on resources, not user groups. I'm afraid instead of managing wildlife, they are managing people, which isn't their mission. The reason I mention developers... I have hunted Okanogan mule deer for 40 years. I've seen how developing roads, fences, barns & houses has changed that county; how the winter range has been swallowed up, and the migration routes interupted. You can't convince me that my user group is to blame & should foot the bill for everything wildlife related, when we are not the ones screwing it up. As good stewards, we should all be responsible for our fair share. My point is, if this state wants to meet their wildlife goals, then they need to recognize the root of our problems. Money won't fix them.
I call it auctioning off hunting privileges to wealthy head hunters. Others can call it what they want. Times are tough right now, since we're raising a family & my wife lost her job. Some venison would sure help. If money wasn't so tight, maybe I would pay double like you. But right now, I can't. It's hard enough just to scrape up a few bucks to take my kid hunting.
So I hope you won't chalk my ideas up to some uneducated, pass-the-buck "mentality". I'm just telling you how things look from my perspective. I know when I need to cough up my fair share. But I also notice when I'm being mistreated. The best advice I've heard so far are the pink slips. Everyone else is getting them, why should bureaucrats be immune? :twocents:
Post by: Special T on January 13, 2011, 10:15:04 PM
When you and I need more money we need to provide product and/or service to get there. We are in the business of solving peoples needs and fixing their problems... I know for a fact that you provide an excellent service... All I am saying is that IF the WDFW were to get their :crap: together I would be willing to pay more for the Excellence in managing our hunting resources... (I currently feel their excellence is lacking and have reduced my purchase of their sub par services. :twocents:)
My reaction to the "Developer" statement is because I have had land that I had to pay all kinds of BS fees to use... If government wishes to control my land they should purchase it from me, not regulate me from using it. There are things that the WDFW could do that would not cost them too much to do increase Value, and thus revenue... They either lack the will or the ability to do them.
We are certainly being mistreated, and someone who knows nothing about 2nd deer tags came up with the huge increase in price. :bash: I don't know about you, but i know when i jack up the price I usually get less takers...
Post by: Smokepole on January 14, 2011, 07:42:42 AM
Another vote for pink slips.